Tag: holism

Categories
07. A Conceptual Farmework for General System Theor

A Conceptual Framework for General System Theory

Introduction

This article proposes a single deep conceptual framework that unifies many of the concepts of systems theory, such as systems, holons, holism, relationships, emergence, causality, isomorphisms, etc. This framework may form the basis of a general system theory. Some of its definitions may seem obvious, but I have included them for the avoidance of doubt and to paint a complete picture.

Conceptual Frameworks

There are two ways to define a word. The first is by reference to observed reality. For example, we can all agree on the definition of the word “snake” because we can observe a snake in the external physical world. However, there is less agreement over more abstract words such as “justice” and “conflict”. This is because we are unable to observe all instances of those concepts. To overcome the latter problem, we attempt to define the word, but in doing so, we must use other words.

A conceptual framework is essentially a set of definitions of more abstract words that is internally consistent and founded on axiomatic words, i.e., words that are not defined and are taken as being self-evident. A conceptual framework comprises our understanding of the words and the universe that they represent. We all hold conceptual frameworks. However, they vary greatly in their depth and nature. The deeper a framework, the more fundamental and general the words it defines. For example, the word “relationship” is deep and has broad application, whilst “unhappiness” is far less so, applying only to human beings and some animals in a particular state.

The development of any theory first requires a conceptual framework. To use an analogy from physics, the absence of a framework is equivalent to attempting to build a structure with gas. On the other hand, if we do have a framework, then we are building with a solid. Furthermore, if more than one person is developing a theory, they will need to agree a single framework if they are to communicate successfully. It is OK to consider different perspectives, but ultimately, they must be drawn together into a single consistent whole. In the case of general system theory, we are attempting to develop a very general theory indeed. So, we need to ensure that the framework is as deep as we can make it.

The absence of a common framework can be seen on the internet. Authors do have their own conceptual frameworks of course, but rarely are they explained, and their number can be overwhelming. Furthermore, there is clearly competition between them for more general acceptance. So, the motives of their proponents must also be questioned. Finally, their depth is rarely great, and so, the theories that they underpin can be quite specific rather than general. To unify these frameworks, much effort would be required in drawing them together and analysing them for a deeper one that applies to most.

Cognitive Physicalist Philosophy

My proposed deep framework is founded on Cognitive Physicalist philosophy. The physicalist aspect of this philosophy holds that everything, including objects, abstract concepts, and information, is physical in nature and occupies a region or regions of space-time. The cognitive aspect recognises that human beings have limited perception and cognition. Because the universe of space-time is probably infinite, to understand and explain it we must simplify it. So, physicalism enables us to establish a single conceptual framework, but cognition limits our understanding and perception.

Spiritualism

Many people believe that there is also a spiritual aspect to nature, and so, reject physicalism. However, the source of our spiritual beliefs is probably an unconscious sense that we use emotion in our decision-making processes. It is certainly true that we rely heavily on the unconscious mind and on emotion when making our decisions. This is something that we have inherited from simpler organisms and that evolution has built upon. In the absence of a rational scientific explanation for the process, it can take on a mystical flavour, and can seem to be an alternative to our other skill, conscious rationality. In practice, from an evolutionary perspective, emotion-based decision-making is entirely reasonable, and the emotional and rational aspects of our minds work hand-in-hand to our benefit.

The Importance of true axioms

Over 25 years ago, I became very frustrated with conventional symbolic logic. It comprises numerous disparate branches and a plethora of different symbolisms that create much confusion. So, I embarked on a project to join up the various branches using a single common symbolism. Not only was I successful in unifying these branches, but also in including both natural language and mathematics. However, what was originally intended to be a five-year project turned out to be a twenty-three year one.

There were two main outputs from this project of significance for systems theory. Firstly, part of the project involved the axiomatization of logic, i.e. the identification of a number of self-evident but unprovable truths on which all of the remaining theory can be based. It was necessary that these axioms provide an explanation for all generally accepted laws of logic. As I unified the different branches, I found that many of the axioms for a traditional branch of logic, and indeed mathematics, were in fact theorems that could be derived from deeper and more general axioms. Nevertheless, a small number always remained that were particular to a branch and distinguished it from the others.

Secondly, physicalism was the only approach that would provide a single framework. Symbolic logic is almost self-defining. All its theorems arise from the operations of its axioms on themselves. The one and only axiom that might be regarded as not being of logic is the physicalist one.

These concepts can be used when considering a general system theory. Providing they have an empirical basis in reality, two ideas can be likened to two minor branches of a tree. If we are aware only of the branches but not the tree, then the two ideas may appear to contradict one another. However, if we can identify common truths from which both ideas can be explained, then we have identified the larger branch from which the minor ones sprout. That is, we are beginning to perceive the tree. In this analogy the common truths are, temporarily at least, the equivalent of axioms. This process can continue until we reach the trunk of the tree. The more ideas we are able to join up in this way the more likely their common explanation or axiom is to be true.

The truth of an axiom is not guaranteed of course. Many times, I have had to revise axioms that have proven inconsistent with other branches of logic. So, a certain amount of objectivity and persistence is needed. Furthermore, there is no certainty that the tree does ultimately have a trunk, i.e., that there are universal axioms. Bearing this in mind, together with the fact that some axioms are particular to a branch, i.e., are emergent, it seems unlikely that there is a single simple explanation for everything. Nevertheless, we can attempt to find one for those few things that lie within human experience, and this is what my proposed framework attempts to do.

The remainder of this article now describes the framework.

Information

According to physicalism, information is physical in nature. It also appears to be something that only living things and some of our artifacts are capable of recognizing and manipulating. The term information at source refers to the structure of a physical entity. When we see other things with a similar structure we recognise them, i.e., create a mental image of them, for future reference. We also give them a name so that we can pass our knowledge of those things to others. Thus, the original information is translated and communicated. Nevertheless, all of those translations and communications are physical in nature. A mental image is an arrangement of neurons and the way that they fire;  speech comprises patterns of vibration in air; and so on.

However, our perception and information processing abilities are limited. So, in translating and communicating  we simplify; we assume;  we make mistakes; we reject or modify new information that is not consistent with our existing knowledge; and so on. Thus, information can be false.

Holons

Arthur Koestler originally described a holon as being any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself and which constitutes part of a larger whole. However, for the purpose of this framework, a holon is also an entity that comprises a collection of other holons with relationships between them. Every holon is a system with inputs, processes, and outputs. It is also physical in nature. These definitions are true not only of physical objects, but also, of events and more “abstract” concepts such as justice, conflict, etc.  For example, justice is the set of all just acts.

Holism

The term holism refers to a system having properties that its component parts do not, that is, emergent properties. For the purpose of this framework, a holon is further defined as being something at which a new property first emerges as the complexity of entities increases. Thus, all holons have emergent properties and are holistic.

Relationships

A relationship between two things comprises those things for so long as they are related to one another in a particular way. It also includes whatever is transferred either way in that relationship, whether it be space, matter, raw energy, or information.

Every relationship also has outputs. At least one of these is its appearance, i.e., its information at source. There is a question over whether this appearance is an emergent property, i.e., a property that the relationship has, but that its component parts do not. If so, then all relationships are holons because they have emergent properties. If not, then a relationship is not a holon. For this article I will assume the latter, i.e., that the appearance of an entity is not an emergent property. However, it should be borne in mind that this is an assumption and not necessarily true.

Complexity

The complexity of a relationship or holon can be measured by the number of fundamental particles that it comprises. For the present, at least, we can regard fundamental particles as those identified in the Standard Model of physics.

The more fundamental particles an entity comprises, the more variability there is between entities in the same set. This is because we form sets based on the similarities that we observe between entities. It is a human cognitive act, and we are limited in the amount of complexity that we can manage.  To address this variability we create prototypes, i.e., mental images of a typical member of the set that has only the characteristics we have used to define the set, and none of the variability.

Holon Formation & Chaos

There must be a certain number of relationships between holons before a higher level holon is formed, i.e., before an emergent property other than appearance is encountered. This emergent property can be an output from the holon which in turn can be the basis for relationships between higher level holons.

Between the formation of holons at one level and those at another, the number of relationships increases and may exceed the threshold of our comprehension, thus appearing chaotic.

Abstract Entities

Every relationship or holon is part of a set of similar ones, and this set is itself a relationship or holon. However, because it comprises components that occupy several separate regions of space-time, the set may not be observable in its entirety. This is reflected in natural language. For example, “conflict” comprises several instances of conflict, each of which is “a conflict”. We can perceive several instances of conflict but not “conflict” in its entirety, and so, we may label it an abstract concept. Nevertheless, it is real and physical.

Despite being collected together into a set on the basis of common features, the individual holons or relationships may also have features that are unique to themselves. This presents a communication problem. Each observer, a diplomat and a family counselor, say, will observe a different subset of conflicts, and so, will form a different understanding of the concept. So, when one is discussing the topic with the other misunderstandings are almost inevitable. Worse yet, different observers can give different names to the same thing in different contexts. This can make communication between the two difficult, if not impossible. It can also obscure the fact that they are discussing the same concept.

Causality

Holons or systems have outputs that act as inputs for other holons or systems. This is the same as causality and is reflected in our use of natural language. For example, “conflict” may cause “poverty”, and “a conflict” may cause “an instance of poverty”. It is what is exchanged between the two holons or systems that provides the causal link. Their processes and outputs are causes; their inputs and processes are effects. This transfer is evidenced by the fact that causality cannot propagate at greater than the speed of light. As Hume observed, a cause must be spatially contiguous to its effect and must precede it.

The normal laws of causality apply to these relationships. That is, a cause may be necessary or sufficient for an effect. Also, several necessary causes may only together be sufficient.

One thing that is often overlooked in causality is the existence of inhibitors. That is, those things that prevent an effect. Again, inhibitors can be necessary or sufficient to prevent an effect. Also,  several necessary inhibitors can only together be sufficient to prevent it. This is of importance when it comes to the discussion of living entities, holons, or systems.

Function & Purpose

The function of a holon or system can be regarded as its outputs. However, because these outputs are inputs for other holons or systems, i.e., effects, these effects can also be regarded as the holon or system’s function. The purpose of a non-living entity is the same as its function. However, a living entity with agency can regard its purpose as being what it would like its function to be.

Needs, Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

We use different language when referring to living entities, systems or holons. The needs of a living entity are the equivalent of its function. If those needs are not satisfied the entity fails to function. For example, if we lack oxygen we die. The same is true of some of our artifacts. If a factory lacks electricity it ceases to operate. The inputs to living entities and some of our artifacts are satisfiers or contra-satisfiers. A satisfier is something that increases or sustains the level of satisfaction of a living holon or system’s needs or that of an artifact. It is also a necessary cause of the system’s function. A contra-satisfier is something that reduces the level of satisfaction of a system’s needs. In other words, it is an inhibitor.

Isomorphisms

Isomorphic entities are instances of the same set of holons or relationships. That is, entities that have the same arrangement of components and the same causal relationships between them. They can be difficult to recognise because different people observe different subsets of the set, and so, form different understandings of it, and use different words to describe it. To refer to an earlier analogy, isomorphic entities are different minor branches of the same tree. They can only be identified by discovering the same branch from which they sprout.

It is not necessary to use mathematics to identify isomorphisms. Rather a comparison of their function, outputs, and the causal relationships between their components can achieve the same result. It can be challenging, however, to identify what is passed from one holon to another in a causal relationship.

To cite the example of conflict causing poverty, this is in fact an indirect causal relationship brought about by the agents of conflict competing with the impoverished for limited resources. The resulting shortages then act as a contra-satisfier for the latter.

To some extent the difficulties in identifying isomorphisms can be overcome by poly-perspectivism, i.e., understanding the language and opinions of others and seeking a common explanation for those apparently divergent views.

Categories
35. Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Introduction

The principles of evolution apply more extensively than many of us may be aware. They operate at chemical level and at the level of society, possibly even at ecosystem level as will be explained in the following sections.

Catalysis and autocatalysis

The term catalysis was proposed in 1835 by the Swedish chemist, Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779-1848). A catalyst or, as it is known in biochemistry, an enzyme is a chemical that increases the rate of a reaction between two or more raw materials without undergoing any change itself. Colliding particles from raw materials must have a minimum amount of energy to form reaction products. A catalyst provides an alternative way for the reaction to take place which uses less energy, and so, increases the probability of a reaction. Catalysts often react initially with the raw materials to form intermediate chemicals. These then react with one another to yield the reaction products, as well as regenerating the catalyst. The first known scientific use of a catalyst was in 1552 when Valerius Cordus used sulphuric acid to convert alcohol to ether (Cordus, 1575). An interesting history of catalysis can be found at (Wisniak, 2010).

A chemical reaction is autocatalytic if one of the reaction products is also a catalyst for the same reaction. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the catalyst reproduces itself. For example, the decomposition of arsine, AsH3, is catalysed by arsenic which is also a product of the reaction.

A set of chemical reactions are “collectively autocatalytic” if they produce sufficient catalysts for the same set of reactions to be self-sustaining. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the set of chemicals reproduces itself. The origin of the concept of autocatalytic sets is thought to have been the Austrian physicist, Erwin Shrödinger (1887- 1961), in his 1944 book, “What is Life” (Shrödinger, 1944). The concept was developed from this source by several researchers.

Evolution at the chemical level

In 1971, the American medical doctor, Stuart Kauffman (1939 – ) contributed the idea that autocatalytic sets formed the basis of the origin of life (Kauffman, 1971). A history of Kauffman’s work can be found at (Hordijk, 2019). Reproduction is one of the two criteria necessary for evolution to occur. The other is random mutation and natural selection. In this context, random mutation can be regarded as changes in the collectively autocatalytic set of chemicals. Some of these changes will result in autocatalysis failing. Others will allow it to continue but result in different products. Such changes would be inevitable and frequent in a disorderly chemical environment.

Autopoiesis

The term autopoiesis was first coined by the Chilean biologists, Humberto Maturana (1928 – 2021) and Francisco Varela (1946 – 2001), to describe the self-maintaining properties of living cells (Maturana & Varela, 1972). The main factor affecting the continued existence and procreation of a set of autocatalytic chemicals is the intervention of others that do not act as raw materials. Rather, they disperse the collectively autocatalytic set, thereby preventing it from functioning. Furthermore, excess energy or reactions with other chemicals can disrupt the set. Natural selection dictates that a set that maintains its integrity is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. For example, a set that produces a shell that protects it from the environment, whilst allowing the passage of raw materials, is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. Please hold onto the idea that it is the maintenance of integrity that is of importance here, and that a shell is merely one way of doing that. I will come back to this point later. To continue, it is likely that living cells were first established in this way and that evolution continued until it produced the highly complex ones that we know today.

Holons and holism

The term holon was coined by the Hungarian author and journalist, Arthur Koestler (1905-1983), in his 1967 book, “The Ghost in the Machine”. (Koestler, A., 1967). It describes any entity that is a whole in itself  and also a part of a larger whole. In other words, holons form a nested hierarchy. The term holism was coined by the South African statesman, Jan Smuts (1870 – 1950), in his 1926 book, “Holism and Evolution” (Smuts J., 1926). A holistic entity has features that its parts do not. In other words, it has emergent properties.

A holon is a system with inputs, processes, and outputs. Its outputs can be described as its function. Furthermore, these outputs can serve as inputs to other holons. In the causal perspective of reality, a cause transfers space, energy, matter, or information to its effect. So, the processes and outputs of one holon can be regarded as a cause, and the inputs and processes of another holon as an effect.

In human society, the outputs of a holon can be regarded as satisfiers or contra-satisfiers, i.e., external things that respectively increase or decrease the level of satisfaction of our needs. Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be regarded as opportunities and threats. Finally, opportunities and threats affect our ability to survive and procreate. So, people have evolved to recognise holons and to acquire or avoid their outputs.

It is thought that all holons comprise several component ones that have emerged at lower levels of complexity. It is possible, however, that there is a minimum holon at subatomic level. A certain number of components, arranged in a particular way and with particular relationships between them, are required to create a holon that has an output that is distinct from those of its components, i.e., an emergent output. It is these emergent outputs, one of which is physical appearance, that lead us to distinguish between holons, name them, and use them in causal relationships. Thus, all holons have emergent outputs, emergent functions, and are therefore holistic. That is, they not only form a nested hierarchy, but they also have their own novel or emergent outputs distinct from those of their components.

It is also thought that all holons are components of larger ones that emerge at a higher level of complexity. This seems likely but is not proven. Nevertheless, although the universe may be infinite, what people are able to perceive of it is not. So, in any circumstance that we observe, not all combinations of component holons appear to form a larger one.

In any finite circumstance, component holons can be arranged and interact with one another, even if they are insufficient in number to form a process with emergent outputs that we can perceive. I will call these orphan holons. There are very many ways in which orphan holons can interact with one another, and the number of ways increases with the number of orphans. However, human cognitive abilities are limited. We can perceive, analyse, and to a limited extent predict the interaction of a few orphans, but, as their number increases, we cannot, and the situation appears to be chaotic. At best, we can only identify recurring causal patterns, and so, have developed techniques to assist us in this.

The concepts of purpose and of an artifact

Before moving on, I would like to briefly mention the concept of “purpose”. Purpose has two meanings depending on the context. When external agents refer to the purpose of a system, then they are referring to its function, i.e., to the outputs that it produces. When a system refers to its own purpose, then it is referring to what it would like its outputs to be. These outputs can be regarded as causes, and so, the system is also referring to the effects that it wishes to cause. Clearly, in the latter context, purpose applies only to systems with agency.

I would also like to mention artifacts. Holons can be classified as artifacts, living holons, or non-living holons. They are classified by the way that they are assembled. Artifacts are non-living aids to the function of a living holon. They are assembled from a design by that holon or another. For example, we create bone to support ourselves against gravity. Physical shells or containers can also be artifacts composed of non-living material such as calcium carbonate or dead skin cells. We can, of course, create more complex artifacts such as machines or computers to assist us in production or communication. All these artifacts, when needed by a living holon to perform its function, can be regarded as a component of the living holon.

Living holons are also produced from a design but are self-assembling. Finally, non-living holons do not appear to be assembled from a design, but rather, by random events according to the laws of physics.

Lesser living holons co-operate to form greater ones

Living cells cooperate within the human body because this better enables them to survive and propagate their genome. They have evolved to behave in this way. They do not all propagate their immediate genome, of course. Only those cells involved in reproduction do so. Nevertheless, the genome that is propagated is a copy of that of the cells not involved in reproduction. It is notable that evolution is a continuing process within our bodies. For example, random mutation produces cancer cells that no longer cooperate with their peers. Furthermore, cancer cells can themselves evolve under attack from the body’s immune system to yield more resistant ones. In this context, our cells are component holons and our entire body the larger holon of which they are a part.

Our various organs are formed of relationships between cells but are not able to survive and reproduce in isolation. They are an example of specialization within a holon. The overall function of a holon can be broken down into several specialised functions. For example, circulatory systems to deliver raw chemicals to other components. Nervous systems to exercise control over other components and so on. As holons become more complex functional differentiation occurs, i.e., there are ever more sub-functions.

In a similar way organisms cooperate to form what might, generically, be called “organisations”. In the human context, examples are clubs, businesses, and nations. In the animal world, examples are packs, and herds. Again, this cooperation occurs because it better enables the organisms to survive and procreate. It is worth noting that in some of these animal cooperatives only a few individuals reproduce. For example, in ant and other insect colonies only the queen does so. Again, however, it is copies of the sterile workers’ genome that is reproduced.

So, life forms a nested hierarchy of living holons. Typically, these are cells, organisms, collectives, species, and ecosystems. These holons are autopoietic. Cells protect themselves with a membrane and individual organisms with a shell or skin. Organisations, communities, packs, and herds use less tangible measures such as patterns of behaviour, to protect themselves, however.

Multi-level selection theory

We normally understand evolution as applying to organisms because this is where it was first identified by the English biologist, Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), in his famous book of 1859, “On the origin of species…” (Darwin, C., 1859). However, in practice, anything that is self-reproducing is subject to evolution.

The design of an entity is the information that, when it interacts with the environment, creates the physical manifestation of the entity. In the case of a cell or organism, this design is the genome. In the case of society, it is culture or the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that we hold in common in our minds. It is this design that is subject to random mutation. On the other hand, it is the physical manifestation of the entity that is subject to natural selection. That is the cell, the organism, the collective or the colony. Each living entity is a holon and autopoietic. It uses a protective shell or protective behaviour not only around itself, but also around the component holons that form it. Thus, those component holons are reliant on a nested hierarchy of protections for their survival and propagation. This is the basis of multi-level selection theory and implies that each holon has an interest in the survival and propagation of the greater holons of which it is a part. So, human beings for example, will have an interest in the survival and propagation not only of themselves but also of their family, any organisation of which they are a part, their nation, their species, and their ecosystem, albeit an interest that diminishes with distance.

Human social systems

The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927 – 1998) was prominent in the development of social systems theory. However, his views on autopoiesis in human society are highly controversial. This is because social systems are like abstract entities whilst cells and organisms are concrete ones. The former differ from the latter in that their components are distributed in space and time, and so, cannot be protected by a single shell that encloses a region of space-time. For example, an individual is part of an organisation for as long as he is attending to that organisation’s function, even if working from home.

Nevertheless, organisations are not dissimilar to organisms in that they comprise several distinct components. The only difference is that, in an organism, many cells are in physical contact with one another. Others, more remote from one another, communicate via the nervous system, via chemical signals in the bloodstream, or via another other such channel. The components of an organisation are less in physical contact with one another, although we do gather together in offices and other workplaces. Rather, communication between remote components predominates. Autopoiesis is still necessary to maintain the integrity of an organisation but a physical shell is not possible. Rather, we use a range of protective behaviours that Luhmann referred to as operational closure.

Luhmann’s theory has been described as a theory of communication, and it has been said that an organisation comprises solely information. However, this is not correct. Information is physical in nature and held in the minds of people, books and other documents, computer memory chips, and so on. Thus, information cannot form part of an organisation unless the medium that holds it does too. So, an organisation comprises: the organisms that form it for so long as they are engaged in its function; the information they hold; communications between them; and any non-living artifacts necessary for the organisation to function.

Protection from the environment is still necessary. However, it is the member organisms, their ancillaries and their communications that are protected. In part this may be by a physical shell such as an office building. However, in the main, it is by less tangible but nonetheless physical protective processes, such as the encryption or provision of safe channels for information.

Conclusions

  1. Holons are holistic and are defined by their function or outputs.
  2. A minimum level of complexity is necessary for a greater holon to emerge from an arrangement of lesser ones.
  3. Holons can be classified as non-living, living, or artifacts. In each class members are assembled differently.
  4. Co-operation to acquire common satisfiers and avoid common contra-satisfiers creates a nested hierarchy of living holons.
  5. Holons comprise a number of component holons that are arranged and interact in a way that produces outputs that their components cannot, i.e., emergent outputs.
  6. People can only perceive a finite part of the universe, and so, not all holons appear to be part of a larger one. In any observed situation, there may therefore be orphan holons with causal relationships between them. As the number of orphans increases the interaction between them becomes increasingly complex and difficult for us to understand.
  7. Evolution is a fundamental principle of all self-replicating systems from autocatalysis upwards. It comprises random mutation in the design information for a living holon together with multilevel selection in the nested hierarchy on which the holon depends.
  8. Autopoiesis can be explained by the principles of evolution. However, rather than always being a shell that encloses a region of space-time, it comprises whatever maintains the integrity of the living holon and protects it from contra-satisfiers in the environment.
  9. Social systems such as organisations are living holons. They are self-replicating in the sense that their cultures can be observed and copied. They are also subject to evolution, in that successful cultures propagate whilst unsuccessful ones expire. They exhibit emergent properties in the form of their outputs which can only be produced once there is a sufficient level of complexity among their components. Finally, they are autopoietic in the sense that they have measures to protect their integrity from the environment whilst allowing their necessary inputs to pass.

References

Berzelius, J.J., 1835. “Sur un Force Jusqu’ici Peu Remarquée qui est Probablement Active Dans la Formation des Composés Organiques”. Section on Vegetable Chemistry, Jahres-Bericht, 14 (1835).

Cordus, V., 1575. “Le Guidon des Apotiquaires: C’est à dire, la Vraye Forme et Maniere de Composer les Médicamens”. L. Cloquemin, E. Michel, Lyons, 1575.

Darwin, C., 1859. “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. London, John Murray, 1859.

Hordijk, W. 2019. “A History of Autocatalytic Sets”. Biol Theory 14, 224–246 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00330-w

Kauffman, S.A., 1971. “Cellular homeostasis, epigenesis and replication in randomly aggregated macromolecular systems.” J Cybern 1(1):71–96.

Koestler, A., 1967. “The Ghost in the Machine”. London, Hutchinson (Penguin Group). ISBN 0-14-019192-5.

Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J., 1972. “Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living.” Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science (1 ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel. p. 141. OCLC 989554341.

Smuts, J.C., 1926. “Holism and Evolution”. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Wisniak, J., 2010. “The History of Catalysis. From the Beginning to Nobel Prizes”. Educación Química, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 60-69. ISSN 0187-893X, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(18)30074-0. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0187893X18300740)

Categories
13. Perspectivism and Poly-perspectivism

Perspectivism and Poly-perspectivism

No-one has the mental capacity to fully understand the world. Each of us is only capable of a partial understanding. This concept is known as perspectivism. It is possible, however, to expand and improve our worldview through interaction with those of others. This is known as poly-perspectivism. To give an analogy, when we look at a statue, we see only one side or perspective. Two people at diametrically opposite positions see entirely different perspectives. However, each is a part of the truth. Walking around the statue enables us to see all perspectives and, thus, the whole truth. Individually, we lack the mental capacity to do this for the whole of reality, of course, but it can be done for relatively limited topics.

Poly-perspectivism means understanding other perspectives. It does not mean abandoning our own, but rather building on it and correcting it where necessary. Unfortunately, each worldview is partially true and partially false. The proportion varies from individual to individual, and from worldview to worldview. Thus, other perspectives will almost certainly include beliefs which are objectively false. Furthermore, beliefs can deliberately be falsified in the interest of their proponents. This means that the techniques for identifying truth, described in my previous article, must be used when considering other perspectives.

Advice on how to engage with other perspectives is given in Paul Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement here and, diagrammatically, here. As a rule, the lower a person’s behaviour is on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, the more defensive they are of their worldview.

One major advantage of poly-perspectivism is associated with “holism”. This term was coined by the South African statesman, Jan Smuts, in 1926, and means that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Holism is another way of describing emergent properties, i.e., properties which are not held by the individual parts of a system, but only by the system acting together as a whole. Our personal perspective may enable us to see part of what emerges from the whole, but it is unlikely that we will see all of it, or understand how and why it emerges. However, the more we adopt truths from other perspectives, the more we can:

  1. see the relevant topic as a whole;
  2. see errors in our own perspective of it;
  3. see fully what emerges from it; and
  4. understand how and why those things emerge.