International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

There is much imprecision and even some confusion in the use of these prefixes. S. ARIETI, for example, define the "mesocosm as a world of middle dimensions" and adds: "… life exists in the mesocosm. In order to originate and evolve it had to incorporate mesocosmic laws" (1965, p.114).

ARIETI thus senses that we are somewhere near the middle of the magnitude's scale, let us say in between the cosmos and the quarks. Could this not be the superlative form of anthropocentrism?

J.de ROSNAY calls "macroscope" the conceptual "instrument" that he proposes to use to observe ARIETI's mesocosm.

We should try to unify terminology and not create too many competing terms. This author proposes to abandon "mesocosm", which never entered common use since 1965 and to use:

- micro- for those levels that must be indirectly observed with the help of microscopes, Geiger counters, etc.

- macro- for our natural level of observation through our senses;

- mega for those levels that must be indirectly observed through telescopes and astrophysical instruments… or studied on basis of very general and long-term observations and theories.

Micro-, macro- and mega- also define levels of aggregation or disaggregation, as for example macroeconomics versus microeconomics, or macrobiology vs microbiology.

Such a scale is useful in dynamics, helping us to understand the existence of short, medium and long-term processes and the way the first ones are embedded within the last one. Of course, this scale is anthropocentric. We merely need to be conscious of this, in order to perceive and understand the relativity of our spatial and temporal perceptions.