Understanding Systems Theory as the Antithesis in the Contemporary Dialectic of Science
Systems theory is a scientific attempt to theoretically explain interconnectivity of the life such as through the Gaia Hypothesis. This hypothesis is not just an attempt to explain the dynamic and holistic way in which the biosphere functions, it also reflects the need to reform science making it less reductionistic in explaining phenomena. A reformation of science may be necessary in order to end science's primary role that is to affirm and defend the status quo, rather than to question it.
The Dialectics of Science
Understanding Systems Theory as the Antithesis in the Contemporary Dialectic of Science
Systems theory is a scientific attempt to theoretically explain interconnectivity of the life such as through the Gaia Hypothesis. This hypothesis is not just an attempt to explain the dynamic and holistic way in which the biosphere functions, it also reflects the need to reform science making it less reductionistic in explaining phenomena. A reformation of science may be necessary in order to end science's primary role that is to affirm and defend the status quo, rather than to question it.
In fact an understanding of the dialectic of science shows that it operates complementary to a build-up of social forces in the greater society. When a society is stagnant in some way it is usually kept from self-revealment. Individually when we open to self-revealment we begin to acknowledge aspects of ourselves that are inconvenient for us to understand. It is up to us as individuals devoted to the process of self-revealment to make others aware of the importance of this process of developing a full self-awareness of the society and of life itself and its many contradictions.
Mainstream Science in Defense of the Status Quo
Collectively powerful forces in society act to protect their own interests, preventing the necessary evolution of society. This status quo in its most modern form has implanted within us notions through the modern media systems with the covert aim of fostering insecurity and low self-esteem. To overcome this inadequacy we are told that we need to work and consume to a degree that ensures "success." Without science these advanced information and communication technologies could not exist.
The dialectic of science implies that science too is susceptible to evolutionary process of human society as well as human perceptions of reality within a given age or historical period. The many diverse aspects of cultural and aesthetic forms that are now cultivated within humanity are not only related to cultural and geographical divergence, but also the impact that this divergence has on human perception. Alternative realties result from alternative experiences. The notion that science is completely immune to these alternative realities of a particular culture, sub-culture, civilization or society is itself indicative of a embedded reluctance to honestly look at how what we call “science” is convoluted and distorted by people with ideological and personal agendas.
The cultural and social status quo is continually in resistance to the process of change that we participate in as we evolve. Rather a residual insecurity causes us to seek our dominance over nature and groups of people that we deem inferior. We seek to fight the inevitability of our physical demise, by erecting massive architectural monuments to our greatness. This is exactly what the Pharaohs did in ancient Egypt. While marveling at the greatness of Egypt’s monuments to its pharaohs, we cannot fully grasp the justification for those massive structures. Trying to understand a people, who not longer exist, is a murky task. Yet a cultural archetype begins to emerge as our understanding of the Egyptians grows with the meticulous uncovering of archeological evidence. The Egyptians were hardly alone in history in that they had a fixation on creating a cult of personality, an image of its leadership that was godlike. Most of the wealth of the society was soaked up by these monolithic and autocratic structures that we now call the pyramids.
The Utility of Modern Science is Driven by the Needs of Technology to Deliver for the Marketplace and also Assure Social Stability
Science’s primary utility is to develop evolving understandings of nature and the physical properties of the material world to master these properties and exert dominion over nature as well as most of humanity by an entrepreneurial, professional, and bureaucratic elite (a ruling structure not so unlike the Egyptians). While there have been periodic revolutions within the various sub-sections of science (Einstein’s theory of relativity), as of yet there has not been an ability to connect the dots and to deal with the residual insecurity that led to the founding of modern science. In the transitional period that was at the end of the medieval period and the beginning of renaissance, a compelling case was made for the development of a modern scientific understanding of reality in order to improve the human condition. Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon and Descartes were a few of the notable pioneers that developed the framework for modern science. Science has never been value free indeed there has from the beginning been a tight linkage between enlightenment philosophy and science. The “facts” that have driven the modernization process have been used in a way that has sought to minimize an understanding of reality as an integrated process of life becoming real and unfolding into the present. The rise of alternative theories about reality is the result of a deep distrust with the existing systems of thought and process that now dominate our modern world. The modernists missed something big, and we have not yet the necessary revolution in our thought process that might seek to integrate a lot of important ideas that were simply disregarded because they did not fit into modern philosophy and its underlying imperatives. A holistic explanation of reality sees the world in a way that eludes simplistic theories and hypotheses. Systems theory is not any one study of single system operating in isolation of itself, but instead seeks to develop an understanding of phenomena that takes into the complex interactions that lead to what we perceive as reality. As we develop a more holistic and integrated view of life, we can begin to better more informed decisions based on a fuller grasp of the complex processes that drive the various life processes of this world.
Self-awareness and Intention
Technology more than science is affected by intention. This is because the intent of inventors is convoluted by the power of money and the desire for fame and importance. What is explored as scientific is of course subjectively defined within the "normal" curve. If an idea is too many “deviations” from what is judged by the mainstream center as the norm, it will not receive proper funding to better understand the phenomena. Normal is defined by the bounds of the expressible, and it a very limited range of phenomena, because any thought to be too deviant to the mainstream understanding of reality is conveniently filtered out from the evolving social consciousness. Any research that challenges the notion of reductionism and materialism and is even slightly seen as a potential ideological weapon that could challenge the prevailing, preconceived notions of reality is under-funded or not funded at all.
The collective social delusion of a society is multidirectional. A delusional decision-making system affects the direction of scientific exploration and the mapping out of reality, so that science stagnates, and avoids research on controversial subjects as global warming and paranormal studies. Such a framework prevents the public from developing an understanding of reality that might seriously question the status quo, thus the delusional framework is reinforced and perpetuated.
Intention relates to the actual intent of the researcher, and of the society that use that technology or idea. Science manipulated to stay within the "normal and the conventional" is a society that limits the options of the inventor, since it is that theories that are evident and accepted--which are the basis of technological development and innovation--reflect the need of society to selectively map out reality. This therefore limits the potential applications of creativity towards more acceptable and practical development, rather than seeking to develop technologies that are truly revolutionary. A society that is reductionistic in how it views reality will continue to deny the connection between its actions as an integrated economic social and political system, and that of the world that surrounds it, despite the mounting evidence that seeks to dispel the wisdom of such behaviors.
The Next Scientific Revolution: Overcoming Modern Scientific Dogmatic though Systems Theory
It was Bucky Fuller and EF Schumacher and others during the core of modern realm that laid the groundwork for a new age for humanity, one in which holistic system's theory would be managed by complex computer modeling and management systems.
The dogmatism of science is cleverly disguised; because it operates in very subtle and holistic ways, while denying these very interrelationships between phenomena. The idea is emphasized by stressing this notion of developing and using technology with clear intent and consciousness. Those who speak of the holistic and interrelated dynamic that systems operate are still open to ridicule and denigration. This is because society continues to view phenomena in a reductionistic way. Another major factor is that it is more convenient to blame the other than to take personal responsibility for how one’s very own actions lead to social disruption and moral decay. This in itself is a reflection of how powerful reductionistic thinking has enabled us to externalize problems we create and evade personal responsibility for the situation of the human condition.
Since conventional science has until recently neglected the subtle process by which natural as well as human systems converge and diverge with each other, there is currently not enough research which is compelling enough to erode the mainstream coalition (those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are) and the conceptions of reality that they stubbornly cling to. It is these conceptions that sustain the present status quo. The question worth asking is whether overwhelming evidence can be compiled and articulated quickly enough to prevent a massive socioeconomic meltdown, which will destabilize societies all over the world.
Bertrand Russell once said that because of our preconceived notions, we require an overwhelming degree of evidence to get us to reconsider our ideological posture. No significant departure from the present way of doing things can occur on any scale, until there is a consensus of unhindered and unfettered engagement towards phenomena. It so follows that no system can be promoted or should be promoted as a real alternative to the present operative dynamic of society, until it develops such a posture, and it develops a methodology from which to engage reality in this way.