Search results

I examine Bogdanov’s notion of Tektology within the context of modern communication systems and political agendas.

The practicality of Tektology from the perspective of 21st century sensibilities.

I argue that, like the implications of creating a suitable environment in Red Star, the practicality of enabling tektology in the 21st century is unlikely.

Tektology was an idea created in the early 20th century and the social conditions of that era-especially in Russia. The work associated with it is Stafford Beers VSM – an idea of combining the two was suggested by Jackson in 2023. Clearly, the early ideas rely on the source material of that era which are taken within the context of now. A mixture of early 20th and 21st century references are referred to. To limit such a topic as this to the word limits of the journal necessitates reducing discussion, for example the link between Tektology and Happiness.

It is not possible to test these ideas in a practical sense. The discussion relies upon what Tektology proposes and the way in which ICT is used in the 21 century. The only practical attempt of using technology as a major control system is that of Beer’s Chilean project but Tektolgy was more ambitious; it was aimed at creating a new society. The paper can only relate to observations about the way ICTs are used and controlled presently

The paper highlights the way that communication platforms are used and controlled in western society and elsewhere.

While attempts have been made to link Tektology to modern communication technologies few consider it within the context of 21st century cultural, political and media experience.

After considering some ideas propounded in the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, the author discusses the concepts of “cybernetyka,” “tektology” and “holism.” Particular attention is paid to the ideas of Trentowski in respect of cybernetics. The problem of tektology is then studied in detail as enunciated by Bogdanov. This is followed by an analysis of holism based on Smuts' ideas. In the epilogue the author combines all these ideas and shows how cybernetics and general systems may become unitary.

Despite the worldwide importance of third sector organizations in rural areas, the theoretical connection between the third sector and rural development remains largely unexplored. The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical explanation of why and how third sector organizations contribute to rural development.

The paper builds upon the institutional economics of Thorstein Veblen and the tektology of Alexander Bogdanov. Tektology is used as an instrument to bring Veblenian criticism of pecuniary culture to bear on the explanation of the rural third sector.

Based on the tektological law of systems divergence, the Veblenian pecuniary‐industrial dichotomy and rural‐urban disparities are shown to be interrelated evolutionary consequences of pecuniary culture. Third sector organizations' contribution to rural development is explained in terms of the tektological notion of counter‐differentiation. Applied to pecuniary culture, counter‐differentiation involves attenuating its basic ingredients, such as private ownership and pecuniary motivation. This is achieved through third sector organizations' characteristics such as profit appropriation constraint and nonpecuniary goal orientation, respectively.

The paper identifies the institutional economics implications of the general systems theory and utilizes these implications to inform the research on the internationally relevant problem of rural development.

This study aims to explain and illustrate the character of Russian systems thinking and to show how it is different and similar to traditions in the West. This study’s second aim is to describe the contributions of some Russian scientists to developing systems thinking and the theory of evolution. This study introduces the predecessors of Charles Darwin in Russia, both supporters and critics of his ideas, as well as scientists who have made similar contributions to the development of systems thinking, particularly Vladimir Vernadsky and Alexander Bogdanov.

Philosophical and theoretical comparisons. In the Russian intellectual tradition, the terms “Russia” and the “West” are likely codes for signifying fundamental philosophical questions about the universality of thinking and culture. The term “West” means universal, rational truth without taking into consideration any differences in life and cultural practice. The term “Russia” means impossibility of such a universal truth and a necessity to look for solutions on the level of life, not only on the level of rational thinking.

Paying attention to differences in approaches to systems and cybernetics and the theory of evolution will enrich the further development of systems sciences in Russia and the West. The paper examines the philosophical underpinnings of science rather than just testing or extending an existing theory. The result is better mutual understanding among scientists with different backgrounds.

This study suggests new avenues for research and expands the range of conceptual possibilities. It improves mutual understanding among scholars and countries. Also, it adds to the topics discussed within the field of systems and cybernetics and the theory of evolution.

This paper aims to celebrate Felix Geyer's many contributions to the systems movement. He participated from the beginning, with the energy that has become his hallmark. The area of systems studies was introduced in The Netherlands in about 1970, mainly through the activities of the Systeemgroep Nederland or Dutch Systems Group, initiated by Ab Hanken. The paper aims to unearth the original message that made the field of systems attractive.

The aim is achieved on the basis of a re‐analysis of von Bertalanffy's systems papers, which he published under the title of “General System Theory”.

von Bertalanffy's message was not what is usually thought – that many political leaders treat their problems incompetently and hence make them less solvable or even create messes. He answered a general question about knowledge acquisition, in an area where an answer was sorely needed.

von Bertalanffy's answer inspired hope that one day one would be able to acquire the knowledge needed to solve the politicians' problems. He even identified a number of methods to do so.

The claim of the paper is that von Bertalanffy intended systems thinking to extend methods of knowing. This intention has been obscured by the limited methods he introduced. This claim is argued in an original way.

The paper aims to enrich current debate about human–technology dichotomy in socio-economic settings by decoding and systematizing the main phases through which it has been approached in managerial and social studies.

A multi-interpretative framework is built thanks to the adoption of a qualitative approach inspired by the inductive logic, and for analyzing the historical evolution of the approach to human–technology dichotomy and for explaining them through an innovative conceptual model.

An innovative conceptual model is proposed for depicting connections and evolutions among the main four phases in the evolution of the approaches to human–technology dichotomy.

Reflections and conceptual model herein can support researchers in rereading the multiple theoretical and practical contributions provided with reference to human and technology relations in socio-economic settings.

The paper can support managers and entrepreneurs in defining and evaluating managerial approaches for efficiently enhancing human–technology interaction.

The paper proposes an innovative conceptual model based on a multi-interpretative framework for decoding the historical evolution of the approaches to human–technology dichotomy in business settings. New variables are added to the current debate about the topic for building an original interpretive viewpoint.

The purpose of the paper is to propose an effective approach of artificial intelligence (AI) addressing social-humanitarian reality comprising non-formalizable representation. The new task is to describe processes of integration of AI and humans in the hybrid systems framework.

Social-humanitarian dynamics contradict traditional characteristics of AI. Suggested methodology embraces formalized and non-formalized parts as a whole. Holonic and special convergent approaches are combined to ensure purposefulness and sustainability of collective decision-making. Inverse problem solving on topology spaces, control thermodynamics and non-formalizable (considering quantum and relativistic) semantics include observers of eigenforms of reality.

Collective decision-making cannot be represented only by formal means. Thus, this paper suggests the equation of hybrid reality (HyR), which integrates formalizable and non-formalizable parts conveying and coalescing holonic approaches, thermodynamic theory, cognitive modeling and inverse problem solving. The special convergent approach makes the solution of this equation purposeful and sustainable.

The suggested approach is far reaching with respect of current state-of-the-art technology; medium-term limitations are expected in the creation of cognitive semantics.

Social-humanitarian events embrace all phenomena connected with individual and collective human behavior and decision-making. The paper will impact deeply networked experts, groups of crowds, rescue teams, researchers, professional communities, society and environment.

New possibilities for advanced AI to enable purposeful and sustainable social-humanitarian subjects. The special convergent information structuring during collective decision-making creates necessary conditions toward the goals.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the characteristics of actors that allow them to relate to others actors in the system through shared intentionality (orientation) and the nature of the A4A relationship and the results that such interactions bring to the emergent system based on this shared purpose (finality).

The topic is approached by theoretical analysis and conceptual development of three integrative frameworks: the sociological perspective, service-dominant logic and a particular perspective of system thinking: the viable system approach (vSa).

The A4A relationships involve value co-creation based on actors integrating their resources and acting with intentionality to obtain value by providing benefits to other parties and by belonging to the emergent viable system; actor acts for other actors directly involved in the relationship generating positive effects for the whole system in which it is contextualized.

Future empirical research might better support findings.

Many social implications deriving from an augmented role of actors engaged within social relationships in co-creation exchanges. From the title of the paper A4A over on the manuscript describes numerous social inferences of actors in co-creation.

A4A is a relationship formed by actors that interact for the benefit of the whole system in which are involved. They find own benefit from the benefit created for the system in which they live and act. In A4A relationships the value of the single actor comes from the participation to the viability of the whole system.

This paper aims to define hybrid reality (HyR) as an ongoing process in which artificial intelligence (AI) technology is gradually introduced as an active stakeholder by using reasoning to execute real-life activities. Also, to examine the implications of social responsibility (SR) concepts as featured in the HyR underlying common framework to progress towards the redefinition of global society.

A combination of systemic tools is used to examine and assess the development of HyR. The research is based on evolutionary and learning concepts, leading to the new meta-system development. It also builds upon the viable system model and AI, invoking SR as a conceptual framework. The research is conducted by using a new approach: using system dynamics based interactions modelling, the following two models have been proposed. The state-of-the-art HyR interactions model, examined using SR concepts; and a SR concept-based HyR model, examined using a smart vehicle case.

In the HyR model, interaction asymmetry between stakeholders is identified, possibly leading to pathological behaviour and AI technology learning corruption. To resolve these asymmetry issues, an interaction model based on SR concepts is proposed and examined on the example of an autonomous vehicle transport service. The examination results display significant changes in the conceptual understanding of transport services, their utilisation and data-sharing concepts.

As the research proposal is theoretical in nature, the projection may not display a fully holistic perspective and can/should be complemented with empirical research results.

For researchers, HyR provides a new paradigm and can thereby articulate potential research frameworks. HyR designers can recognise projected development paths and the resources required for the implication of SR concepts. Individuals and organisations should be aware of their not necessarily passive role in HyR and can therefore use the necessary social force to activate their status.

For the first time, to the best of the author’s knowledge, the term HyR is openly elaborated and systemically examined by invoking concepts of SR. The proposed model provides an overview of the current and potential states of HyR and examines the gap between them.