|
Sabelli HC.
Process
Theory, a Biological Model of Open Systems . Proc of the Internat Soc
for the Systems Sciences. 1991:2:219-225.
PROCESS THEORY, A BIOLOGICAL MODEL OF OPEN SYSTEMS
H.C.Sabelli
Rush University
1758 West Harrison, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Process theory, a comprehensive theory of open systems, derives its
basic concepts from biology and psychology: the coexistence of energy,
information and matter from the psychobiological basis of ideas and
feelings; cosmic asymmetry from biochemical asymmetry; the union of
opposing processes in nature and thinking from homeostatic and
psychological oppositions; the priority of the simple and supremacy of the
complex in nature from the hierarchical organization of the central
nervous system; a non-mechanical model of development from individuation.
This article integrates these concepts with fundamental ideas in process
mathematics, process thermodynamics, and process philosophy. Key words:
asymmetry; dynamics; evolution; systems theory; process theory;
priority/supremacy; thermodynamics.
Science was born as a natural philosophy, "physiology",
which took living matter, spontaneously changing and creative, and
pregnant with opposition and energy, as a model for all matter. Heraclitus
said that all that exists is fire and logos. In modern terms, we would say
that matter contains energy and information. Later on, physiology was
limited to biology; physical mechanism and materialism became the dominant
philosophy of science, while idealism and spiritualism dominated the
psychosocial discourse. Matter was conceived as inert --separate from
energy-- and formless --separate from form or idea (in Greek, idea means
form). Such mechanism was
considered as the sine qua non of science. Yet biology is a better model
than mechanics to understand the universe.
As the head is a better sample through which to understand man than
a hand, Renaissance philosopher Nicholas of Cusa explained, so a human
being is a more enlightening sample of matter than a rock. The biological model has returned to center stage with
Pasteur's discovery of cosmic asymmetry [9], Thom's catastrophe theory
[22], Prigogine's thermodynamics [12], and psychobiological demonstrations
of the physical nature of ideational processes.
Biological models have been adopted by process philosophers
--Hegel, Engels, Bergson, Whitehead-- and by systems theorists [10]. Process
theory (PT) is a general theory of natural and human systems which
reformulates Heraclitus' three interlocking theories regarding the
composition, the form, and the evolution of natural and human processes (dynamic
monism, union of opposites and co-creative evolution) as scientific
hypotheses within the framework of dynamics, thermodynamics and
psychodynamics. Here we present its foundations on evolutionary biology
and psychological medicine. In companion articles in this volume, we
present a mathematical formulation of process theory [14], we apply it to
the empirical study of the process of choosing [5], to the analysis of
depression and conflict in individuals and social systems [18], and to the
development of a new program for social organization [19,20].
Energy, information and matter
The concepts of energy and information have emerged from our own
human experiences of effort and learning. Biological energy and biological
information are indissolubly linked to biological matter. In our times,
psychobiology has begun to bridge the brain-mind gap opened by centuries
of dualistic philosophy. Advances
in psychopharmacology, biochemistry, and brain visualization techniques
have revealed that emotions and ideas always have an energetic and
material counterpart. Fear,
for instance, appears to be the subjective counterpart of the release of
brain norepinephrine and can be visualized as an increase in blood flow,
i.e. energy supply, in certain brain structures. Drugs modify feelings,
and feelings modify brain metabolism.
The objective and the subjective appear to be two different aspects
of the same psychological processes rather than two different substances,
material and spiritual. Freud's
concept of libido as a form of energy allows one to understand how
spiritual matters can affect the behavior of material entities.
Dualism offers no explanation as to how matter and spirit could
interact. The unity of
physical and psychological processes as forms of energy suggest that all
systems are made of energy (dynamic monism) -- where energy is defined as
in thermodynamics. "All is fire", said Heraclitus.
As a consequence, every system is a process which changes itself
and changes those systems with which it interacts.
The first law of thermodynamics demonstrates that all forms of
energy transform into each other, and Einstein demonstrated that also
matter is a form of energy. There is likewise an energetic equivalent of
information [23]. In Einstein's famous formula relating energy and mass
(matter), c2 represents two-way communication at the speed of
light. Genes are material structures carrying some information that
directs energetic processes. Ideas are information, patterns in the
brain's electrical activity, forms of words or symbols. All processes,
natural or human, objective or subjective, physical or ideational,
material or spiritual, are made of the same stuff, energy (substance
monism). As energy promotes its own transformation, this energetic oneness
is manifested by a multiplicity of forms and structures: processes of
change and transformation not only unify but also diversify all that
exists. Moreover, nothing has point-like simplicity.
Every process contains information ("logos"); even the
simplest form of energy has informational and structural (material)
aspects (property pluralism). This unity of energy, information and matter
should be contrasted with philosophical materialism and idealism, that
reduce all either to matter or to ideas, as well as to systems theories
that consider energy, matter and information as three separate components
of processes [10]. Energy,
information and material structure appear at every level of organization.
Every subatomic entity has a particulate aspect and a wave aspect (quantum
complementarity) and communicates partial information regarding position
and momentum (quantum uncertainty). In Coulomb's law, the energy potential
or asymmetry is related to the intensity of the current (communication of
information) and to the material characteristics of the circuit
(conductance). Neural information consists in a movement of electrically
charged molecules (ions) across cell membranes. Brain structures produce
emotions (subjective information and communication displays) and behaviors
(energetic outputs). Economic value includes labor (work or energy),
matter (raw materials and means of production) and technology
(information), implying its co-creation by capital, labor and
professionals; this contrasts to the labor theory of value (Ricardo,
Marx), illustrating the social and even political significance of the
triune formulation.
Pasteur's cosmic asymmetry
Pasteur discovered that biological organisms are made of asymmetric
chemicals. Such asymmetry is
not explainable by classic thermodynamics and hence has been attributed to
chance [2]. In contrast,
Pasteur reasoned that biochemical asymmetry must be the result of
asymmetry at the most fundamental physical level [9] and that life itself
was a consequence of the asymmetry of the universe. This concept of cosmic
asymmetry has been validated in our century, beginning with discovery of
the non-conservation of parity in beta decay [24], the optical rotation of
atoms [2], the string theory of matter, the importance of highly
asymmetric, non-equilibrium states in the thermodynamics of open processes
[12], the asymmetric preponderance of matter over anti-matter, the
time-asymmetric collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics, the
asymmetry of the crystals of which rocks are made, the violation of gauge
symmetry by superfluids, the lack of time symmetry in magnets [2], and
fundamental biological asymmetries such as the ionic asymmetry across
plasma membranes, brain left-right asymmetries, and other anatomical
asymmetries, including social asymmetries of class, sex, race, nationality
[6,13]. Asymmetric structures lead to asymmetric processes, and in turn
the asymmetry of processes becomes imprinted as structural asymmetry.
Processes include three forms of asymmetry: (i) the linear
asymmetry of energy (the unidirectionality of time, absent in mechanics
but prominent both in thermodynamics and evolutionary theories; the
spontaneous maximization of entropy; the unidirectionality of causation);
(ii) the cyclical asymmetry of information (the unbalance of opposites,
one of which predominates at each point in time); (iii) and the
hierarchical organization of material structures (priority/supremacy, see
later). These three forms of asymmetry are evident in the human body with
its dorso-ventral asymmetry reflecting the direction of movement; its
rough right-left symmetry broken by the usual predominance of the left
cerebral hemisphere and the right hand; and its vertical hierarchy in
which the priority of the organs of reproduction and locomotion is
unequally balanced by the supremacy of the cephalic organs of perception
and thinking.
Homeostatic and psychological oppositions: the union of
opposites
Our body shows a remarkable right-left symmetry: we walk on two
legs, we see with two eyes, think with two brain hemispheres. In
anatomical oppositions, the opposing parts share growth and movement in
one direction. Thus, opposing the thumb, a movement that differentiates
humans from apes, means not only that the thumb is on the opposite side of
the fingers but also that it points in the same direction of the other
fingers. Limbs do not only
grow in the two opposite sides of the body, but they also share a forward
directionality such that hands can cooperate by working together, and legs
cooperate by alternating in stepping forward. Process theory thus portrays
opposites in nature and thought: they are not only different, conflictual
and separated but also fundamentally similar, harmonic and united.
This is the concept of the union of opposites, first discovered by
the ancient philosopher Heraclitus twenty-five centuries ago: every
process includes inseparable opposites.
Our concept of opposition stem from our behavioral experiences.
Each of us exists as part of a system of natural and social oppositions,
beginning with those of generation, sex, social role and group
identification. We start life as parts of mother, who after being our
first physical and biological environment becomes the first authority and
identification figure. This
is the basis for female priority, the fundamental yet covert
dominance of women, a fact of obvious social and psychological importance.
We reproduce in the context of an economy dominated by force; this is the
basis for the overt male supremacy.
Parent and child, women and men, are complementary opposites,
essentially similar and essentially different, interacting harmonically as
well as conflictually, sharing dominance yet at different times and in
different respects, and co-creating new individuals.
The interaction of these opposites does not result in a
"dialectic synthesis" but in the generation of new and unique
individuals who perpetuate the division in two sexes. Human interactions
also create new processes and social roles that are necessarily paired
(doctor and patient, employer and employee, warrior and victim).
Immersed in racial, class, sexual and generational antagonisms, our
thinking is distorted toward viewing opposites in terms of antagonism.
This distortion of thinking and feeling is what we call paraconsciousness
[13]. It affects both conscious and unconscious processes. Black and white
thinking is recognized as a major pathological trait which afflicts
neurotic and immature personalities [1] and predisposes to depression [3].
Notwithstanding, it is also the characteristic mode of political thinking,
predisposing to war and perhaps to socioeconomic depression.
Unfortunately, also traditional and modern mathematical logic view
opposites as mutually exclusive. We
are thus taught that the one and only form of rational thinking is to
think logically, that is to say, following the traditional logic that
separates opposites, and for which the union of opposites is a
contradiction, and therefore an error. This is the logic of Aristotle, who also taught that social
classes such as masters and slaves, women and men, are fundamentally
different. In spite of the separation of opposites postulated by logic,
opposites coexist in human thinking.
Freud recognized the necessary coexistence of opposites in the
unconscious. Jung recognized that all mental processes include oppositions
(unfortunately, many of his followers interpreted his pairs as dichotomies
rather than as coexisting aspects). In his studies of mental development,
Piaget discovered that oppositions are ever-present, and thus proposed
that rational thought has a group structure. In [14], we shall discuss
group inverse as a model for opposition.
Hobbes, Clausewitz, Darwin, Marx, and Freud viewed opposites as
united in eternal struggle. In
their views, evolution and history were the product of conflict between
individuals, nations, species, classes, or instincts. Actually, social
classes both cooperate and conflict with each other.
Without cooperation there can be no production, so it is misleading
to say that social progress is fueled by the struggle of classes. A purely
conflictual model does not apply even in biology, where evolution also
depends on the cooperation of species, from the incorporation of simple
organisms as intracellular organelles in complex cells to the production
of oxygen and nutrients by photosynthesis.
The concept of evolution of species through cooperation proposed by
Kropotkin is as valid as Darwin's idea of struggle, even if biologists
tend to forget the philosophical speculations of a Russian anarchist.
On the other hand, conflict is universal often necessary to promote
change and to preserve freedom. Those
Eastern philosophies and systems theories that view opposites as
complementary and harmonic, forget and hence support the abuse of the
powerful against the weak. The union of opposites postulates that harmony
and conflict coexist, in various degrees, in all oppositions.
Opposition is universal. Biological organisms illustrate a
multiplicity and variety of oppositions that belie the mechanical view
that opposites neutralize each other. Physiological regulatory processes
do not maintain a constant internal milieu through the action of negative
feedback mechanisms. Instead, the organism is full of internal pacemakers
that produce periodic and non-periodic alternations between opposite and
complementary states, as illustrated by respiratory and cardiac function.
Positive and negative electrical charge, the group symmetries of
subatomic particles, Pauli's principle, and crystal symmetries illustrate
the coexistence of opposites in physical systems. Bohr recognized that
quantum uncertainty represents a fundamental union of opposites [4].
Anabolism and catabolism illustrate how processes necessarily
develop simultaneous and opposing aspects.
Likewise, the evolution of the universe, the solar system, a
planet, the species, and human societies, from simple to complex, is
accompanied, and probably fueled by the maximization of entropy.
Evolution always occurs in association with involution. This
applies also to "progress" in human systems.
Human history is not a chronicle of progress, as the dominant
ideology in Western culture proclaims, nor is a story of Fall from the
Garden of Eden, nor is a cycle of ceaseless repetition in which apparent
change disguises an unchanging drama of conflicting human interests and
passions. History, natural or
human, is always a co-existence of opposing processes
both of which grow with time.
We are not moving upward toward better societies as part of an
evolutionary flow of progress. Economic, scientific, and psychological
advances constitute at one and the same time opportunities for social and
moral progress as well as for greater and more violent forms of social
oppression and conflict. From
the almost universal biological taboo against intraspecies killing, only
occasionally violated, human evolution has moved us into the limited
tribal wars of prehistory, often ending with the first casualty, to the
enslavement of others by empires, to the massive bombings of the 20th
century. Future history will
probably be an even higher drama in which the realization of higher forms
of human interactions will be constantly pitted against the development of
evermore powerful forms of social evil. Good and evil are inseparable and
can grow together; for instance, moral religions created religious
intolerance, crusades and inquisitions. Thus history, past and future, is
a concrete process, constructed at each point in time, shaped by general
laws, not determined by them. Rather human choice has to make the
decision, at each moment in time, between the two possible paths of
action. This is the core of
the conception of processes as punctuated by bifurcations as described by
modern dynamics (see 9). Thus,
tragic defeats and failures should not discourage us into a belief that
human progress in not possible, and that social action is useless.
Rather, because historical and moral progress is accompanied by
increased evil, social action is more important than ever.
Individuation as a non-mechanical concept of development
Although creativity is obvious in biology and psychology, the
physicalist bias that dominates much Western thought led to mechanical
models of causation and to determinism in the social and psychological
sciences. Only with the rediscovery of uncertainty and creativity by
quantum mechanics and non-linear dynamics, natural and human scientists
have allow themselves to recognize creativity as a fundamental feature of
processes. Yet the deterministic model survives in scientific and popular
views of development that adopt Aristotle's notion that psychological and
social evolution consist in an unfolding of a lineal sequence of
predetermined stages just as in fetal development. This view implies that
developmental arrests and underdevelopment are the causes of psychological
and social pathology. Actually only the general features of biological
development are determined. Growth
and maturation are processes of repeated differentiations (bifurcations in
the terminology of mathematical dynamics) which create individual paths. Hence the differentiation of living organisms into types,
genera, species and unique individuals. Likewise psychological development
is highly creative, subjected to chance interactions, manifesting personal
choice, and constantly generating novelty. In the same manner, human
populations differentiate into different nations and cultures. The
uniqueness of differentiation is validated by the physical sciences in its
concept of bifurcations; not even two snow flakes are identical to each
other. Psychiatric research demonstrates that psychopathology is the
result of a non-adaptative deviation or bifurcation from the range of
normal individuation, often determined by genetic abnormalities or by
trauma; this is in contrast to the developmental view that defines
pathology as an arrest at earlier stages of development.
In the same manner, poverty, dictatorship, civil war, war, are not
the result of underdevelopment but of a deviant development.
Whereas the developmental hypothesis suggests that poorer countries
should imitate the rich and adopt their economic system and culture, the
proces view indicates that such surrender to the domination of the more
powerful is the cause of their poverty.
Priority of the simple and supremacy of the complex
As discovered by the 19th century British neurologist H. Jackson,
the central nervous system is organized in a hierarchical but
bidirectional fashion, such that the simpler levels have priority in the
evolution of species and the development of the individual, and the more
developed structures, appearing later in evolution, control the lower
ones. Hence behavior is also
organized in a dynamic hierarchy: fundamental needs for heat, oxygen and
water, have priority, but are eventually dominated by more complex wants
for affection and creativity. PT postulates that this hierarchical organization of the
central nervous system reflects the hierarchical organization of processes
in nature and society: physical: chemical: biological: social:
psychological. Simple processes pre‑exist, coexist and outlast
complex processes; they also make up complex processes.
Complex processes are made of, and are surrounded by simple
processes which are essential for their existence. Complex processes are
more rare and transient but predominate whenever present, because a higher
density of information per unit of matter/energy increases their efficacy
and creativity. Complexity is defined as density of information relative
to the amount of energy and matter; a complex entity includes all the
simpler levels; for instance, a biological organism is necessarily
chemical and hence physical. In treating psychiatric illness, we must deal
with bidirectional interactions between processes, not with the
developmental stage the patient has achieved within a predetermined
sequence [16]. We thus find it useful to organize our clinical
formulations as a set of oppositions corresponding to the main issues at
the biological, social, personal, and spiritual levels of integration:
health or sickness, peace or war, work or poverty, love or loneliness,
soul or death. The
priority/supremacy concept also applies to our understanding of social
processes [18], psychobiological treatment [15,16] and to political
strategy [,19,20].
Process theory as a general theory of systems:
The development of a general theory of systems should proceed in
ways that bridge the gap between the natural and human sciences, promotes
cumulative effort, and yet recognizes the need for diversity and
disagreement [21]. Process theory was born as a bridge between biological
and psychosocial medicine, highlights its continuity with process
viewpoints from Heraclitus to Prigogine, and makes the confrontation of
multiple hypotheses [11,13], rather than the single-minded pursuit of one,
the center of its scientific and political strategy. PT differs from other
general systems theories in three basic issues: (a) boundaries, (b)
conflict, and (c) hierarchy : (a) The existence of boundaries selecting
the kind and rate of inputs and outputs has been considered a fundamental
aspect of the definition of system [21]. PT conceives also of
boundary-less systems, such as the solar system.
Each entity has a set of entities interacting with it; thus each
person is the center of her or his social network; obviously such networks
overlap, have no boundaries, and include entities which do not interact
directly with each other. (b) Organic models of systems highlight the
integration of opposing parts into a totality, whereas PT gives equal
importance to harmonic integration and conflictual competition and
struggle. For instance, instead of viewing family and institutions as a
sub-systems of society, PT views nation, place of work, families as
mutually synergic and mutually competitive and conflictual systems which
include each person. Even biological organisms are not simply homeostatic
systems maintained by harmonic interactions among their component parts,
but include processes that necessarily lead to death. (c) The hierarchy of
systems has been defined in terms of size (subatomic, atomic, molecular,
organismic, social, planetary, solar, etc), using the analogy of Russian
dolls or Chinese boxes. This scheme splits the physical level of
organization and places social processes above psychological ones. PT
postulates that interactions between levels of organization are organized
by their historical priority and their informational complexity
(mathematical, physical, chemical, biochemical, biological, social,
psychological, spiritual); hence social systems are considered to have
historical priority over psychological organisms, while personal processes
are recognized as more complex than social processes.
This view is supported by sociology and sociobiology, and is at
variance with the Russian doll model. The difference has important
implications in both sociology and medicine. The biosphere, the
population, the social system, have priority over the individuals they
contain. Systemic causes have priority over individual processes and
choices. The complexity of the system is less than the complexity of any
one of its individual parts; likewise a mechanical system is simpler than
its atomic structure. In summary, PT views structures and systems as
transient developments within processes, rather than viewing processes and
structures as complementary aspects of systems. For instance, instead of
describing a family of origin and a marital family as two systems, PT
views each person as the center of a family process which includes a
multiplicity of bonds, often competing and often reinforcing each other.
To apply these concepts scientifically requires
to formulate them in the more abstract and rigorous language of
mathematics. This is done in a companion article [14].
We thank the support given by Maria McCormick and the
Roger McCormick foundation to the Society for the Advancement of Clinical
Philosophy.
[1] Adler,
A., 1954, Understanding Human Nature. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett
Publ.
[2] Anderson, P.W., and Stein, D.L., 1987, Self-Organizing
Systems: The Emergence of Order.
(Ed. Yates, F.E.) Plenum.
[3] Beck, A.T., Rush, A., Shaw, B., and Emery, G., 1979, Cognitive
Therapy of Depression. New
York: Guilford Press.
[4] Capra, F., 1975, The Tao of Physics.
Boulder: Shambala.
[5] Carlson-Sabelli, L., Sabelli, H.C., and Patel, M.
1991, this volume.
[6] Corbalis, M.C., and Beale, I.L., 1976, The
Psychology of Left and Right.
New Jersey: L.Erlbaum
Associates.
[7] Forston,
E.N., and Lewis, L.L., 1984, Phys Res 113: 289-344.
[8] Griffin, D.R., 1986, "Bohm, Prigogine, and
Process Philosophy." In
Griffin (Ed.) Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time.
Albany: State
University of New York Press.
[9] Haldane, J.B.S., 1960, "Pasteur and Cosmic
Asymmetry." Nature
185: 87.
[10] Miller, J.G., 1965, "Living Systems:
Basic Concepts."
Behavioral Science
[11] Platt, J.R., 1964, "Strong Inference."
Science 146: 347-53.
[12] Prigogine, I., 1980, From Being to Becoming:
Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences.
W.H. Freeman.
[13] Sabelli, H.C., 1989, Union of Opposites:
A Comprehensive Theory of Natural and Human Processes.
Lawrenceville, VA: Brunswick.
[14] Sabelli, H.C., 1991, this volume.
[15] Sabelli, H.C., and Carlson-Sabelli, L., 1989,
"Biological Priority and Psychological Supremacy: A New Integrative
Paradigm Derived from Process Theory."
American Journal of Psychiatry 146:
1541-51.
[16] Sabelli, H.C. and Carlson-Sabelli L., 1991
"Process Theory as a Framework for Comprehensive Psychodynamic
Formulations." Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs
117: 5-27.
[17] Sabelli, H.C., Carlson-Sabelli, L., and Javaid, I.,
1990, "The Thermodynamics of Bipolarity:
A Bifurcation Model of Bipolar Illness and Bipolar Character and
Its Psychotherapeutic Applications."
Psychiatry 53: 346-368.
[18] Sabelli, H.C., and Javaid, J.I.,1991, this volume.
[19] Sabelli, H.C., and Synnestvedt, J., 1991, this
volume.
[20] Sabelli, H.C., and Synnestvedt, J., 1991, Personalization:
A New Vision for the Millennium.
Chicago: Society for
the Advancement of Clinical Philosophy.
[21] Slawski,
C., 1990, "Ten Levels of Theory Development: Toward an
"Ideal" GST." In B.H. Banathy and B.A. Banathy.
(Eds.) Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the
International Society for Systems Sciences. Portland, OR: 571-576.
[22] Thom,
R., 1975, Structural Stability and Morphogenesis.
Translated by D.H. Fowler. Reading, MA:
Benjamin/Cummings.
[23] Tribus,
M., and McIrvine, E., 1971, Sci Amer 224: 179-188.
[24] Yang,
C.N., and Lee, T.D., 1956, Phys Res 104: 207.
|