According to Ervin Laszlo, the coherence of the atom and the galaxies is the same coherence that keeps living cells together, cooperating to form life. When a complex system made up of many interacting parts is operating, sometimes an unexpected jump to a new level of complex organization happens. Our human body is made up of many such levels, each formed by another jump in complexity. Our lowest level of the cell jumps up a level to body tissue, to body organ, to body system and to the whole body. We are therefore formed with many onion skin like levels that all cooperate in complex ways to make one whole human being. It is really amazing how it all fits together.
At the same time, in the human realm of consciousness, we are – as far as we know – the only creatures able to contemplate who we are, why we are here and how we fit into the universe. We can even contemplate on the fact that we can contemplate about who we are and how we fit into the universe. This coherence also allows evolution to happen and that has enabled us to evolve from a microscopic bacterium right through to the complex beings that we are with all our mental, physical, emotional and spiritual capabilities.
Ervin Laszlo presents a theory that helps to tie both together. He proposes that the quantum vacuum –which we know contains all the information of our history from the Big Bang to now – is also consciousness. Everything in the universe therefore has consciousness; from a pebble to a tree, to a cloud, to a person. While this goes against the view of mainstream science, there are some highly respected scientists such as Freeman Dyson, David Bohm and Fritjof Capra, who support the idea that the universe is in fact conscious. Ervin Laszlo says that life happens because it comes from the quantum vacuum.
What is consciousness? Consciousness is about being aware of our own existence and the environment in which we live. So if one sub-atomic particle reacts in line with another particle somewhere else in the universe, we could say it is aware of what the other one is doing. In a way it is aware of itself in the universe. So, the question is: Is it enough to say all particles in the universe are conscious?
We are conscious of our existence and have evolved a brain able to access and use the consciousness held in quantum vacuum. Consciousness is yet another manifestation of coherence allowing a mass of nerve cells to co-operate and form a unified sense of self.
Ervin Laszlo equates this quantum vacuum with the Akashic Field of ancient Hindu spiritual tradition. The Hindu say the Akashic record is a field from which all the universe is formed and which holds all that ever was, is or will be. The Hindu also say that the Big Bang that started the universe, and the big crunch that will happen when the universe goes into reverse and collapses back into itself, is only a part of many cycles of universes, just like ours, appearing and disappearing, just like the subatomic particles in our world.
Ervin Laszlo states that information can be transferred from one cycle to the next, which explains how the precise numbers for gravity, electromagnetism etc. come to be so exact when there has not been enough time for these to have formed randomly. Those numbers are transferred from previous universes.
The Akashic Field, being the background to the subatomic worlds, also flows through the other realms of stars, galaxies and human life, and is an activating force in all those realms. It is the force moving the stars and galaxies and the spark that gives life to bunches of molecules, driving the power of evolution and giving us the ability to develop our consciousness and experience the unity of the universe.
Ervin Laszlo’s theory says we are therefore linked to all people who have ever lived, and we can get access to them by accessing the Akashic field. This can explain life after death, because the past has never gone away, telling us that the past is ever present in everything we do. It clearly points to a universe where all is one and everything is linked. And if we tune ourselves into the Akashic field, we can access abilities that appear to be supernatural, but are in fact completely natural. Activities such as meditation can help us plug into the Akashic field and become much more than we are at present. Science and spirituality do not need to be set against each other as we have tended to think for so long.
Ervin Laszlo links the world of science with spiritual traditions, presenting it in a seemingly clear and logical way, incorporating all the latest research in so many fields of scientific research and tying it all together into a wonderful cohesive theory that makes sense of so many strange and contradictory parts of the universe. It explains what is usually called the supernatural in natural terms, giving strong evidence for the truth of such things as clairvoyance, reincarnation and spiritual healing.
Information In the universe, states Ervin Laszlo, information is entirely basic. In the latest conception the universe doesn’t consist of matter and space, it consists of energy and information. Energy exists in the form of wave-patterns and wave-propagations in the quantum vacuum that fills space; in its various forms, energy is the “hardware” of the universe. The software is information. The universe is not an assemblage of bits of inert matter moving passively in empty space, it is a dynamic and coherent whole. The energy that constitutes its hardware is always and everywhere in-formed. It is in-formed by what David Bohm called the implicate order and what physicists now regard as the quantum vacuum or zero-point field (also called physical spacetime, universal field, or nuether). This is the in-formation that structures the physical world, the information we grasp as the laws of nature. Without information the energy waves and patterns of the universe would be as random and unstructured as the behavior of a computer without its software. But the universe is not random and unstructured; it is precisely in-formed. Would it be any less precisely informed, complex systems could not have emerged in it, and we would not be here to ask how this on first sight highly improbable development could have come about.
The answer science has to the ‘what’ question refers to an entangled, holographic, non-local connecting in-formation field in the cosmos. In his books – in greatest detail in Science and the Akashic Field – he discusses the evidence for this field and notes that the Hindu seers referred to it as Akasha, the fundamental element of the cosmos. In recognition of this feat of insight, he is calling the information field of the universe the Akashic Field.
But how does the scientific answer to the question regarding the fundamental significance of the spiritual experience relate to the answer given by religion?
For the world’s religions, the larger and deeper reality to which the spiritual experience connects us is a numinous, divine reality. It is either a spirit or consciousness that infuses the natural world (the immanentist view), or a spirit or consciousness that is above and beyond it (the transcendentalist claim). Traditional polytheistic religions leaned toward the former, while the Abrahamic monotheistic religions (with some exceptions) embraced the latter.
The difference between a divine intelligence immanent in the world and one that transcends it is not negligible, but it is still just a difference in interpretation. The raw data for both positions is the same: it is the spiritual experience, a quantum communion with universal oneness. In the Western religious perspective this is communion with the spirit that infuses the cosmos, identified as God. Deepak Chopra writes, “Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality. This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego. In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God.”
Our experience of the core consciousness of the world is ultimately an experience of the universal domain of consciousness Western religions call God. The experience itself, if not its interpretation, is the same in all religions, and in all religions it inspires a sense of oneness and belonging. Michael Beckwith affirms that “when you strip away the culture, history, and dogma of every religion, the teachers of those religions were teaching very similar principles and practices that led to a sense of oneness, that ended a sense of separation from the Whole.”
Science’s answer to the question of what the spiritual experience connects us to is immanentist. The information that underlies the universe, the Akashic Field, is part of the universe. This doesn’t mean that the immanentist position necessarily states the ultimate truth; it only means that science can only take an immanentist position. Scientists are limited to speaking about the natural world; they must leave speculation about transcendent realities to poets, philosophers, and spiritual masters.
It’s time to conclude. If the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, differences in its expression and interpretation are secondary and not a valid cause for conflict and intolerance.
The world to which our quantum brain connects us is fundamentally one, whether its oneness is due to an information field within the natural world or the work of a divine transcendent intelligence. To enter into communion with this oneness has been the quest of all the great teachers and spiritual masters. And to understand the nature of this oneness has been, and is, the ultimate quest of all great scientists.
Still today, physicists seek the one equation that would anchor their famous “Theory of Everything,” the theory that would account for all the laws of nature and explain everything that ever happened in our integrally whole universe. Einstein said that knowing this equation would be reading the mind of God.
About the Author
(image) David Storoy is a deputy head of a Norwegian interest organization in mental health care called White Eagle. His main work is in the community of Bergen as a consultant in the archive of building projects.
His main passion is practicing Vedanta teachings. Vedanta is called Science of Consciousness and he stopped chasing and searching for experience and now he is doing self-inquiry (reflections, contemplation, analyzing, logical thinking and systematizing) as a means of knowledge: Self-Knowledge of Vedanta teachings. James Swartz is his teacher and he has 40 years experience with Vedanta teachings. He has been influenced by Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Dayananda Saraswati. They follow and are influenced by a traditional Vedanta lineage.
Vedanta means end of knowledge and the source is mainly Upanishads. He is also grateful to Science and Nonduality and Deepak Chopra for the influence of following Vedanta teachings.
Source: The Consciousness Revolution
The Consciousness Revolution
Mar 6, 2022
by Ervin Laszlo The Laszlo Institute of New Paradigm Research
There is not only a revolution in the way our consciousness works, see my blog You can change your mindset, there is also a revolution in our very understanding of the nature of consciousness. There is a new concept emerging at the cutting edge of science and philosophy, and this concept is very different from the old established concept.
Consciousness is at the same time the most familiar and the most mysterious element of our life. Consciousness is mysterious because it is not clear what it is and where it comes from. Is the flow of sensations that makes up our consciousness generated in, and confined to, our brain? Or does it extend in some way beyond our body and brain? The new concept opts for the latter. And if the new concept is true, we are not what we thought we were, and the world is not what we thought it was. Consciousness in the new conception is more than a plaything of our imagination—it is the very substance of our beings. That of course is not the old concept, but /the heart of the new one.
Here I shall suggest the basic features of the new concept, but first I outline the old idea, so as to see the differences.
The old idea of consciousness
Until a few years ago, nobody other than deeply spiritual or religious people would have subscribed to the proposition that consciousness is more than a product of the workings of the brain. The accepted concept of consciousness was consistent with the physics of Newton. In the Newtonian universe, there is no place for consciousness. In the last count, all that exists in the universe are bits of matter moving in passive space and equitably flowing time. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon: something generated by real phenomena but is not real in itself. Consciousness is like the electricity generated by a stream of electrons in a turbine. The electrons are real, the turbine is real, but the electricity generated by them is a secondary phenomenon. It disappears when the electrons cease to move in the turbine. The existence of electricity is contingent on the working of the turbine, just as the existence of consciousness is contingent on the working of the brain. After all, consciousness can no more exists in a dead brain than electric charge could exists in a stationary turbine.
We do not see, hear, or taste electricity; we know it only by the effect it produces. This is said to be the same with consciousness. We experience the flow of sensations, feelings, and intuitions we call consciousness, but we do not perceive consciousness itself. No amount of scrutiny of the brain will disclose anything we could call consciousness. We only find gray matter with networks of neurons firing in sequence, creating the flow of electrons that generates the sensations we experience. When the brain is damaged, consciousness is distorted, and when the brain stops working, consciousness ceases.
For the classical concept there is nothing mysterious, about the presence of consciousness in the universe. Human consciousness is the product of the workings of the human brain.
The new concept of consciousness
The turbine concept of consciousness is a hypothesis and, as other hypotheses, it can be upheld if the predictions generated by it are confirmed by observations. In this instance, the relevant prediction is that when the brain stops working, consciousness will vanish This is confirmed by observation. People who are brain-dead do not possess consciousness.
The above claim does not admit of exceptions. We can no more account for the presence of consciousness in a dead brain than we could account for the presence of electric charge in a stationary turbine. Evidence to the contrary would place in question the basic tenet of the old concept. But evidence to the contrary does exist. It surfaces in rigorously protocolled experiments. There is real and credible evidence today that in some cases consciousness does not cease when brain function does.
The most widely known evidence is furnished by people who have reached the portals of death but returned to the ranks of the living. In some cases, their consciousness persists even when their brain functions are “flat.” Many temporarily brain-dead people report having had conscious experiences during their near-death episode. NDEs—near-death experiences—are surprisingly widespread: in some cases they are reported by up to 25 percent of the people who experienced a condition near physical death.
There are indications that conscious experience persists not only during the temporary cessation of brain function, but also in its permanent absence: when the individual is fully and irreversibly dead. These surprising experiences became known as ADEs: after-death experiences. The evidence for them is offered by mediums in deeply altered states of consciousness. In these trance-states they appear able to communicate with deceased persons. They “hear” the deceased recount their experiences after they have died and in some cases experience visual contact with them as well.
Reports of ADEs have been subjected to systematic scrutiny, exploring the possibility that the mediums would have invented the messages, or picked them up from living persons through some form of extrasensory perception. In a non-negligible number of cases, the theory that they were invented by the mediums or received by them in some nonordinary way could be ruled out: the messages contained surprisingly accurate information the mediums were unlikely to have accessed or invented themselves.
Given the mounting stream of evidence, we are logically obliged to accept that consciousness does not always and necessarily cease with the death of the brain that produced it. But, perhaps, the brain did not actually produce it? The new concept claims that consciousness is more than a product of brain function. “Our” consciousness is a local and temporary manifestation of a consciousness that is an element of the real world. More and more consciousness researchers, brain scientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists uphold this concept. Consciousness could and does exist beyond the brain.
In the new concept of consciousness, the flow of sensations we call consciousness is as real as energy, frequency, amplitude, phase, and information, and more real than “matter.” The brain is not a material turbine that generates consciousness, and consciousness is not its by-product. Consciousness is a real-world phenomenon. The brain is not its generator, only its receiver and transmitter.
Consciousness exists as a real phenomenon in the universe, and this phenomenon is universal; it is “one.” Famed quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger said that consciousness in the world does not exist in the plural: the overall number of minds in the world is one. In his last years, Carl Jung came to a similar conclusion. The psyche is not a product of the brain and is not located within the skull; it is part of the one-universe: of the unus mundus. In David Bohm’s quantum physics, the roots of consciousness are traced to the deep reality of the cosmos: the implicate order. A number of contemporary scientists, such as Henry Stapp, elaborate this concept. Consciousness, they say, is nonlocal: it is present throughout the universe.
The quantum scientists revive an ancient wisdom: We are connected through our participation in the world’s one-consciousness. This is a very different condition from being a separate entity with a separate brain producing a separate consciousness.
The new concept of consciousness is more than a theory of consciousness: it is a revolution in our understanding of being.
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
Source: Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field and The Dilemmas of Modern Consciousness Research
My Related Posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
The Great Chain of Being
Indira’s Net: On Interconnectedness
Geometry of Consciousness
Charles Sanders Peirce’s Continuum
On Synchronicity
On Holons and Holarchy
Hua Yan Buddhism : Reflecting Mirrors of Reality
What is Yogacara Buddhism (Consciousness Only School)?
Mind, Consciousness, and Quantum Entanglement
Consciousness of Cosmos: A Fractal, Recursive, Holographic Universe
Law of Dependent Origination
Five Types of System Philosophy
Systems View of Life: A Synthesis by Fritjof Capra
Key Sources of Research
Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything
This book offers an original hypothesis capable of unifying evolution in the physical universe with evolution in biology; herewith it lays the conceptual foundations of “transdisciplinary unified theory”. The rationale for the hypothesis is presented first; then the theoretical framework is outlined, and thereafter it is explored in regard to quantum physics, physical cosmology, micro– and macro–biology, and the cognitive sciences (neurophysiology, psychology, with attention to anomalous phenomena as well). The book closes with a variety of studies, both by the author and his collaborators, sketching out the implications of the hypothesis in regard to brain dynamics, cosmology, the concept of space, phenomena of creativity, and the prospects for the elaboration of a mature transdisciplinary unified theory. The Foreword is written by philosopher of science Arne Naess, and the Afterword is contributed by neuroscientist Karl Pribram.
The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy the New Developments in the Sciences
The Age of Bifurcation: Understanding the Changing World
Ervin Laszlo Gordon and Breach, 1991 – Bifurcation theory – 126 pages
The Connectivity Hypothesis: Foundations of an Integral Science of Quantum, Cosmos, Life, and Consciousness
Author Ervin Laszlo Contributor Ralph H. Abraham Edition illustrated Publisher State University of New York Press, 2003 ISBN 0791457850, 9780791457856 Length 147 pages
The Evolution of Cognitive Maps: New Paradigms for the Twenty-first Century
Volume 5 of World futures general evolution studies, ISSN 1043-9331 Editor Ervin Laszlo Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Psychology Press, 1993 ISBN 2881245595, 9782881245596 Length 292 pages
System, Structure, and Experience: Toward a Scientific Theory of Mind
Human Values and Natural Science: Proceedings, Volume 3
Volume 4 of Current topics of contemporary thought Human Values and Natural Science: Proceedings, State University of New York College, Geneseo
Editors Ervin Laszlo, James Benjamin Wilbur Contributor State University of New York College, Geneseo Publisher Gordon and Beach, 1970 Original from University of Minnesota Digitized Jan 19, 2010 ISBN 0677139608, 9780677139609 Length 292 pages
Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought
Harper Torchbooks: Philosophy
Author Ervin Laszlo Edition illustrated Publisher Gordon and Breach, 1972 ISBN 067703850X, 9780677038506 Length 328 pages
Studies on the Conceptual Foundations: The Original Background Papers for Goals for Mankind
We Are in the Midst of a Global Transformation (pt. 2 of 2)
Prolific author and philosopher Ervin Laszlo discusses his most recent books, in which he outlines how the latest discoveries in science converge with spiritual insights and point to the ways in which society might evolve in ways that will help overcome contemporary crises.
Consciousness in the Universe is Tuned by a Musical Master Code, Part 3: A Hydrodynamic Superfluid Quantum Space Guides a Conformal Mental Attribute of Reality
International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) in 1988
American Society for Cybernetics
Key Scholars
Ervin Laszlo
Norbert Wiener
Ludwig von Bertalanffy
George J. Klir
Howard Pattee
Jay Forrester
George Richardson
Fritjof Capra
James Grier Miller
Gregory Bateson
Niklas Luhmann
Heinz von Foerster
Archie J. Bahm
Kenneth Boulding
W. Ross Ashby
C. W. Churchman
Mario Bunge
Herbert A. Simon
Robert Rosen
Stafford Beer
Anatol Rapoport
Ralph Gerard
Russell Ackoff
Erich Jantsch
Ralph Abraham
Stuart Kauffman
Louis Kauffman
Humberto Maturana
Alfred North Whitehead
Paul A. Weiss
Kurt Lewin
Roy R. Grinker
William Gray
Nicolas Rizzo
Karl Menninger
Silvano Arieti
Peter Senge
FIVE TYPES OF SYSTEMS PHILOSOPHY
Source: FIVE TYPES OF SYSTEMS PHILOSOPHY
Atomism
Holism
Emergentism
Structuralism
Organicism
Source: FIVE TYPES OF SYSTEMS PHILOSOPHY
Bunge’s three types of systems philosophies are expanded to five: atomism (the world is an aggregate of elements, without wholes; to be understood by analysis), holism (ultimate reality is a whole without parts, except as illusory manifestations; apprehended intuitively), emergentism (parts exist together and their relations, connections, and organized interaction constitute wholes that continue to depend upon them for their existence and nature; understood first analytically and then synthetically), structuralism (the universe is a whole within which all systems and their processes exist as depending parts; understanding can be aided by creative deduction), and organicism (every existing system has both parts and whole, and is part of a larger whole, etc.; understanding the nature of whole-part polarities is a clue to understanding the nature of systems. How these five types correlated with theories of conceptual systems and methodologies is also sketched.
Source: Five systems concepts of society
Bunge’s three “concepts of society” exemplify three types of systems philosophy. This article criticizes Bunge’s analysis as minimally inadequate by expanding his range to five concepts of society which exemplify five kinds of systems philosophy: individualism, emergentism, organicism, structuralism, and holism. Emphasis is given to stages in the development of emergentism, including cybernetics (four stages), systems theory (eight stages), and holonism, and then to opposing structuralism (four examples). Organicism as a type of systems philosophy and concept of society is constructed by incorporating the constructive claims of both emergentism and structuralism and by overcoming oppositions to them systematically.
Source: Holons: Three conceptions
Recent advances in systems theory have required a new term, ‘holon’ (a whole of parts functioning as part of a larger whole). These advances are complicated by differing interpretations provided by three competing kinds of general systems theory: Emergentism, structuralism and organicism. For emergentism, use of the term signifies a shift in emphasis from focusing on the dynamic equilibrium between a whole and its parts to that between the whole and the larger whole of which it is a part. For structuralism, the term serves in explaining subsystem adaptation to environmental and hierarchical constraints and determinations by invariant principles. By incorporating ideas from both emergentism and structuralism into its more intricate interpretations, the author claims that organicism presents a more adequate conception of the nature of holons—now regarded as essential to general systems thinking.
Source: Comparing civilizations as systems
Comparison of Western, Indian and Chinese civilizations as cultural systems exhibiting persisting ideals constituting important structural differences reveals that two taproots of Western civilization (the Hebraic stressing will and the Greek stressing reason) as characteristics essential to the nature of the world and man, are opposed in Hindu culture idealizing Nirguna Brahman as complete absence of both will (desire) and reason (distinctions) and yogic endeavor designed to eliminate both from persons, are partially integrated as complementary opposites in Chinese taoistic yin-yang ideals about both the universe and man. Opportunities for further research comparing cultural systems seem unlimited.
Source: Systemism: the alternative to individualism and holism
Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Systems Philosophy
Source: Introduction to Systems Philosophy
First Published in 1972, Introduction to Systems Philosophy presents Ervin Laszlo’s first comprehensive volume on the subject. It argues for a systematic and constructive inquiry into natural phenomenon on the assumption of general order in nature. Laszlo says systems philosophy reintegrates the concept of enduring universals with transient processes within a non-bifurcated, hierarchically differentiated realm of invariant systems, as the ultimate actualities of self-structuring nature. He brings themes like the promise of systems philosophy; theory of natural systems; empirical interpretations of physical, biological, and social systems; frameworks for philosophy of mind, philosophy of nature, ontology, epistemology, metaphysics and normative ethics, to showcase the timeliness and necessity of a return from analytic to synthetic philosophy. This book is an essential read for any scholar and researcher of philosophy, philosophy of science and systems theory.
Source: General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications
Source: General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications
Source: General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications
Source: Systems Theory as the Foundation for Understanding Systems
Source: Systems Theory as the Foundation for Understanding Systems
Source: Systems Theory as the Foundation for Understanding Systems
Source: Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory
On the Philosophical Ontology for a General System Theory
CUI Weicheng Key Laboratory of Coastal Environment and Resources of Zhejiang Province (KLaCER) School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China
Philosophy Study, June 2021, Vol. 11, No. 6, 443-458
In Systems: New Paradigms for the Human Sciences edited by Gabriel Altmann and Walter A. Koch, 337-349. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801194.337
Mario Bunge: A Centenary Festschrift
Michael R. Matthews
Springer International Publishing, Aug 1, 2019 – 827 pages
Systemism: the alternative to individualism and holism
Mario Bunge
The Journal of Socio-Economics Volume 29, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 147-157
Emergence and Evidence: A Close Look at Bunge’s Philosophy of Medicine
Rainer J. Klement 1,* and Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay 2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Robert-Koch-Straße 10, 97422 Schweinfurt, Germany 2 Department of History & Philosophy, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA * Correspondence: rainer_klement@gmx.de; Tel.: +49-9721-7202761
E. A. Feigenbaum and P. McCorduck, The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan’s Computer Challenge to Our World. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA (1983).
Diederik Aerts, B. D’Hooghe, R. Pinxten, and I. Wallerstein (Eds.). (2011). Worldviews, Science And Us: Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Worlds, Cultures And Society – Proceedings Of The Workshop On Worlds, Cultures And Society. World Scientific Publishing Company.
Arthur Koestler (1967). The Ghost in the Machine. Henry Regnery Co.
Alexander Laszlo & S. Krippner S. (1998) Systems theories: Their origins, foundations, and development. In J.S. Jordan (Ed.), Systems theories and a priori aspects of perception. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998. Ch. 3, pp. 47–74.
Laszlo, A. (1998) Humanistic and systems sciences: The birth of a third culture. Pluriverso, 3(1), April 1998. pp. 108–121.
Laszlo, A. & Laszlo, E. (1997) The contribution of the systems sciences to the humanities. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(1), April 1997. pp. 5–19.
Ervin Laszlo (1972a). Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought. New York N.Y.: Gordon & Breach.
Laszlo, E. (1972b). The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy of the New Developments in the Sciences. George Braziller.
Laszlo, E. (1973). A Systems Philosophy of Human Values. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(4), 250–259.
Laszlo, E. (1996). The Systems View of the World: a Holistic Vision for our Time. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press.
Laszlo, E. (2005). Religion versus Science: The Conflict in Reference to Truth Value, not Cash Value. Zygon, 40(1), 57–61.
Laszlo, E. (2006a). Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality. Inner Traditions.
Laszlo, E. (2006b). New Grounds for a Re-Union Between Science and Spirituality. World Futures: Journal of General Evolution, 62(1), 3.
Gerald Midgley (2000) Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Springer.
Rousseau, D. (2013) Systems Philosophy and the Unity of Knowledge, forthcoming in Systems Research and Behavioral Science.
Rousseau, D. (2011) Minds, Souls and Nature: A Systems-Philosophical Analysis of the Mind-Body Relationship. (PhD Thesis, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, School of Theology, Religious Studies and Islamic Studies).
Jan Smuts (1926). Holism and Evolution. New York: Macmillan Co.
Vidal, C. (2008). Wat is een wereldbeeld? [What is a worldview?]. In H. Van Belle & J. Van der Veken (Eds.), Nieuwheid denken. De wetenschappen en het creatieve aspect van de werkelijkheid [Novel thoughts: Science and the Creative Aspect of Reality]. Acco Uitgeverij.*
Wilby, J. (2011). A New Framework for Viewing the Philosophy, Principles and Practice of Systems Science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(5), 437–442.
Adams KM, Hester PT, Bradley JM, Meyers TJ, Keating CB. 2014. Systems theory as the foundation for understanding systems. Systems Engineering 17(1): 112– 123.
Billingham J. 2014a. GST as a route to new systemics. Presented at the 22nd European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR 2014), 2014, Vienna, Austria. In EMCSR 2014: Civilisation at the Crossroads—Response and Responsibility of the Systems Sciences, JM Wilby, S Blachfellner, W Hofkirchner (eds.). EMCSR: Vienna, 2014; 435– 442.
Billingham J. 2014b. In search of GST. Position paper for the 17th Conversation of the International Federation for Systems Research on the subject of ‘Philosophical Foundations for the Modern Systems Movement’, St. Magdalena, Linz, Austria, 27 April – 2 May 2014. (pp. 1– 4).
Billingham J. 2015. GST* as the unifying theory of the Systems Sciences. In Systems Philosophy and Its Relevance to Systems Engineering, D Rousseau, J Wilby, J Billingham, S Blachfellner (eds.). Workshop held on 11 July 2015 at the International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) in Seattle, Washington, USA. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg2015iw15/systems-science-workshop-at-is15
Bunge M. 1973. How do realism, materialism, and dialectics fare in contemporary science? In Method, Model and Matter. Reidel: Dordrecht; 169– 185. Reproduced in M Maher (ed.), 2001, Scientific Realism, Amherst: Prometheus, pp. 27-41. Page references in the present paper refer to the reproduction.
Dubrovsky V. 2004. Toward system principles: general system theory and the alternative approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 21(2): 109– 122.
Flood RL, Robinson SA. 1989. Whatever happened to general systems theory? In Systems Prospects, RL Flood, MC Jackson, P Keys (eds.). Plenum: New York NY; 61– 66.
Friendshuh L, Troncale LR. 2012. Identifying fundamental systems processes for a general theory of systems. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference, International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), July 15-20, San Jose State Univ., 23 pp.
Gambrel PA, Cianci R. 2003. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: does it apply in a collectivist culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 8(2): 143– 161.
Hammond D. 2005. Philosophical and ethical foundations of systems thinking. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 3(2): 20– 27.
Hofkirchner W. 2005. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, forerunner of evolutionary systems theory. In The New Role of Systems Sciences For a Knowledge-based Society, Proceedings of the First World Congress of the International Federation for Systems Research, Kobe, Japan, CD-ROM (ISBN 4-903092-02-X) (Vol. 6).
Hofkirchner W, Rousseau D. 2015. Foreword. In General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications ( New Edition), L Bertalanffy. Braziller: New York, N.Y.; xi– xix.
Hofkirchner W, Schafranek M. 2011. General System Theory. In Philosophy of Complex Systems ( 1st edn), CA Hooker (ed.). Elsevier BV: Amsterdam; 177– 194.
Hooker CA. 2011. Introduction to philosophy of complex systems A. In Philosophy of Complex Systems ( 1st edn), CA Hooker (ed.). Elsevier BV: Amsterdam; 3– 90.
Pouvreau D. 2014. On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s ‘general systemology’, and on its relationship to cybernetics—Part II: contexts and developments of the systemological hermeneutics instigated by von Bertalanffy. International Journal of General Systems 43(2): 172– 245.
Rapoport A. 1976. General systems theory: a bridge between two cultures. Third annual Ludwig von Bertalanffy memorial lecture. Behavioral Science 21(4): 228– 239.
Rousseau D, Wilby JM. 2014. Moving from disciplinarity to transdisciplinarity in the service of thrivable systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 31(5): 666– 677.
Rousseau D, Wilby JM, Billingham J, Blachfellner S. 2015. In search of general systems transdisciplinarity. Presented at the International Workshop of the Systems Science Working Group (SysSciWG) of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), in Torrance, Los Angeles, 24– 27 Jan 2015. Available at: https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/projects/o-systems-philosophy
Tang TLP, Ibrahim AHS, West WB. 2002. Effects of war-related stress on the satisfaction of human needs: the United States and the Middle East. International Journal of Management Theory and Practices 3(1): 35– 53.
Troncale LR. 1978. Linkage Propositions between fifty principal systems concepts. In Applied General Systems Research, G Klir (ed.). Plenum Press: New York, NY; 29– 52.
Troncale LR. 2009. Revisited: the future of general systems research: update on obstacles, potentials, case studies. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26(5): 553– 561.
Tutor FD. 1986. The relationship between perceived need deficiencies and factors influencing teacher participation in the Tennessee career ladder. Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN.
Von Bertalanffy L. 1956. General system theory. General Systems 1, 1– 10. Article reprinted in Midgley, G. (Ed) (2003) Systems Thinking Vol 1, pp 36–51 (London: Sage). Page number references in the text refer to the reprint.
Wahba MA, Bridwell LG. 1976. Maslow reconsidered: a review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15(2): 212– 240.
Wilby JM, Rousseau D, Midgley G, Drack M, Billingham J, Zimmermann R. 2015. Philosophical foundations for the modern systems movement. In Systems Thinking: New Directions in Theory, Practice and Application, Proceedings of the 17th Conversation of the International Federation for Systems Research, St. Magdalena, Linz, Austria, 27 April – 2 May 2014, M Edson, G Metcalf, G Chroust, N Nguyen, S Blachfellner (eds.). SEA-Publications, Johannes Kepler University: Linz, Austria; 32– 42.
Bateson G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
E Laszlo. (ed.). 1972. The Relevance of General Systems Theory: Papers Presented to Ludwig von Bertalanffy on his Seventieth Birthday. George Braziller: New York.
Blitz, D. (1992). Emergent evolution: Qualitative novelty and the levels of reality. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1974–1989). Treatise on basic philosophy. (Eight Volumes) Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Bunge, M. (1981). Scientific materialism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.BookGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (1992). System boundary. International Journal of General Systems, 20(3), 215–219.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (2001). Philosophy in crisis. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Marquis, J.-P. (1996). A critical note on Bunge’s system boundary and a new proposal. International Journal of General Systems, 24(3), 245–255.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Abdel-Malik, A. The project on socio-cultural alternatives in a changing world: Report on the formative state (May 1978-December 1979). United Nations University, Tokyo, 1980.
Viewpoints which Matter 