Utsob Roy
This book neither dives deep into the subject nor is a textbook. It is more of an overview of the subject and a survey of the state of its development.
In various branches of science, we encounter systems regularly. Von Bertalanffy defines systems as such:
A system can be defined as a set of elements standing in interrelations. Interrelation means that elements, p, stand in relations, R, so that the behavior of an element p in R is different from its behavior in another relation, R′. If the behaviors in R and R′ are not different, there is no interaction, and the elements behave independently with respect to the relations R and R′.
According to von Bertalanffy, some phenomena can only be understood/interpreted at the system level:
Nevertheless, the necessity and feasibility of a systems approach became apparent only recently. Its necessity resulted from the fact that the mechanistic scheme of isolable causal trains and meristic treatment had proved insufficient to deal with theoretical problems, especially in the biosocial sciences, and with the practical problems posed by modern technology.
His aim was to establish a theory for systems that is applicable to all systems.
The implication of this idea is a paradigm shift. But, this is not only an ambitious idea. The author, using his multidisciplinary knowledge, mathematics, and reasoning— has given a sufficiently compelling demonstration of what he wanted to achieve.
I will not agree with everything the author said, though. For example, he was unable to see how music, culture etc. are useful for survival:
Greek sculpture, Renaissance painting. German music—indeed, any aspect of culture— has nothing to do with utility, or with the better survival of individuals or nations.
Culture actually is very important for our survival. It enables us to achieve higher, and more complex organisation, often spanning lifetimes of multiple generations.
But these are minor things. His main point remains valid. If we think from a system perspective, many of our current ideas will need radical reevaluation. The author reevaluated stress like this:
Also the principle of stress, so often invoked in psychology, psychiatry and psychosomatics, needs some reevaluation. As everything in the world, stress too is an ambivalent thing. Stress is not only a danger to life to be controlled and neutralized by adaptive mechanisms; it also creates higher life. If life, after disturbance from outside, had simply returned to the so-called homeostatic equilibrium, it would never have progressed beyond the amoeba which, after all, is the best adapted creature in the world—it has survived billions of years from the primeval ocean to the present day.
In this light, modern approaches to creating a stress-free environment seem not only unnecessary but even harmful.
Von Bertelanffy belonged to an age when scientists used to study not only their own little scoped part of science but science in general, philosophy, art, and life as a whole. He had his failings and moments of shameful inhumanity.2 But, academically, he was one of the finest of his age. It shows in his work.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.
This book neither dives deep into the subject nor is a textbook. It is more of an overview of the subject and a survey of the state of its development.
In various branches of science, we encounter systems regularly. Von Bertalanffy defines systems as such:
A system can be defined as a set of elements standing in interrelations. Interrelation means that elements, p, stand in relations, R, so that the behavior of an element p in R is different from its behavior in another relation, R′. If the behaviors in R and R′ are not different, there is no interaction, and the elements behave independently with respect to the relations R and R′.
According to von Bertalanffy, some phenomena can only be understood/interpreted at the system level:
Nevertheless, the necessity and feasibility of a systems approach became apparent only recently. Its necessity resulted from the fact that the mechanistic scheme of isolable causal trains and meristic treatment had proved insufficient to deal with theoretical problems, especially in the biosocial sciences, and with the practical problems posed by modern technology.
His aim was to establish a theory for systems that is applicable to all systems.
The implication of this idea is a paradigm shift. But, this is not only an ambitious idea. The author, using his multidisciplinary knowledge, mathematics, and reasoning— has given a sufficiently compelling demonstration of what he wanted to achieve.
I will not agree with everything the author said, though. For example, he was unable to see how music, culture etc. are useful for survival:
Greek sculpture, Renaissance painting. German music—indeed, any aspect of culture— has nothing to do with utility, or with the better survival of individuals or nations.
Culture actually is very important for our survival. It enables us to achieve higher, and more complex organisation, often spanning lifetimes of multiple generations.
But these are minor things. His main point remains valid. If we think from a system perspective, many of our current ideas will need radical reevaluation. The author reevaluated stress like this:
Also the principle of stress, so often invoked in psychology, psychiatry and psychosomatics, needs some reevaluation. As everything in the world, stress too is an ambivalent thing. Stress is not only a danger to life to be controlled and neutralized by adaptive mechanisms; it also creates higher life. If life, after disturbance from outside, had simply returned to the so-called homeostatic equilibrium, it would never have progressed beyond the amoeba which, after all, is the best adapted creature in the world—it has survived billions of years from the primeval ocean to the present day.
In this light, modern approaches to creating a stress-free environment seem not only unnecessary but even harmful.
Von Bertelanffy belonged to an age when scientists used to study not only their own little scoped part of science but science in general, philosophy, art, and life as a whole. He had his failings and moments of shameful inhumanity.2 But, academically, he was one of the finest of his age. It shows in his work.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.