Talk:Systems theory/Archive 2

Cybernetics and Systems Theory - January 2007
This was one of the first pages that I had written for Wikipedia. I think that maybe it would be appropriate to merge it with this artice, but remain unsure. It works well as a separate article that could be expanded upon for an interdisciplinary project. I believe I will probably merge the article with Systems Theory eventually but want to keep the page for itself in order to pursue future work with it. Any ideas, thoughts, questions, answers, injuries? Don't want to step on toes. --Kenneth M Burke 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cybernetics is generally thought of as a subset of systems theory. That is cybernetics is a special case of systems theory. Historically, the two emerged into science at nearly the same time but somewhat independantly. Cybernetics came from the military while systems theory came from biology. Cybernetics is about certain relationships while systems theory is more generally about all relationships. My thoughts are that while it would be useful to expand the explanation of cybernetics within the systems theory article, it would be confusing if the two (titles) were blended together. I don't think anything is gained by merging them here. A similair situation exists with complex systems.


 * The science of complexity is derived from systems theory, imagine if that were brought in too. Because systems theory is more general, it would be best I think if it were retained as is, while including significant application/applications/examples. Fixaller 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback, it is appreciated. I recognize the importance of the relationship between the two, but remained unsure as to how the subject would be best approached in organizing articles that provide information on the two subjects. I will continue to work with the pages. Your suggestions for directions are helpful. Thanks again. - 06:46, 14 January 2007 Kenneth M Burke


 * I submitted your concerns to our group here is what came back


 * I wrote: "A small discussion has taken place at the discussions page concerning the merging of cybernetics and systems theory. How has this matter been handled historically? Are cybernetics and systems theory the same? Did they emerge independantly? Is cybernetics a subset of systems theory?" - tom (Reply from dc walton ISI 03/03/2007 11:58 PM)


 * Here are some more roughly organized thoughts on it.


 * Historical Roots and Interrelationship
 * My understanding is that cybernetics and systems theory developed more or less independently. Threads began in the late 1800s that led toward the publishing of seminal works (eg., Weiner’s Cyberntics in 1946 and von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory in 1968). Cybernetics arose more from engineering fields and GST from biology. If anything it appears that although the two probably mutually influenced each other, cybernetics had the greater influence.


 * According to Hammond’s Science of Synthesis (2003):
 * ... In association with the general evolution of systems engineering into management and organization theory … the fields of cybernetics and information theory provided essential theoretical foundations for the further development of systems theory, in conjunction with the parallel emergence of computer technologies.


 * And according to Jackson in Systems Approaches to Management (2000), Bertalanffy’s promoting an embryonic form of general system theory (GST) as early as the 1920s and 1930s, although it was not until the early 1950s that his ideas became more widely known in scientific circles. ideas on systems theory began in the early 1920s but were not well known until the 1950s. Jackson claims that Bertalanffy was informed by Bogdanov’s three volume Tektology was published in Russia between 1912 and 1927. He also states it is clear to Gorelik (1975) that the “conceptual part” of general system theory (GST) had first been put in place by Bogdanov.


 * Later, Jackson references Checkland in this regard:
 * ... ideas from control theory and from information and communication engineering have made contributions to systems thinking no less important than those from organismic biology.


 * Jackson gives a several page summary of ideas from Greek philosophy leading to the development of cybernetics. He describes the essence of cybernetic: ... Simplifying considerably (since in fact the cybernetic tools represent an interrelated response to the characteristics of cybernetic systems), extreme complexity can be dealt with using the black box technique, self-regulation can be appropriately managed using negative feedback and probabilism yields to the method of variety engineering (Schoderbek, Schoderbek, and Kefalas, 1985).


 * On Combining Cybernetics and Systems Theory
 * I personally think that combining Cybernetics and Systems Theory is a big mistake. These represent two distinct streams of conversation through the years that although similar in many ways involve different groups of practitioners and different applications. Today, there are different conversations involved around the term cybernetics and systems theory. I’ll post more about this under the scope topic.


 * It is not so much that they are very similar or that they are different, the significant difference is that one is general while the other is very specific. They are like fruit and oranges. While all oranges are fruit, not all fruit is the orange.
 * Fixaller 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the above would be a very valuable contribution to the page. We seem to all be on the same page when it comes to cybernetics and systems theory, now that consensus need only be reflected on the page itself. Your contribution would give the page a direction toward coherence and accuracy. Thank you. --Kenneth M Burke 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which contribution you are referring to? Fixaller 01:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The above from tom about Jackson, Hammond, etc. (suggested talk contribution, rather), thought that was from Fixaller but was mistaken.--Kenneth M Burke 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not very neat am I, it was written by DC Walton who is quoting Hammond and Jackson. What would you like to see put into the article? The fruit and apple thing is my original research. 209.244.42.5 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Silent conversations - February 2007
I just found this somewhere:

''... I questioned the merger of cybernetics and systems theory with systems theory also. Recently, Michaelbusch questioned the relevance and location of line 6 altogether. Where the line existed previous to my addition of a "see also," I think that is why I felt the need to add a "see also" in the first place. Not to mention, line 6 is misleading if not simply an inaccurate statement concerning the relationship between systems theory and cybernetics. If given a merger, I maybe the Cybernetics and Systems Theory page should be left to explore interdisciplinary work - thought, chin scratch, hm. . . question mark. I dunno...''

Could we bring all the discussion to this page? This is the first time I saw the above entry. Cybernetics and Systems Theory are two distinct entities while at the same time they are about the same thing. They were independantly formulated with systems theory being the more general while cybernetics is a practical example/interpretation. We would like to discuss this with you, how do you interpret "systems theory and cybernetics" as a single whole? Fixaller 06:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the page should be merged with the systems theory page. It was of my first contributions to Wikipedia.  I could cite literature that speaks of cybernetics in general terms as "technology," the same as it has been used as analogous to systems theory.  Again, apples and fruit.  I understand the relationship between cybernetics and systems theory as defined by Bertalanffy:


 * ''Systems theory is frequently identified with cybernetics and control theory. This again is incorrect.  Cybernetics as the theory of control mechanisms in technology and nature and founded on the concepts of information and feedback, is but a part of a general theory of systems;” then reiterates:  "the model is of wide application but should not be identified with 'systems theory' in general," and that "warning is necessary against its incautious expansion to fields for which its concepts are not made." (p. 17-23).


 * Really, cybernetics at its origins does involve neuroscience and technology (though, like I mentioned - that is not necessarily how it is used in literature that speaks of cybernetic systems in general technological terms). How holistic do you want to be in terms of the relationship between cybernetics and systems theory?  Where Bertalanffy's work was influenced by changing assumptions of science, that would involve more than what is really necessary for a Wikipedia page I think.  The Cybernetics and Systems Theory page actually leans a little too much toward original research.  Nonetheless, I still do think that it is maybe feasable to start an interdisciplinary page/project from the page.  Does that answer your question?
 * --Kenneth M Burke 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Been thinking about your project especially regarding the interdisiciplinary goal. What do you have in mind? Do you think that further elaboration of those sections already mentioned in the article would work? 209.244.42.5 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As systems theory is an interdisciplinary area of study, I guess such a project would be a challenge. Listed on the page are areas that are commonly associated with systems theory, which certainly fit an interdisciplinary emphasis.  I was thinking to include more of the same while making connections to Wiki pages and projects that might benefit from interdisciplinary study with systems theory.  This is why I noted I should learn more about projects, sister pages, etc.  Not to mention, I think it would ultimately lead to something that leans too much to original research.    --Kenneth M Burke 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How can I help? 209.244.42.3 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm be making it around to take a really good look at the page and make suggestions for dialogue.--Kenneth M Burke 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the Cybernetics and Systems Theory page...Why not simply Cybernetics? And then develop that page? What do you have in mind as a interdisciplinary project? Fixaller 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure, still rather new to Wikipedia and have to learn more about projects, sister pages, etc. I'm fairly knowledgeable about systems theory, but not an expert. My knowledge of cybernetics is much more limited. I'm actually surprised the Cybernetics and Systems theory page hasn't been called for deletion.  It was written with concern for the topic on the Systems Theory page.


 * We are new too to Wikipedia. I was thinking about your project, and the thought occured to me that a good starting place would be a listing of the organizations, international societies, federations world congress having to do with systems stuff would be quite impressive. Here's a note from Robert Vallee:


 * Cher Tom
 * About Wikipedia, it would be good, as you proposed, to put the « various societies and institutes and the like » in the article on systems. For example : World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics, WOSC (www.cybsoc.org/wosc), American Society for Cybernetics, ASC ( www.asc-cybernetics.org.), French Association for Systems Sciences, AFSCET (www.afscet.asso.fr). The American society for Cybernetics proposes two lists of cyberneticians. - Best,Robert


 * Vallee is one of the old timers, president of one of those he listed above, Cybernetician and knows what is going down. -- 209.244.42.3 04:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We too are pondering what and how systems is as a transdisiciplinary science. What is new and what is old and who decides? Fixaller 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Transdisciplinary science - March 2007
For the record, I just got a note from Christine she writes

Hello there, ''There seems to be a basic misnomer or perception in this exchange. By that I mean the difference between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. "Inter" still views the various disciplines as silos of their own with their own language and terms, trying to build bridges between them. "trans", on the other hand goes beyond the silos and forms a new level of understanding across the disciplines. Although this new level may be informed by various disciplines, the goal remains to function across the "systems of the disciplines".This is my understanding of systems and the disciplines and may be helpful in this exchange.'' Christine

Fixaller 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. This is an important point to be grasped, systems thinking is not just thinking about more, as if we include more disciplines, it is a different way of thinking that is used in all the disciplines. I'm holding this copy in my other hand, maybe it fits here ---

From: http://projects.isss.org/Main/Primer

By Bela H. Banathy In contemplating systems work, the identification of the type of system we select is a crucial issue.

''There are two major types: NATURAL SYSTEMS and DESIGNED SYSTEMS. Natural systems range from subatomic systems to living systems of all kinds, our planet, the solar systems, galactic systems and the Universe. The genesis of these systems is the origin of the universe and the result of the forces and events of evolution. The other main types are DESIGNED SYSTEMS. These are our creations and include several major types: (a) fabricated-engineered-physical systems (manmade artifacts): (b) hybrid systems that combine physical construction and nature, e.g., a hydroelectric plant); (c) designed conceptual systems (such as theories, philosophies, mathematics, logic, etc.) and their representations in the forms of books, records, and descriptive of prescriptive models; and (d) human activity systems. For our present purposes, human activity systems and their relevant abstract systems and representations are of special interest.''

''HUMAN ACTIVITY SYSTEMS are our purposeful creations.. They are less tangible than natural and designed physical systems, They are manifested in sets of activities (relationships) carried out by people who select and organize these activities to attain a purpose, These activities often involve various natural and designed physical systems and/or abstractions of the way we think about and reason these activities, such as theories of action. Human activity systems range from families and small groups (organized for a purpose) to organizations communities, nations, regional/international associations, and the global system of humanity.''

A key consideration in making distinctions among various types of systems is the issue of: how much freedom does the system have to select purpose, goals, methods, tools, etc.:, and how widely is the freedom to select distributed (or concentrated) in the system?

''We can speak of various types of human activity systems. We can define and describe these types based on such considerations as: the degree to which they are "closed or open". their mechanistic vs. systemic nature, their unitary or pluralistic position as the their purpose, and their degree of complexity. Based on these considerations we can differentiate such types as:''

''RIGIDLY CONTROLLED systems, such as man-machine systems or assembly-line work groups. These are rather closed and have only limited and well-guarded interactions with their environment. They have few components and a limited degree of freedom, have singleness of purpose and behave rather mechanistically.''

''DETERMINISTIC systems are more open than rigidly controlled systems but they still have clearly defined goals, and some degree of freedom in selecting means of operating (less mechanistic). They might have several levels of decision-making; thus they are more complex than the rigidly controlled systems. Examples; bureaucracies, centralized (national) educational systems, small business operations.''

''PURPOSIVE systems -- such as corporations, public service agencies, our public education systems ---are still unitary (have their goals set), but have freedom in selecting operational objectives and methods. They are considered to be somewhat open in that they are to react to environmental changes. They are often very complex.''

''HEURISTIC systems -- such as: new business ventures, R&D agencies, nontraditional (experimental) educational programs -- formulate their own goals under some biased policy guidelines (thus, they are somewhat pluralistic). They are necessarily open to changes and interact intensively -- even co-elove -- with the environment. They are complex and systemic in their functions/structures.''

''PURPOSE-SEEKING systems are ideal-seeking, guided by their vision of the future. They are open and are able to co-evolve with their environment. They are complex and systemic. Being pluralistic, they define their own policies/purposes and constantly seek new purposes and new niches in their environments. Examples: corporations seeking social service roles, communities seeking to establish comprehensive systems of learning and human development and to integrate their social service functions, and societies/nations establishing integrated regional systems.''

Is something like this what you had in mind? How would we paraphrase it

Fixaller 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

System Types - March 2007
Well, I tried to paraphrase Bela H. Banathy:

''...Crucial to working with systems are the types of system. The major categories are NATURAL and DESIGNED systems. Natural systems are those which occur in nature while designed systems are those created by us. Designed Systems include a)fabricated/engineered/physical systems; b)HYBRID systems which combine a designed system with a natural system (Hydroelectric plant) c)cCONCEPTUAL systems such as theories, mathematics, philosophy, modeling and descriptive tools; and d) HUMAN ACTIVITY  SYSTEMS,  our purposeful creations (groups)...''

... The various types of Human Activity Systems include RIDIDLY CONTROLLED systems, (assembly line) DETERMINISTIC systems (educational systems); PURPOSIVE systems, (Corporations) PURPOSE SEEKING systems, (social systems) and HEURISTIC systems, (R&D agentcies)..

Fixaller 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fixaller's Recent edits - March 2007
These sections added nothing to the article in content or in accuracy, and are merely confusing statements of the obvious. Please see WP:BOLLOCKS, especially the second example, and What Wikipedia is not, under 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Note also that these sections are large quotes, which are discouraged, and possibly copyvio. I would require considerable convincing that these additions are at all useful before letting them stand. Michaelbusch 05:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note also that Fixaller is a single-purpose account: almost all edits are on this page. Michaelbusch 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern and welcome any attempts to improve my editing. I disagree with your conclusion, however, that identification of system types is obvious. (Do you hvae a source?) On page 360 in The International Encyclopedia of of Systems and Cybernetics under the heading of Systems Identification:


 * L.A. Zadeh observed that "the problem of system identification is one of the most basic, and paradoxically east-studied problems in system theory"...


 * I do not edit any other articles because I am not an expert in any other field. Is this a violation of Wiki policy?Fixaller 06:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference you provided reads in part:
 * Many Wikipedians are active on a range of articles, while others edit primarily within a small area. It is sometimes the case that Wikipedians of both types promote set agendas by their edits within a particular interest. However, many more readily assume that single purpose accounts are working to promote a particular point of view. For this reason, some editors give the opinion of single purpose accounts lesser weight in discussions on policy and deletion. Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere. Further, many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone....


 * Essentially we are a community of systems researchers, scientists, or from the academe who are naturally interested in how our work is being presented. We are considering becoming involved with actively developing an article which faithfully depicts the vast domain of systems theory. Systemists work with models, and it is necessary to know when we are talking about our model or the natural system we are modeling. It is not always obvious, All I am doing is making their information available. If our information is for naught, then why bother? As a group, we are the people the article is about.


 * Rather than impose our goals on Wikipedia, we have chosen to work with Kenneth who originated the article. The last we talked, we were discussing how to develop the transdisciplinary organization of those involved with systems theory. That is a daunting task, because the list is huge even if all we show are the societies, national societies, International and even federations of system research. Then explain how the groups within groups have worked out.


 * At any rate, it is essential that the basics of systems theory be understood. Systems theory is not at a higher intellectual level, rather it is a different way of looking at things specifically by looking at what things are doing/interacting. As Laszlo puts it, a shift from the component to the dynamic. Until this basic notion of "systemness" is grasped, then there is no understanding and without understanding there is only nonsense.


 * We hope the editors at Wikipedia will work with us, together we can make a difference. But if you don't like working with us, fine, we will go away. Fixaller 05:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's some comments I received:


 * In a way, I can see his point. Seems like Wikipedia is intended as a real flat presentation of agreed-to definitions, histories, facts for each given topic. Now, if there were a "Social Systems Design" page, then including the stuff about distinctions, H.A.S., purpose, etc. would naturally be a part of the defining of that topic. Would this Busch fellow be amenable to linking off to such a page with a lead-in statement like "Systems theory concepts have found application in in business, life sciences, and the design of societal and social systems." or something like that. - Matthew


 * I wonder if this is along the lines of what Ken was talking about. Trying to squeeze fifty years, hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of people into five or six paragraphs is not going to work. But a simple "huperlink" to a detail page would be ideal. The question then is the hyperlink treated as an article? I know that linked words are commonly used, but are they planned/implemented for a specific article?


 * Fixaller 04:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to types of systems. Thanks to Matt I found the source. According to Bela H. Banathy, Peter Checkland made the distinctions in his book (1981) Systems thinking Systems practice between natural, engineered and human activity systems. I think this is a good starting place because not only does it mirror what has been done in the field, it allows for the biology of Bertalanffy, the engineering of Cybernetics and social systems (design) of Banathy. - Fixaller 20:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't originate the page. I would just like to see it improved. I've made some recommendations.  Thank you all for your insights. --Kenneth M Burke 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead off graphic - March 2007
The idea is not to show a whole or to show parts, but how something can be perceived as made of parts, or, alternatively, as a whole. Your picture can be seen only one way, there is no dynamic to it. And it seems to me all you are saying with it is that a whole is made of parts. In systems theory the parts have to interact in such a way that a new whole is formed while the parts fade into the backgroud. Were you able to see the Yin/Yang when you saw the logo as parts?

The logo drawing was placed in the public domain by the original copyright owner. There is no copyright violation involved here.

Fixaller 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Was the logo deleted? I guess so.--Kenneth M Burke 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I had a copy of it, but I guess not. I suppose the copyright owner will have to upload it again. Not sure why or who deleted it. --Kenneth M Burke 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism 11 - March 2007
You Michaelbusch replace a public domain official systems graphic with your original research picture which does not at all describe a web of relationships, I revert it, you revert it back. I tag it asking for a source, you remove the tag. I believe that is considered vandalism. Either give me the source of your contention, replace the tag, or tell me how to report vandalism - Fixaller 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I still do not understand how a mosaic picture depicts relationships among parts making a new and different whole. To me it looks like I don't know what it looks like, it looks like a mess. - Fixaller 04:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The page for the user box was also deleted. Guess it wasn't cool enough, though the image was modeled after imagery that Gestalt psychologists used in perception based experiments.  Early systems theorists were influenced by Gestalt, though their organismic psychology was more cognitive than Gestalt.  I'm sure they did not use mosaics, but maybe both images could be used. -- Kenneth M Burke 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture caption reads, and has always read, 'may be perceived as a whole or as a group of parts'. It says nothing about 'a web of relationships', nor was the logo an illustration of that idea: it was just a stylized script 'S' in a circle.  The photographic mosaic illustrates what the article says: you either see the large picture (the seagull) or the individual parts.  The logo was deleted because of WP:LOGO and copyright violation.  That is separate from its relevance to this article. --- Michaelbusch 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not doing it right. You are correct when you say you see a stylized "S" in a circle, but you were supposed to stare at it for a while and then a gestalt shift occurs in which the black background figures become foreground, and the white "S" becomes background and disapears. The perception then is a completely different figure, a figure mades of parts in a relationship. Therefore the graphic illustrates how parts can interact as one whole, or, after the shift, it illustrates how the parts look when they are viewed apart.

Please go back and study the graphic until you perveive the gestalt shift. This process mirrors the essential systemness

You have no right/justification to delete the graphic, and even less justification for deleting it from Wikicommons, it was placed in the public domain by its creator, and proper identification was entered in the graphic text page.

You are not helping. Instead of looking forward to what organization we can get done, I dread opening this page anticipating more of our work begin trashed for no good reason. - Fixaller 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for instructing people on how to perceive a 'gestalt shift'.---Michaelbusch 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The graphic is not about how to perceive a gestalt shift, it is about using a gestalt shift to illustrate what a system looks like. You are wrong about the instructive nature of systems, systems inquiry is an integral part of systemics, it is our purpose to instruct both ourselves and others about systems, This self-instruction is built into the concept via recursivity. If an encyclopedia is not for instruction then what is it for? It certainly is not for the pleasure of the editors. - Fixaller 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I liked the image and thought it appropriate for the page, it seems to me a little silly to make an issue over a logo. However, isn't that essentially what you're doing? By deleting the image, you have made judgement on how people are to percieve it. And I do think fixaller is correct in suggesting that you really had no right to delete it altogether without going through the proper steps to delete it; see Deletion policy.  Fixaller, that may be grounds to be reported for vandalism. Michaelbusch, did you really go to Caltech? --Kenneth M Burke 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It under no circumstances can be called vandalism, regardless of whether it was right or not. Also, you might note that the image was deleted under the deletion policy, and wasn't deleted by Michaelbusch. As for his going to Caltech, see this page. Philosophus T 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, just contributing my opinion to a user's concern. Didn't mean to seem as if I was pointing a finger of blame. Good luck at Caltech, looks interesting. -- Kenneth M Burke 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A request to the Vice President of Communications and Education at ISSS to verify the copyright status of the loge was received. Therefore the original claims of authorship were not false. The charge and subsequent deletion of the graphic was false, Someone made a mistake by deleting the graphic in the first place. If the mistake were purposeful, then the intent of the error implies vandalism, The web page about Cal Tech clearly shows that Michael Busch is majoring in planetary science, and when he edits in systems theory he is working out of his field.

I'm not sure if an editor is regarded differentially because he is an administrator at Wikipedia or an accomplished practitioner of the field the article is about? But I don't think educated guessing carries more weight than knowledgeable experience. Science works by considering all the facts, it doesn't push some and ignore others just because they are not popular. Certainly the "theory" plays a significant role in finding boundaries by dictating what direction the research should proceed in, but the whole idea of the scientific method is to get beyond opinions and beliefs. MB should be able to tell us all about how the scientific method resolved what was at one time the prevailing belief/opinion of how the planets moved. Fixaller 04:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism depends on intent. There are no grounds whatsoever for deleting the graphic. Registration was filled out properly, the graphic was in the public domain, and it was signed and dated. Was the intent to delete it no matter what? The claim was that there is evidence of copyright violation, then the evidence is destroyed, and the claim is thereby justified? The graphic was placed in the public domain by the original creator of the grapic. The graphic is only part of the ISSS logo, and their website is public domain too. Their official logo is is the circle surrounded by the words International Society for Systems Sciences, and obviously was deemed by that group to be instructive. Let me be clear. ISSS just last year celebrated its fiftieth conference. The systems community is huge. Every country had a systems society, there are international societies and even federations of societies. These are populated by educators and scientists. Systems have been studied for fifty years, by tens of thousands of systemists. The results of these studies are published in the journals, the articles, the books, Laszlo alone wrote 84 books. The knowledge used to study systems is different, a different ontology and a different methodology. A system is the expression of relationships not what the parts look like. The black and white are components of what you are reading but it is their relationship that is meaningful to you. So systems is not just putting parts together, a whole is made of parts is trivial, a system is putting parts together is such a way that the interactive relationship creates an emergent property which itself becomes a new whole, a whole having properties the components do not have alone. There is no meaning to be found in the black ink of this letter. Systems s about wholes which is about relationships. The wetness of water is our experience of the emergent relationshp between the two constituent components, both gases.

It is essential to know what this means before any furher study of systems is attempted. To see systems just as a new super-organizational tool is to miss the point entirely. Systems is not about the subject, it is a different way of seeing/perceiving all of the subjects in terms of how they are interacting. It is essential that the old language not be used to described a different basis for language. That only makes systems trivial, so what? Fixaller 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm copying a relevant post to here written by a member of the International Systems Institute, it's president to be exact ---


 * I think we are confusing the systems concept here. The systems concept is not that wholes are made of parts or that you can perceive it both ways, but that the whole has properties that are not found in any of the parts. That is, it has properties that arise from the interaction of the parts.


 * Consider the example of an orchestra: It has the emergent property of a beautiful sound, but the sound is nowhere to be found in any of the parts. The sound emerges from the interaction of the parts. In the photographic mosaic there is no interaction of parts. They are static. The photographic mosaic image of the bird does not arise from the interaction of the dots but rather from interaction of the light from the dots with the faculties of the observer, followed by the mind of the observer making associations. If you had never seen a bird before, it might just look like a unusual but unrecognized pattern.


 * For another example, consider people who see the Virgin Mary in a tree trunk (or even a sandwich I heard recently). There is no actual image there there--it is perceived by the mind abstracting certain data and ignoring others. Dougwalton 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to discuss what is discussed by the relevant researchers, and not to discuss opinions of the editors. In my opinion, the duck graphic is original research. It is nowhere to be found in the systems literature. It does not illustrate what a system does. It conveys the wrong interpretation. The systemsgestalt graphic does illustrates this relationship of parts and wholes simply by letting the background or alternatively the foregraound color take precedence. It does this authentically enough that an International systems society requested permission to use the graphic as part of their logo (which has the words International Society for the Systems Sciences circling the graphic. Fixaller 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed - March 2007
The following comments were placed on my talk page by Michaelbusch:


 * [edit] Single Purpose Accounts

Single purpose accounts are not forbidden, but are to be treated with caution (see WP:SPA). Michaelbusch 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone said that Wikipedia welcomes experts, or was it that they wonder why experts do not tend to edit Wikipedia articles. I choose to edit only this article because it is the only field I can claim expert status.

[edit] Vandalism? You replace a public domain official systems graphic with your original research picture which does not at all describe a web of relationships, I revert it, you revert it back. I tag it asking for a source, you remove the tag. I believe that is considered vandalism. Either give me the source of your contention, replace the tag, or tell me how to report vandalism Fixaller 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Read Wikipedia:Logo, check the deletion log (Eagle 11 removed the logo per blatant copyright infringement [1]), and actually read the point the picture is there to make ('perceived as a whole or a group of parts', not 'web of relationships', which the logo didn't convey either). Read also the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism and the proper use of citation-needed tags (see WP:CITE) and perhaps Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Michaelbusch 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know for a fact that the graphic in question is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. In spite of that fact it has been deleted twice for blatant copyright violation. I regret suggesting that you would have it deleted regardless of copyright, but in view of the copyright status of the graphic, and what is being claimed in error here, what else can I think?

[edit] Your recent talk page posts You seem to be posting with the deliberate intention of antagonizing people. Please cease. Such flaming serves no useful purpose, and will not be effective. Michaelbusch 02:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Kenneth and I were involved in how to improve the article, and then you come in deleting our work without any justification or valid reason, or any attempt on your part to try to understand what we are doing.

Also, your edits show a serious bias with regards to Systems theory. Please read and understand WP:COI. You are not forbidden from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest, but any conflicts you have should be made explicit. Michaelbusch 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fixaller"


 * I am not sure what you mean by "conflict" because the only conflict i have noticed is between you and I. It is true that I am a member of the International Society for the Systems Science, but we are a not-for-profit organization with education as our sole purpose. It is true that I am the chairman of the Primer Group at ISSS, and our sole purpose is to educate as well. I also work with the International Systems Institute and the International Federation for Systems Research. I have gathered together a group of systemists to help with this article. They come from many organizations, ISSS, ISI, IFSR, so we won't be promoting one particular organization to the detriment of others.


 * Allow me to add this Michael: When we talk about systems, we being the members of the systems community, we are not talking about a system such as the solar system. Of course the solar system is a system, but a very limited kind. When we talk about a system we are talking about relationships which express themselves as a whole, a whole which has properties not found in the parts that make the whole up. For example, the meaning of this sentence cannot be found in the black ink it is printed in. As a planetary scientist, you perhaps are mistaking your "closed" system as an example of the system we are talking about. One key difference is what we call "emergence" for example the liquidity of water is a result of the emergent property of the two constituent gases. Obviously there is no emergence in a planetary system. It is difficult to talk about what a system does because the change at the ontological level from the component to the dynamic requires a new language, specifically a change from nouns to verbs.


 * You wrote about our graphic, "...nor was the logo an illustration of that idea: it was just a stylized script 'S' in a circle."


 * Again, it is the process you must look for, a shift in perception, and that shift illustrates the difference between a group of parts and a whole. So you should have seen, on the one hand, a white "S" or, on the other hand a collection of black parts similar to the Yin/Yang symbol. It is not, at least to us, "just a stylized script "S" It is a process that will show you what a system does if you let it.


 * Again, the graphic presented here is in the public domain. It is not a violation of any policy to reprint public domain material. How do we resolve this?

Fixaller 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A letter was sent to David Ing, Vice President of Communications at ISSS requesting verification of public domain image Systemsgestalt.jpg The response will be delivered to the communications committee

I wonder how come proper procedure was not followed when deleting this graphic. no tags, no comments at the talk page, no warning - twice. Is there a procedure/person who can look into this and determine if any policy was violated? Fixaller 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the gestalt graphic has been undeleted. I assume the public domain status has been resolved. Now the question remaining is which graphic should be used. We have one graphic endorsed by the president of a systems Institute, and we have a graphic endoresed by a grad student (majoring in a different field) How are disputes such as this resolved in Wikipedia? Fixaller 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright verifications - April 2007
Thommandel@aol.com wrote:

Dear David Ing

I am writing to confirm whether permission is granted to use *[a page/content] from your website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL ).

This user claims on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Systems_theory that Tom Mandel is the original author of the image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Gestaltsystem.jpg

''but for the image to remain on our site, we need further evidence that this is the case. Please be assured that if you do not grant permission, your content will not be used at Wikipedia; we have a strict policy against copyright violations.''

''You can read the GNU Free Document License in full at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL. (To keep things simple, we do not use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.) The license stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. This means that anyone would be licensed to distribute the material, possibly for a fee (we would distribute your work free of charge). Under the license, no distributor (commercial or otherwise) can restrict future distribution, so your work would never become proprietary. In addition, the license does not grant the right to imply your endorsement of a modified version.''

''Please note that your contributions may not remain intact as submitted; this license and the collaborative nature of our project entitles others to edit, alter, and update content at will, i.e., to keep up with new information, or suit the text to a different purpose. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights.''

''Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.''

Yours faithfully,

tom mandel

In a message dated 4/6/2007 5:49:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, daviding.isss@gmail.com writes:

Tom,

''I am responding to you in my role as Vice-President of Communications and Systems Education of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. (We use redirection e-mail IDs, so if anyone has a doubt, they can contact me via webadmin@isss.org ).''

This note will respond to two questions: (a) the ISSS logo; and (b) permission to reproduce content from the ISSS web site.

''The Wikipedia moderators should be interested to know that Tom Mandel was the creator of the ISSS logo that is in current use at http://isss.org, making him the original copyright owner. Tom has granted the ISSS permission to use the ISSS logo. He was the founding webmaster of http:/isss.org, and has continued to participate as a member of the ISSS, particularly in the Primer Project.''

''Further, as indicated in the footer of http:/isss.org, the content on the ISSS web site is explicitly licensed as a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License. This should provide sufficient clarity about the ISSS policy on reproducing content.''

If you have further questions, please contact me at isss@daviding.com (preferred) or webadmin@isss.org.

David Ing

Vice-President of Communications and Systems Education

International Society for the Systems Sciences

Fixaller 23:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing User Name - April 2007
[edit] changing user name I have decided that it serves no useful purpose not to use my real name. Already I am having difficulties as if I were two different editors. Therefore, my real name is Tom Mandel which I will be using from now on. Fixaller 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC) M

Gestalt graphic consensus - April 2007
It has been established that the Systemgestalt.jpg is not a vilolation of copyright policy as had been claimed in this discussion.

The mosaic graphic claimed to represent or illustrate what a system does is questioned. The graphic seems to be a static figure, and thus does not illustrate the processing described by systems theory. The graphic does not show how an interrelationship f parts organize to form a hew whole. Nor does the graphic illustrate how this new whole can have properties differnt from the parts it is constituted of.

The presently used graphic seems to be original research. No source is cited, and when a source tag was added the tag was removed. There is no instance of this graphic, or any other like it, appearing in the systems literature. In fact, the closest model we use similar to the mosaic is when we point out that a pile of sand is not a system. (Are sand castles systems?)

The Systemsgestalt, on the other hand, clearly illustrates a "change" from one state to another. From white foreground to black foreground. This change is a process. The Systemsgestalt illustrates how a whole is, on a different level, an organization of parts, and it clearly shows how this new whole has new properties not to be found in the constituent parts. It also implies the participation of the environment, (the perceiving) and how, instantaneously, one is seen, but not the other.

The systemsgestalt.jpg graphic is notable, approved and installed as a logo for a systems theory institution, (the first one) and is in the public domain.

(It is possible that an individual may not be able to free his mind such that it can alternatively perceive one or the other state of the Systemsgestalt. . Obviously the model does not work in these instances, but the question is, is it the fault of the model or the fault of the single-eye perceiver? )

A consensus has been reached. Only one editor supports the mosaic graphic. Support from Ken Burke, Doug Walton and Tom Mandel is in favor of the Systemsgestalt.

It follows that of the two Systemsgestalt has consensus.

Tom Mandel 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What "Gestalt Shift"? I have no idea what you're talking about.  Is this supposed to be some sort of Escherian thing? Eoseth 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

General Review of the Page - March 2007
With some of the discussion concerning the organization of this page, I have taken some initiative to try and better format it. It still needs some work and revisions. My concern is that the page in general is simply a fragmented collection of random facts and details and does present a coherent article on systems theory. Mostly, I have reservations over the lengthy quotes (mirrored to reservations over simply deleting them). It is an area of great interest to me, I hope that I can be of some help. If there are objections to my recent revisiions, please feel free to dialogue with me. --Kenneth M Burke 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Review

As I said I would, I went through the page thoroughly. Below is a list of topics on the Talk:Systems theory page. Those topics on the list that have been resolved are crossed out. Those topics in italics are issues that I approach in my recommendations following the list itself. If you believe that a crossed out issue has not been resolved, do speak up. Else I think it may be appropriate to clean up the talk page by deleting them.


 * General
 * Complexity and Interdependence
 * Rename this page to systems theory
 * Parts removed
 * Still confused
 * Concrete Examples
 * Applied Theory
 * Analogies


 * Proposed Merge
 * The role of Nicolai Hartmann in the Systems Movement
 * Relation to Dynamical Systems
 * Cleanup tag on Stemics -- or merge?
 * new additions to article
 * help me
 * "Glossary of Key Terms used by stemists" formatting
 * Pictrue
 * Process Theory
 * Laszlo
 * Cybernetics and Systems Theory
 * Silent Conversations
 * Transdisciplinary science
 * Systems Types
 * User:Fixaller's Recent edits

Recommendations


 * 1) The book referenced to introduce the page Warfield (2006) is not a strong source, I recommend building a better introduction from the third paragraph and working the first two paragraphs into the article elsewhere.
 * 2) Paragraph 5 of the Overview does not fit well into the section, I recommend cutting down the lengthy quote and using the paragraph to introduce the page.
 * 3) Sections Types of Systems, Systems Inquiry, and General Systems Theory as an objective of systemics can be simplified in introducing the following sections with the section for Living Systems moved up and worked into the section for a coherent introduction (Parts of each of these sections might be better worked into the page introduction and Overview).
 * 4) Content for Cybernetics on the talk page can be worked into the section.
 * 5) Glossary of Terms can be cleaned up.

Feel free to dialogue with me concerning these changes either before or after I get around to making them. Certainly any user should feel free to undertake changes, and stop me before making any changes they feel they might disagree with.--Kenneth M Burke 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of deleting part of the discussion, I've put these parts in an archive. I hope this also is suitable solution - Mdd 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)