No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Dynamics of Life model
Abstract
This paper attempts to formulate a generic model of living and social system at all levels with three parts. The first is the Dynamics of Life diagram, which follows flows of energy, matter and information through the system. A rule set controls how the parts co‐operate to maintain internal and external processes. As a system acts, it creates the space for a shadow system that opposes it. Unmanaged entropy is expelled or remains as a toxic element.
The second is the Tree of Life that outlines the levels of functioning in a human being from biological to psychological to social. Each level manifests the flows as in the Dynamics of Life diagram.
The third explores the processes of living and social systems through time and borrows heavily from Holling and Gunderson's Adaptive Cycle. The three parts present an integrated overview of the functioning of living and social systems.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Modern industrial agriculture is largely responsible for environmental problems, such as biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and alteration of biogeochemical cycles or greenhouse gas emission. Agroecology, as a scientific discipline as well as an agricultural practice and movement, emerged as a response to these problems, with the goal to create a more sustainable agriculture. Another response was the emergence of permaculture, a design system based on design principles, as well as a framework for the methods of ecosystem mimicry and complex system optimization. Its emphasis, being on a conscious design of agroecosystems, is the major difference to other alternative agricultural approaches. Agroecology has been a scientific discipline for a few decades already, but only recently have design principles for the reorganization of faming systems been formulated, whereas permaculture practitioners have long been using design principles without them ever being scrutinized. Here, we review the scientific literature to evaluate the scientific basis for the design principles proposed by permaculture co-originator, David Holmgren. Scientific evidence for all twelve principles will be presented. Even though permaculture principles describing the structure of favorable agroecosystems were quite similar to the agroecological approach, permaculture in addition provides principles to guide the design, implementation, and maintenance of resilient agroecological systems.
This paper commences with a theoretical underpinning of the nature of violence from a social cybernetic perspective, exploring the interactions between parts and wholes where boundaries are transgressed or vital flows are disrupted. A case study of Rangi, a perpetrator of family violence, who is a hypothetical composite of people the author has worked with over the years, demonstrates how cybernetic principles can be used to understand the nature of human violence on an individual level and inform ways of working with clients aiming to reduce the frequency and severity of violence in their lives and the people around them. The focus then shifts to structural violence imposed on the parts of the system by the whole. First, this is examined at a societal level, then returning to the case study of Rangi, there is an exploration of structural violence within the criminal justice system revealing paradoxes to be confronted in working with violent clients.
Following the demise of the so-called grand theories offered by luminaries like Sigmund Freud, B. F. Skinner, and Carl Rogers, the field of psychology largely gave up its early aspirations to paint a broad picture of the human condition, and now the discipline focuses primarily on empirical problems that have a relatively narrow scope. The consequence has been a proliferation of interesting findings with no real capacity to answer big questions or to generate a shared general understanding of the human condition. This book seeks to change the status quo and offers up a new unified theory of psychology that redefines the science and the profession and paints a new picture of human nature in the process.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Praise for
A New Unified Theory of Psychology
“The field of psychology is known for its paradoxical combination of sweeping scope and impressive micro-theories, on the one hand, and fragmentation and internecine squabbling, on the other. To this state of affairs, any serious effort to provide integration and unity within psychological knowledge and understanding is heartily welcomed. And Henriques' effort in this regard is not only serious, but one of the most cogent, scholarly, sophisticated, beautifully reasoned, clearly articulated, and accessibly written presentations of a unified theory in psychology that I have seen in my 50 years in the discipline.”
Daniel B. Fishman, Author of The Case for Pragmatic Psychology,
Professor, Rutgers University
“As the field of psychology has grown, so have the challenges of fragmentation and of misunderstandings. This brave book represents a noble quest to provide a broad, values-based, and scientific framework which holds the power to organize our work and move us forward in strong, new ways.”
Lawrence G. Calhoun, Author of Facilitating Post-Traumatic Growth,
Professor, University of North Carolina-Charlotte
“In this very ambitious book, Henriques makes a strong case for why bold efforts are needed in the fragmented realm of psychological research and theory. Although different readers will likely make different judgments about how well Henriques has succeeded in his aims, it nevertheless is an act of intellectual daring that can perhaps inspire psychologists to look outside the narrow confines of a single laboratory paradigm and open their thinking to how to address the full range of human behavior and experience.”
Paul L. Wachtel, Author of Therapeutic Communication,
Distinguished Professor, CUNY
“Concise, erudite, and practical, this book is a manifesto that challenges psychology to move past fragmented domains of knowledge to a consilient framework, which will allow multi-disciplinary discourse and scientific advances. I suggest all scientists, psychotherapists, and scholars spend some time familiarizing themselves with the concepts and suggestions presented in this seminal volume by a leading scholar.”
Jeffrey Magnavita, Author of Personality Guided Relational Psychotherapy,
Founder of the Unified Psychotherapy Project
The biopsychosocial model outlined in Engel’s classic Science paper four decades ago emerged from dissatisfaction with the biomedical model of illness, which remains the dominant healthcare model. Engel’s call to arms for a biopsychosocial model has been taken up in several healthcare fields, but it has not been accepted in the more economically dominant and politically powerful acute medical and surgical domains. It is widely used in research into complex healthcare interventions, it is the basis of the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Functioning (WHO ICF), it is used clinically, and it is used to structure clinical guidelines. Critically, it is now generally accepted that illness and health are the result of an interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Despite the evidence supporting its validity and utility, the biopsychosocial model has had little influence on the larger scale organization and funding of healthcare provision. With chronic diseases now accounting for most morbidity and many deaths in Western countries, healthcare systems designed around acute biomedical care models are struggling to improve patient-reported outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Consequently, there is now a greater need to apply the biopsychological model to healthcare management. The increasing proportion of healthcare resource devoted to chronic disorders and the accompanying need to improve patient outcomes requires action; better understanding and employment of the biopsychosocial model by those charged with healthcare funding could help improve healthcare outcome while also controlling costs.
The metaphor of resonance often describes the fit between a message and an audience’s worldviews. Yet scholars have largely ignored the cognitive processes audiences use to interpret messages and interactions that determine why certain messages and other cultural objects appeal to some but not others. Drawing on pragmatism, we argue that resonance occurs as cultural objects help people puzzle through practical challenges they face or construct. We discuss how cognitive distance and the process of emotional reasoning shape the likelihood of cultural resonance. We argue resonance is an emergent process structured by interactions between individuals that shape each other’s interpretation of cultural objects, diffuse objects through interactional circuits, and create opportunities for resonance among people facing similarly shaped problems. Our approach thus identifies new processes at micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis that shape resonance and describes the pathways that might allow resonance to crystallize into broader mobilization and social change.
"Maximum Power" is a synthesis of the creative genius of Howard Thomas Odum as seen through his own words and those of his students, many of whom are now applying his ideas to the world in diverse ways. Offering the holistic, system-oriented thinking of Odum, this in-depth volume examines the interrelationship of humans and n"ature by integrating environment, energy, and economics. "Maximum Power traces the development of Odum's ideas with the objective of providing the conceptual and research history that has led to Odum's far-reaching ideas about making social decisions. The volume is organised along the chronological path that Odum himself followed, from ecology to ecological engineering to ecological economics to his controversial synthesis called 'emergy analysis'.
Although the theory of autopoietic systems was originally formulated to explain the phenomenon of life from an operational and temporal perspective, sociologist Niklas Luhmann incorporated it later within his theory of social systems. Due to this adoption, there have been several discussions regarding the applicability of this concept beyond its biological origins. This article addresses the conception of Luhmann’s autopoietic social systems, and confronts this vision with criticism both of the original authors of the concept of autopoiesis and of other social theorists in order to elucidate the main problems of this debate and its possible solutions. We claim that it is justified to extend the concept of autopoiesis from its biological origin to other disciplines, and to develop its interdisciplinary character, following the spirit of systems theory and constructivism.
This paper outlines one of several sense making models developed by the author based on fieldwork across a range of organizations. These models are designed to pass the ‘paper napkin ’ test: they can be drawn from memory on the back of a paper napkin and used to make sense of a situation in normal conversation. All such models are designed to force communities of practitioners to recognize the need to introduce requisite levels of variety into their thinking, and avoid single models of practice and strategy. The Cynefin model focuses on the location of knowledge in an organization using cultural and sense making aspects of four different forms of community, both formal and informal. Three of these communities are a part of the day-to-day life of any large organization, the forth is domain of innovation and strategies for forcing innovation are discussed. Allowing self-organization of knowledge within an organization, utilizing but not being used by the informal or shadow organization is seen as key to effective knowledge management. The paper distinguished between mechanical, Newtonian models of management science and the emerging organic approach, which draws on concepts from complexity theory. This paper is a much-abbreviated version of a chapter in the forthcoming book Knowledge Horizons: The present and promise of Knowledge Management edited by Charles Despres & Daniele Chauvel due for publication in September 2000.
Este artigo discute a compreensão que Niklas Luhmann tem de complexidade, sua função na teoria e os diferentes modos de sua utilização. Parte-se da mudança paradigmática que ocorreu no campo da Ciência em geral, com a ruptura do modelo newtoniano. No século XX, o paradigma da ordem, da simetria, da regularidade, da regulação do intelecto às coisas, entra em crise. A partir de novas formulações da Física, da Química, etc. ergue-se um novo universo sobre bases radicalmente opostas às da Ciência moderna. Há a reabilitação do caos, da irreversibilidade processual, do indeterminismo, do observador e da complexidade. Este novo ambiente conceitual serviu de substrato para a reflexão teórica de Niklas Luhmann. Através da Teoria dos Sistemas Sociais, ele propõe a redução da complexidade do mundo. Sistemas sociais têm como função a redução da complexidade pela sua diferença com relação ao entorno. Ao reduzir complexidade, por outro lado, ele também constrói sua própria complexidade. Luhmann define complexidade quando já não é possível que cada elemento se relacione em qualquer momento com todos os demais. Complexidade obriga a seleção, que significa contingência e risco. Luhmann aprofunda o conceito de complexidade ao introduzir a figura do observador e da distinção complexidade como unidade de uma multiplicidade. Luhmann trata ainda do limite de conexões de relações, do fator tempo, da auto-referência das operações e da representação da complexidade na forma de sentido. Por fim, o artigo trata da complexidade no sistema da ciência, o modo como este reduz complexidade interna e externa, segundo uma base operativa própria.
Este artigo discute a compreensão que Niklas Luhmann tem de complexidade, sua função na teoria e os diferentes modos de sua utilização. Parte-se da mudança paradigmática que ocorreu no campo da Ciência em geral, com a ruptura do modelo newtoniano. No século XX, o paradigma da ordem, da simetria, da regularidade, da regulação do intelecto às coisas, entra em crise. A partir de novas formulações da Física, da Química, etc. ergue-se um novo universo sobre bases radicalmente opostas às da Ciência moderna. Há a reabilitação do caos, da irreversibilidade processual, do indeterminismo, do observador e da complexidade. Este novo ambiente conceitual serviu de substrato para a reflexão teórica de Niklas Luhmann. Através da Teoria dos Sistemas Sociais, ele propõe a redução da complexidade do mundo. Sistemas sociais têm como função a redução da complexidade pela sua diferença com relação ao entorno. Ao reduzir complexidade, por outro lado, ele também constrói sua própria complexidade. Luhmann define complexidade quando já não é possível que cada elemento se relacione em qualquer momento com todos os demais. Complexidade obriga a seleção, que significa contingência e risco. Luhmann aprofunda o conceito de complexidade ao introduzir a figura do observador e da distinção complexidade como unidade de uma multiplicidade. Luhmann trata ainda do limite de conexões de relações, do fator tempo, da auto-referência das operações e da representação da complexidade na forma de sentido. Por fim, o artigo trata da complexidade no sistema da ciência, o modo como este reduz complexidade interna e externa, segundo uma base operativa própria.
This chapter introduces a number of concepts from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory as they relate to innovation, transition
and transition management. An understanding of Luhmann’s ideas on innovation and steering is essential to grasp a Luhmannian
view of system innovation and transition management. Two levels of analysis are developed. The first level centres on the political system, pushing innovation and trying to manage
transition, while the second level focuses on organisations and their attempts to innovate. Luhmann is eminently useful in
relating the two levels and thus in laying the groundwork for a theory of innovation and transition. An analysis of the development
of Dutch discourse on systems innovation, social engineering and transition management since the 1990s serves to illustrate
and apply the social systems perspective. Finally, the chapter argues that modernist notions of steering pervading the governance
system overestimate the role of governmental actors and underestimate other sources of innovation and systemic innovation
that could be labeled ‘transition’.
Systems Thinkers presents a biographical history of the field of systems thinking, by examining the life and work of thirty of its major thinkers. It discusses each thinker’s key contributions, the way this contribution was expressed in practice and the relationship between their life and ideas. This discussion is supported by an extract from the thinker’s own writing, to give a flavour of their work and to give readers a sense of which thinkers are most relevant to their own interests. Systems thinking is necessarily interdisciplinary, so that the thinkers selected come from a wide range of areas – biology, management, physiology, anthropology, chemistry, public policy, sociology and environmental studies among others. Some are core innovators in systems ideas; some have been primarily practitioners who also advanced and popularised systems ideas; others are well-known figures who drew heavily upon systems thinking although it was not their primary discipline. A significant aim of the book is to broaden and deepen the reader’s interest in systems writers, providing an appetising ‘taster’ for each of the 30 thinkers, so that the reader is encouraged to go on to study the published works of the thinkers themselves.
In this paper, we propose a research agenda to support the recovery of Alexander Bogdanov's philosophical and systemic thinking that culminated in his magnum opus, Tektology. Our main reason for doing so is to re-address enduring questions about the unity of science and the unity of the systems paradigm. Since the turn of the new millennium, there has been renewed interest in the ideal of the unity of science. General system theory (GST), cybernetics and complexity science are three significant intellectual sources inspiring this renewal. It is not unusual for these ideas to be grouped under the umbrella terms systems science or systems thinking, which are two ways to present a single systems paradigm, and we will explain why its “unity” is both necessary and problematic. Bringing Bogdanov's work back to address the unity question can help us to progress toward unity in diversity.
Erwin Schrödinger's book What is Life? had a tremendous influence on the development of molecular biology, stimulating scientists such as Watson and Crick to explore the physical basis of life. Much of the appeal of Schrödinger's book lay in its approach to the central problems in biology - heredity and how organisms use energy to maintain order - from a physicist's perspective. At Trinity College, Dublin a number of outstanding scientists from a range of disciplines gathered to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of What is Life? and following Schrödinger's example fifty years previously, presented their views on the current central problems in biology. The contributors to this volume include Stephen Jay Gould, Roger Penrose, Jared Diamond, Manfred Eigen, John Maynard Smith, Christien de Duve and Lewis Wolpert. This collection is essential reading for anyone interested in biology and its future.
The workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB)hassince1995providedaforumforacademicandindustrialresearchers and practitioners to discuss the application of natural language to both the development and use of software applications. Theuseofnaturallanguageinrelationtosoftwarehascontributedtoimpr- ing the development of software from the viewpoints of both the developers and the users. Developers bene?t from improvements in conceptual modeling, so- ware validation, natural language program speci?cations, and many other areas. Users bene?t from increased usability of applications through natural language query interfaces, semantic webs, text summarizations, etc. The integration of natural language and information systems has been a - search objective for a long time now. Today, the goal of good integration seems not so far-fetched. This is due mainly to the rapid progress of research in natural language and to the development of new and powerful technologies. The in- gration of natural language and information systems has become a convergent point towards which many researchers from several research areas are focussing.
This Chapter presents a sample of human and social sciences – notably psychology, anthropology, sociology and economics. It is the longest chapter of the book, because the contributions of human and social sciences to anticipation are so extensive that it was simply not possible to cover them properly in fewer pages. The following five aspects emerge from the overview as likely components of the incipient theory of anticipation: (1) The difference between calculable risks and incalculable uncertainty; (2) the difference between the distant future and the future in the present; (3) the difference between continuous future and the discontinuous or ruptured future; (4) the difference between systems able to use the future as opposed to systems unable to do so; (5) the variety of anticipations, arranged along different dimensions (biological, psychological, and social; explicit vs. implicit, etc.).
Systems thinking can help us solve everyday and wicked problems, increase our personal effectiveness as human beings, and transform our organizations. This book is for anyone interested in learning the foundational ideas of systems thinking. SIMPLE RULES OF SYSTEMS THINKING Systems Thinking Made Simple doesn't mean that we're going to oversimplify it like a ... for Dummies book. It means that we will show how systems thinking emerges when we focus on a simple set of rules. After years of searching for unifying principles, many experts and practitioners in the field of systems thinking have embraced DSRP as universal to all systems thinking methods. Originally a complex mathematical formulation, DSRP has since been made more accessible through powerful modeling and visualization tools. There are two surprising things about our new understanding of systems thinking. First is how simple the four rules are: DISTINCTIONS RULE: Any idea or thing can be distinguished from the other ideas or things it is with SYSTEMS RULE: Any idea or thing can be split into parts or lumped into a whole RELATIONSHIP RULE: Any idea or thing can relate to other things or ideas PERSPECTIVES RULE: Any thing or idea can be the point or the view of a perspective
Mathematical biologist Robert Rosen proposed a revolutionary new way of understanding life in terms of causal ‘entailments’ and modelling ‘relations’, two main theory tracks in his work. His work, however profound in quality and elegant in explanation, remained incomplete during his lifetime and in need of synthesis. Such a synthesis was completed in 2011. The two main lines of reasoning were combined to define a new analytical methodology that is fully relational. This paper discusses the main implications of that synthesis, using the name ‘R-theory’ to distinguish it from Rosen's original work. R-theory describes a fully closed causal unit of nature, called the ‘holon’, which is a Rosen modelling relation between category theoretic mappings (thus integrating both concepts). R-theory provides a new method of analysis that can relate whole and fractioned (mechanistic) aspects of nature. As such, it offers an approach for understanding complex phenomena at the edge of classical domains, which includes quantum, relativistic, living, social and cognitive phenomena. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Purpose
This paper seeks to address the need for a comprehensive theoretical reference underlying the concerns of social complexity. The shortcomings of a very powerful yet cognitively biased theoretical model like Luhmann's theory of social systems especially call for the integration of the whole person into conceptualising social complexity. The paper aims to question what the conditions are for the possibility to successfully conceptualise social complexity.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on field research to explore the practical challenges of dealing with social complexity, the paper comprises discourse analysis and literature review. Luhmann's theory of social systems proved to be a fruitful starting point to integrate the latter research in neurosciences in a systemic way.
Findings
The paper finds that embedded mind thinking and holonic evolution of organism, psyche and society emerged out of the research as powerful thought figures. They allow for an improved practical and theoretical navigation on the ocean of social complexity.
Practical implications
The results implications for how we conceptualise social complexity and the ways we approach ourselves, how we govern, teach, heal, coach, learn, train, create, improve and innovate. Increasing our capabilities to meet social complexity will improve management, change, governance and project performance.
Originality/value
Addressing Luhmann's theory of social systems in the broader context of social complexity and neurosciences allowed for a reintegration of the whole person into the field of social complexity based not only on meaning but on feeling as well.
This book brings together different work in the new field of physics called the chaos theory, an extension of classical mechanics, in which simple and complex causes are seen to interact. Mathematics may only be able to solve simple linear equations which experiment has pushed nature into obeying in a limited way, but now that computers can map the whole plane of solutions of non-linear equations a new vision of nature is revealed. The implications are staggeringly universal in all areas of scientific work and philosophical thought.
It took the author 30 years to develop the Viable System Model, which sets out to explain how systems are viable-that is, capable of independent existence. He wanted to elucidate the laws of viability in order to facilitate the management task, and did so in a stream of papers and two (of his seven) books. Much misunderstanding about the V.S.M. and its use seems to exist; especially its methodological foundations have been largely forgotten, while its major results have hardly been noted. This paper reflects on the history, nature and present status of the V.S.M., without seeking once again to expound the model in detail or to demonstrate its validity. It does, however, provide a synopsis, present the methodology and confront some highly contentious issues about both the managerial and scientific paradigms.
Sociologists are usually seen as the principal developers of organisational theory and it is not always realised that some very convincing explanations of how organisations work and suggestions on how they might work better are to be found in the science of control systems — cybernetics. Cybernetics provides us with a general systems theory; that is a theory which can be applied to any kind of system where there are control functions. The best known and most influential cybernetician in Britain is Professor Stafford Beer. He has made many major contributions to writing and thinking on the theory of organisation. Below are some of his ideas on how organisations work and can be made to work more effectively which he originally put forward in a lecture to the United Kingdom Automation Council.
Purpose
This article aims to be an expository introduction to Robert Rosen's anticipatory systems, the theory of which provides the conceptual basis for foresight studies.
Design/methodology/approach
The ubiquity of anticipatory systems in nature is explained.
Findings
Causality is not violated by anticipatory systems, and teleology is an integral aspect of science.
Practical implications
A terse exposition for a general readership, such as the present article, by definition cannot get into too many details. For further exploration the reader is referred to the recent book More than Life Itself by the author.
Originality/value
The topic of anticipatory systems in particular, and methods of relational biology in general, provide important tools for foresight studies. It is the author's hope that this brief glimpse into the world of relational biology piques the interest of some readers to pursue the subject further.
My intent in this essay is to reflect on the history of some biological notions such as autopoiesis, structural coupling, and cognition, that I have developed since the early 1960's as a result of my work on visual perception and the organization of the living. No doubt I shall repeat things that I have said in other publications (Maturana & Varela, 1980, 1988), and I shall present notions that once they are said appear as obvious truisms. Moreover, I shall refine or expand the meaning of such notions, or even modify them. Yet, in any case, the reader is not invited to attend to the truisms, or to what seems to be obvious, rather he or she is invited to attend to the consequences that those notions entail for the understanding of cognition as a biological process. After all, explanations or demonstrations always become self evident once they are understood and accepted, and the purpose of this essay is the expansion of understanding in all dimensions of human existence.
Traces the development of the cognitive approach to psychopathology and psy hotherapy from common-sense observations and folk wisdom, to a more sophisticated understanding of the emotional disorders, and finally to the application of rational techniques to correct the misconceptions and conceptual distortions that form the matrix of the neuroses. The importance of engaging the patient in exploration of his inner world and of obtaining a sharp delineation of specific thoughts and underlying assumptions is emphasized. (91/4 p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Presented here is a family theory of emotional illness and its component system of family psychotherapy, which is one of several different theoretical approaches to the family, and one of many different kinds of “family therapy” that have come on the psychiatric scene in little more than one decade. A brief review of the family movement attempts to put this system into a kind of perspective with the overall family movement. Since this system places maximum emphasis on “family” as a theoretical system, the theory has been presented in some detail. The shorter section of family psychotherapy presents both broad principles and specific details about the usefulness of family concepts in clinical practice.