Prolegomena to Problemology

7/28/2019 Prolegomena to Problemology

1/24

SOCIOPHYSICSPROLEGOMENA TO A MODEL METAPHOR

BYPARIS ARNOPOULOS

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITYMONTREAL, CANADA

1989


2/24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1MODEL 5

1. CONTEXT 131.1. ECOLOGY 141.2. TOPOLOGY 161.3. CHRONOLOGY 18

2. CONTENT 212.1. ONTOLOGY 222.2. MORPHOLOGY 252.3. TROPOLOGY 29

3. CODEX 333.1. EPISTEMOLOGY 353.2. METHODOLOGY 37

3.3. AXIOLOGY 39

CONCLUSION 42BIBLIOGRAPHY 45


3/24

INTRODUCTIONHuman efforts to understand reality give meaning to our life,raising it above the level of farce and into the grace of

tragedy.Steven Weinberg.

Human beings have always tried to describe and explain their

experiences. This human compulsion for knowledge gave rise to religion,philosophy and science. Each of these disciplines tried in its own way,through faith, logic or common sense, to give some meaning to the humancondition. In different times and places, first religion, then philosophyand finally science dominated this search in the major cultures of the

world.The overwhelming success of the latest approach in the modern

world, has overshadowed all other paradigms and its technologicalapplication shaped the face of the earth. Yet, this very success hasspawned many undesirable byproducts, not the least of which is the

disintegration of the intellectual community. Due to the proliferation ofscientific discoveries and the accumulation of information, there hasbeen a fragmentation of knowledge and a compartmentalization of the

scientific estate.As a result, human knowledge is now broken up into a plethora of

narrow disjointed disciplines. What used to be said about the two famoussolitudes -Arts and Sciences- can also apply to the schism between theNatural and Social Sciences as well. It seems that the only points ofinter-scientific contact are antagonistic if not contemptuous. Each

field of study is not only uninformed but uninterested in the others; acondition that makes for general confusion and mutual irrelevance.

This is a pity, because there is a lot of room for inter-scientificcooperation and potential synergy which would benefit all sides.

Increasing communication and coordination would promote the organizationand unification of knowledge; hence resolve the problems of

disorientation, duplication and insulation of research. Emphasizing

interdisciplinarity would bring about a better balance between analyticspecialization and synthetic generalization thus advancing knowledge on

every front.The need for such balance is increasingly felt as each field grows

and spills over its traditional bounds. Multidisciplinary bridges aretherefore frequently forming, as they become more necessary. One can

almost sense the renaissance of a new synthetic spirit in the air. Led bythe General Systems movement, this spirit tries to demostrate the

coherence and compatibility of all realms of human concern: natural andartificial; scientific and artistic; personal and social.As a result, new transdisciplinary studies arise everywhere. In

addition to such, by now established, areas as biochemistry or socialpsychology; there are presently emerging interscientific fields such as

social biology and sociophysics. It is this latter hybrid, whichhighlights the similarity if not the identity between physical and socialsystems, that is raising great controversy as well as revealing great

promise. For this reason, it has been selected to provide the focus forthis work.

Sociophysics is the new research field combining the latestfindings of both natural and social sciences. More accurately, it is anattempt to advance the social sciences by using the paradigm of General

Systems Theory (GST). This paradigm provides the fundamental all-


4/24

inclusive explanations for both social and natural phenomena. The casefor such integration assumes the comparability of the natural and socialsciences, without falling into the naturalistic fallacy of unwarranted

reductionism.Instead of merely reducing social into natural phenomena, GST

subsumes both under a larger universal category. Although it is

recognized that there are apparent differences between the natural andsocial realms, these differences are supported by underlyingsimilarities. It is these latter ones that are more basic and therefore

worthy of special research, which was so far sadly lacking.Moreover, this comparability is not a one-way street from the

natural to the social sciences. Rather, its synergistic effect ismutually beneficial because it broadens the perspective of both. The

scientific revolution going on right now makes the natural sciences moresubjective; at the same time as the social sciences are becoming moreobjective. As it grows, this convergent trend could counterpose and

balance the divergent tendencies of the past generations, thus reunitingand synthesizing human knowledge on a new and higher level.

Scientific progress occurs by reconciling apparent

incompatibilities within a larger framework of underlyingcomplementarities. This process is reflected in the history of sciencewhich records these unification attempts alternating periodically withdosciplinary consolidations. Thus, after a period of narrow analyticspecializations, we are presently witnessing a resurgence of broad

synthetic theories which try to integrate the independent findings ofdifferent disciplines.

The architectonic structures of grand theory are ideal systemsdevised inside the human mind and may not necessarily correspond toanything outside. In reality, there may be as much social science in

physics, as there is natural science in politics; depending on where wechoose to draw the lines of our inquiry. Although, it seems that the

human mind must draw lines in order to understand anything, these lines

must be recognized for what they are: conceptual abstractions.This neo-anthropocentric position accepts the subjectivity of human

knowledge as both necessary and desirable in understanding and shapingour reality. From this vantage point, human beings are the joint

creations of nature and society, as well as the partial creators of bothrealms. As such, a science which deals with human beings should look forthe sources of human thought and behaviour not only in natural and social

laws separately; but in the combination of both.In order to do that, one must search for common patterns and cross-

cutting regularities in all levels and domains of reality. In effect,this is the overall task of building a science of General Systems.Established patterns and regularities of wide applicability form

scientific laws and systems of laws form general theories. This theory-

building process is at the center of scientific advancement, and willtherefore become the ultimate aim of this study.


5/24

MODELThe purpose of this initial work is to present a conceptual model

of reality and man's place in it. This model will serve to generatecomprehensive principles which would situate natural and social phenomenawithin an overall theoretical perspective. Such systematic model will bean abstract and holistic construct which is sufficiently flexible to be

applied under any circumstances, thus advancing the development of aunified science.Models are a means of mediating between whatever exists out there

and whatever awareness we have of it in here. This dichotomy betweenexternal reality and internal mentality is itself a primary model whichconnects perceptions and conceptions, by interweaving mental images into

theoretical systems. The propensity of the human mind to compareexperiences by making distinctions and recognizing similarities is the

basis of understanding ourselves and the world around us.Whether one begins with the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum " or some

other axiom; the reality of existence is largely determined by ourexperiences and activities as its central participant-observers. Human

experience arises from two sources: other-consciousness and self-

consiousness. The former consists of the phenomenal or sentient world andthe latter of the noumenal or mental realm. Our awareness is directedboth outwards and inwards and so distinguishes itself from that of

others.This existential duality between the external and internal worldhas been recognized for a long time as the matter-mind dichotomy which isreflected in various other opposites such as thought-action, concrete-

abstract, substance-essence, subject-object.The model of this study is built on this fundamental dichotomy,

which nevertheless diverges from and converges in the single unity ofthe Cosmos. In between these ultimate fusions, human consciousness

perceives, conceives, and compares the similarities and differences whichcharacterize everything. Reality appears to be made up of various

distinct items which are nevertheless interwoven together in a great

multidimensional tapestry.From this anthropocentric perspective, we can distinguish three

kinds of structural relations that human beings can have, depending onthe systems involved in them. On the one hand, each person is related

within oneself. These internal connections constitute the inner realm ofthe personality and create the mental systems, of which this study is anexample. On the other hand, human beings also relate to the externalworld which exists apart and independently of them. These relationsconnect people to their natural environment and create the ecosystem

which includes them both. Between the two different types of relationsexist the interpersonal relations among people which form social systems.

These three distinct worlds can best be illustrated as concentriccircles shown in Diagram 1. The three concentric rings represent the

principal realms of our reality: i.e. the internal world of each humanbeing, surrounded by the social system and its natural environment. Thisdepiction reflects the Aristotlelian dictum: anthropos zoon politikon.More accurately, however, it shows that humanity possesses both social

and natural attributes. So, the innermost and outermost circles,represent both internal and external environments. (For purposes of thisstudy, we shall ignore whatever lies beyond nature, leaving it to the

terra incognita of the supernatural ).


6/24

This conceptualization surrounds the social by the naturalsciences, thus indicates that understanding humanity and society requires

a wider knowledge which includes nature. Of course, such generalknowledge alone cannot explain the specifics of the inner realms. It

will, nevertheless, explain the behaviour of human beings as they relateto each other. This study will therefore focus around the middle ring and

the fundamental relations which bind it to both its internal andexternal realms.For that reason, we shall begin the construction of our conceptual

model by postulating this existential polarity between the real and idealworlds. This dual foundation will sustain the emerging model, which inturn will connect its two supporting pillars. The resulting structurecould, therefore, resemble the triangle of Diagram 1, with nature,

society and humanity at its three corners. The connecting arrows indicatethe main loci of influence between each focus of action.

This triangular format will also serve as the basis of our generalsystems paradigm because it illustrates our conception of an overall

existential duality, tempered and alleviated by an intermediate conditionwhich contains and transcends both. The Triadic Paradigm will become the

framework and template upon and around which we shall build our model. Itis felt that this modular construction is both a euristic and a mnemonic

devise which best combines, describes and explains our ideas.All attempts to advance knowledge are metaphors from the known to

the unknown, trying to explain the mysterious in terms of the commonplace. We have accepted this process of extending human understanding and

selected the physical and social sciences as the twin bases of thissociophysical model. Since the former are felt to be better known thanthe latter, explanations have usually tended to be based on physicalprototypes carried over to society. Thus there exist many explanatorymodels of complex social concepts in terms of simple natural systems:

i.e. the body politic as a human organism.As culture and history change, so do paradigms and metaphors. The

simple analogies and generalizations used in the past at the early stagesof science no longer suffice now in a more sophisticated age. In order tounderstand the complex systems which span the contemporary world, we needto translate the latest scientific theories into the social arena. But,the critical discontinuities and deep contradictions in both historicalperiods and geographical regions, require a more sophisticated and oftencounterintuitive approach which traditional studies cannot provide.

The reality of global interdependence demands a study of generalinterdisciplinarity. In order to reach the common basics, the new

approach must be consistent and suitable to all systems. This demand maynot be as difficult as it seems at first sight. According to contemporary

science, reality shows a remarkable tendency for uniformity andconsistency. Although they apply to different realms, its fundamental

laws are the same. There exist isomorphic structures and functions in alllevels of existence which point to the unity of existence. Whenever this

unity seems to be broken at one systemic level, it is in order tomaintain itself at a deeper and more fundamental one. Ultimately, the

infinite variety of forms comes down to a few basic universal patterns.When translated into mathematics, these patterns display an

extraordinary equivalence throughout reality. It sems that the structureof mathematics is equivalent to reality, so it is the most appropriatelanguage yet found to describe most accurately universal laws. Its


7/24

capacity to operationalize and manipulate symbols enables mathematics todetermine the parameters within which all phenomena occur. Differentialequations, for example, provide a powerful representation of explanatorytheories in both the natural and social sciences, by showing how systems

behave through time.It has been said that in science as in art, the road to truth is

led by beauty. Both scientific and artistic creativity share similarqualities of imagination and inspiration accompanied by elegantexpression. Some great scientists have even gone so far as to declare

that theoretical elegance is more important than empirical consistency.On the authority of these sentiments and our own proclivity, this studywill try to combine classical simplicity with natural summetry, so thatthe result is intelligible as well as agreeable, coherent as well as

comprehensive.Since this study will be carried out at the general systems level,

it will necessarily be very abstract and theoretical. Covering such largearea means diminishing its depth. The gains made in macroscopic systhesishave to be paid by the losses incurred in microscopic analysis. To beable to see the grand pattern and regularity of the whole, we have to

ignore the unique character and singularity of the individual. Specificdetails will therefore be sacrificed for the sake of holistic

completeness.This sacrifice need not be in vain because the daitails can be

filled in later studies. The heuristic fall-out from framework theoriescan provide powerful incentives for further in-depth research in thevarious areas covered therein. Once the general principles have beensketched, their particular applications and rigorous interpretations

should not be long in coming.At the present stage, drafting these principles requires an

explicit description of the structure and process that this study willadopt. On the basis of GST norms, any scientific model must contain

three aspects or dimensions:

-Context: the environment within which the system exists;-Content: the system on which it focuses its attention;

-Codex: the operating rules by which it functions.In other worlds, a systematic study should clearly present the

parameters which define its universe of discourse. These parameters formthe three pronged approach shown in Diagram 2. The diagram contains allthe factors considered relevant for this study, which shall be elaborated

upon in the rest of this articleFollowing Occam's razor, the model tries to explain the maximum of

phenomena with the minimum of hypotheses; since the fewer the independentvariable in a theory, the more powerful and compelling it is. In this waywe should be able to construct the most comprehensive picture of realityand at the same time try to avoid false analogies or empty platitudes.

The elements of this picture will be presented and described as sucinctlyas possible in the three sections which follow.


8/24

1. CONTEXTWe begin this exposition with the contextual reality of the subject

at hand. Context is important because it provides the background orinfrastructure which defines and supports whatever it is that one wishesto study. In this case, since our subject-matter is sociophysics, thecontext is the social and physical environment within which human and

material systems exist. We take this environment to form the conceptualframework which sets the boundaries of our universe.Accordingly, the environmental perspective of our reality is a

trilateral construct which composes the basic axiom of this model-building attempt. It is postulated that reality is basically a habitat inspace and time. As a given, this means that our context consists of threeprimordial concepts which will become a three dimensional framework.

The three aspects of the realm-space-time context are reflected andstudied by the ecology, topology and chronology of things. Together, they

suffice to define the attributes of reality in complete and concreteterms. Although these notions are so elementary that they cannot be

formally defined; our intuitive grasp of them will be further elaboratedin the discussion of the following sections.


9/24

1.1.. ECOLOGY.The ecological aspects of our model may be said to comprise the

various areas and levels of generality within which the relevant systemsof this study exist and operate. The most important point to be made hereis that our field of vision distinguishes between inclusive and exclusivespheres of existence. It may be said that reality is constructed within a

number of concentric spheres, much like those of Diagram 1. Theoutermost, all-inclusive sphere is the entire universe, while theinnermost, all-exclusive sphere is the elementary particle. Between these

two extremes, there are layers upon layers of important divisions.These divisions may be said to form the framework for the general

ecological taxonomy we shall use here. The classification scheme not onlydistinguishes between vertical levels and horizontal areas, but

recognizes a hierarchical structure which permiates reality. The schemeis thus predicated upon the combination of three parameters: realms,

levels and classes.The environmental realms of this model are evenly divided into the

inner and outer worlds. This dichotomy is an inate separation of the egofrom the rest of reality. Every sentient being can make this distinction

between its internal and external worlds and so separates its ego fromvarious alter egos. Human systems, therefore, have two environments: aninterior and an exterior: the former belonging to our private and the

latter to the public realm.It has always been recognized that this dichotomy between inclusive

and exclusive, not only distinguises between two different worldsquantitatively, but places a qualitative degree upon each. Accordingly,the first is considered at a lower level than the second. This verticalperspective differentiates between inferior and superior realms; thus

creating a hierarchy of existential layers.Within this hierarchy, there is a third parameter which

distinguishes between the natural and artificial class of things. Humanbeings realize that they are creatures of the first and creators of the

second. Unlike other natural creations, man is also a homo faber, whoshapes and is shaped by nature. This capacity to produce artifacts hasbuilt a new artificial environment: the social technosphere, which now

exists within and supplements the natural ecosphere.These inner-outer, high-low, and natural-artificial realms set thestage for our model and put it in the proper perspective. Such

perspective will serve to situate the discussion in the main text andthus relate the systems upon which we shall focus our attention. Thus,this ecological framework must be kept in mind as a necessary background

for understanding what is to follow.


10/24

1.2. TopologyThat we exist in a three-dimensional space is a common sense as

well as a common place assumption. Although some scientists, expeciallyString Theoristrs, believe that reality is multi-dimentional, we need notgo into higher dimensions or Hilbert hyperspaces in the present context.Three dimensions suffice to describe and explain most sociophysical

phenomena, so we will contend ourselves with these.It is they that form the basis of our concepts of distance, sizeand position. Things are located in ordinary three dimensional space andtheir position can be pinpointed by the well known Cartesian (x-y-z)

coordinates which provide their inertial reference frame. Since thingsoccupy space, their size can be measured by three dimensions: length,

width, height. Finally the distance between them can also be measured byvectors joining their respective positions.

This topological taxonomy, ranges from the micro to themacroscopic. All things from the subnuclear Plank length (10 -25 meters),

to the size of the universe (10 25 meters), can be fitted within therange. As it happens human size is right in the middle region (100meters). Just above it, the social world ranges between 101 and 107

square meters, i.e. the area of the smallest community (family) on theone hand and the global society (world) on the other.

Our central position along the spatial scale of things accounts forour relative sense of size and distance. Human perception can distinguishbetween small and large as well as between near and far. Finally, we candifferentiate between rest and motion by fixing stationary objects in asingle location and following the trajectory of moving objects between

successive points in space.On the basis of this human sense of space, we shall locate our

model in the middle range, where we perceive social systems. From thisvantage point, we acquire a good perspective of our position in theoverall scale of things. Moreover, we will be able to use space as an

explanatory variable for the operational range of different laws. All in

all, space will serve as one of the two most important foundations ofour model.


11/24

1.3. Chronology.Time has often been called the fourth dimension of space, and

indeed it is inextricably woven into it. As space is a container forthings, time is a channel for events; as the former measures dimension,the latter measures duration. Together, the two coextensive frameworks

determine the where and when of all phenomena.

Unlike space, time is unidimensional and everflowing. For allpractical purposes its motion can only be in a single direction. Thearrow of time flies inexorably through three successive phases: from thepast, via the present, to the future. Accordingly, to the space's threedegrees of freedom (up-down; left-right; fore-back), time has none (only

forward).This unidirectionality of time should not be interpreted in a

fatalistic manner. Destiny is not necessarily predestined. Although thepast cannot be relived, nor history changed; the future consists of manypossibilities, so destiny can be shaped to some extent. As we shall seelater on, human as well as other beings have a degree of volition whichgive them a freedom of choice within the constraints imposed by time andspace. The present is always a fork on the road of time, therefore it

offers some options from which to select one's future.Time, like space, began with the Big Bang over ten billion years

ago. That momentous event of universal genesis can be considered as theorigin of time (t = 0). Consequently, the duration of our past is > 1010

years and it is at that point where the present is located. Halfwayduring that time (i.e. five billion years ago), the solar system was

created and it is estimated that it will last another five billion years,at which time the sun will become a supernova and eventually burn out

completely. The rest of the universe, however, will go on forapproximately another 10100 years before all matter has disintegratedinto radiation at maximum entropy. Accordingly, it seems that there ismuch more future than past, since at present the universe is still very

young.

As distance measures space, so duration measures time. The life-time of things varies from the almost instantaneous chronon (10-25

seconds) to the almost eternal galaxy (1025 seconds). Here again, humantime is found in the midrange between the second (100) it takes for man'sreaction to the ten thousand years (1010 seconds) of history. Thus bothfor space and time, human social activities occupy the central region of

our conceptual framework.In order to summarize and synthesize the three contextual

parameters which were discussed in this section, we have combined them inthe diagram appearing in the next page. Diagram 3, shows the

relationships between realm, space and time by situating man and societywith distance and duration, from the micro to the macro regions of

reality. In this overall picture, it is easy to see the centrality of

human existence in a cosmic perspective. We shall keep this perspectivethroughout the study and thus maintain the image of man in relation to

the rest of nature.


12/24

2. CONTENTWithin the basic framework we have just constructed using the three

fundamental concepts of space-time-realm; we can now build the varioussystems which operate therein. In this way, the existential spatio-temporal context will be filled-in with the appropriate content.Consequently, this section will be devoted to the systemology of

sociophysics.To begin with, a simple system is defined as a set of units. Thisdefinition contains two terms which indicate the necessary and sufficientattributes of the basic system: i.e. substance and structure. As a groupof elements with a given relationship, a system can be anything one wantsit to be; so long as it has certain specified interconnected components.

Although the above two parameters are enough to describe a simpleor static system, they must be supplemented with another one in order to

include more complex or dynamic systems. This added dimension is afunctional one and relates to the operating process of the system.

Together: component, structure and function can define the fundamentalcharacteristics of any system.

Accordingly, we shall look into ontological, morphological and

tropological characteristics as they relate to the systems which concernus here. By doing so, we will clarify what we are dealing with and how

this fits in to the wider scheme of things. The following three sectionswill cover the necessary details of each of the systemic aspects in turn.


13/24

2.1. Ontology.This ontological discussion can begin with the a priori acceptance

of an existential being. This means that at least we must take forgranted our own existence and then go on from there to determine whatelse exists as well. To do so, we have to set the criteria of evidence

which could prove one way or another what constitutes being in

distinction to nothingness.The criteria of our existential reality will be perceived andconceived in three parameters dealing with its elements, their attributes

and relations. The first concerns the components which make up ourentities; the second describes the traits of these components and the

third determines their connections. These three aspects are the necessaryand sufficient parts of a complete definition of anything. It is ourprimary hypothesis that everything existing and happenning in realityinvolves only these parameters in some way or another. Our ontological

model will, therefore, be built on these parameters.The capacity to experience and define reality has been primarily

justified by common sense and eventually confirmed by natural science.Since present knowledge rests on the foundations of physics, we shall use

them to support our contentions here. Accordingly, we admit the postulatethat reality may ultimately be reduceable to certain elementary

particles. It is these particles, named fermions, which eventually makeup everything, from the most banal material things to the most exaulted

etherial ideas.Fermions are of two kinds: leptons and quarks. The former, of which

electrons are the most prevalent example, are very individualistic sothey exist alone; while the latter are social beings and are always foundin groups. Quarks combine to form protons and neutrons, which make up theatomic nucleus. As the fundamental units of matter, various combinations

of atoms, composed of nuclii and revolving electrons, build up allmaterial structures, from molecules and cells, to planets and stars. In

between, there is the realm of human society with its own kind of

individual and collective entities.The traditional ontological dichotomy between matter and mind may

be explained by the fundamental difference between quarks and leptons.Ideas are basicaly systems of electrons, rooted in the quarks of thebrain. From the simplest symbols to the most complex theories, mental

entities arise from the various activities of material elements; at thesame time as they in turn affect their material hosts. Mind and matter

are thus interrelated in various degrees, as exemplified in human beings.The elementary particles of reality exhibit three basic traits:

mass, charge and spin. The first gives being its substance; while thesecond gives it essence. Spin corresponds to a self-referential activitywhich will be further explained later on. At the material end of theexistential spectrum, mass reigns supreme but tapers off as we move

towards the mental end. Charge, on the other hand, is to be found, invarious quantities (strong or weak) and qualities (positive or negative),throughout existence. These traits give all beings certain proclivitieswhich demonstrate their particular character and distinguishes them from

each other.All entities, whether fermions or humans, need some mediating

agency to connect them together into systems. This indispensible role ofinterrelating and interacting is ultimately played by a kind of fieldparticle, named bosons. Unlike fermions which are characterized by a


14/24

significant mass and charge, bosons do not partake of these twoattributes. Rather, they only have spins and provide connections as they

are exchanged among fermions.Such exchanges are basicaly of three kinds: nuclear,

electromagnetic and gravitational. The first exist by sharring gluons andthus hold together the atomic nucleus. The second take place by

exchanging photons and thus explain most of our ordinary phenomena. Thethird operate by the displacement of gravitons and thus provide theoverall attraction between all things in the universe.Similar phenomena occur up the ontological ladder to describe

social, as well as atomic and gallactic bonding. Societies, like allsystems, are held together by certain ties of varying strength and

extent. From the very strong and tight bonds of the organic family to theweak and loose threads of cultures, these connecting links form all kinds

of structures and institutions: organic or social alike.


15/24

2.2. Morphology.As particles combine together, they form structures. This process

of morphogenesis gives systems their shape and form. Beyond theelementary particles, how systems are structured becomes an important

aspect of their identity. The number and kinds of connections in a systemdetermine its crux as well as its form.

Structural forms are so diverse that it is difficult to classifythem. But, for purposes of this model, we shall use three criteria forsuch classification. These will pertain to the quantity of theircomponents; the quality of their form; and the anatomy of theirstructure. Let us look at each one of these parameters in turn.

As to quantity of components, systems are distinguished by thenumber of units which belong to them. Thus, there are small systems, madeup of very few members, as well as large systems of numerous elements. Atthe minimal end, a system requires at least two parts: such as the twoquarks which form a proton. At the maximal end, of course, is the all-inclusive universe. In between, are to be found intermediate systems,

including organic and social ones.The simplest way of defining systems is according to the type of

their constituent units. In this way, an atomic system may bedistinguished as a group of elementary particles and a solar system as agroup of heavenly bodies. Similarly, a material system is a group ofmassive objects, whereas an ideal system is a set of mental concepts.

Determining the components, thus, defines the type of system one wants tofocus on.

What serves as the component of one system, however, may be itselfalso be a system. So, human beings who are the units of social systems

are themselves organic systems made up of a great number of living cells.Furthermore, each of these is a molecular system and each molecule is anatomic system. This hierarchy of units within systems and systems withinunits could extend itself indefinitely up and down the scale from the

infinitesmally small units to the infinitely large systems.

Present knowledge limits this range between the elementaryparticles as the smallest units and the universe as the largest system.

In between are to be found several distinct levels of differentqualitative and quantitative characteristics. Apart from size, theselevels may be also distinguished by the complexity of their units. On

these criteria, we can discern three types of material systems.Starting from the bottom, we have atomic systems composed of

elementary particles as their units. These are the simplest kind ofsystems of which there are about one hundred different kinds forming all

the elements (e.g. hydrogen or iron) of the universe. Largeagglomerations of these make up inert materials (e.g. metals or stones)and mechanical parts (e.g. cogs or rods). At the next level are molecularsystems, made up of atomic systems as their units. Molecules make up the

more complex substances (e.g. earth, water, air) which are usuallycompounds (e.g. ceramics or plastics) of various elements. At the top arethe cellular systems, whose units are molecular systems. At that levelthe accumulated complexity of the units (e.g. proteins or enzimes) makesthe systems (e.g. fibers or muscles) qualitatively different than the

previous ones because they possess the attribute of life.Since these levels are hierarchical, their characteristics are

cumulative, so that organic systems contain both molecular and atomicones, whereas molecular systems only contain atomic. For now, these


16/24

three fundamental types were selected as the building blocks of allreality. This is evidenced by the most advanced of the scientific

disciplines which study these three levels: i.e. physics; chemistry;biology. On this basis, an interdisciplinary study will have to look into

all of them, since they support higher and more complex systems.The degree of connectivity among the elements of a system

determines the second formal parameter considered here. This means thatif the connections are strong, they result in rigid structures; whereasif they are weak, they produce fuzzy sets. In this range between rigidityand flexibility is to be found the difference between solids, liquids and

gases; from the most crystaline to the most cloudy. The degree ofanatomical order, thus produces the exactitude of form and differentiates

systems according to their structural state.Finally, the sequence elements are arranged is as important as

their number and strength. The quality of this arrangement determinesboth their structures and actions and so serves as a major distinguishingcharacteristic. In this respect, forms may be classified from the minimal

one of a point, through a string of points forming unidimentionalstraight or curved lines and bidimentional planes, to the most

complicated tridimentional forms combining many different shapes andsizes.

The importance of form at its most fundamental level is evidentfrom the famous particle-wave dichotomy in elementary physics.

Fundamental entities seem to have a double personality because theysometimes behave as particles and other times as waves, depending on how

they are approached and manipulated. This duality has produced manyparadoxes in physics which have not yet found a complete explanation; so

we must accept them here as inherent in the nature of things.Trying to resolve these and other contradictions of physics, there

has arisen recently a theory which postulates unidimensional vibratingstrings as the ultimate basis of both particles and waves. The variousmodes of oscillation or string harmonics are said to correspond to

different particles and field waves, so that the behavior of theseentities can account for everything. Fortunately, we do not have tochoose among these opposing fundamentalist positions. Rather, it is

possible to accept all three as different aspects of the same reality andproceed to situate them within an overall space-time framework.


17/24

2.3. Tropology.In addition to units and forms, complex systems, such as the ones

we will be considering here, have certain actions. These activities takeplace within all dynamic systems, as well as between open systems andtheir environment. An understanding of the operation of a system,therefore, requires knowledge of these events, which we shall also

undertake to include in this model.We can begin by distinguishing three parameters which characterizesystemic activity: flows, processes, and functions. Different types ofsystems have several combinations of these activities. Complex systems,like societies or organisms, have all three types because they need themto survive. Simple, isolated systems, like an asteroid at the edge of theuniverse, has very little of any of them. Let us then describe each one

below.By flows is meant the dynamic elements moving along the connecting

channels of a system. As we have seen, bosons are the most elementaryflows of any system; but at a level closer to the middle range of

reality, we can distinguish three kinds of flows: material, energetic,and symbolic. At the material end of the spectrum, various forms of

matter can be transported between points in space; such as the the flowof blood in the arteries of organic systems or the movement of goods andpeople in social systems. Similarly, energy, as the other manifestationof matter, flows through the channels of dynamic systems. Finally, at themental end of the spectrum, information can be communicated via either

material or energetic vehicles.These flows may be considered as processes when they undertake or

undergo some transformation along they way. In this case, the flowsentering a given system are its inputs and those leaving its outputs. In

between these two are the transforming throughputs of the systemicprocess. Because of their serial connectivity, the input-output flow isidentified with the cause-effect process. Since outputs depend on inputs,there is some causal relationship between the two which indicates the

flow of influence from one point to another.In open systems, input-output flows run between the system and its

environment. These flows to and from the environment may transportmaterials, carry energy or communicate information, using differenttransmiting and receiving channels. Systems act as converters whichtransform inputs into outputs. These three functions: reception

(stimulus); conversion (transformation); expedition (response); thuscharacterize the dynamics of complex systems.

The basic function of a system requires that the output isdependent on the input: y = (x). Where y (output) is the dependent

variable, x (input) is the independent variable; and (operator) is somefunction. Complex systems, of course, have much more complicated

functions with the addition of intervening variables. The principle,

however, is the same in all cases: i.e. a complete knowledge of how asystem functions must account for all its flows.

In considering the functions of a system, one also gets involvedwith questions of role and purpose. These questions try to find the

instrumentality of systems by determining their priority in the chain ofcausality. In this respect, we can distinguish between original and final

stages in the systemic function. Some systems serve the purposes ofothers and thus are means to an end. Other systems intervene between


18/24

immediate and ultimate chains of causation; therefore are both means forsome and ends for others.

In order to summarize and illustrate the interrelations amongsystem elements, structures and processes, we have drawn Diagram 4, in

the following page. The diagram shows the various cross-cutting ranges ofsystem contents as we have discussed them in this section. The main point

to be made from all this is the continuum between simplicity andcomplexity as the combined result of all the parameters mentioned above.The difference between simple and complex systems is of course one of

degree, which carried to extremes becomes one of kind.As one of the relatively complex systems, human beings can look

both up and down the chain of being and compare their position in anoverall perspective. In doing so they engage in mental and physicalactivities according to certain rules. Identifying these rules and

describing their operation will be the subject of the next section whichfollows presently.


19/24

3. CODEXHaving outlined the content and context of the model, we shall now

present its operating procedures or working codes. In the realm of humanactivity, there are three principal symbolic codes: linguistic,

mathematic and artistic. We shall here utilize all three, combiningnarrative with formulae and diagrams to optimize our presentation,

description and explanation of reality. They will provide the methods,programs and principles which apply to systems in general and this workin particular.Their codes are, thus, indispensible not only for practicalbut for theoretical reasons; because they guide the functions of a system

as well as explain its dynamics.On the assumption that reality is not entirely random, we must

postulate some laws according to which we expect it to function. The termlaw is used here to mean a normal tendency. These laws are of varying

extent: from the most general to the very specific. Natural laws tend tobe the most general because they apply to the widest circle and admit fewexceptions; whereas social laws are more specific to human interactions

and are full of conditional qualifications.In this study, we shall outline the basic rules of the game which

operate in the universe at large and how they contain the special caseof human society. These rules or codes combine to form the etiology of

general systems theory and include the scientific laws of correlation andcausality, as well as grammatical cannons, aesthetic norms and plain

common sense.We begin by the common sense premise that reality presents us with

certain patterns in space and regularities in time which we perceive andemphasize. In this way, we notice similarities and differences, accordingto which we abstract and classify things in conceptual categories, as wehave been doing in this presentation. On this basis, we have constructeda classification scheme which will serve as the framework of our model-

building exersize.As the basic premise in this respect, we discern two opposing

nomothetic conditions of reality: static and dynamic. The former appliesto things which are relatively stable in space and constant in time;

whereas the latter applies to things which are relatively variable andchanging. We consider this such a fundamental dichotomy that it was

chosen as one of the three major parameters of this study.But, as part of our most general axiom, all dichotomies may be

mediated by a third position which partakes of both. As such, theintermediary between statics and dynamics is found to be dialectics: astate that constains aspects of both extremes, out of which is created athird distinct possibility. The resulting triangular relationship, willthis serve as our fundamental canon and one of the three dimensions of

our model.Based on this canon, the programatic aspects of the model will be

dealt with by three disciplinary fields: epistemology; methodology;axiology. In this order, we will look successively into the codes ofverification, validation and evaluation; thus outlining the operatingrules of the model. The following sections will deal with each one in

turn.


20/24

3.1. Epistemology.The theory of knowledge which will be adopted here centers around

the modern empirical paradigm which combines rationality andsensitivity as the dual road to human understanding. On the basis of

sense inputs and thought translations, we form a coherent overall pictureof reality. Human knowledge consists of a system of conjunctions between

perceptions (experiences) and conceptions (explanations). We consider toknow something, if we can fit it in the general scheme of things whichforms our weltanschauung. Understanding, thus, involves the successfulintegration of particular diverse phenomena into a general ideological

paradigm.The correct juxtaposition between facts and ideas permits us to

verify experiences and test the facticity of our perceptions. Thecomplicated process of doing so may be simplified by a three sphase

procedure: diagnosis; anagnosis; prognosis. The successful application ofthis procedure should provide adequate knowledge about anything. It

isthus incorporated into the model in its simplest form.The process begins by a diagnosis of the object or situation under

study. This means the identification, definition and description of an

existing condition by accurate perception and classification of signs andfacts, using proper criteria of evidence and proof. Diagnosis

differentiates between true and false symptoms in order to arrive at thecorrect correlation between noomena and phenomena. Thus, the first

critical distinction we make concerns the difference between verity andfalsity. If truth measures the correspondence between mental and materialphenomena, then we want to make sure that our internal concepts are truerepresentations of external reality. Diagnosis does this by constantly

comparing the inner and outer worlds for the proper correlation.Once a correct diagnosis of the present is made, the next step is

to find the preveous causal chain that led to it. This requires ananagnosis of the history of the subject to discern the sequence of eventswhich produced the actual situation. The proper anagnosis of the past

will lead to the etiology of the present and thus explain it causaly.Anagnosis, therefore, assumes that there is some cause-effect

relationship between antecedents and consequents; so that temporal orderrather than chaos determines the sequence of events.

If that is so, knowledge of the past and present should inevitablylead to determination of the future. Thereby, on the basis of diagnosis

and anagnosis, one should be able to present not only a plausibledescription and explanation of a problem, but also a prediction of itsevolution. This last step of prognosis, projects into the future the

trends established in the past, as they are transformed by the present.In this way, it calculates the probable within the the limits of the

possible.Together, these three steps follow the arrow of time, and allow us

to study the temporal development of events. Realistic description,historical explanation and conditional prediction have always been an

inherent part of human activity everywhere. We, therefore, perform thisdiachronic process in order to explain the dynamics of deterministicsystems, especially as they apply to the macrohistorical progress

operating on the global world scale.Idealy, this method should produce complete knowledge on any

subject. Yet, for various practical and theoretical reasons, it is nowaccepted that such knowledge is impossible. Both the inadequacy of facts


21/24

and laws, as well as the inherent uncertainty and indeterminacy ofreality preclude the exact knowledge of anything. Thus, we have to admit

this epistemological limitation and resign ourselves to a life ofincomplete knowledge.


22/24

3.2. Methodology.Even if it can never be complete, knowledge can be promoted by some

methods more than others. Methodology is such a search for a systematicand optimal way of reaching a given objective. As a means to an end, amethod is the way of crossing from ignorance to knowledge. Finding the

best vehicle to move in this direction, therefore, becomes the purpose of

the search here.Since the way to knowledge has been found to relate empiricalphenomena with mental noomena, one must follow this road back and forthbetween its two end points. For this journey, logic is the main means oftransporting symbols and communicating ideas. This method provides threerational criteria which determine the validity of both the process and

its results.First and foremost is the sylogistic method which is identified

with classical Aristotelian logic. Although this method proceeds bydeduction from the general to the specific; the opposite sense, fromspecific to general, can easily be derived by induction. The formerapplies unified theories to explain diverse experiences; whereas thelatter builds broad theories from a lot of statistical data.Together,

deductive and inductive logic provide the rules for both rationalizingand generalizing in a valid manner.

Science combines the two processes, by trying to discover empiricalevents as well as construct conceptual laws. These laws supply thenecessary broad prerequisites with which the sufficient specific

conditions combine to formulate meaningful explanations. Thus, explainingunique empirical facts in terms of universal ideals or formalabstractions is accepted as valid by positivist thinking.The ideal abstractions of symbolic logic and mathematics, however,

cannot always be applied to the behavior of very complex systems, such ashuman ones. Relativistic thinking therefore emphasizes the specific and

contingent aspects of behavior in order to explane incidential orcircumstantial events. In these cases, analogical thinking is more

appropriate for purposes of consistency. According to this comparativemethod, exigesis is best achieved by juxtaposing the similarities and

differences among the various aspects of reality.To this end, the analogical method serves a purpose by comparing

the known to the unknown and the social to the natural. In addition tosylogy, analogy as a valid criterion for extending knowledge from onefield to another. Comparing the simpler and well-known laws of nature

with the complex phenomena of society, one,thereby expects to widen theunderstanding of both the natural and the social realms.

Finely, through the third dialogical method, the proper meaning canbe established for different conditions. The hermeneutic school believes

that understanding is only possible by subjective interpretation ofrecorded evidence. Such textual analysis tries to explain human actions

by grasping the intensions and rationales that people give to justifythem, and thereby clarify the ambiguities of words and deeds.This position assumes the complete dichotomy between nature and

society, by assuming that human beings control their actions, whereasnatural forces do not. Although, the differences between men and atomsare well noted here, we reject such diametrical opposition between thehuman and natural worlds because the differences are not as great as all

that. On the contrary, evolving knowledge is reconciling theirdifferences and thus closes the gap between them.


23/24

3.3. Axiology.In order to complete the codex of this model, we now present its

axiology. This area deals with the axioms and values which underliechoice; so it is indispensible in any normative work such as this one.

Although, it is often said that pure science is value-free, humanconcerns are not. Therefore, we admit certain value preferences and go on

to justify them on the basis of three critical standards.The first one establishes responsible behavior by distinguishingbetween necessary and voluntary action. Since one can only be responsible

for intentional acts, there must be a clear difference betweendeterminism and voluntarism. Anacrisis provides the judgement for suchdistinction by defining the area of free will and human control from the

realm of superior force and necessity.The second standard establishes the relevance among things or

ideas. By the process of diacrisis, a judgement can be made between thetrivial and the important. The extent or degree in which something

affects something else is obviously the basis of relevance and providesthe main criterion of importance. On this basis, importance is a relative

concept which depends on the strength of influence in particular

relationships, and not an absolute standard of reality.The third and last standard of evaluation concerns the preferences

exhibited by all systems. According to these preferences, certain thingsare desirable and others avoidable. On the basis of certain natural

proclivities regarding love and hate, human beings develop moral codes ofgood and evil. As a code of social behavior, morality is an syncriticprocess which guides human conduct by entering a consideration of others

in any intentional action that concerns them. In this way, ethicsestablishes the proper relations between the self and its social or

natural environments.Diagram 5, outlines these three canonical dimensions of our model

in their contextual perspective. As such, the epistemological processcorresponds to topology, the methodology to chronology, and the axiology

to ontology. Of course, these connections will have to be clarified asthe model is applied and so become operationalized in particular

situations.


24/24

CONCLUSIONWith this presentation of the content, context and codex of the

model, we have now completed a unified conceptual framework for studyingany human concern. In order to implement this model, one shall have to

utilize the above parameters to construct a three dimensional universe ofdiscourse. We will close this article by putting forth the general

guidelines which should be followed in this endeavor.To begin with, we take the first parameter corresponding to theexistential content. From this content is selected only the componentwhich is covered by the natural sciences. In effect, this will concernthe subject-matter studied by physics, chemistry and biology, because

these three great disciplines represent the core of the natural sciences.The second parameter corresponding to the space-time context, is

adapted to frame what we consider to be the three typical conditions ofreality: statics; dynamics and dialectics. The first reflects the

constant or conservative aspects of reality; the second reflects theopposite tendencies for variety and change; whereas the third combinesboth to reflect the fluctuations and contradictions of nature. Each oneof these conditions is governed by equivalent laws, which can then be

discussed and compared.Finally, the third parameter concerns the operating method. It

juxtaposes the natural and social sciences as the two premises of asylogism and then draws the appropriate general conclusion from them.These steps begin with natural laws as the major premise, continue withthe social phenomena as the minor premise, and end with general system

laws as the conclusion.Each attempt could, therefore, begin with an exposition of a

natural law, followed by a relevant social phenomenon and end with theinclusion of the latter into the former as a general conclusion. In thisway one should arrive at the extension of physical laws into generaltheories which apply to society as well nature. In other words, thisprocess transforms the inputs from the natural sciences into social

science outputs. This way the basic laws of natural science candemonstrate their adaptability and convertibility into broader principles

which include the social sciences.In doing so, one should try to keep faith with the imperatives of

both truth and beauty. The fundamental axiom is that reality alwayspresents us with at least three faces. Two of these are the classical

opposites of ying and yang which are joined by a third which is at thesame time an affirmation and a denial of both. These three primordialconditions are at the base of the triadic thinking which pervades this

model and frames its concepts.Following this dictum of conceptual elegance, we have combined the

above parameters, a three dimentional matrix, shown in Diagram 6. This 3x 3 x 3 or 27 cell structure, much like a Rubik cube, represents the

overall conceptual framework of this study and contains all its aspects.There are no illusions as to the difficulty of attaining even this

goal in one fell swoop. Nevertheless, a beginning has to be made andsomeone has to work up the temerity to do it. So the challenge has beenaccepted here to launch in ernest this process of interscientific-

nomothetic convergence and an initial attempt has already been completed.If it is successful, this project will eventually lay the foundations fora Social Systems Theory based on the general science paradigm drawn here.

Documents

Prolegomena to Problemology