International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

R. RODRIGUEZ DELGADO, in accordance with his critique of General Systems terminology, proposes this expression and comments: "The General Theory would deal with generalizations applicable to all kinds of systems: conceptual, natural, technological, etc. It would contain also general principles and laws based on rational thinking.

The boundaries of a General Theory of Systems would be fuzzy, bridging Philosophy with the General Theory of Systems. Its curricular content should be clearly established by experts in General Systems Theory.

"A General Theory of Systems should be closely interrelated to a Theory of Knowledge, based also on rational and intuitive approaches. A rational method means an approach based in sciences and, specifically in experimental science. Its complement would be a set of intuitions transformed into logical speculations in domains not reachable by reason. We know knowledge with our knowledge, and this has an inescapable tautological bias where reason and intuition met, integrated by intelligence" (1989, p.21).

R. VALLÉE emits a coincidental opinion, arguing that, in 1945, BERTALANFFY introduced his concept in German as "allgemeine Systemlehre" that could be translated as "General science of systems", or "General Systemics" (1991b, p.33).

D. McNEIL holds similar views: "… a general theory of systems must not only be a theory about systems per se but also about how systems are constituted, developed and perceived" (1993a). This author enounces the following program conducive to these aims, and which should include:

"A clear, constructive definition of its subject matter, especially of system;

"A succint, constitutive core of central concepts, expressed at a uniform level of discourse, which are common to every system;

"A conceptual space into which its concepts can be defined and mapped together with a principled way of connecting concepts to one another, within and across levels of discourse and echelons of order;

"A meta-systemic way to apply the theory transitively to any system and reflexively to itself;

"An orderly way to accomodate the volutionary mutuality between the subject, i.e., systems, and the percipients, i.e., humans;

"A method for the ethical application of systemic theory to wholesome life for people and their habitats" (1993,a).

From another viewpoint, in his comparison with other ways to define systems theories in general, L. TRONCALE writes that it requires: "… very broad comparisons across many different scales of systems and across many different conventional disciplines; leads to very abstract and qualitative descriptions (not properly called models) of generalized systems functions such as systems stability, structure, function, origins, development, evolution, emergence and decay; by emphasizing systems-level functions it desemphasizes component specific differences of the multitude of disciplinary systems being compared; results are fully context-independent; uses the full set of isomorphies. However, the lack of quantification leads to much reduced predictive power as regards specifics in favor of broadscale form… " (1985, p.45).

For M. BUNGE: "The general theory of systems is a hyper general theory, for dealing with systems of all kinds. And what we have called generic systems theories deal with entire genera of systems, such as physical, chemical, biological, or social systems" (1993, p.220).

According to BUNGE, "the general theory of properties and the relational theory of space-time" are hypergeneral theories. A relativistic theory of simultaneity, or fractal theory, would enter in this class".

On the other hand "… the general theory of social systems,… automata theory, information theory, general control theory,… decision theory and game theory" would be generic systems theories (Ibid).

J.van GIGCH 's opinion is more or less, but not completely, in line with BUNGE's understanding: "As LASZLO has clearly pointed out, we should refer to general system theories and not to general systems theory. The plural should apply to theory and not to system, in that we can conceive of many theories in the field. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a general system and entities called general systems. We have also grown accustomed to associating the adjective "general" with "system" in the forms general system and general systems, instead of associating "general" with"theory" (1978, p.60).

van GIGCH recognizes that he himself "has fallen into this trap by naming this book Applied General Systems Theory" (Ibid.).

For an opposite view, based of J.L.LE MOIGNE's work see "Système Général (Theory of the)".

This compiler agrees with LASZLO's view, but this historical confusion is now so deeply rooted that it is probably impossible to remedy it.

→ Volution