The article presents a history of general systems theory and discusses several of its various aspects. According to the author, the notion of general systems theory first stemmed from the pre-Socratic philosophers, and evolved throughout the ages through different philosophic entities until it was eventually formally structured in the early 1900s. The theory has three main aspects. The first is called “systems science,” or the scientific exploration and theory of systems in various sciences. The second is called “systems technology,” or the problems arising in modern technology and society. The third aspect is called “systems philosophy” and refers to the reorientation of thought and world view.

After its infant stage, a new science usually starts reflexing on its identity and theoretical roots. Sustainability science is not an exception, and the needs of self-reflection are even more pressing because of its inter- and trans-disciplinary characters, which involve a plenty of different approaches, theories and practices. In fact, such a variety does not provide a consistent ground for its future development. Without a solid grounding on a reliable base, the plethora of different theories that currently crowds its arena could in the near future produce a rejection from disciplinary specialized researchers, thus confining sustainability science to a scientific fad. Convincing theoretical roots can be found in systems science and cybernetics, and in particular second-order cybernetics, once amended from autopoiesis theory and radical constructivism, which raise serious doubts of validity and applicability. If sustainability science acknowledged its systemic and cybernetic nature and adopted second-order cybernetics in its amended version, it would gain a powerful reference paradigm and a theoretical common denominator and language to support its researchers and facilitate their knowledge exchange. From their part, systems science and cybernetics would be better understood and embraced as powerful sources of knowledge for understanding modern challenging problems, and second-order cybernetics, after decades of scarce relevance for other scientific disciplines, would be revitalized and would finally evolve adequately in a promising science and social practice.

Key words: complexity, cybernetics, first-person account, recursivity, second-order, self-organization, sustainability, systems science.

How is the field of systems science different from other scientific fields, and how can we distinguish the various traditions within systems science? We propose that there is a set of underlying assumptions which are generally shared within systems science but are less common in other scientific fields. Furthermore, the various traditions within systems science have adopted different combinations of these assumptions. We examine six traditions within systems science – cybernetics, operations research, general systems theory, system dynamics, total quality management, and organizational learning. We then consider eight underlying assumptions – observation, causality, reflexivity, self-organization, determinism, environment, relationships, and holism. We then assess where each tradition stands with respect to each of the underlying

Context: Thirty years ago, members of the systems science community discovered that at their conferences, more was being accomplished in the breaks than in the sessions. Led by Bela H. Banathy, they cancelled the sessions and created a conversation methodology that has proven far more effective. Dozens of conversations have now been held around the world. Problem: At a recent conversation in Linz, Austria, a team devoted its inquiry to the Banathy Conversation Methodology (BCM) itself, asking, in particular, how to develop and spread the methodology further, beyond the systems science community. Method: The team captured key features and benefits of BCM and developed new tools. Results: Described herein are the development of the methodology, its theoretical underpinnings, the methodology itself, heuristics for successful conversations, and an example of how the methodology is spreading. Implications: Ultimately, the hope is to develop the methodology in such ways that communities could apply it to meet significant challenges and co-create their futures.

Key words: Conversation, dialogue, guided evolution, social systems design

Many alternative theories about organization exist. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, adequate explanation of the relationship between macro and micro processes of organization, and organizational dynamics remains elusive. In the recent past there has been growing interest in two areas of systems science that offer a different basis for understanding the generative and dynamic qualities of organizations. These are autopoietic theory and complex adaptive systems theory. In this paper, we outline a theory of organization built on a synthesis of these two theoretical strands. It is argued that the approach provides an improved framework for understanding the nature and dynamics of organizational phenomena, and as such a more rigorous basis upon which to base future organizational research.

Key words: Organizational survival, autopoiesis, organizational learning, organizational ecology, complex systems

An overview of those W. Ross Ashby’s ideas that contributed to the emergence of systems science is presented in this paper from my personal perspective. Ashby’s visible influence on three research areas in systems science that I have pursued for many years is discussed in more detail.

Key words: systems science, systems categories, reconstructability analysis, generalised information theory.

The state and relevance of Systems as a field of research and a specific form of scientific inquiry into complex real-world problem situations, can be enhanced significantly by developing and applying more formalized and coherent tools: a new ‘hardware’ enabling to build a new ‘hardcore’ for systems science. The basis of this new hardware stems from a line of thought emanating from George Spencer-Brown and the ‘Laws of Form’, running through the work of Francisco Varela and his calculus for self-reference, being radicalized by Niklas Luhmann and his views on ‘Social Systems’, and continued by Dirk Baecker with the application of form theory to management and organizations. In this contribution, the author develops an understanding and appreciation of the potentials of a form-theoretical approach to formalizing systems (real-world phenomena) as well as Systems (field of research). Central aspects will be the power of the form-theoretical hardware as regards systems storytelling, systems diagnostics and abductive reasoning.

Key words: form theory, laws of form, second-order cybernetics, systems.

An attempt is made to present and organize some basic concepts from the universal systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. Working in the theoretical tradition of autopoiesis and second order cybernetics the point of departure is not ontology but distinction and observation. The basic distinction is the distinction between system and environment. Concentrating on social systems the element of which are ephemeral communications Luhmann operates with concepts as self-reference, time, and paradox in constructivist systems science. As Luhmann considers modern society in functional subsystems such as economy, science and politics he presents a picture of society with no center and no important place for the individual.

Context: The term “second-order cybernetics” was introduced by von Foerster in 1974 as the “cybernetics of observing systems,” both the act of observing systems and systems that observe. Since then, the term has been used by many authors in articles and books and has been the subject of many conference panels and symposia. Problem: The term is still not widely known outside the fields of cybernetics and systems science and the importance and implications of the work associated with second-order cybernetics is not yet widely discussed. I claim that the transition from (first-order) cybernetics to second-order cybernetics is a fundamental scientific revolution that is not restricted to cybernetics or systems science. Second-order cybernetics can be regarded as a scientific revolution for the general methodology of science and for many disciplines as well. Method: I first review the history of cybernetics and second-order cybernetics. Then I analyze the major contents of von Foerster’s fundamental revolution in science and present it as a general model for an alternative methodology of science. Subsequently, I present an example of practicing second-order socio-cybernetics from within. I describe some consequences of doing science from within, and I suggest some new horizons for second-order cybernetics. Results: Second-order cybernetics leads to a new foundation for conducting science and offers important contributions for a new way of organizing science. It expands the conception of science so that it can more adequately deal with living systems. Implications: Second-order cybernetics extends the traditional scientific approach by bringing scientists within the domain of what is described and analyzed. It provides models of research processes for when the scientist is within the system being studied. In this way it offers a new foundation for research in the social sciences, in management science, and in other fields such as the environmental sciences or the life sciences. Keywords: Epistemology, general scientific methodology, cybernetics, social sciences, action research, Heinz von Foerster.

Key words: Epistemology, general scientific methodology, cybernetics, social sciences, action research, Heinz von Foerster