SOCIOPHYSICS PROLEGOMENA TO A MODEL

METAPHOR

PARIS

BY ARNOPOULOS

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY MONTREAL, CANADA 1989

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION MODEL 1. CONTEXT 1.1. ECOLOGY 1.2. TOPOLOGY 1.3. CHRONOLOGY 2. CONTENT 2.1. ONTOLOGY 2.2. MORPHOLOGY 2.3. TROPOLOGY 3. CODEX 3.1. EPISTEMOLOGY 3.2. METHODOLOGY 3.3. AXIOLOGY CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY 35 37 39 42 45 1 5 13 14 16 18 21 22 25 29 33

INTRODUCTION Human efforts to understand reality give meaning to our life, raising it above the level of farce and into the grace of tragedy. Steven Weinberg. Human beings have always tried to describe and explain their experiences. This human compulsion for knowledge gave rise to religion, philosophy and science. Each of these disciplines tried in its own way, through faith, logic or common sense, to give some meaning to the human condition. In different times and places, first religion, then philosophy and finally science dominated this search in the major cultures of the world. The overwhelming success of the latest approach in the modern world, has overshadowed all other paradigms and its technological application shaped the face of the earth. Yet, this very success has spawned many undesirable byproducts, not the least of which is the disintegration of the intellectual community. Due to the proliferation of scientific discoveries and the accumulation of information, there has been a fragmentation of knowledge and a compartmentalization of the scientific estate. As a result, human knowledge is now broken up into a plethora of narrow disjointed disciplines. What used to be said about the two famous solitudes -Arts and Sciences- can also apply to the schism between the Natural and Social Sciences as well. It seems that the only points of inter-scientific contact are antagonistic if not contemptuous. Each field of study is not only uninformed but uninterested in the others; a condition that makes for general confusion and mutual irrelevance. This is a pity, because there is a lot of room for inter-scientific cooperation and potential synergy which would benefit all sides. Increasing communication and coordination would promote the organization and unification of knowledge; hence resolve the problems of disorientation, duplication and insulation of research. Emphasizing interdisciplinarity would bring about a better balance between analytic specialization and synthetic generalization thus advancing knowledge on every front. The need for such balance is increasingly felt as each field grows and spills over its traditional bounds. Multidisciplinary bridges are therefore frequently forming, as they become more necessary. One can almost sense the renaissance of a new synthetic spirit in the air. Led by the General Systems movement, this spirit tries to demostrate the coherence and compatibility of all realms of human concern: natural and artificial; scientific and artistic; personal and social. As a result, new transdisciplinary studies arise everywhere. In addition to such, by now established, areas as biochemistry or social psychology; there are presently emerging interscientific fields such as social biology and sociophysics. It is this latter hybrid, which highlights the similarity if not the identity between physical and social systems, that is raising great controversy as well as revealing great promise. For this reason, it has been selected to provide the focus for this work. Sociophysics is the new research field combining the latest findings of both natural and social sciences. More accurately, it is an attempt to advance the social sciences by using the paradigm of General Systems Theory (GST). This paradigm provides the fundamental all-

inclusive explanations for both social and natural phenomena. The case for such integration assumes the comparability of the natural and social sciences, without falling into the naturalistic fallacy of unwarranted reductionism. Instead of merely reducing social into natural phenomena, GST subsumes both under a larger universal category. Although it is recognized that there are apparent differences between the natural and social realms, these differences are supported by underlying similarities. It is these latter ones that are more basic and therefore worthy of special research, which was so far sadly lacking. Moreover, this comparability is not a one-way street from the natural to the social sciences. Rather, its synergistic effect is mutually beneficial because it broadens the perspective of both. The scientific revolution going on right now makes the natural sciences more subjective; at the same time as the social sciences are becoming more objective. As it grows, this convergent trend could counterpose and balance the divergent tendencies of the past generations, thus reuniting and synthesizing human knowledge on a new and higher level. Scientific progress occurs by reconciling apparent incompatibilities within a larger framework of underlying complementarities. This process is reflected in the history of science which records these unification attempts alternating periodically with dosciplinary consolidations. Thus, after a period of narrow analytic specializations, we are presently witnessing a resurgence of broad synthetic theories which try to integrate the independent findings of different disciplines. The architectonic structures of grand theory are ideal systems devised inside the human mind and may not necessarily correspond to anything outside. In reality, there may be as much social science in physics, as there is natural science in politics; depending on where we choose to draw the lines of our inquiry. Although, it seems that the human mind must draw lines in order to understand anything, these lines must be recognized for what they are: conceptual abstractions. This neo-anthropocentric position accepts the subjectivity of human knowledge as both necessary and desirable in understanding and shaping our reality. From this vantage point, human beings are the joint creations of nature and society, as well as the partial creators of both realms. As such, a science which deals with human beings should look for the sources of human thought and behaviour not only in natural and social laws separately; but in the combination of both. In order to do that, one must search for common patterns and crosscutting regularities in all levels and domains of reality. In effect, this is the overall task of building a science of General Systems. Established patterns and regularities of wide applicability form scientific laws and systems of laws form general theories. This theorybuilding process is at the center of scientific advancement, and will therefore become the ultimate aim of this study.

MODEL The purpose of this initial work is to present a conceptual model of reality and man's place in it. This model will serve to generate comprehensive principles which would situate natural and social phenomena within an overall theoretical perspective. Such systematic model will be an abstract and holistic construct which is sufficiently flexible to be applied under any circumstances, thus advancing the development of a unified science. Models are a means of mediating between whatever exists out there and whatever awareness we have of it in here. This dichotomy between external reality and internal mentality is itself a primary model which connects perceptions and conceptions, by interweaving mental images into theoretical systems. The propensity of the human mind to compare experiences by making distinctions and recognizing similarities is the basis of understanding ourselves and the world around us. Whether one begins with the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum " or some other axiom; the reality of existence is largely determined by our experiences and activities as its central participant-observers. Human experience arises from two sources: other-consciousness and selfconsiousness. The former consists of the phenomenal or sentient world and the latter of the noumenal or mental realm. Our awareness is directed both outwards and inwards and so distinguishes itself from that of others.This existential duality between the external and internal world has been recognized for a long time as the matter-mind dichotomy which is reflected in various other opposites such as thought-action, concreteabstract, substance-essence, subject-object. The model of this study is built on this fundamental dichotomy, which nevertheless diverges from and converges in the single unity of the Cosmos. In between these ultimate fusions, human consciousness perceives, conceives, and compares the similarities and differences which characterize everything. Reality appears to be made up of various distinct items which are nevertheless interwoven together in a great multidimensional tapestry. From this anthropocentric perspective, we can distinguish three kinds of structural relations that human beings can have, depending on the systems involved in them. On the one hand, each person is related within oneself. These internal connections constitute the inner realm of the personality and create the mental systems, of which this study is an example. On the other hand, human beings also relate to the external world which exists apart and independently of them. These relations connect people to their natural environment and create the ecosystem which includes them both. Between the two different types of relations exist the interpersonal relations among people which form social systems. These three distinct worlds can best be illustrated as concentric circles shown in Diagram 1. The three concentric rings represent the principal realms of our reality: i.e. the internal world of each human being, surrounded by the social system and its natural environment. This depiction reflects the Aristotlelian dictum: anthropos zoon politikon. More accurately, however, it shows that humanity possesses both social and natural attributes. So, the innermost and outermost circles, represent both internal and external environments. (For purposes of this study, we shall ignore whatever lies beyond nature, leaving it to the terra incognita of the supernatural ).

This conceptualization surrounds the social by the natural sciences, thus indicates that understanding humanity and society requires a wider knowledge which includes nature. Of course, such general knowledge alone cannot explain the specifics of the inner realms. It will, nevertheless, explain the behaviour of human beings as they relate to each other. This study will therefore focus around the middle ring and the fundamental relations which bind it to both its internal and external realms. For that reason, we shall begin the construction of our conceptual model by postulating this existential polarity between the real and ideal worlds. This dual foundation will sustain the emerging model, which in turn will connect its two supporting pillars. The resulting structure could, therefore, resemble the triangle of Diagram 1, with nature, society and humanity at its three corners. The connecting arrows indicate the main loci of influence between each focus of action. This triangular format will also serve as the basis of our general systems paradigm because it illustrates our conception of an overall existential duality, tempered and alleviated by an intermediate condition which contains and transcends both. The Triadic Paradigm will become the framework and template upon and around which we shall build our model. It is felt that this modular construction is both a euristic and a mnemonic devise which best combines, describes and explains our ideas. All attempts to advance knowledge are metaphors from the known to the unknown, trying to explain the mysterious in terms of the common place. We have accepted this process of extending human understanding and selected the physical and social sciences as the twin bases of this sociophysical model. Since the former are felt to be better known than the latter, explanations have usually tended to be based on physical prototypes carried over to society. Thus there exist many explanatory models of complex social concepts in terms of simple natural systems: i.e. the body politic as a human organism. As culture and history change, so do paradigms and metaphors. The simple analogies and generalizations used in the past at the early stages of science no longer suffice now in a more sophisticated age. In order to understand the complex systems which span the contemporary world, we need to translate the latest scientific theories into the social arena. But, the critical discontinuities and deep contradictions in both historical periods and geographical regions, require a more sophisticated and often counterintuitive approach which traditional studies cannot provide. The reality of global interdependence demands a study of general interdisciplinarity. In order to reach the common basics, the new approach must be consistent and suitable to all systems. This demand may not be as difficult as it seems at first sight. According to contemporary science, reality shows a remarkable tendency for uniformity and consistency. Although they apply to different realms, its fundamental laws are the same. There exist isomorphic structures and functions in all levels of existence which point to the unity of existence. Whenever this unity seems to be broken at one systemic level, it is in order to maintain itself at a deeper and more fundamental one. Ultimately, the infinite variety of forms comes down to a few basic universal patterns. When translated into mathematics, these patterns display an extraordinary equivalence throughout reality. It sems that the structure of mathematics is equivalent to reality, so it is the most appropriate language yet found to describe most accurately universal laws. Its

capacity to operationalize and manipulate symbols enables mathematics to determine the parameters within which all phenomena occur. Differential equations, for example, provide a powerful representation of explanatory theories in both the natural and social sciences, by showing how systems behave through time. It has been said that in science as in art, the road to truth is led by beauty. Both scientific and artistic creativity share similar qualities of imagination and inspiration accompanied by elegant expression. Some great scientists have even gone so far as to declare that theoretical elegance is more important than empirical consistency. On the authority of these sentiments and our own proclivity, this study will try to combine classical simplicity with natural summetry, so that the result is intelligible as well as agreeable, coherent as well as comprehensive. Since this study will be carried out at the general systems level, it will necessarily be very abstract and theoretical. Covering such large area means diminishing its depth. The gains made in macroscopic systhesis have to be paid by the losses incurred in microscopic analysis. To be able to see the grand pattern and regularity of the whole, we have to ignore the unique character and singularity of the individual. Specific details will therefore be sacrificed for the sake of holistic completeness. This sacrifice need not be in vain because the daitails can be filled in later studies. The heuristic fall-out from framework theories can provide powerful incentives for further in-depth research in the various areas covered therein. Once the general principles have been sketched, their particular applications and rigorous interpretations should not be long in coming. At the present stage, drafting these principles requires an explicit description of the structure and process that this study will adopt. On the basis of GST norms, any scientific model must contain three aspects or dimensions: -Context: the environment within which the system exists; -Content: the system on which it focuses its attention; -Codex: the operating rules by which it functions. In other worlds, a systematic study should clearly present the parameters which define its universe of discourse. These parameters form the three pronged approach shown in Diagram 2. The diagram contains all the factors considered relevant for this study, which shall be elaborated upon in the rest of this article Following Occam's razor, the model tries to explain the maximum of phenomena with the minimum of hypotheses; since the fewer the independent variable in a theory, the more powerful and compelling it is. In this way we should be able to construct the most comprehensive picture of reality and at the same time try to avoid false analogies or empty platitudes. The elements of this picture will be presented and described as sucinctly as possible in the three sections which follow.

1. CONTEXT We begin this exposition with the contextual reality of the subject at hand. Context is important because it provides the background or infrastructure which defines and supports whatever it is that one wishes to study. In this case, since our subject-matter is sociophysics, the context is the social and physical environment within which human and material systems exist. We take this environment to form the conceptual framework which sets the boundaries of our universe. Accordingly, the environmental perspective of our reality is a trilateral construct which composes the basic axiom of this modelbuilding attempt. It is postulated that reality is basically a habitat in space and time. As a given, this means that our context consists of three primordial concepts which will become a three dimensional framework. The three aspects of the realm-space-time context are reflected and studied by the ecology, topology and chronology of things. Together, they suffice to define the attributes of reality in complete and concrete terms. Although these notions are so elementary that they cannot be formally defined; our intuitive grasp of them will be further elaborated in the discussion of the following sections.

1.1.. ECOLOGY. The ecological aspects of our model may be said to comprise the various areas and levels of generality within which the relevant systems of this study exist and operate. The most important point to be made here is that our field of vision distinguishes between inclusive and exclusive spheres of existence. It may be said that reality is constructed within a number of concentric spheres, much like those of Diagram 1. The outermost, all-inclusive sphere is the entire universe, while the innermost, all-exclusive sphere is the elementary particle. Between these two extremes, there are layers upon layers of important divisions. These divisions may be said to form the framework for the general ecological taxonomy we shall use here. The classification scheme not only distinguishes between vertical levels and horizontal areas, but recognizes a hierarchical structure which permiates reality. The scheme is thus predicated upon the combination of three parameters: realms, levels and classes. The environmental realms of this model are evenly divided into the inner and outer worlds. This dichotomy is an inate separation of the ego from the rest of reality. Every sentient being can make this distinction between its internal and external worlds and so separates its ego from various alter egos. Human systems, therefore, have two environments: an interior and an exterior: the former belonging to our private and the latter to the public realm. It has always been recognized that this dichotomy between inclusive and exclusive, not only distinguises between two different worlds quantitatively, but places a qualitative degree upon each. Accordingly, the first is considered at a lower level than the second. This vertical perspective differentiates between inferior and superior realms; thus creating a hierarchy of existential layers. Within this hierarchy, there is a third parameter which distinguishes between the natural and artificial class of things. Human beings realize that they are creatures of the first and creators of the second. Unlike other natural creations, man is also a homo faber, who shapes and is shaped by nature. This capacity to produce artifacts has built a new artificial environment: the social technosphere, which now exists within and supplements the natural ecosphere. These inner-outer, high-low, and natural-artificial realms set the stage for our model and put it in the proper perspective. Such perspective will serve to situate the discussion in the main text and thus relate the systems upon which we shall focus our attention. Thus, this ecological framework must be kept in mind as a necessary background for understanding what is to follow.

1.2. Topology That we exist in a three-dimensional space is a common sense as well as a common place assumption. Although some scientists, expecially String Theoristrs, believe that reality is multi-dimentional, we need not go into higher dimensions or Hilbert hyperspaces in the present context. Three dimensions suffice to describe and explain most sociophysical phenomena, so we will contend ourselves with these. It is they that form the basis of our concepts of distance, size and position. Things are located in ordinary three dimensional space and their position can be pinpointed by the well known Cartesian (x-y-z) coordinates which provide their inertial reference frame. Since things occupy space, their size can be measured by three dimensions: length, width, height. Finally the distance between them can also be measured by vectors joining their respective positions. This topological taxonomy, ranges from the micro to the macroscopic. All things from the subnuclear Plank length (10 -25 meters), to the size of the universe (10 25 meters), can be fitted within the range. As it happens human size is right in the middle region (100 meters). Just above it, the social world ranges between 101 and 107 square meters, i.e. the area of the smallest community (family) on the one hand and the global society (world) on the other. Our central position along the spatial scale of things accounts for our relative sense of size and distance. Human perception can distinguish between small and large as well as between near and far. Finally, we can differentiate between rest and motion by fixing stationary objects in a single location and following the trajectory of moving objects between successive points in space. On the basis of this human sense of space, we shall locate our model in the middle range, where we perceive social systems. From this vantage point, we acquire a good perspective of our position in the overall scale of things. Moreover, we will be able to use space as an explanatory variable for the operational range of different laws. All in all, space will serve as one of the two most important foundations of our model.

1.3. Chronology. Time has often been called the fourth dimension of space, and indeed it is inextricably woven into it. As space is a container for things, time is a channel for events; as the former measures dimension, the latter measures duration. Together, the two coextensive frameworks determine the where and when of all phenomena. Unlike space, time is unidimensional and everflowing. For all practical purposes its motion can only be in a single direction. The arrow of time flies inexorably through three successive phases: from the past, via the present, to the future. Accordingly, to the space's three degrees of freedom (up-down; left-right; fore-back), time has none (only forward). This unidirectionality of time should not be interpreted in a fatalistic manner. Destiny is not necessarily predestined. Although the past cannot be relived, nor history changed; the future consists of many possibilities, so destiny can be shaped to some extent. As we shall see later on, human as well as other beings have a degree of volition which give them a freedom of choice within the constraints imposed by time and space. The present is always a fork on the road of time, therefore it offers some options from which to select one's future. Time, like space, began with the Big Bang over ten billion years ago. That momentous event of universal genesis can be considered as the origin of time (t = 0). Consequently, the duration of our past is > 1010 years and it is at that point where the present is located. Halfway during that time (i.e. five billion years ago), the solar system was created and it is estimated that it will last another five billion years, at which time the sun will become a supernova and eventually burn out completely. The rest of the universe, however, will go on for approximately another 10100 years before all matter has disintegrated into radiation at maximum entropy. Accordingly, it seems that there is much more future than past, since at present the universe is still very young. As distance measures space, so duration measures time. The lifetime of things varies from the almost instantaneous chronon (10-25 seconds) to the almost eternal galaxy (1025 seconds). Here again, human time is found in the midrange between the second (100) it takes for man's reaction to the ten thousand years (1010 seconds) of history. Thus both for space and time, human social activities occupy the central region of our conceptual framework. In order to summarize and synthesize the three contextual parameters which were discussed in this section, we have combined them in the diagram appearing in the next page. Diagram 3, shows the relationships between realm, space and time by situating man and society with distance and duration, from the micro to the macro regions of reality. In this overall picture, it is easy to see the centrality of human existence in a cosmic perspective. We shall keep this perspective throughout the study and thus maintain the image of man in relation to the rest of nature.

2. CONTENT Within the basic framework we have just constructed using the three fundamental concepts of space-time-realm; we can now build the various systems which operate therein. In this way, the existential spatiotemporal context will be filled-in with the appropriate content. Consequently, this section will be devoted to the systemology of sociophysics. To begin with, a simple system is defined as a set of units. This definition contains two terms which indicate the necessary and sufficient attributes of the basic system: i.e. substance and structure. As a group of elements with a given relationship, a system can be anything one wants it to be; so long as it has certain specified interconnected components. Although the above two parameters are enough to describe a simple or static system, they must be supplemented with another one in order to include more complex or dynamic systems. This added dimension is a functional one and relates to the operating process of the system. Together: component, structure and function can define the fundamental characteristics of any system. Accordingly, we shall look into ontological, morphological and tropological characteristics as they relate to the systems which concern us here. By doing so, we will clarify what we are dealing with and how this fits in to the wider scheme of things. The following three sections will cover the necessary details of each of the systemic aspects in turn.

2.1. Ontology. This ontological discussion can begin with the a priori acceptance of an existential being. This means that at least we must take for granted our own existence and then go on from there to determine what else exists as well. To do so, we have to set the criteria of evidence which could prove one way or another what constitutes being in distinction to nothingness. The criteria of our existential reality will be perceived and conceived in three parameters dealing with its elements, their attributes and relations. The first concerns the components which make up our entities; the second describes the traits of these components and the third determines their connections. These three aspects are the necessary and sufficient parts of a complete definition of anything. It is our primary hypothesis that everything existing and happenning in reality involves only these parameters in some way or another. Our ontological model will, therefore, be built on these parameters. The capacity to experience and define reality has been primarily justified by common sense and eventually confirmed by natural science. Since present knowledge rests on the foundations of physics, we shall use them to support our contentions here. Accordingly, we admit the postulate that reality may ultimately be reduceable to certain elementary particles. It is these particles, named fermions, which eventually make up everything, from the most banal material things to the most exaulted etherial ideas. Fermions are of two kinds: leptons and quarks. The former, of which electrons are the most prevalent example, are very individualistic so they exist alone; while the latter are social beings and are always found in groups. Quarks combine to form protons and neutrons, which make up the atomic nucleus. As the fundamental units of matter, various combinations of atoms, composed of nuclii and revolving electrons, build up all material structures, from molecules and cells, to planets and stars. In between, there is the realm of human society with its own kind of individual and collective entities. The traditional ontological dichotomy between matter and mind may be explained by the fundamental difference between quarks and leptons. Ideas are basicaly systems of electrons, rooted in the quarks of the brain. From the simplest symbols to the most complex theories, mental entities arise from the various activities of material elements; at the same time as they in turn affect their material hosts. Mind and matter are thus interrelated in various degrees, as exemplified in human beings. The elementary particles of reality exhibit three basic traits: mass, charge and spin. The first gives being its substance; while the second gives it essence. Spin corresponds to a self-referential activity which will be further explained later on. At the material end of the existential spectrum, mass reigns supreme but tapers off as we move towards the mental end. Charge, on the other hand, is to be found, in various quantities (strong or weak) and qualities (positive or negative), throughout existence. These traits give all beings certain proclivities which demonstrate their particular character and distinguishes them from each other. All entities, whether fermions or humans, need some mediating agency to connect them together into systems. This indispensible role of interrelating and interacting is ultimately played by a kind of field particle, named bosons. Unlike fermions which are characterized by a

significant mass and charge, bosons do not partake of these two attributes. Rather, they only have spins and provide connections as they are exchanged among fermions. Such exchanges are basicaly of three kinds: nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational. The first exist by sharring gluons and thus hold together the atomic nucleus. The second take place by exchanging photons and thus explain most of our ordinary phenomena. The third operate by the displacement of gravitons and thus provide the overall attraction between all things in the universe. Similar phenomena occur up the ontological ladder to describe social, as well as atomic and gallactic bonding. Societies, like all systems, are held together by certain ties of varying strength and extent. From the very strong and tight bonds of the organic family to the weak and loose threads of cultures, these connecting links form all kinds of structures and institutions: organic or social alike.

2.2. Morphology. As particles combine together, they form structures. This process of morphogenesis gives systems their shape and form. Beyond the elementary particles, how systems are structured becomes an important aspect of their identity. The number and kinds of connections in a system determine its crux as well as its form. Structural forms are so diverse that it is difficult to classify them. But, for purposes of this model, we shall use three criteria for such classification. These will pertain to the quantity of their components; the quality of their form; and the anatomy of their structure. Let us look at each one of these parameters in turn. As to quantity of components, systems are distinguished by the number of units which belong to them. Thus, there are small systems, made up of very few members, as well as large systems of numerous elements. At the minimal end, a system requires at least two parts: such as the two quarks which form a proton. At the maximal end, of course, is the allinclusive universe. In between, are to be found intermediate systems, including organic and social ones. The simplest way of defining systems is according to the type of their constituent units. In this way, an atomic system may be distinguished as a group of elementary particles and a solar system as a group of heavenly bodies. Similarly, a material system is a group of massive objects, whereas an ideal system is a set of mental concepts. Determining the components, thus, defines the type of system one wants to focus on. What serves as the component of one system, however, may be itself also be a system. So, human beings who are the units of social systems are themselves organic systems made up of a great number of living cells. Furthermore, each of these is a molecular system and each molecule is an atomic system. This hierarchy of units within systems and systems within units could extend itself indefinitely up and down the scale from the infinitesmally small units to the infinitely large systems. Present knowledge limits this range between the elementary particles as the smallest units and the universe as the largest system. In between are to be found several distinct levels of different qualitative and quantitative characteristics. Apart from size, these levels may be also distinguished by the complexity of their units. On these criteria, we can discern three types of material systems. Starting from the bottom, we have atomic systems composed of elementary particles as their units. These are the simplest kind of systems of which there are about one hundred different kinds forming all the elements (e.g. hydrogen or iron) of the universe. Large agglomerations of these make up inert materials (e.g. metals or stones) and mechanical parts (e.g. cogs or rods). At the next level are molecular systems, made up of atomic systems as their units. Molecules make up the more complex substances (e.g. earth, water, air) which are usually compounds (e.g. ceramics or plastics) of various elements. At the top are the cellular systems, whose units are molecular systems. At that level the accumulated complexity of the units (e.g. proteins or enzimes) makes the systems (e.g. fibers or muscles) qualitatively different than the previous ones because they possess the attribute of life. Since these levels are hierarchical, their characteristics are cumulative, so that organic systems contain both molecular and atomic ones, whereas molecular systems only contain atomic. For now, these

three fundamental types were selected as the building blocks of all reality. This is evidenced by the most advanced of the scientific disciplines which study these three levels: i.e. physics; chemistry; biology. On this basis, an interdisciplinary study will have to look into all of them, since they support higher and more complex systems. The degree of connectivity among the elements of a system determines the second formal parameter considered here. This means that if the connections are strong, they result in rigid structures; whereas if they are weak, they produce fuzzy sets. In this range between rigidity and flexibility is to be found the difference between solids, liquids and gases; from the most crystaline to the most cloudy. The degree of anatomical order, thus produces the exactitude of form and differentiates systems according to their structural state. Finally, the sequence elements are arranged is as important as their number and strength. The quality of this arrangement determines both their structures and actions and so serves as a major distinguishing characteristic. In this respect, forms may be classified from the minimal one of a point, through a string of points forming unidimentional straight or curved lines and bidimentional planes, to the most complicated tridimentional forms combining many different shapes and sizes. The importance of form at its most fundamental level is evident from the famous particle-wave dichotomy in elementary physics. Fundamental entities seem to have a double personality because they sometimes behave as particles and other times as waves, depending on how they are approached and manipulated. This duality has produced many paradoxes in physics which have not yet found a complete explanation; so we must accept them here as inherent in the nature of things. Trying to resolve these and other contradictions of physics, there has arisen recently a theory which postulates unidimensional vibrating strings as the ultimate basis of both particles and waves. The various modes of oscillation or string harmonics are said to correspond to different particles and field waves, so that the behavior of these entities can account for everything. Fortunately, we do not have to choose among these opposing fundamentalist positions. Rather, it is possible to accept all three as different aspects of the same reality and proceed to situate them within an overall space-time framework.

2.3. Tropology. In addition to units and forms, complex systems, such as the ones we will be considering here, have certain actions. These activities take place within all dynamic systems, as well as between open systems and their environment. An understanding of the operation of a system, therefore, requires knowledge of these events, which we shall also undertake to include in this model. We can begin by distinguishing three parameters which characterize systemic activity: flows, processes, and functions. Different types of systems have several combinations of these activities. Complex systems, like societies or organisms, have all three types because they need them to survive. Simple, isolated systems, like an asteroid at the edge of the universe, has very little of any of them. Let us then describe each one below. By flows is meant the dynamic elements moving along the connecting channels of a system. As we have seen, bosons are the most elementary flows of any system; but at a level closer to the middle range of reality, we can distinguish three kinds of flows: material, energetic, and symbolic. At the material end of the spectrum, various forms of matter can be transported between points in space; such as the the flow of blood in the arteries of organic systems or the movement of goods and people in social systems. Similarly, energy, as the other manifestation of matter, flows through the channels of dynamic systems. Finally, at the mental end of the spectrum, information can be communicated via either material or energetic vehicles. These flows may be considered as processes when they undertake or undergo some transformation along they way. In this case, the flows entering a given system are its inputs and those leaving its outputs. In between these two are the transforming throughputs of the systemic process. Because of their serial connectivity, the input-output flow is identified with the cause-effect process. Since outputs depend on inputs, there is some causal relationship between the two which indicates the flow of influence from one point to another. In open systems, input-output flows run between the system and its environment. These flows to and from the environment may transport materials, carry energy or communicate information, using different transmiting and receiving channels. Systems act as converters which transform inputs into outputs. These three functions: reception (stimulus); conversion (transformation); expedition (response); thus characterize the dynamics of complex systems. The basic function of a system requires that the output is dependent on the input: y = (x). Where y (output) is the dependent variable, x (input) is the independent variable; and (operator) is some function. Complex systems, of course, have much more complicated functions with the addition of intervening variables. The principle, however, is the same in all cases: i.e. a complete knowledge of how a system functions must account for all its flows. In considering the functions of a system, one also gets involved with questions of role and purpose. These questions try to find the instrumentality of systems by determining their priority in the chain of causality. In this respect, we can distinguish between original and final stages in the systemic function. Some systems serve the purposes of others and thus are means to an end. Other systems intervene between

immediate and ultimate chains of causation; therefore are both means for some and ends for others. In order to summarize and illustrate the interrelations among system elements, structures and processes, we have drawn Diagram 4, in the following page. The diagram shows the various cross-cutting ranges of system contents as we have discussed them in this section. The main point to be made from all this is the continuum between simplicity and complexity as the combined result of all the parameters mentioned above. The difference between simple and complex systems is of course one of degree, which carried to extremes becomes one of kind. As one of the relatively complex systems, human beings can look both up and down the chain of being and compare their position in an overall perspective. In doing so they engage in mental and physical activities according to certain rules. Identifying these rules and describing their operation will be the subject of the next section which follows presently.

3. CODEX Having outlined the content and context of the model, we shall now present its operating procedures or working codes. In the realm of human activity, there are three principal symbolic codes: linguistic, mathematic and artistic. We shall here utilize all three, combining narrative with formulae and diagrams to optimize our presentation, description and explanation of reality. They will provide the methods, programs and principles which apply to systems in general and this work in particular.Their codes are, thus, indispensible not only for practical but for theoretical reasons; because they guide the functions of a system as well as explain its dynamics. On the assumption that reality is not entirely random, we must postulate some laws according to which we expect it to function. The term law is used here to mean a normal tendency. These laws are of varying extent: from the most general to the very specific. Natural laws tend to be the most general because they apply to the widest circle and admit few exceptions; whereas social laws are more specific to human interactions and are full of conditional qualifications. In this study, we shall outline the basic rules of the game which operate in the universe at large and how they contain the special case of human society. These rules or codes combine to form the etiology of general systems theory and include the scientific laws of correlation and causality, as well as grammatical cannons, aesthetic norms and plain common sense. We begin by the common sense premise that reality presents us with certain patterns in space and regularities in time which we perceive and emphasize. In this way, we notice similarities and differences, according to which we abstract and classify things in conceptual categories, as we have been doing in this presentation. On this basis, we have constructed a classification scheme which will serve as the framework of our modelbuilding exersize. As the basic premise in this respect, we discern two opposing nomothetic conditions of reality: static and dynamic. The former applies to things which are relatively stable in space and constant in time; whereas the latter applies to things which are relatively variable and changing. We consider this such a fundamental dichotomy that it was chosen as one of the three major parameters of this study. But, as part of our most general axiom, all dichotomies may be mediated by a third position which partakes of both. As such, the intermediary between statics and dynamics is found to be dialectics: a state that constains aspects of both extremes, out of which is created a third distinct possibility. The resulting triangular relationship, will this serve as our fundamental canon and one of the three dimensions of our model. Based on this canon, the programatic aspects of the model will be dealt with by three disciplinary fields: epistemology; methodology; axiology. In this order, we will look successively into the codes of verification, validation and evaluation; thus outlining the operating rules of the model. The following sections will deal with each one in turn.

3.1. Epistemology. The theory of knowledge which will be adopted here centers around the modern empirical paradigm which combines rationality and sensitivity as the dual road to human understanding. On the basis of sense inputs and thought translations, we form a coherent overall picture of reality. Human knowledge consists of a system of conjunctions between perceptions (experiences) and conceptions (explanations). We consider to know something, if we can fit it in the general scheme of things which forms our weltanschauung. Understanding, thus, involves the successful integration of particular diverse phenomena into a general ideological paradigm. The correct juxtaposition between facts and ideas permits us to verify experiences and test the facticity of our perceptions. The complicated process of doing so may be simplified by a three sphase procedure: diagnosis; anagnosis; prognosis. The successful application of this procedure should provide adequate knowledge about anything. It isthus incorporated into the model in its simplest form. The process begins by a diagnosis of the object or situation under study. This means the identification, definition and description of an existing condition by accurate perception and classification of signs and facts, using proper criteria of evidence and proof. Diagnosis differentiates between true and false symptoms in order to arrive at the correct correlation between noomena and phenomena. Thus, the first critical distinction we make concerns the difference between verity and falsity. If truth measures the correspondence between mental and material phenomena, then we want to make sure that our internal concepts are true representations of external reality. Diagnosis does this by constantly comparing the inner and outer worlds for the proper correlation. Once a correct diagnosis of the present is made, the next step is to find the preveous causal chain that led to it. This requires an anagnosis of the history of the subject to discern the sequence of events which produced the actual situation. The proper anagnosis of the past will lead to the etiology of the present and thus explain it causaly. Anagnosis, therefore, assumes that there is some cause-effect relationship between antecedents and consequents; so that temporal order rather than chaos determines the sequence of events. If that is so, knowledge of the past and present should inevitably lead to determination of the future. Thereby, on the basis of diagnosis and anagnosis, one should be able to present not only a plausible description and explanation of a problem, but also a prediction of its evolution. This last step of prognosis, projects into the future the trends established in the past, as they are transformed by the present. In this way, it calculates the probable within the the limits of the possible. Together, these three steps follow the arrow of time, and allow us to study the temporal development of events. Realistic description, historical explanation and conditional prediction have always been an inherent part of human activity everywhere. We, therefore, perform this diachronic process in order to explain the dynamics of deterministic systems, especially as they apply to the macrohistorical progress operating on the global world scale. Idealy, this method should produce complete knowledge on any subject. Yet, for various practical and theoretical reasons, it is now accepted that such knowledge is impossible. Both the inadequacy of facts

and laws, as well as the inherent uncertainty and indeterminacy of reality preclude the exact knowledge of anything. Thus, we have to admit this epistemological limitation and resign ourselves to a life of incomplete knowledge.

3.2. Methodology. Even if it can never be complete, knowledge can be promoted by some methods more than others. Methodology is such a search for a systematic and optimal way of reaching a given objective. As a means to an end, a method is the way of crossing from ignorance to knowledge. Finding the best vehicle to move in this direction, therefore, becomes the purpose of the search here. Since the way to knowledge has been found to relate empirical phenomena with mental noomena, one must follow this road back and forth between its two end points. For this journey, logic is the main means of transporting symbols and communicating ideas. This method provides three rational criteria which determine the validity of both the process and its results. First and foremost is the sylogistic method which is identified with classical Aristotelian logic. Although this method proceeds by deduction from the general to the specific; the opposite sense, from specific to general, can easily be derived by induction. The former applies unified theories to explain diverse experiences; whereas the latter builds broad theories from a lot of statistical data.Together, deductive and inductive logic provide the rules for both rationalizing and generalizing in a valid manner. Science combines the two processes, by trying to discover empirical events as well as construct conceptual laws. These laws supply the necessary broad prerequisites with which the sufficient specific conditions combine to formulate meaningful explanations. Thus, explaining unique empirical facts in terms of universal ideals or formal abstractions is accepted as valid by positivist thinking. The ideal abstractions of symbolic logic and mathematics, however, cannot always be applied to the behavior of very complex systems, such as human ones. Relativistic thinking therefore emphasizes the specific and contingent aspects of behavior in order to explane incidential or circumstantial events. In these cases, analogical thinking is more appropriate for purposes of consistency. According to this comparative method, exigesis is best achieved by juxtaposing the similarities and differences among the various aspects of reality. To this end, the analogical method serves a purpose by comparing the known to the unknown and the social to the natural. In addition to sylogy, analogy as a valid criterion for extending knowledge from one field to another. Comparing the simpler and well-known laws of nature with the complex phenomena of society, one,thereby expects to widen the understanding of both the natural and the social realms. Finely, through the third dialogical method, the proper meaning can be established for different conditions. The hermeneutic school believes that understanding is only possible by subjective interpretation of recorded evidence. Such textual analysis tries to explain human actions by grasping the intensions and rationales that people give to justify them, and thereby clarify the ambiguities of words and deeds. This position assumes the complete dichotomy between nature and society, by assuming that human beings control their actions, whereas natural forces do not. Although, the differences between men and atoms are well noted here, we reject such diametrical opposition between the human and natural worlds because the differences are not as great as all that. On the contrary, evolving knowledge is reconciling their differences and thus closes the gap between them.

3.3. Axiology. In order to complete the codex of this model, we now present its axiology. This area deals with the axioms and values which underlie choice; so it is indispensible in any normative work such as this one. Although, it is often said that pure science is value-free, human concerns are not. Therefore, we admit certain value preferences and go on to justify them on the basis of three critical standards. The first one establishes responsible behavior by distinguishing between necessary and voluntary action. Since one can only be responsible for intentional acts, there must be a clear difference between determinism and voluntarism. Anacrisis provides the judgement for such distinction by defining the area of free will and human control from the realm of superior force and necessity. The second standard establishes the relevance among things or ideas. By the process of diacrisis, a judgement can be made between the trivial and the important. The extent or degree in which something affects something else is obviously the basis of relevance and provides the main criterion of importance. On this basis, importance is a relative concept which depends on the strength of influence in particular relationships, and not an absolute standard of reality. The third and last standard of evaluation concerns the preferences exhibited by all systems. According to these preferences, certain things are desirable and others avoidable. On the basis of certain natural proclivities regarding love and hate, human beings develop moral codes of good and evil. As a code of social behavior, morality is an syncritic process which guides human conduct by entering a consideration of others in any intentional action that concerns them. In this way, ethics establishes the proper relations between the self and its social or natural environments. Diagram 5, outlines these three canonical dimensions of our model in their contextual perspective. As such, the epistemological process corresponds to topology, the methodology to chronology, and the axiology to ontology. Of course, these connections will have to be clarified as the model is applied and so become operationalized in particular situations.

CONCLUSION With this presentation of the content, context and codex of the model, we have now completed a unified conceptual framework for studying any human concern. In order to implement this model, one shall have to utilize the above parameters to construct a three dimensional universe of discourse. We will close this article by putting forth the general guidelines which should be followed in this endeavor. To begin with, we take the first parameter corresponding to the existential content. From this content is selected only the component which is covered by the natural sciences. In effect, this will concern the subject-matter studied by physics, chemistry and biology, because these three great disciplines represent the core of the natural sciences. The second parameter corresponding to the space-time context, is adapted to frame what we consider to be the three typical conditions of reality: statics; dynamics and dialectics. The first reflects the constant or conservative aspects of reality; the second reflects the opposite tendencies for variety and change; whereas the third combines both to reflect the fluctuations and contradictions of nature. Each one of these conditions is governed by equivalent laws, which can then be discussed and compared. Finally, the third parameter concerns the operating method. It juxtaposes the natural and social sciences as the two premises of a sylogism and then draws the appropriate general conclusion from them. These steps begin with natural laws as the major premise, continue with the social phenomena as the minor premise, and end with general system laws as the conclusion. Each attempt could, therefore, begin with an exposition of a natural law, followed by a relevant social phenomenon and end with the inclusion of the latter into the former as a general conclusion. In this way one should arrive at the extension of physical laws into general theories which apply to society as well nature. In other words, this process transforms the inputs from the natural sciences into social science outputs. This way the basic laws of natural science can demonstrate their adaptability and convertibility into broader principles which include the social sciences. In doing so, one should try to keep faith with the imperatives of both truth and beauty. The fundamental axiom is that reality always presents us with at least three faces. Two of these are the classical opposites of ying and yang which are joined by a third which is at the same time an affirmation and a denial of both. These three primordial conditions are at the base of the triadic thinking which pervades this model and frames its concepts. Following this dictum of conceptual elegance, we have combined the above parameters, a three dimentional matrix, shown in Diagram 6. This 3 x 3 x 3 or 27 cell structure, much like a Rubik cube, represents the overall conceptual framework of this study and contains all its aspects. There are no illusions as to the difficulty of attaining even this goal in one fell swoop. Nevertheless, a beginning has to be made and someone has to work up the temerity to do it. So the challenge has been accepted here to launch in ernest this process of interscientificnomothetic convergence and an initial attempt has already been completed. If it is successful, this project will eventually lay the foundations for a Social Systems Theory based on the general science paradigm drawn here.