Eight Days a Week - The Fourth Wave - Disspative Structures - Control System Theory

8/3/2019 Eight Days a Week - The Fourth Wave - Disspative Structures - Control System Theory

1/39

Eight Days A WeekThe Fourth Wave Author: Geert Callens

236

13 Appendix B: Economy and dissipative structures

A lot of people think that the history of the world is predestined and that it has

a goal. In reality the evolution follows unpredictable routes. On this reflection

we have based our belief in the possibility of creativity, freedom and, above

all, sense of responsibility of mankind.

K. Lorenz, Our Last Chance, p 10.

One reason the idea of historical determinism has traditionally invited so much

hostility can be traced to a popular misconception. True, the concept means

that history follows a set pattern; that society evolves and undergoestransformations in tune with a discernible rhythm. But it does notimply, as is

commonly believed, that humanity cannot make its own destiny; nor does it

signify fatalism and resignation before the might of the Providence. All

historical determinism means is that, while man indeed is the architect of his

own fate, he has to operate within bounds determined by a higher principle:

Nature.

R. Batra, The Great Depression of 1990, p. 24.

In system theory, it has been shown that for a certain set of systems, one can force them toevolve to a predefined end-state by applying a control-policy. But the path towards that end-

state is usually fluctuating: the several state-variables, output-variables and also the control-

variables oscillate around certain values. These oscillations are determined by the system

equations, the eigen-values and eigen-frequencies. This is the case for systems in the linear

region. But if some state-variables show signs of saturation, non-linearities can occur,

resulting in seemingly chaotic behavior. So both statements by Konrad Lorenz and Ravi Batra

have their region of validity. And heres the reason why.

13.1 Energy and entropy

Western society has been influenced for a great deal by Newtonian physics and the advance of

the method of science. From the 17th

and 18th

century onward, as contrasted with the

Hellenistic way of thinking, scientists confined themselves to the study of what can be

measured, quantified and expressed in mathematical expressions mathematical expressions

which then allowed them to make predictions of the experimental results. This mathematical

approach towards reality has had great influence on the way man perceived the world.

For Aristotle, physics was the science of processes, of changes that occur in

nature. However, for Galileo and the other founders of modern physics, the

only change that could be expressed in precise mathematical terms was

acceleration, the variation in the state of motion. This led finally to the


2/39


237

fundamental equation of classical mechanics, which relates mass m and

acceleration a to force F:

m . a = m .dr/dt = F (1)

Henceforth physical time was identified with the time t, which appears in the

classical equation of motion. We could view the physical world as a collection

oftrajectories, such as the figure below. shows a one-dimensional universe.

A trajectory represents the positionX(t) of a test particle as a function of time.

The important feature is that dynamics make no distinction between the future

and the past. Equation (1) is invariant with respect to the time inversion t -t:

both motions A, forward in time, and B, backward in time are possible.

However, unless the direction of time is introduced, evolutionary processes

cannot be described in any nontrivial way.Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming, p. 2.

X(t)

t

B

X(t)

t

A

World lines indicating the time evolution of the coordinate X(t)

corresponding to different initial conditions:(A) forward in time; (B) backward in time.

So classical physics described an invariable world, a world without qualitative evolution,

where time is just a mathematical variable: the physics of being, as Prigogine has labeled it.

This is manifested in the law of conservation of energy, which states that the total quantity of

energy in the universe cannot change: energy can change from one form to another e.g.

kinetic energy can change into potential or electrical energy and vice versa but the sum of

all forms of energy remains the same.

Since the end of the 18th century, one has started to make distinction between useful and not-

useful energy, as not all transformations of energy are possible. In this respect we can say that


3/39


238

the transformation of kinetic energy into potential energy and vice versa cannot go on forever,

as some of the kinetic energy is lost as heat or thermal energy due to friction, and this heat

cannot again be transformed to potential energy. So in the course of time the amount of

potential and kinetic energy will decrease while the amount of useless thermal energy will

increase. To describe this irreversibility, one has introduced the concept of entropy next to

that of energy.

As already mentioned, dynamics describe processes in which the direction of

time does not matter. Clearly, there are other situations in which this direction

does indeed play an essential role. If we heat part of a macroscopic body and

then isolate this body thermally, we observe that the temperature gradually

becomes uniform. In such processes, then, time displays an obvious one-

sidedness...

The second law of thermodynamics as formulated by Rudolf Clausius

strikingly summarizes their characteristic features. Clausius considered

isolated systems, which exchange neither energy nor matter with the outside

world. The second law then implies the existence of a function S, the entropy,

which increases monotonically until it reaches its maximum value at the state

of thermodynamic equilibrium:

dS/dt 0

The second law of thermodynamics, then states that irreversible processes lead

to a kind of one-sidedness of time. The positive time direction is associated

with the increase in entropy.

Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming, pp. 5, 6.

Entropy can be considered as a measure for disorder: in an isolated system, that has no

interaction with other systems, the disorder will increase in the course of time, structures are

degraded. In such an isolated system there will never again arise ordered structures just by

themselves. If, for example, hot water and ice are put together in a thermally sealed container,

then after some time one will have lukewarm water. And never again will one find ice and hot

water together in that same container if it is left by itself.

A clockwork, for example, is a relatively isolated system that needs energy torun but does not necessarily need to interact with its environment to keep

functioning. Like all isolated systems it will proceed according to the second

law of thermodynamics, from order to disorder, until it has reached a state of

equilibrium in which all processes motion, heat exchange, and so onhave

come to a standstill.

F. Capra, The Turning Point, p. 291.

In nature, however, one does not only see this evolution from order to disorder or chaos.

Certain systems and organisms show strong tendencies towards more order. Sometimes very

complex structures and forms of organization become manifest. As an example we can thinkof the evolution of an impregnated ovum towards a human being with its complex system of


4/39


239

tissues and organs. These evolutions, which in a way are also irreversible, seem to be in

contradiction with the entropy-law.

But we must stress the fact that the law of entropy is only valid in isolated systems, which

have no exchange of matter or energy with their surrounding world. As a matter of fact, such

systems are rather unusual and very often of a technical origin, created by man. In nature wewill rather find closedand open systems.

Closed systems exchange only energy with their surroundings, and no matter. Open systems can exchange both energy and matter with other systems.

Open and closed systems have the possibility of continuously importing free energy from the

environment and to export entropy. This means that increasing entropy, in contrast to isolated

systems, does not have to accumulate in the systems and increase there. Entropy can also

remain at the same level or even decrease in the system (see figure below).

deS

diS>0

An open system in which diS represents entropy productionand deS represents entropy exchange between system andenvironment.

So the evolution towards more order in an open or closed system is not in contradiction with

the second law of thermodynamics. An open or closed system interacts with its surrounding

systems and thus can be considered as an integral part of a larger system. According to the

second law of thermodynamics, entropy or disorder can continually increase in the larger

system if this is an isolated system, while order can increase in one or more of its subsystems.


5/39


240

And when the overall system like the Earth is not isolated, but open or even closed,

order can increase in all of its subsystems!

The bookEntropy,A New Worldview of Jeremy Rifkin is in this respect wrong, as Mr. Rifkin

fails to recognize that the entropy law is only valid in isolated systems, and the Earth is a

quasi closed system: there is energy exchange with the rest of the Universe, as radiation of the

Sun is absorbed, used in all kind of physical, meteorological and biological processes, and

low valued thermal infrared radiation is expelled back to the Universe as heat. And there is

even a small amount of matter that is exchanged: meteorites enter the atmosphere and

satellites and other space craft are sent into orbit or even to other planets. But this exchange of

matter is so small that it can be neglected. The Earth can be considered as a closed system,

with the Sun as its main energy source.

But how does this happen that in not-isolated systems the internal order can increase? Is there

an underlying mechanism that governs this evolution? This question has fascinated

generations of scientists, as it is related to the question on the origin of the world and the

origin of life. According to the reductionistic approach in science, based on classical physics,

the origin of life is a result of sheer luck, and living organisms should be considered as an

accident, a pathological phenomenon in a pure materialistic dead world. By accepting pure

coincidence or sheer luck as the initial cause of life, every further questioning on the meaning

of life becomes irrelevant.

Classical thermodynamics was focused primarily on isolated systems in their state of

equilibriumwhere entropy has reached a maximum and increase of entropy has stopped

and on systems which are very near to this state of equilibrium in which a deviation from

this equilibrium was considered as a temporal disturbance and in which evolution could onlylead towards the equilibrium state itself. During this evolution, the increase in entropy is very

small, the deviations from the equilibrium are small, so one can assume linear relations

between the increase of entropy and the different variables of the system. As a result of these

linearities, the mathematics to describe these systems are rather easy and well understood.

This explains why scientists have confined themselves for so long to the study and

exploration of this part of thermodynamics: they had found themselves a hole and they had

the tools to dig it deeper. We just mention two results that came out of this digging process,

and which will proof to be very important in the course of this discussion.

In 1931, Lars Onsager discovered the first general relations in non-equilibrium

thermodynamics for the linear, near-to-equilibrium region. These are thefamous reciprocity relations. In qualitative terms, they state that if a force

say one (corresponding, for example, to a temperature gradient) may

influence a flux two (for example, a diffusion process), then force two (a

concentration gradient) will also influence the flux one (the heat flow)...

The general nature of Onsagers relations has to be emphasized. It is

immaterial, for instance, whether the irreversible processes take place in a

gaseous, liquid, or solid medium...

A second general result in this field of linear non-equilibrium thermodynamics

bears mention here. We have already spoken of thermodynamic potentials

whose extrema correspond to the states of equilibrium toward whichthermodynamic evolution tends irreversibly. Such are the entropy S for


6/39


241

isolated systems, and the free energy F for closed systems at a given

temperature. The thermodynamics of close-to-equilibrium systems also

introduces such a potential function. It is quite remarkable that this potential is

the entropy-production P itself. The theorem of minimum entropy production

does, in fact, show that in the range of validity of Onsagers relations that is,

the linear regiona system evolves towards a stationary state characterized bythe minimum entropy production compatible with the constraints imposed upon

the system....

The stationary state toward which the system evolves is then necessarily a non-

equilibrium state at which dissipative processes with non-vanishing rates

occur. But since it is a stationary state, all the quantities that describe the

system, such as temperature concentrations, become time-independent.

Similarly, the entropy of the system now becomes independent of time.

Therefore its time variation dS = 0 vanishes. But we have seen that the time

variation of entropy is made up of two terms the entropy flow deS and the

positive entropy production diS. Therefore dS = 0 implies that deS = - diS < 0

(so it is negative). The heat or matter flux coming from the environment

determines a negative flow of entropy deS, which is, however, matched by the

entropy production diS due to irreversible processes inside the system. A

negative flux means that the system transfers entropy to the outside world.

Therefore at the stationary state, the systems activity continuously increases

the entropy of its environment. This is true for all stationary states. But the

theorem of minimum entropy production says more. The particular stationary

state toward which the system tends is the one in which this transfer of entropy

to the environment is as small as is compatible with the imposed boundary

conditions...

Linear thermodynamics thus describe the stable, predictable behavior of

systems tending toward the minimum level of activity compatible with the

fluxes that feed them.

Prigogine, Stengers, Order out of Chaos, pp. 137-139.

For non-scientists this may all seem rather esoteric. But in the third section of this appendix

things will become clear when we will stress the importance of these conclusions in relation

with the evolution of socioeconomic systems.Since the 1970s studies in thermodynamics have crossed the border of systems near to

equilibrium. In systems that are in a state far from equilibrium, the relations between the

different variables of the system are rather non-linear and one is confronted with phenomena

of a totally different nature. In linear systems, in a state near to equilibrium, the irreversible

process of increase of entropy can only lead towards the equilibrium. Remember that

according to the concept of evenly rotatingeconomy formulated by the economist Murray

Rothbard, when everything is perfectly known by everybody, technology is stabilized, and

management is perfect, then the economy evolves to a stationary state and profit tends to

decline to zero. But in non-linear systems, in a state far from the equilibrium, this is not the

case!


7/39


242

According to the second law of thermodynamics, isolated systems evolve toward the state of

thermodynamic equilibrium, regardless their initial state. Due to the supply of energy and

matter from the surrounding systems, open and closed systems can evolve towards a state

which is not the thermodynamic equilibrium, but which is notwithstanding stable: an

equilibrium of a higher order. This principle has been studied in great detail by Professor Ilya

Prigogine of the University of Brussels, who was granted the Nobel Prize chemistry in 1977for his pioneering research and the elaboration of the theory of dissipative structures and

self-organizing systems.

I would like to stress the fact that Prigogines findings do not only apply to pure chemical

systems, but rather to all kind of systems, whether they are natural or socioeconomic: it has

everything to do with the mathematics of linear and non-linear systems.

13.2 Dissipative structures

The study of the behavior of open and closed systems in states far from the thermodynamic

equilibrium has resulted in a new branch in thermodynamics, which transcends classical

thermodynamics and where non-classical concepts are used such as history of a system, order

and stability as a result of fluctuation, consecutive instabilities and catastrophes in systems,

and coherence of a system as a whole.

13.2.1 The origination of dissipative structures

Open and closed systems interact with their surrounding world: they both exchange energy

with other systems, open systems also exchange matter. In irreversible processes in isolatedsystems near the state of equilibrium, entropy increases while ordered structures are

destroyed. In open and closed systems, on the contrary, which are in a state far from

thermodynamic equilibrium, ordered structures can evolve spontaneously this mechanism

will be explained later in this section. These ordered structures are called dissipative

structures. These are structures which themselves maintain energy and matter penetration by

way of exchange with the environment and which give rise to the self-organization of globally

stable structures over extended periods of time189.

By extracting energy and matteri.e. ordered structuresfrom their surrounding world and

by degrading these, using their components as input in their internal process of self-renewal,

these systems are able to maintain their state far from the thermodynamic equilibrium, so that

a stable structure originates. During this process entropy (disorder) is produced, which is thendissipated towards the surrounding systems in the form of degenerated matter (waste) and

degenerated energy (heat). Think of your own body as a dissipative structure: you eat

delicious food, which smells good and tastes good and looks good, which is digested in your

body, used as energy source and material for growth and cell renewal ... and which is then

dissipated as something that is lukewarm and stinks. But this material, in turn, can form the

input for other living organisms: plants, which feed animals, etc., which in turn end their life

on your table!

The construction and maintenance of such an internal organization and order is done at the

expense of the surrounding systems: there is a permanent interaction with the outside world

189 E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, p. 29.


8/39


243

needed in order to extract highly ordered energy and matter from them and to expel low

valued waste and thermal energy towards those same surrounding systems. However, the

construction of such an internal order is, within certain boundaries, independent from the

surrounding systems: the system itself has a certain autonomy with respect to the outside

world in the way it organizes its internal structure. So the dissipative structures are also called

self-organizing systems. In this sense, the constitution of your body is irrelevant to the exactcomposition of your food, although it may influence your body mass index and health if some

kind of food in your diet are lacking or are too abundant.

Besides this duality of autonomy from the outside world for the organization of its internal

order on the one side, andpermanent interaction and exchange of energy and matterin order

to feed the construction and maintenance of that structure on the other side, dissipative

structures are subject to still anotherat first sightparadox: their stability in a state far from

the thermodynamic equilibrium. Dissipative structures continuously extract ordered structures

and energy from their surrounding world in order to organize and maintain their internal

structure. This policy prevents them from slipping down towards the static equilibrium state

where entropy (disorder) is at its peak, where the increase of entropy has stopped, where timeand evolution have stopped and where the system is dead so to speak. On the contrary, the

system keeps on functioning in a state far from equilibrium. At the same time self-organizing

systems tend to have a high degree of stability, but this is not a static stability as with the

thermodynamic equilibrium, characterized by invariableness and stiffness, but rather a

dynamic stability, in which the overall structure of the system remains the same while there is

permanent change in its components. This process of permanent changes occurs according to

rhythmic oscillations: organized dynamic structures are a result of rhythmic patterns.

The dynamic stability of a self-organizing system on the macro-level is based on permanent

oscillations on the micro-level. These oscillations on the micro-level play also a basic role in

the origination itself and the evolution of dissipative structures. When the deviations from theequilibrium state reach a certain level, for example due to positive feedback, this can result in

a qualitative change in the nature of the system itself.

The system stabilizes in a new organization structure quite different from its near-equilibrium

state and characterized by higher energy extraction from its surrounding world than in the

former equilibrium. The new order that has originated in this way can be of a temporal or a

spatial nature. In temporal dissipative structures, the passing of the threshold triggers the

system to leave the equilibrium state so it comes in a loop: the system keeps on going

through the same cycle according to a fixed pattern and in a fixed amount of time, both

specific for the origination structure the system has reached.


9/39


244

The figure above shows the limit cycle behavior of the Brusselator. The same periodic

trajectory is obtained for different initial conditions (the initial conditions 1, 2 and 3 all lead to

the same periodic cycle). The letter S represents the unstable steady state: this means that if

the system is in state S, even the smallestdisturbance is enough in order to force the system to

leave that state (via 4 to the same periodic cycle)!

13.2.2 The evolution of dissipative structures

The fluctuations that caused the origination of a dissipative structure out of a region near the

equilibrium state do not cease to exist, but, on the contrary, constitute the basis for further

evolution of the system from one stable organization structure towards another. In a way, a

dissipative structure is stable within certain boundaries of these fluctuations. If they become

too large, then the system can become unstable and this might result in a completereorganization of the system.

When the system is disturbed, it has the tendency to maintain its stability by

means of negative feedback mechanisms, which tend to reduce the deviation

from the balanced state. However, this is not the only possibility. Deviations

may also be reinforced internally through positive feedback, either in response

to environmental changes, or spontaneously without any external influence.

The stability of a living system is continually tested by its fluctuations, and at

certain moments one or several of them may become so strong that they drive

the system over an instability into an entire new structure, which will again be

fluctuating and relatively stable. The stability of living systems is never


10/39


245

absolute. It will persist as long as the fluctuations remain below a critical size,

but any system is always ready to evolve.

F. Capra, The Turning Point, pp. 310-311.

The study of the stability of a certain system is not an easy task, especially when unknown or

unpredictable corruptive phenomena are in the play. But still we can formulate a very

interesting rule on this subject.

Nevertheless, one general result has been obtained, namely a necessary

condition for chemical instability: in a chain of chemical reactions occurring in

the system, the only reaction stages that, under certain conditions and

circumstances, may jeopardize the stability of the stationary state are precisely

the catalytic loops stages in which the product of a chemical reaction is

involved in its own synthesis.

Prigogine, Stengers, Order out of Chaos, p. 145.

This general conclusion will proof to be of great value when we discuss the evolution of

socioeconomic systems later on in this appendix.

In a region of stability, the behavior of the system is determined by a certain syntax, and is, to

a certain degree, predictable. When the system migrates from one stable organization

structure (region of stability) towards another, it remains in a transit zone for a short period of

time. And it is typical in such a transit zone that the system has the choice among at least two

different organization structures it can evolve to. Therefore this transit zone is also called a

bifurcation zone. This choice for the system introduces chance into the picture: it is not

always predictable which one of the several possible options the system will choose in such a

bifurcation point, so one cannot predict the precise evolution of the system in this region of

instability. Remark the contrast with the predictability in the region of stability!

In this respect we can say that a certain dissipative structure is just one phase in the evolution

of a dynamic system, in which longer deterministic stability zones alternate with shorter

probabilistic bifurcation zones. In these bifurcation zones the system has the freedom of

choice for its further evolution, and the further it has evolved from the equilibrium state, the

more options it can or has to choose from.

A second property of a system in a transit zone, next to the freedom of choice among at least

two options, is the principle of maximum entropy production. A particular aspect of this self-

determination is the principle of maximum entropy production which holds near the unstable

phases, in which a new structure forms. During the transition, entropy production increases

significantly, whereas close to an autopoietic stable state it tends towards a minimum. In

other words, the system does not spare any expense for the creative build-up of a new

structureand justifiably so as long as an inexhaustible reservoir of free energy is available

in the environment. At first, high energy penetration and maximum entropy production act as

force for change, whereas after the establishment of a new basic structure there is a gradual

shift toward a criterion of minimum entropy production per unit of mass190.

A system can evolve through several organization structures, which become more and more

complex. The structures further away from the dead equilibrium state are characterized by a

190 E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, pp. 50, 141.


11/39


246

greater extraction of energy and matter from the surrounding world and an increasing

production of entropy, which is dissipated towards that same surrounding world. Due to the

increased complexity of the organization, a greater flow of information is needed in order to

assure the coordination of the several components and subsystems. And this increased

information flow, by itself a result of the increased complexity, can also stimulate evolution:

complex structures evolve quicker than simple ones. And due to the increasing number ofoptions in the bifurcation points, ever more organizational structures can arise: there is an

evolution from simplicity and unity towards complexity and diversity at an ever-increasing

speed191.

13.2.3 The relation between the micro and the macro level

Dissipative structures cannot exist on their own: they need their environment from where they

can extract energy and matter in order to feed their internal processes and to where they canexpel degenerated products (waste and heat). So one has to consider these systems as a part ofa larger encompassing macro system.

On the other hand, a dissipative structure itself can be composed of several subsystems, which

by themselves are also dissipative structures and which feed their internal processes by

sharing the amount of energy and matter that the overall system has extracted from its

environment... or by extracting the necessary resources from other structures within that

overall structure.

This leads us to the notion of a leveled structure, in which each unit on a certain level is at the

same time part of a structure of a higher level and by itself composed of several structures of a

lower level. In this leveled structure there is interaction and interdependence amongcomponents on the same level and across levels.

Many aspects of the relationships between organisms and their environment

can be described very coherently with the help of the concept a stratified

order, which has been touched up earlier. The tendency of the living systems

to form multi-leveled structures whose level differ in their complexity is all-

pervasive throughout nature and has to be seen as a basic principle of self-

organization. At each level of complexity we encounter systems that are

integrated, self-organizing wholes consisting of smaller parts, and, at the same

time, acting as parts of larger wholes. For example, the human organism

contains organ systems composed of several organs, each organ being made up

of tissues and each tissue made up of cells. The relationship between these

system levels can be represented by a system tree.


In this leveled order of dissipative structures each system is linked with its environment by the

exchange of energy and matter and by feedback-loops, both stabilizing and destabilizing. This

allows for a very complex evolution. The circumstances in which the system of a micro level

evolves are determined by the macro level. But the evolution of the macro level itself is the

191 Cfr. the principle of ephemeralization formulated by B. Fuller in his bookCritical Path.


12/39


247

resultant of the evolution of the underlying micro level. So both levels influence each others

evolution. This is called co-evolution.

In such a stratified order, certain rules that are valid on one level can be overthrown on

another level. So it is very well possible that the same action yields opposing results on two

different levels: an action, which is good on one level, can be bad on another level. Theseconsiderations may seem rather strange for the minds of the people in the west. On the other

hand, they are very characteristic for several eastern philosophies.

In order to contract a thing, one should surely expand it first.

In order to weaken, one will surely strengthen first.

In order to overthrow, one will surely exalt first.

In order to receive, one will surely give first.

This is called subtle wisdom.

Lao Tzu

13.2.4 Symbiosis

A dissipative structure extracts the energy and matter, needed for its existence and evolution,

from its environment. This environment can be the surrounding world of the encompassing

system, or it can be another subsystem within the overall system.

In the latter case we could think of the situation as if the one system is parasitizing on the

other. If, however, the one system is extracting too much energy and matter from the other

one if it exploits the other to the limit then this system destroys its own source of vital

resources, and thus endangers its own existence and evolution.

In a balanced ecosystem animals and plants live together in a combination of

competition and mutual dependency. Every species has the potential of

undergoing an exponential population growth but these tendencies are kept in

check by various controls and interactions. When the system is disturbed,

exponential runaways will start to appear. Some plants will turn into

weeds, and some animals into pests, and other species will be

exterminated. The balance, or health, of the whole system will be threatened...

Detailed study of ecosystems over the past decades has shown quite clearly

that most relationships between living organisms are essentially cooperative

ones, characterized by coexistence and interdependence, and symbiotic invarious degrees. Although there is competition, it usually takes place within a

wider context of cooperation, so that the larger system is kept in balance. Even

predator-prey relationships that are destructive for the immediate prey are

generally beneficent for both species. This insight is in sharp contrast to the

views of the Social Darwinists, who saw life exclusively in terms of

competition, struggle, and destruction. Their view of nature has helped create a

philosophy that legitimates exploitation and the disastrous impact of our

technology on the natural environment. But such a view has no scientific

justification, because it fails to perceive the integrative and cooperative

principles that are essential aspects of the ways in which living systems

organize themselves at all levels.F. Capra, The Turning Point, pp. 301-302.


13/39


248

As it is very well possible that opposing rules may be valid on the micro level and the macro

level, we should not be surprised if individual greed and self-interest lead towards the creation

of pests and the destruction of the overall system, while on the other side cooperation and

altruism of individuals and groups can have a positive influence of the system as a whole,

ergo also on those who take advantage of it. When two subsystems are competing for the

available energy and matter necessary for their survival and evolution, this might result intoconflict and struggle. But this could also lead towards a forced evolution. From time to time

during its evolution, every organism is forced to create a new environment for itself, because

the old one is occupied by another one. These circumstances could be one of the reasons why

species evolve to a higher level192. The system is forced to be creative in order to secure its

own survival. In doing so, it can evolve towards a situation which, as a matter of fact, might

be better than the previous one. As an introduction to the next section, we will apply this idea

on a socioeconomic system.

England is supposed to be the country where the Industrial Revolution started.

Very often historical studies mention only the positive aspects of this

evolution. But essential to the start of the Industrial Revolution was theimpotence of England at the end of the 18

thcentury to compete with its

neighboring countries. Compared to Flanders, England was no longer of

economic importance. It was standing at a crossroad: or it had to give up its

economic, political and military supremacy to other countries, or it had to

change its economy very drastically by the introduction of technological

innovations. There was no other way to compete with countries with a low

level of labor-cost. The introduction of the spinning-machine, the shuttle and

the steam engine in industry induced a radical change in the life of laborers and

in the economy as a whole. The resulting substantial increase of productivity

was a new agent in the economic process, so competition was no longer only a

matter of the level of labor-cost.

C. Vandenbroeke, Purchasing Power in Flanders, pp. 56-57.

13.3 Socioeconomic systems

A lot of the ideas and concepts on dissipative structures, discussed in the previous sections,

have been implicitly used in this book when we discussed economy. We have no intention to

repeat all of this. We will confine ourselves to the most striking similarities between

dissipative structures and socioeconomic systems. We think that these could form the basisfor a further detailed study, which is beyond the scope of this book.

On several occasions in previous chapters we have looked upon enterprises, social groups and

countries as if they were systems constructing and preserving their internal order. In order to

do this, energy and matter are extracted from the surrounding world and used to feed the

internal processes while degraded energy and matter are dissipated towards the environment

(thermal and other kinds of pollution). Perhaps we could consider the striving for profit as the

realization of more internal order and dissipating more entropy towards the environment

while making a loss is the equivalent of increased internal chaos or entropy. In this respect the

question we have formulated in the section on economic misconceptions whether profit is

possible and whether one system makes profit at the expense of loss for another system

192 K. Lorenz, Our Last Chance, p. 48.


14/39


249

could be compared to the question how it is possible that some systems succeed in increasing

their internal order at the expense of other systems.

In an isolated economy (autarky) with zero-growth, there can indeed be no profit. But

countries are open systems: they exchange matter and energy with their surrounding world: an

individual country can increase its internal order; it can make a profit for society. And whenwe consider the earth as a whole, then we can speak of a closed system: only exchange of

energy is possible with the outer world, but still it can increase its internal order, it is

possible to make a profit for all of humanity!

And if the overall system is not isolated, but open or even closed like Spaceship Earth, profit

can increase for all of its subsystems! It doesnothas to be us or them!

This clearly confirmed the reasonability of my working assumption that theaccelerated ephemeralization of science and technology might someday

accomplish so much with so little that we could sustainingly take care of all

humanity at a higher standard of living than any ever experienced, which

would prove the Malthusian only you or me doctrine to be completely

fallacious...

B. Fuller, Critical Path, pp. 148-149, xxv.

In this respect we can also understand the evolution of the profit-ratio as described in the

section on the evolution of the profit-ratio. In times of war, which surely are bifurcationzones, the profit-ratio increases suddenly, just as there is maximum entropy production near

unstable phases in the evolution of dissipative structures. The profit-ratio shows the tendency

to decrease in between wars, just as the entropy production tends to a minimum in the stable

region of a dissipative structure.

We have also stated that a socioeconomic entity has no raison dtre on itself, but should be

considered as a subsystem that has a certain role to play inside a system of a higher level and

in interaction with other entities within that system. The notion of co-evolution between the

micro-level and the macro-level has been introduced in the basic assumption of our economic

model that profit (micro-level) is a consequence of growth (macro-level), and that the way

how profit is divided among socioeconomic subsystems on the micro-level determines future

growth on the macro-level.

The way socioeconomic subsystems evolve is conditioned by the evolution of the overall

system, but at the same time we can say that the overall system is the resultant of the

underlying subsystems. From this co-evolution follows the idea that seemingly conflicting

interestshigher wages for employees versus higher profits for employerscan form a unity

if we consider them from the level of the overall system. Rules which are valid on the micro-

level can yield the opposite result if applied to the macro-level.

From the interplay of opposites follows the periodical behavior of economic entities. Within

certain boundaries of the fluctuations, the economic system evolves according to a stable,

well-defined and even predictable pattern: it has a strong dynamic stability. So one canunderstand the periodicity and the recurrence of most economic entities as shown in the


15/39


250

chapter 2: the system keeps on going through the same cycle according to a fixed pattern and

in a fixed amount of time: about sixty years, two generations. In the US economy there has

been at least one recession every decade, and a great depression every third or sixth decade in

the sense that if the third decade managed to avoid a depression, then the sixth decade

experienced a cumulative effectan all-out disaster193.

Disturbances and fluctuations can be neutralized by applying negative feedback mechanisms.

If we consider the economy of a country in its initial stage, when the elementary needs are not

yet fulfilled, as after a war, then we can see reciprocity relations. The principle of the rubber

cylinder described by Buckminster Fuller in the section The Social Purpose of Profit is, as a

matter of fact, nothing else than the principle of reciprocity introduced in the theory of

thermodynamic systems by Onsager: in a young economy the pursuit of profit and the

satisfaction of needs have a mutual influence on each other. By trying to increase his turnover

and his profit, a businessman hires employees. So these employees are now in a condition that

they can satisfy their needs. And by increasing the wages of the employees, so their

purchasing power increases, the companies can make a greater turnover and more profit. The

feedback mechanism has a stabilizing influence and is used to fine -tune the economy(Keynes). One thinks in terms of equilibrium and continual growth and progress, equilibrium

of supply and demand, complete employment

But, alas, the necessary condition for the system to become unstable the catalytic loop

mentioned in the previous section is also fulfilled. One of the state-variables of the system

plays a role it its own synthesis: profit is at the same time a result of economic growth, while

the distribution of profit determines future growth and thus future profit. So, when the

fluctuations of certain variables become too large, due to the positive feedback-loops the

rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer then the whole socioeconomic system

becomes unstable, the oscillations grow194 to such an amplitude that certain variables go into

saturation, non-linearities occur so that the systems internal dynamics change drastically. Abifurcation zone is reached. The former model of the economic process is no longer adapted

to the economic reality, as a new socioeconomic system has evolved.

Under the watchful eyes of the Keynesian policy-makers, capitalism seemed to

be operating smoothly for a full quarter of a century following the Second

World War. There were mild collapses occasionally, but no duplication of the

1929 tragedy195. But just when the war against economic crises seemed to have

been won, another intractable problem, potentially more dangerous than large

scale unemployment, cropped up and has persisted since 1969 namely the

coexistence of inflation with a high level of unemployment. This problem

eluded Keynes, for there is supposed to be a trade-off between unemployment

and inflation in the Keynesian system: both cannot rise or decline at the sametime. As yet there is no consensus among economists there hardly ever is

as to how the new challenge should be met. The problem admits of no simple

and politically feasible solution196.

R. Batra, The Great Depression of 1990, p. 72.

193 Ravi Batra, The Great Depression of 1990, p 118.194 See the charts in the section the evolution of money-growth and inflation from The Great Depression

of 1990 written by Ravi Batra.195 But October 2008 surely was a new bifurcation point!


16/39


251

In this respect we can understand why there have been so many different economic schools

in the course of history: the economy changes in the course of time, so there can be no

economic theory that is valid in all circumstances and for all times. One should rather think of

it as a temporal stage in the evolution of a dynamic system.

Economists tend to freeze the economy arbitrarily in its current institutional structure insteadof seeing it as an evolving system that generates continually changing patterns. To grasp this

dynamic evolution of the economy is extremely important, because it shows that strategies

which are acceptable at one stage may become totally inappropriate at another197.

As discussed in the previous section, we can propose a stratified order to describe the

socioeconomic systems:

Spaceship Earth. Political and economic power-blocks. Countries. Socioeconomic groups (branches of industry, unions,...). Socioeconomic entities (families, companies,...). Individuals.

Most of these systems are open: they exchange matter and energy with their surroundings.

Only the system of the highest level is closed, as the Earth exchanges mainly energy with the

Universe (useful solar energy is taken in while low-valued thermal energy is dissipated

outwardly) and no or very little matter is exchanged. In this stratified order, each subsystem

tries to construct its own internal order by extracting useful energy and matter from its outside

world and by expelling entropy and disorder to its outside world. This outside world can be

the system of a higher level, a lower level or the same level.

In the latter case we can say that one subsystem is parasitizing on another one. As the

exploited system is obstructed in its striving for more internal order, or even worse, as its

internal order is destroyed by the extraction of energy and matter and by the entropy

dissipated by the other system198, we can say that this surely will not happen by free will: there

will be oppression of one system by the other, oppression that might even be imbedded in the

legal system199. This parasitism, based on oppression, cannot go on forever. Tensions arise

between the exploited and the exploiting socioeconomic subsystems, and these tensions

increase as the internal order of the exploited system is more and more hampered, so its very

survival is at stake.

When these tensions exceed a certain level, a zone of instability and turmoil is reached, a

bifurcation point characterized by the fact that the systems have the choicein a way to speak

from at least two options. One option could lead to the integration of the two subsystems

into a new system, which then extracts the matter and energy needed for its evolution from a

third system. The situation of parasitism, exploitation and oppression continues: internal

parasitism is then replaced by external parasitism. Lower classes in the two merged

196 Eight days a week?197 F. Capra, The Turning Point, p. 236.198 Shell in Nigeria, see the film The Age of Stupid.199 See Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, chapter Legally Piggily.


17/39


252

systems are granted more rights and material wellbeing as a reward for their support during

the turmoil, while exploitation becomes an export product. But after a period of stable

evolution, problems will rise once more due to the depletion of matter and energy in the third

system or the increasing tensions between the third system and the other two. Again

integration of the third system can occur, etc.

In this respect we can understand the evolution towards socioeconomic power-blocks of ever

increasing magnitude, parallel with the arising of democracy in the western world. Nowadays

we can recognize as major socioeconomic power-blocks the capitalistic western world, the

former communistic countries, the Asian emerging economies, and the poor southern

hemisphere, that functions as source of cheap labor, raw materials and energy, without being

able to increase its own economic internal order. Now, at the beginning of the 21st

century,

humankind has reached the physical borders of its ecosystem. This holds the danger that the

western world could fall back from a system of external parasitism to a system of internal

parasitism: as matter and energy can no longer be extracted from other subsystems, the

different subsystems within a power block might try to increase their order at the expense of

other subsystems: power-blocks could then disintegrate200

instead of integrate to a system of ahigher level, social evolution is then reversed in time. The society falls back to a lower level

of evolution, with less democratic rights and less material wellbeing for all the social classes,

except, of course, those in command, the military and the intellectual priesthood.

But if a certain group of subsystems feed their internal processes by importing energy and

matter from their outside world, then there is no need for internal exploitation, oppression and

parasitism within the system. If we apply this on the highest level of our stratified order,

Spaceship Earth, then we can see that a world society with social justice and without

parasitism and oppression of one subsystem over the others is only possible if the subsystems

import all or most of the energy they need from outside the Earth. The establishment ofsolar

energy and renewable energy from wind and tidal waves, geothermal energy andhydroelectricity as the basic energy source for our social and economic system is not only an

ecological must, but also a necessary although not sufficientcondition in order to evolve

to a society with social justice, where all socioeconomic entities can live with each other

without mutual aggression, parasitism or oppression. Ecology, development of the Third

World countries and the cry for peace (make love, not war), which have been supported on an

intuitive basis by generations of young people since the Summer of Love of 1967 and the

anti-war movement, are inseparably linked to each other. And now they seem to be

scientifically supported by the systems view of life, which has originated out of the theory

of dissipative structures and self-organizing systems.

The systems view of life is an appropriate basis not only for the behavior and

the life sciences, but also for the social sciences, and especially for economics.The application of systems concepts to describe economic processes and

activities is particularly urgent because virtually all our current economic

problems are systemic problems that can no longer be understood via Cartesian

science.

Conventional economists, whether neoclassical, Marxist, Keynesian, or post-

Keynesian, generally lack an ecological perspective. Economists tend to

dissociate the economy from the ecological fabric in which it is embedded, and

200

Is this respect we can understand the fall of the Roman Empire, as it failed to install a new internalsocioeconomic order once it had reached the borders of its physical world, borders which were imposed by the

level of communication and transport technology at that time.


18/39


253

to describe it in terms of simplistic and highly unrealistic theoretic models.

Most of their basic concepts, narrowly defined and used without the pertinent

ecological context, are no longer appropriate for mapping economic activities

in a fundamentally interdependent world.


In order to elaborate this new vision in science, economy and society, it is of paramount

importance that a joint effort is made out of different academic disciplines, ignoring the

traditional and institutionalized boundaries. A birds eye view over the field of holes in

needed. Today, we urgently have to extract out of the synthesis of every scientific discipline

the key elements, and incorporate them in a harmonic and cosmic overall picture... To

accomplish this endeavor demands for a cyclopean mind, as it transcends the capabilities of a

single human being. This intellectual and cultural effort can only be tackled with a reasonable

chance for success by a group of scientists and researchers 201.

On the other hand, we must not ignore the importance of individual efforts as sources of

renewal within rigid and outdated structures.

We believe that models inspired by the concept of order through fluctuation

will help us with these questions and even permit us in some circumstances to

give a more precise formulation to the complex interplay between individual

and collective aspects of behavior. From the physicists point of view, this

involves a distinction between states of the system in which all individual

initiative is doomed to insignificance on the one hand, an on the other,

bifurcation regions in which an individual, an idea202 , or a new behavior can

upset the global state

Be it biological, ecological, or social evolution, we cannot take as given either

a definite set of interacting units, or a definite set of transformations of these

units. The definition of the system is thus liable to be modified by its

evolution. The simplest example of this kind of evolution is associated with the

concept of structural stability. It concerns the reaction of a given system to the

introduction of new units able to multiply by taking part in the systems

processes.

The problem of the stability of a system vis--vis this kind of change may be

formulated as follows: the new constituents, introduced in small quantities,lead to a new set of reactions among the systems components. This new set of

reactions then enters into competition with the systems previous mode offunctioning. If the system is structurally stable as far as this intrusion is

concerned, the new mode of functioning will be unable to establish itself and

the innovators will not survive. If, however203, the structural fluctuation

successfully imposes itself if, for example the kinetics whereby the

innovators multiply isfast enough for the latter to invade the system instead

of being destroyed the whole system will adopt a new mode of functioning,

its activity will be governed by a new syntax.

201 J.B. Quintyn, A Cultural Journey Through Biology, Mathematics, Cosmology, Theory of Relativity,

Cosmogony, p. 191.202 Eight days a week?203... the system is structural unstable (it is!) and ...


19/39


254

Prigogine, Stengers, Order out of Chaos, p. 206, pp. 189-190.

It is up to us, the people, to do something for the people about what is described in this

study. But you and I cannot do this alone. It has to be done by the people. The first step is to

reach out and touch somebodys mind, pushing barriers and planting seeds fast enough, toinform other people, your family, friends, colleagues who might be interested in this matter.

They can then inform other people, and so one. Maybe then world affairs can be changed.

Consider the following table, and you will be surprised how easily and fast you can reach out

to the whole world after some iterations: you share this study with 2 persons, they share it

each with two other persons, and so on. After 10 iterations, 210

= 1,024 persons have been

reached. But you could also inform 3 persons, or 4 The result is really spectacular.

2 to the power 10 is 1,024 Your street

3 59,049 Your community

4 1,048,576 Your town

5 9,765,625 Your state

6 60,466,176 Some other states

7 282,475,249 Your country

8 1,073.741,824 Some other countries

9 3,486,784,401 Half of the world population

Beyond that, we have to go extraterrestrial.

13.4 Dissipative structures, communication and creativity

13.4.1 Extension of Shannons communication-model

In appendix A we have introduced some basic notions on information and communication

theory. Our line of thoughts was based on the information theory elaborated by Shannon and

others. We have explained and illustrated several topics, such as

The information content of a message, determined by its probability of occurrence. The capacity to transmit information over a channel and the minimum time and/or

energy needed in order to transmit a message.

The concept of signal-space as the abstract representation of the paradigm of aperson or a society.

But this theory has its limitations: it only deals with stable communication structures in the

sense that, once the signal-space of sender and receiver are given, these two can onlycommunicate within the intersection of their two signal-spaces. The communication model


20/39


255

evolved in appendix A is applicable on the transfer of information that fits in an a priori

defined and rigid structure. This is indeed the case for most technical communication systems.

Living organisms, and man in particular, are able to handle stimuli and signals which do not

fit in their initial signal-space, and they can even adopt the structure of their signal-space in

order to encompass this new information. This dynamic process of expansion of signal-spaces

is not covered by the Shannon-model described in appendix A. So we were forced to illustratethis with the help of the metaphor of digging holes of Edward de Bono. We then also made

allusion of the existence of a new hole that would help us in understanding the origination of a

new hole. In electronics this is called bootstrapping. In the textbook Integrated Electronics

on page 277 we read: The term arises from the fact that, if one end of a resistor changes in

voltage, the other end of it moves through the same potential difference; it is as if the resistor

were pulling itself up by its bootstraps204.

In the classical theory, communication is mainly considered as a one-way transfer of

information from the source to the destination. The transmitted message falls within a

predefined and rigid structure. Furthermore, this process of transfer of information leaves the

sender and receiver unchanged. When for example the destination has received a messagewith a certain probability of occurrence and thus a certain information content, then the

chance for another transmission of the same message remains the same: next time the same

message is received the destination receives the same value of information.

Carl Friedrich von Weizscker has defined information as that which generates new

information205. According to him, the purpose of communication is not only the sheer

transfer of information from sender to receiver, but also to influence the receiver and to

induce a certain change in his behavior. The receiver can then react in a way which is not

predefined in his signal-space: new information-unity-vectors are created. His son, Ernst von

Weizscker, calls this kind of information pragmatic information. This pragmatic

information is composed of two aspects: confirmation and novelty (see figure below).

204 I find this a rather amusing thought. A levitating resistor?205 E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, p. 50-53.


21/39


256

PragmaticInformation Shannon -

Weaver

NoveltyConfirmation

100%0%

0%100%

Pragmatic (effective) information is composed of the two componentsnovelty and confirmation, and reaches a maximum when bothcomponents are balanced. After E. von Weiszcker (1974).

Confirmation is that part of the information that fits within and thus strengthens the existing

knowledge of the receiver: confirmation completely falls within the existing signal-space of

the receiver, so no new insights or ideas are transmitted. Confirmation does not induce any

changes with the receiver, so thepragmatic information content is nil.

Novelty, on the contrary, is information which lays completely outside the signal-space of the

receiver and in most cases will confuse that receiver: the stimuli and signals he is faced with

are perceived as erratic and chaotic, as he cannot project them on known concepts, on already

established information-unity-vectors of his signal-space a that time, he does not know how tohandle the new information. So, complete novelty has no pragmatic information content

either.

Confirmation and novelty are complementary aspects of pragmatic information: when one of

the two is high, the other is low. Only a combination of confirmation and novelty results into

a reasonable pragmatic information content, and in between the two extremes lays a

combination which yields a maximum of pragmatic information, i.e. can have a strong

influence on the behavior of the receiver.

With the help of Erich Jantsch we can describe how a persons signal space is expanded, and

we do this in terms of the theory of self-organizing systems.


22/39


257

We may now easily establish the connection between this model of pragmatic

information and the ordering principles at work in equilibrium and non-

equilibrium structures (see figure below).

PragmaticInformation

Equilibrium

structures

NoveltyConfirmation

100%0%

0%100%

Dissipative structures transform novelty into confirmation, whereas equilibrating structures tendtowards maximum confirmation. Dissipative structures may evolve through states characterizedby maximum novelty (instable threshold) to new states characterized by a balance betweennovelty and confirmation (autopoiesis). In this transition, the entropy production reaches amaximum (area A), whereas in autopoiesis it tends toward a minimum (area B).

A B

Entropy production

Autopoiesis

Dissipative structures

Instabilitythreshold Equilibrium

A hundred per cent confirmation corresponds to a system in thermodynamic

equilibrium. That pragmatic information becomes zero at this point is the

correlate of the impossibility of bringing about any directed effect in

equilibrium. A hundred percent novelty, in contrast, may be interpreted as the

instability phase in which stochastic processes cease to confirm the old

structure and have not yet established the new structure. Everything happening

in this phase is novel. In between, in the balance between novelty and

confirmation, we find the domain of autopoiesis.The scheme according to figure above also allows the representation of the

change in entropy production occurring when a new dissipative structure is

born. Entropy production206, is this context, is nothing else but the production

of structure, implying at the same time more information and more

confirmation. Immediately beyond the chaos of the instability threshold

maximum entropy production is needed to attain a certain degree of

206 More entropy is less structure. I think Jantsch meant here that energy is needed in order to create

more structure. In doing so, the high valued energy is degraded to entropy, which is then dissipated. So, in this

sense there is entropy production, but also consumption of energy. This remark of me is in line with the rest of

his explanation. I have added this remark in order to counter Malthusianistic organizations which still adhere theprinciple of creative destruction, like the Halliburton Company and the Carlyle Group. You do not need

destruction in order to create new forms of organization. This can be done by mutual agreement and consent.


23/39


258

confirmation. Area Ain the figure above has to be won very quickly by hard

work207. After the formation of an autopoietic structure, however, the system

oscillates in a balance between novelty and confirmation and has to do work

only to the extent that novelty must be coped with continuously, as exemplified

by area B in the time unit. This work, or entropy production, never becomes

zero because the structure is kept busy by novelty entering through theexchange with the environment. In the scheme, it is pushed toward the left so

that maintaining the balance requires ever new work (movement towards the

right in the scheme). In this way, novelty is continuously transformed into

confirmation. Cognition is not a linear process, but a circular process between

the system and its environment.

E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, pp. 52-53.

A lot of the considerations that we have formulated in appendix A can be understood in these

terms. There we have said that there is no transfer of information possible outside theintersection of the signal-spaces of sender and receiver. Now we can expand this view: if

there exists already a certain intersection between the two signal-spaces, and there is the

intention with both communication partners and they are willing to spend the energy and time

to transfer novelty into confirmation, then communication can result into an increase of the

region of intersection. This increase of the intersection of the signal-spaces in turn results into

better communication opportunities and also an increase of the individual signal-spaces of

both parties. Both their paradigms have been expanded thanks to exchange of their mutually

exclusive information-unity-vectors. Isnt this the proof that interdisciplinary research is a

must, while specialization, in the long run, leads to pure confirmation, to mummification, to

intellectual death?

Communication is possible only where the cognitive domain of autopoietic

systems overlap sufficiently. In intellectual discussions, too, a dialogue of the

deaf only too often results. The other system has to have the possibility, in

energetic and functional respects, of partially realizing the same dynamics.

Communication is not giving, but the representation of oneself, ofone's own

life, which evokes corresponding life processes in the other. This is the way in

which living systems communicate with each other.


So we can recognize the origination of an irreversible process: the expansion of the signal-

space of all parties involved in the communication process by the continuous transformation

of novelty into confirmation.

In the fourth of the books in which Carlos Castenada transmits the world view

of the shaman Don Juan of the Mexican Yaqui Indians, there is a striking

parallel and generalization of this principle. According to Don Juan, reality is

divided into two aspects, one of which (the tonal) comprises the regularities of

a world ordered by our concepts, whereas the other (the nagual) represents the

unexpected. The latter aspect may be mastered by creative thought and action

and by spontaneous decisions (i.e. by free intuitive will). Thus the task of life

207 I hope one day you will join us!


24/39


259

is the never ending transformation of the nagual into the tonal, of novelty into

confirmation. The British Nobel Laureate in Physics, Brian Josephson (1975),

has pointed out that this implies a new expression for the directedness of time,

for the irreversibility of life processes.


But indeed, in order to let the process of expansion of its signal-space take place, the receiver

must be willing to do the effort to gain new experiences and to transform these into

confirmation.

Each system has to make its experiences by itself, has to cope by itselfwith its

structural problems and has to itselfsecure the energy flow to unfold its life...

True learning is never rote learning, but always stimulated experience by

oneself.

E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, p. 205.

In this respect we can see that having an open mind towards novelty is the same as having an

open mind towards life itself. To isolate oneself from novelty and new ideas and to base ones

opinion purely on (academic) confirmation can only lead to mummification, to rigidity, to

intellectual death.

13.4.2 Scientific evolution

The insights we have gained in our discussions on dissipative structures and self-organizing

systems as well as previous considerations on pragmatic information, novelty and

confirmation can be applied to describe how scientific ideas evolve in the academic world.

Based on their scientific research and the results of their experiments, scientists deduct

general rules and principles, which in turn constitute the fundamentals of a scientific theory.

Further experiments are then set up and their results interpreted in terms of that theory. The

aspect confirmation rules over novelty, novelty is as much as possible reduced to

confirmation, which increases the authority of the theory. In terms of dissipative structures,

we can say that established science is the region of stability, where determinism is

dominating. Unfortunately, it happens often that novelty, which cannot be reduced toconfirmation within the ruling theory, is ignored or even rejected.

There are striking examples of facts that have been ignored because the

cultural climate was not ready to incorporate them into a consistent scheme.

The discovery of chemical clocks probably goes back to the nineteenth

century, but their result seemed to contradict the idea of uniform decay to

equilibrium. Meteorites were thrown out of the Vienna museum because there

was no place for them in the description of the solar system.

Prigogine, Stengers, Order out of Chaos, p. 307.


25/39


260

But with the help of technological means, the scientist increases his field of observation, he

can expand the intersection of his signal-space with Nature. In doing so, he is faced with ever

more phenomena and experimental evidence which cannot be reduced from novelty into

confirmation. The ruling theory, which is like a stable and even rigid organization pattern, is

faced with an increasing pressure of facts, so that after some time a small number of scientists

start to question the validity of that theory. Then science goes through a crisis, it has reached abifurcation point it its evolution. It is a striking feature of such a transformation period that a

lot of attention and energy is spent by the confirmationists in trying to save the old theory,

while others, the novelists, are vigorously examining the new phenomena and searching for

a new consistent theory. Basic principles, which were once commonly accepted knowledge,

are put to question. This usually happens by individuals or small groups, and totally

unorganized or uncoordinated. If often falls out of the control of the establishment. As with

thermodynamic dissipative structures, several options are possible: scientists can start to dig a

new hole on several places. Chance and intuition play an important role in this.

The holistic knowledge of the systems own evolution which corresponds to

re-ligio and which may already be observed in chemical dissipative structures,may be called in-tuition, which is literally learning from within. Intuition is not

structural knowledge, but knowledge of ones own historical process. In this

way, intuition becomes the only factor to guide direction when in processes of

fast change, the orientation by means of stored information and by means of

interpreting the exchange with the environment all fail.

E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, p. 220.

Initially, the collective resistance and criticism from those who still adhere the well elaborated

holes and established theories because of their academic status and the unacademicalapproach of the others is a brake on the individual attempts for an intellectual renaissance.

But once one of these new theories becomes more and more structured and successful in

explaining experimental results, then the academic world is willing to accept it. More and

more scientists start to work on it, so it is elaborated to a well-proportioned theory. Again we

enter a stable region, were all experimental results will be described in terms of the new

theory. Novelty has become transformed into confirmation.

So we can see scientific evolution as a succession of longer regions of stability, characterized

by collectivity, rationality and determinism, alternating with short bifurcation regions, where

individual creativity, intuition and very often pure chance prevail.

13.4.3 Evolution of the brains

The main feature of the evolution of life from the most primitive organisms towards the

present day Homo Sapiens is the evolution of the brain and the neural system208. All the stages

of this evolution are still present in any human being. According to the American

neurophysiologist Paul D. MacLean one can see the brain as being composed of three parts(the thriune brain), each with their own structure, features and information-processing

208 E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, p. 165-169.


26/39


261

capacity. Each of the three parts has evolved during a certain stage in the evolution of living

organisms.

First there is the part that developed about 250 to 280 million years ago, together with the

reptiles (the reptilian brain). One of the main characteristics of this part of the brain is the

difficulty to process new information, it cannot handle new situations. It is, so to speak,genetically pre-programmed and it does not provide the ability to learn. Emphasis is

completely on the processing of the aspect of confirmation of information. This part of the

brain uses very little energy.

In the second place there is the limbic brain, which originated together with the first mammals

about 165 million years ago. This part has already a limited capacity to handle new stimuli,

but at the same time it is considered to be the cause of the fact that most human beings stick

too long to certain prejudices and ides fixes.

And finally, there is the neo-cortex, which originated together with the primates (apes and

human beings) 50 million years ago. In this part of the brain lay the powers to abstract, to

reason, and to transcend the limitations of the immediate environment, in the sense that mandevelops the mental power to change the world around him according to his will ( self-

reflexive mind). Totally new information can be processed, new information (ideas) can be

created. This part of the brain uses most of the energy. It is a striking feature with man that

this part of the brain is more developed than with any other living being, and, although the

brain constitutes only a small part of the total weight of the human body, it takes the major

part of the total consumption of oxygen and energy.

This is in complete agreement with the model described by Jantsch: transformation of novelty

into confirmation demands a lot of energy. With the evolution of living organism towards

higher forms, the consumption of oxygen in the brain has increased. Conversely, would it then

be possible to stimulate the mental evolution of an individual or of humanity as a whole, if the

supply of oxygen to the brains could be increased in one way or another?

As already mentioned, the three different types of brain are present in the human brain.

According to which type prevails, an individual person shows creative tendencies and has an

open mind to new ideas creative people are usually very open minded and have a good

sense of humoror he shuts off the unfamiliar and hostile outside world and concentrates

himself in confirmation (prejudices): The brain destroys in several steps of abstraction part

of the informationthat part which cannot be expressed in the mental situation model 209. We

may also say that confirmation is increased at the cost of novelty if novelty cannot be coped

with210. Selective cognition leads to prejudices, prejudices lead to selective cognition.

I hope I have been able to stimulate your neo-cortex and your appetite for novelty. And thatyou fully understand this statement from Albert Einstein: Problems cannot be solved at the

same level of consciousness that created them.

We repeat here some lines from our section on the relation between recurrence and paradigm.

When a society functions according to a paradigm that is not in harmony with reality, and

when, in spite of the crisis, it still follows the same line through, when it does not learn the

necessary lessons and when it does not adapt its paradigm, then that society will again and

again be faced with the same kind of crises even with increasing intensity , it will again

and again go through the same scenario (scripts in transactional analysis, karma in eastern

philosophies), just as the principal character in an ancient Greek drama: The tragic error in

209 Signal-space!210 E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, p. 178.


27/39


262

tragic drama is walking in blindness so that the tragic hero who intends to accomplish a

certain result with his actions accomplishes the exact opposite211.

The cause for recurrence and periodicity in economy can be found in the fact that the current

socioeconomic paradigm is not in accordance with reality. The ever-repeating cycle of

economic crises and wars can only be interrupted if we succeed to transcend the limitations ofthe present paradigm and if we can expand or even transcend our paradigm so it is more in

tune with reality.

211 Claude Steiner, Scripts People Live, p 60-61


28/39


263

14 Appendix C: Economy and Control System Theory

14.1 An Economic Two-dimensional Flatland

In our basis theory on the origin of profit we made the simplified assumption that there is a

proportional relationship between the amount of money in circulationMand the average price

level P. This is not the whole picture, as money has a velocity. The following lines are

borrowed from Paul Samuelsons bookEconomics.

In this discussion professor Samuelson uses the following economic concepts:

GNP = Gross National Product

M= the amount of money in circulation V= the velocity of circulation of money per year P = the average price level Q = the real (as distinct from current dollar) GNPIt is a historical fact that as dollar GNP has grown, so has M. WithMnow ten

times as large as before World War II, dollar GNP is even more than ten times

as large as its earlier figure...

Why should there be any connection? Mis a stockmagnitude, something you

can measure at an instant of time like any other balance-sheet asset. GNP is a

flow of dollar income per year, something that you can measure only fromincome statements that refer to the passage of time between two dates212.

A new concept can be introduced to describe the Fisher-Marshall ratios

between two such different magnitudes: it is called the velocity of circulation

of money per year and is written as V.

Definition of velocity: The rate at which the stock of money is turning over per

year to consummate income transactions is called the velocity of circulation of

money (or more exactly, the income velocity, V).

If the stock of money is turning over very slowly, so that its rate of dollar

income spending per year is low, Vwill be low. If people hold less money at

each instant of time relative to the rate of GNP flow (prices of apples * amount

of apples + prices of oranges * amount of oranges + ...)213, then Vwill be high.

The size of Vwill tend to rise with interest rates214. Also Vcan change over

time with changes in financial institutions, habits, attitudes, expectations,

computer communications, and relative distribution of M among different

212Just as profit or cash flow for a company, or a balance of trade for a country.

213Apples, oranges: quantity soldper year!

214I would say V tends to rise with the rate of inflation! If real interest rates (interest rate minus

inflation) are high, people will be inclined to save more and spend less, so V declines. But of course, wheninflation is high, interest rates are also high, but real interest on saved money is low, so people spend their money

faster as it looses its value in their pocket and on their savings account. Thus Vincreases with inflation!


29/39


264

kinds of institutions and income classes. These changes in V need not,

Documents

Eight Days a Week - The Fourth Wave - Disspative Structures - Control System Theory