, Yudin E. G. (gen.) - Research in general systems theory. Sadovskiy V.N., Otv. ed .: Uemov A.I .: Foundations of the general theory of systems. Logical-methodological analysis Sadovsky foundations of general systems theory read

System (from the Greek. Systema - whole, made up of parts; connection), a set of elements in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity. Having undergone a long historical evolution, the concept of a system from the middle of the 20th century. becomes one of the key philosophical-methodological and special-scientific concepts. In modern scientific and technical knowledge, the development of problems related to the study and design of systems of various kinds is carried out within the framework of systems approach, general theory systems, various special systems theories, in cybernetics, systems engineering, systems analysis, etc.

The first ideas about systems arose in ancient philosophy, which put forward an ontological interpretation of the system as the orderliness and integrity of being. In ancient Greek philosophy and science (Euclid, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics), the idea of \u200b\u200bthe consistency of knowledge was developed (the axiomatic construction of logic, geometry). Perceived from antiquity, ideas about the systemic nature of being developed both in the system-ontological concepts of B. Spinoza and G. Leibniz, and in the constructions of scientific systematics. 17-18 centuries, striving for a natural (and not teleological) interpretation of the systemic nature of the world (for example, the classification of K. Linnaeus). In philosophy and science of modern times, the concept of a system was used in the study of scientific knowledge; at the same time, the range of proposed solutions was very wide - from denying the systemic nature of scientific and theoretical knowledge (E. Condillac) to the first attempts to philosophically substantiate the logical and deductive nature of knowledge systems (I. G. Lambert and others).

The principles of the systemic nature of knowledge were developed in it. classical philosophy: according to I. Kant, scientific knowledge is a system in which the whole prevails over the parts; F. Schelling and G. Hegel interpreted the systematic nature of knowledge as the most important requirement of dialectical thinking. In bourgeois philosophy of the 2nd half of the 19th and 20th centuries. with a general idealistic solution to the main question of philosophy, however, there are statements and, in some cases, solutions to certain problems of systems research - the specifics of theoretical knowledge as a system (neo-Kantianism), the features of the whole (holism, gestalt psychology), methods of constructing logical and formalized systems (neopositivism) ...

The general philosophical basis for the study of systems is the principles of materialistic dialectics (the universal connection of phenomena, development, contradiction, etc.). The works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin contain a wealth of material on the philosophical methodology of studying systems - complex developing objects.

For the beginning from the 2nd half of the 19th century. the penetration of the concept of a system into various areas of specific scientific knowledge was of great importance to the creation of the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin, the theory of relativity, quantum physics, structural linguistics, etc. The problem arose of constructing a rigorous definition of the concept of a system and the development of operational methods for analyzing systems. Intensive research in this direction began only in the 40-50s. 20 century, however, many specific scientific principles of systems analysis have already been formulated earlier in the tectology of A. A. Bogdanov, in the works of V. I. Vernadsky, in the praxeology of T. Kotarbinsky, etc. Proposed in the late 40s. L. Bertalanffy's program for constructing a "general theory of systems" was one of the first attempts at a generalized analysis of systems problems. In addition to this program, closely related to the development of cybernetics, in the 50-60s. a number of system-wide concepts and definitions of the concept of S. were put forward (in the USA, USSR, Poland, Great Britain, Canada, and other countries).

When defining the concept of a system, it is necessary to take into account its close relationship with the concepts of integrity, structure, connection, element, relationship, subsystem, etc. Since the concept of a system has an extremely wide scope (almost every object can be considered as a system), insofar as its fairly complete understanding implies construction of a family of relevant definitions, both informal and formal. Only within the framework of such a family of definitions it is possible to express the basic systemic principles: integrity (the fundamental irreducibility of the properties of the system to the sum of the properties of its constituent elements and the irreducibility of the last properties of the whole; the dependence of each element, properties and relations of the system on its place, functions, etc. whole), structure (the possibility of describing the system through the establishment of its structure, i.e., the network of connections and relations of the system; conditionality of the behavior of the system by the behavior of its individual elements and properties of its structure), the interdependence of the system and the environment (the system forms and manifests its properties in the process of interaction with the environment, being at the same time the leading active component of interaction), hierarchy (each component of the system, in turn, can be considered as a system, and the system studied in this case is one of the components of a wider system), the multiplicity of descriptions of each system (due to the fundamental complexity each system, its adequate knowledge requires the construction of many different models, each of which describes only a certain aspect of the system), etc.

An essential aspect of disclosing the content of the concept of a system is the allocation of various types of systems (while different types and aspects of systems - the laws of their structure, behavior, functioning, development, etc. - are described in the corresponding specialized theories of systems). A number of classifications of systems using different bases have been proposed. In the most general terms, systems can be divided into material and abstract. The first (integral sets of material objects), in turn, are divided into systems of inorganic nature (physical, geological, chemical, etc.) and living systems, which include both the simplest biological systems and very complex biological objects such as an organism, species, ecosystem. A special class of material living systems is formed by social systems, extremely diverse in their types and forms (ranging from the simplest social associations to the socio-economic structure of society). Abstract systems are a product human thinking; they can also be divided into many different types (special systems are concepts, hypotheses, theories, sequential change of scientific theories, etc.). Abstract systems include scientific knowledge about systems of various types, as they are formulated in general systems theory, special systems theories, etc. In science of the 20th century. great attention is devoted to the study of language as a system (linguistic systems); as a result of the generalization of these studies, a general theory of signs arose - semiotics. The problems of substantiating mathematics and logic caused an intensive development of the principles of construction and the nature of formalized, logical systems (metallographic, metamathematics). The results of these studies are widely used in cybernetics, computer technology, etc.

When using other bases for the classification of systems, static and dynamic systems are distinguished. For a static system, its state remains constant over time (for example, a gas in a limited volume - in a state of equilibrium). A dynamic system changes its state over time (for example, a living organism). If the knowledge of the values \u200b\u200bof the variables of the system at a given moment in time makes it possible to establish the state of the system at any subsequent or any previous moment in time, then such a system is unambiguously deterministic. For a probabilistic (stochastic) system, knowledge of the values \u200b\u200bof the variables at a given moment in time only allows predicting the probability of the distribution of the values \u200b\u200bof these variables at subsequent moments in time. By the nature of the relationship between the system and the environment, the systems are divided into closed - closed (no matter enters and does not release from them, only energy is exchanged) and open - non-closed (input and output of not only energy, but also matter). According to the second law of thermodynamics, each closed system ultimately reaches a state of equilibrium at which all macroscopic quantities of the system remain unchanged and all macroscopic processes cease (the state of maximum entropy and minimum free energy). The stationary state of an open system is a mobile equilibrium, in which all macroscopic quantities remain unchanged, but the macroscopic processes of substance input and output continue continuously. The behavior of the named classes of systems is described using differential equations, the construction problem of which is solved in the mathematical theory of systems.

The modern scientific and technological revolution has led to the need to develop and build automated systems for managing the national economy (industry, transport, etc.), automated systems for collecting and processing information on a national scale, etc. Theoretical basis to solve these problems, they are developed in the theories of hierarchical, multilevel systems, purposeful systems (in their functioning striving to achieve certain goals), self-organizing systems (capable of changing their organization, structure), etc. Complexity, multicomponent, stochasticity, and other important features of modern technical systems required the development of theories of systems "man and machine", complex systems, systems engineering, system analysis.

In the process of development of systemic research in the 20th century. the tasks and functions of various forms of theoretical analysis of the entire complex of systemic problems were more clearly defined. The main task of specialized systems theories is the construction of specific scientific knowledge about different types and different aspects of systems, while the main problems of general systems theory are concentrated around the logical and methodological principles of systems research, the construction of a metatheory of systems analysis. Within the framework of this problem, it is essential to establish methodological conditions and restrictions on the use of systemic methods. These restrictions include, in particular, the so-called. systemic paradoxes, for example, the hierarchy paradox (the solution of the problem of describing any given system is possible only if the problem of describing a given system as an element of a wider system is solved, and the solution of the latter problem is possible only if the problem of describing this system as a system is solved). The way out of this and similar paradoxes is to use the method of successive approximations, which allows, by operating with incomplete and obviously limited ideas about the system, to gradually achieve more adequate knowledge about the system under study. The analysis of the methodological conditions for the application of systemic methods shows both the fundamental relativity of any description of a particular system that is available at a given time, and the need to use the entire arsenal of meaningful and formal means of systemic research in the analysis of any system.

Literature:

1. Khailov KM, The problem of systemic organization in theoretical biology, "Journal of General Biology", 1963, vol. 24, no. 5;
2. Lyapunov AA, On the control systems of living nature, in the collection: On the essence of life, M., 1964;
3. Shchedrovitskiy G. P., Problems of methodology of system research, M., 1964;
4. Veer St., Cybernetics and production management, trans. from English, M., 1965;
5. Problems of formal systems analysis. [Sat. Art.], M., 1968;
6. Hall A. D., Feydzhin R. E., Definition of the concept of a system, in the collection: Research on the general theory of systems, M., 1969;
7. Mesarovich M., Systems theory and biology: the point of view of the theoretician, in the book: System studies. Yearbook. 1969, M., 1969;
8. Malinovsky A.A., Ways of theoretical biology, M., 1969;
9. Rapoport A., Various approaches to the general theory of systems, in the book: System research. Yearbook. 1969, M., 1969;
10. Uemov AI, Systems and system research, in the book: Problems of methodology of system research, M., 1970;
11. Shreider Yu. A., To the definition of the system, “Scientific and technical information. Series 2 ", 1971, No. 7;
12. Ogurtsov A.P., Stages of interpretation of the consistency of knowledge, in the book: System studies. Yearbook. 1974, M., 1974;
13. Sadovsky V.N., Foundations of the general theory of systems, M., 1974;
14. Urmantsev Yu. A., Symmetry of nature and the nature of symmetry, M., 1974;
15. Bertalanffy L. von, An outline of general system theory, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1950, v. I, no. 2;
16. Systems: research and design, ed. by D. P. Eckman, N. Y. - L.,;
17. Zadeh L. A., Polak E., System theory, N. Y. 1969;
18. Trends in general systems theory, ed. by G. J. Klir, N. Y. 1972;
19. Laszlo E., Introduction to systems philosophy, N. Y., 1972;
20. Unity through diversity, ed. by W. Gray and N. D. Rizzo, v. 1-2, N. Y. 1973.

On October 28, 2012, at the age of 79, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Vadim Nikolaevich Sadovsky died.

V.N. Sadovsky is one of the largest Russian specialists in the field of system research methodology and philosophy of science, the author of more than two hundred scientific works, many of which are widely known in Russia and abroad.

While still a student at the Faculty of Philosophy at Moscow State University, he began an extensive program of analytical and critical assimilation of modern Western philosophy and the promotion of its achievements on domestic soil. Enlightenment in the noblest sense of the word was Vadim Nikolaevich's vocation. This is evidenced by at least the works of Western thinkers, published under the editorship and with extensive scientific prefaces by V.N. Sadovsky: books by J. Piaget (M., 1969), J. Hintikki (M., 1980), M. Wartofsky (M., 1988), K. Popper (M., 1983, M., 1992; M., 2000, M., 2001), collections of articles by L. von Bertalanffy, A. Rapoport and others (M., 1969), T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, S. Toulmin (M., 1978), collection of translations "Evolutionary epistemology and logic of social sciences "(M., 2000). In the works of V.N. Sadovsky also provides a detailed analysis of the philosophical, methodological and sociological views of K. Popper.

Vadim Nikolaevich, together with his associates I.V. Blauberg and E.G. Yudin is one of the founders of the Russian scientific school "Philosophy and Methodology of System Research"; this problem began to be developed by him in the 1960s, including on the pages of the journal Voprosy filosofii. V.N. Sadovsky gave an analysis of the methodological foundations of the general theory of systems, formulated systemic paradoxes, and revealed the relationship between the philosophical principle of consistency, the systems approach and the general theory of systems. Promotion of these ideas in the conditions of the domination of the official ideology of the 60-70s. was an act of not only scientific but also civil courage.

Since 1978, almost twenty years, V.N. Sadovsky headed the department of system research methodology at the Institute for System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences, harmoniously combining the administrative and scientific leadership of the department's team with his own active and fruitful creative activity.

For many years, Vadim Nikolaevich was closely associated with the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii - first as a consultant, deputy head. department, and then - a member of the editorial board and the International Editorial Board. His publications in the journal have always aroused great interest, differing in their sharpness, relevance of the problems and depth of analysis.

Concern for the preservation of domestic scientific traditions, the memory of those who created them, were in the center of Vadim Nikolaevich's attention. last years... His adherence to principles in actions, benevolence, simplicity and humor in communicating with colleagues brought him the deserved respect of everyone who knew him.

The bright memory of dear Vadim Nikolaevich Sadovsky will be kept in our hearts.

Major specialist in philosophy and methodology of science; Doctor of Philosophy (1974), Professor (1985), Chief Researcher of the Institute for Systems Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Member of the International Academy of Sciences of Information, Information Processes and Technologies (1996).
Born on March 15, 1934 in Orenburg. Graduated in 1956 from the Faculty of Philosophy of the Moscow state university them. M.V. Lomonosov. He worked at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in the editorial office of the journal Problems of Philosophy, at the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Since 1978 he has been working at the All-Union Scientific Research Institute for System Research (now - the Institute for Systems Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences), since 1984 - head of the department of methodological and sociological problems of system research at this institute and at the same time (from 1993 to 2006) - head Department of Philosophy, Logic and Psychology of the Moscow Institute of Economics, Politics and Law.
One of the organizers and leaders of the Russian scientific school "Philosophy and Methodology of System Research" (The school was founded jointly with I.V. Blauberg and E.G. Yudin in the 1960s.) Organizer, head and editor of many collective monographs, translations and scientific collections of historical and scientific and philosophical and methodological works. Member of the editorial board (since 1969) and deputy editor-in-chief (since 1979) of the yearbook “System Research. Methodological problems ”(published from 1969 to the present). Member of the editorial board of the journals "Synthese", "International Journal of General Systems", "Systemist".
He investigated the axiomatic method, the independence of the models of scientific knowledge from philosophical concepts, the relationship between truth and plausibility, the criteria for the progress of science, the methodological nature and conceptual apparatus of the systemic approach. He proposed the concept of the general theory of systems as a metatheory, showed the relationship of the philosophical principle of consistency, the systems approach and the general theory of systems, carried out the analysis of tectology (the doctrine of the organization of A.A. Bogdanov)
Another direction scientific research - methodology, evolutionary epistemology and sociology of K. Popper, whose main works were published in Russia with commentary and edited by V.N. Sadovsky. In 1983, edited by V.N. Sadovsky published for the first time in Russian a translation of the logical and methodological works of K. Popper in the collection "Logic and the growth of scientific knowledge" (Moscow: Publishing house "Progress", 1983), in 1992 K. Popper's classic work on social philosophy "Open society and his enemies ”(Moscow: International Fund“ Cultural Initiative ”, 1992). In 2000, together with D.G. Lakhuti (translator) and V.K. Finn (author of the afterword) V.N. Sadovsky (executive editor and author of the foreword) published a collection of articles “Evolutionary Epistemology and Logic of Social Sciences. Karl Popper and His Critics ”(Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2000).

Introduction. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5
Chapter I. Systems research and systems approach. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .15
§ one. general characteristics modern systems research. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .15
§ 2. The main areas of modern systems research. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .21
§ 3. To the question of the essence of the system approach. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .32
§ 4. Philosophical methodology for the study of complex objects and a systematic approach 44
Chapter II. Systems theory and general systems theory. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 51
§ 1. Specialized views of the systems approach. Variety of theories
systems. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .51
§ 2. Specificity of problems in general systems theory (preliminary remarks). ... ... ... .57
§ 3. One historical lesson: the dilemma "scientific and technical theory or
methodological concept "............................ 62
§ 4. General theory of systems as a metatheory. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 71
Chapter III. The concept of a system in the framework of general systems theory. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 77
§ 1. Fundamental difficulties in defining the concept of "system". ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 78
§ 2. Analysis of the family of meanings of the concept "system". ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .82
§ 3. Some results of a typological study of the meanings of a concept
"system". ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 92
§ 4. Relationship, set, system. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 102
Chapter IV. General systems theory is an experience of systematic presentation. ... ... ... ... ... ... .107
§ 1. Some preliminary remarks. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 107
§ 2. Foundations of the set-theoretic system concept. System
with relationships. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .112
§ 3. Types of density of connections of system elements. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 120
§ 4. Mode of action (behavior) of elements and systems. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 135
§ 5. Terminal and purposeful approaches in general systems theory. ... ... ... ... 154
§ 6. Basic principles of the theory of open systems. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .163
§ 7. The concept of "general systems theory" L. von Bertalanffy. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 171
§ 8. Parametric system concept. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 184
§ 9. The main directions of further development of general systems theory. ... ... ... ... 191
§ 10. On Discussions about the general theory of systems as a metatheory. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .195
Chapter V. Special logical and methodological problems of general systems theory. .204
§ 1. Scheme of logical and methodological tasks of systems research. ... ... ... ... ... 205
§ 2. Specific concepts of the systems approach; their diversity
and orderliness. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .206
§ 3. Methodological aspects of the definition of the concept of a system sequence. ... ... ... ... ... 211
§ 4. On one method of classification of systems. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .216
§ 5. Logical and methodological explication of the "part-whole" relationship. Calculus
individuals. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .225
Chapter VI. The paradoxes of systems thinking. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .232
§ 1. General characteristics of systemic paradoxes. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 232
§ 2. To the interpretation of systemic paradoxes. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .238
§ 3. Paradoxes of systems thinking and the specificity of system knowledge. ... ... ... ... ... 240
Conclusion. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 247
Literature. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 251

FROM BORN IR TRANSLATIONS General edition and introductory article by V.I.Sadovsky pi
E. G. Yudina
Progress Publishing House Moscow 1969

TRANSLATION SAN GL IY SK OGO AND POLSKY A. MM IK AND LU I, BV PLES WITH WHOM, CH. SMOLYAN A, BAS T L ROST I NAB. G. YU DINA and NS. YULI NOY SCIENTIFIC EDITOR OF THE PUBLISHING HOUSE A. A. MAKAR OV
Editorial board of literature on philosophy and law 5 , 6- 69

PROBLEMS, METHODS AND APPLICATIONS OF GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY
INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE
A few years ago, works devoted to the problems of systems theory were very rare in the scientific literature. Now that systems research has acquired all the rights of citizenship in modern science, they hardly need to be too extensive attestations. The bibliography on various aspects of systems research now numbers hundreds and even thousands of titles; specialists from a wide variety of fields of knowledge have held dozens of symposia and conferences devoted to ways of implementing system management.
course.
Yet this book requires a special introduction to the reader. Its main feature is determined by the fact that it contains, perhaps, the most significant works of modern foreign scientists who study the foundations, apparatus and applications of general systems theory. Until now, translations of conference materials on various specific aspects of systems research have been published in Russian. This is the nature of the books General theory of systems (MM and p, 1966), Self-organizing systems (MM and p, 1964), The principles of self-organization (MM and p, 1966). For all the importance of these works, they do not give a sufficiently broad and complete picture of the current state of the systemic movement abroad. And this, in turn, makes it difficult to compare foreign studies with the corresponding works of Soviet specialists,
1
s

The Soviet reader is well aware that Marxism was the first to pave new ways in methods of cognizing complex objects, and the founders of dialectical and historical materialism not only built a methodology corresponding to such cognition, but also implemented it on the analysis of a number of important problems social development... An example of such an implementation is the work of KM ar ks ai by V.I. Lenin. As an objective continuation of this line, one can consider numerous attempts to build new approaches to the study of complex objects, characteristic of the science of the X X century. Among these approaches, general systems theory occupies a prominent place.
This theory in the form of a special concept was first formulated in the years by JI. Bertalanffy. Its development quickly revealed that the concept of general systems theory does not have a strictly defined meaning, and in this regard, the concepts of a systems approach, systems research, and systemic movement entered into scientific use. "
What does this rejection of the initial rigor mean? Can it be interpreted as the result of a gradual loss of clarity in the scientific tasks of methods? To the credit of the pioneers of the systemic movement, it must be said that from the very beginning they did not suffer from an excess of lightweight optimism and were aware of the enormous difficulties that are associated with overcoming construction of concepts such as general systems theory. As the development of systemic research, it became more and more obvious that it was not about the approval of a single concept claiming to be of general scientific significance, but about a new direction of research activity, about the development of a new system of principles of scientific thinking, about the formation of a new approach to the objects of research. This is reflected in the concepts of systemic approach, systemic movement, etc., which characterize the variety of specific forms and directions of systemic research.
Her awareness of the need for this multi-layered, multi-story levels of analysis is growing - characteristic the current stage of development of systems research. It is clearly expressed in many articles of this collection, as well as in the very selection of its materials, representing various ways and forms of solution
4

cue of system tasks in different areas of knowledge. However, this does not mean that all areas of modern systemic research are equally represented here. If we single out three main lines in these studies, the development of the theoretical foundations of the systems approach, the construction of a research apparatus adequate to this approach and the application of system ideas and methods, then it must be said that in the book being published, the preference is given to the first two lines.
There are several reasons for this addiction. First, it is these areas of foreign systems research that are still the least known in our country. Second, in these areas the most obvious are the general difficulties of a substantive and formal nature. Third, the systematic presentation of the theory and methodology of systems research is, obviously, necessary condition for a deeper and more thorough penetration into the diverse applications of general systems theory. As for the applications, they are presented in this book from a somewhat specific angle of view, according to the articles published here, of course, it is impossible to construct an idea of \u200b\u200ball real-life applications of systemic ideological ones, you can grasp the general direction and types of such applications.
Most of the foreign authors who appear in this book are widely known in the scientific world. Austrian biologist (currently at the University of Albert in Canada) JI. Bertalanffy is not only the author of the first system-wide concept, but one of the founders of the Society for Research in General Systems Theory (1954) and the founders of the Society's Yearbook "General Systems" (since 1956). Together with him, the philosopher, psychologists, sociologist A. Rapoport, as well as the economist K. Boulding began this scientific and organizational activity. The expert in the field of operations research R. A kof, known to the Soviet reader, was one of the first to put forward an alternative to the theory
Bertalanffy is a variant of the system-wide concept presented in this book. The name of the English cybernetics Wu Ross
Ash bi does not require any certifications. The American specialist in the field of mathematical biology and psychology N. Rashevsky is also well known in our country. In recent years

several works of the current director of the Center for Systems Research at
Case University MM es arov and cha 1, whose article in this collection gives a fairly complete picture of his concept of systems theory and the ways of its construction. The Polish scientist O. Lange is known in our country as an economist.His work published here The Whole and Development in the Light of Cybernetics (one of the last ones written by him) reveals O. Lange as a philosopher who sought to develop systemic ideas on the basis of dialectical materialism with the involvement of the conceptual apparatus of cybernetics. As for the rest of the authors presented in this book, although they are not yet widely known to the scientific world, their work is distinguished by the depth and originality of thinking, the ability to find new formulations of problems.
Of course, not everything published in this book can be considered indisputable. However, the systemic movement is now going through just such a period when it needs not praise, but constructive criticism of what has been done. This fully applies to this book.
Familiarity with the content of the book offered to the reader is quite enough to come to the conclusion that at present the general theory of systems, or systems research, systems science, etc., exists in a more or less systematic form. This conclusion can only be strengthened if we turn to other works on these problems not included in this edition.
In a sense, this state of affairs can be considered quite natural - the general theory of systems, as a special area of \u200b\u200bmodern scientific research, has no more than two decades of its existence, and the time of theoretical synthesis has simply not yet come for it. It is also known that for the first time periods of development of almost any scientific concept
1 MM esarov and ch, Foundations of General Systems Theory, in General Systems Theory, M, Mir, 1966, pp. 15-48; On the formal theory of problem solving, in Foreign radio electronics, 1967,
No. 9, pp. 32-50.
6

the original formulation of new problems has much greater weight than their systematics, and it is not uncommon for someone to become a husband at this time very early. The above is all the more true if we take into account that in the case of general systems theory it is not only and not so much about a special field of science, but about the development of new principles of cognition and scientific and practical activity, and here the problems of generalization and systematization are even more complicated.
Nevertheless, even in these conditions, the desire of individual theorists of the systemic movement of their work is quite understandable; their work is included in this book - see the articles by L. Bertalanffy, A. Rap \u200b\u200boport, MM Esarovich, RA to of a, etc.) to bring order and clarity into your science. With all the controversy and incompleteness of such attempts, one cannot but see their undoubted positive significance without claiming a canonized presentation, these authors rather summarize the results of the research and outline new tasks and prospects than formulate completed concepts. Guided by this principle, we will try to present to the reader our understanding of the tasks, goals and methods of general systems theory and systems research in general.
It is useful to make one important distinction at the outset. After the first publications on the general theory of the system, especially as a result of the wide cybernetic movement, which undoubtedly influenced the entire spectrum of modern scientific and technical research, the terms system, structure, communication, management and related sis became among the most commonly used in science and in various fields of practice. Their use by different authors and in different sciences differs significantly from each other - and not only in the meanings attributed to them, but also, more importantly, according to the substantive formal principles underlying them, they often simply pay tribute to fashion in their use or proceed from an extremely wide an understood change in the nature of the objects under study (systemic objects, sometimes a philosophical and general scientific basis is put under their use, etc.). modern science, technology and other spheres of activity can be called a systemic movement, perfectly aware of its extreme amorphousness, undifferentiated ™ and laxity.
Within the systemic movement, one should highlight what could be called a systemic approach - a theoretical discussion of the methods and principles of studying objects as systems, that is, as integral sets of interconnected elements. Freed from the touch of sensationalism, loudness and dogmatism, the system approach is designed to develop the entire set of philosophical, methodological and specially scientific foundations and consequences of the transition of science and technology to the study and design of systems of various types. With all the variety of approaches to solving this problem, which has found expression, in particular, in the articles contained in this book, there is no doubt about the strict scientific nature of this problem, its relevance and the great difficulties standing in the way of its solution.
A number of significant reasons led to the need to develop a systems approach. First of all, one should name the collapse of the mechanistic worldview, emanating from elementary ideas, from the reduction of any object to the initial elements of the derivation of all the properties of complex objects from their various combinations. It is well known that criticism of mechanism was one of the sources for the emergence of dialectics. In particular, F. Engels conducts such criticism in a vivid form in a number of works. Representatives of the systems approach, consciously or unconsciously, have taken this line and, with complete unanimity, sharply oppose the mechanistic principles of cognition.
Mechanism in the X X century revealed its bankruptcy not only when it collided with the phenomena of the biological and social worlds, but also in its ancestral domain - in the field of physics at the present stage of its development. The rejection of the mechanistic methodology put on the agenda the development of new principles of cognition, focusing on the integrity and fundamental complexity of objects studied by science. At the same time, the first steps of scientific disciplines that have embarked on this path - political economy and biology, psychology and linguistics - clearly demonstrated the absence of not only the appropriate technical means of research (for example, the difficulties noted by L. Bertalanffy in studying problems with more than two variables, the absence of a developed theory simplification, about which W. Ross Ash bi speaks, and so on and the bottom and fundamental underdevelopment of the underlying philosophical and logical-methodological problems.
From a slightly different position, but, in essence, we approach the same problems, turning to the issues of unifying scientific knowledge, creating conceptual schemes that can not only build bridges between separate sciences, but also avoid duplication of theoretical work, and increase the efficiency of scientific research. The reader will easily grasp the corresponding motives in the articles by A. Rapoport, R. A kof a, MM Esarov and others. Of course, this problem is not new. History knows numerous attempts to solve it, but since all of them, as a rule, relied on some or other types of mechanism, for example, on physicalism, all of them suffered the same fate as mechanism. The principles of a systematic approach to the problems of unification of scientific knowledge are fundamentally different in this case, proceed from a holistic understanding of the objects under study (in this case, science and its individual areas and problems) and try to establish either their isomorphism (L. Bertalan
phi), or the laws underlying complex forms of scientific activity (R. A to of), or abstract mathematical foundations that can serve as the theoretical foundation of a number of sciences (A. Rapoport, MM Esarovich, W. Ross Ash bi, etc., etc. .d.
Another important source of the formation of a systems approach lies in the field of modern technology and other forms of practical activity. And the point here is not so much the novelty of the problems raised in these areas (as a rule, they are analogous to the systemic problems that arise in science, which we have already spoken about, but the extremely great importance of the successful development of these problems for the development of modern society. control systems (ranging from automated regulation of the movement of road and rail transport and ending with various defense systems, urban planning, various economic systems, the study of the conditions for the optimal activity of human collectives, the organization of the process of creating new technology like a system
P E R T - network diagrams), etc., etc. The role of these problems for the functioning and development of society determines both exceptionally large investments in their development, as well as the need to clarify the essence of a systematic approach for their successful solution. The influence of this problematics is evident in the articles of I. Klir, R. A to of a and S. Sengupta, G. Weinberg and
Others.
Thus, we can rightfully say that the urgent needs of modern science, technology, and practical activity as a whole urge the task of developing a systematic approach in detail. What can we say today about its essence, about the ways of its development and concretization? The answer to this question is not easy, therefore we will try to outline it only in general terms.
Research in the systems approach is very diverse. In order to understand this diversity, we will proceed from the already mentioned division of modern systemic research into the theoretical, formal, related to the creation of appropriate research apparatus, and
treasure.
The actual theoretical part of the systems approach includes the goals and objectives of systemic research. We have already partially touched upon this problem. To this it must be added that this range of problems requires simultaneous development in the philosophical, logical-methodological, and specially scientific planes of analysis. In terms of philosophy, a systematic approach means the formation of a systemic view of the world, based on the idea of \u200b\u200bintegrity, complex organization of the objects under study and their internal activity and dynamism. These ideas, in fact, are drawn by a systematic approach from the dialectical-materialistic picture of the world and mean a certain development of both a philosophical understanding of reality, as well as the principles of its cognition. The world as a system, in turn consisting of many systems, is simultaneously extremely complex and organized.
10

âôËâH, and his systemic vision is determined not only by his inner nature, but also by the methods of his representation in knowledge that exist in the modern researcher. In this last point, the epistemological tasks of a systemic study and a systems approach declare themselves.
In the field of epistemology of systems research, the development is primarily subject to general methods of expression in the knowledge of system objects and the categorical apparatus necessary for this. Here we draw particular attention to the rightly emphasized W Ross
Ash bi, R. A kof, et al. The determining role of the epistemological and methodological position of the researcher for evaluating a particular study as systemic or, accordingly, as non-systemic. This also includes the idea of \u200b\u200bthe complex, synthetic nature of systems research, strongly advanced by the representatives of operations research. Indeed, it is possible to represent a certain object in knowledge as a system only if its various expressions in different scientific contexts are taken into account. Analysis of the ways of combining such partial representations of an object is an important but far from being solved problem of an epistemological order. Another serious problem in this area is the study of the epistemological nature and status of the system object. After all, a system that has its own behavior, activity, development and is often not inferior to the researcher in its creative capabilities is not just that object opposing the researcher and patiently awaiting reflection in his head, which has traditionally been considered in epistemology. In many cases, the study of systems is a special type of interaction between a subject and an object, the specifics of which we can understand only by developing the corresponding categorical apparatus in detail.
The philosophical foundations of the systematic approach are closely related to its logical and methodological problems. The main task arising here is the construction of specific logical means of studying systems. Now, basically, this problem is solved by means of a logical analysis of one or another particular problem of systemic research, like, for example, the problem
AND

composition and decomposition of systems considered in the article by M. Tod and E. Schu ford, or questions of the logic of the mechanism, which are being developed by W. Ross Ash bi. The logic of systems, however, should be understood more broadly; in particular, it should include logical formalisms that describe the methods of reasoning in systems research, as well as the logic of communication systems, the logic of change and development, biology, the logic of integrity, etc. The reader will get acquainted with some results in the study of these problems, but in general it should be emphasized that the creation of the logic of systems is a matter of the future.
From the characteristics of theoretical problems of systems research, it follows that an important task of the systems approach is to clarify the meaning and build definitions (including formal ones) of the entire set of specifically systemic concepts. This applies primarily to the concept of "system".
Today we already have a lot of material on this score, starting from the qualitative characteristics of the type system is a complex of elements in interaction (L. Bertal anfi), or a system is a set of objects together with relations between objects and between their attributes (A. Hall and R. Feijin) and ending with formal definitions of this concept, which, as a rule, are based on the set-theoretic language (MM Esarovich, D. Ellis and F. Ludwig,
O. Lange et al. If we consider that practically every researcher of systemic problems relies on his understanding of the concept of a system (this is clearly seen in the articles of this collection, then we find ourselves in front of a virtually endless sea of \u200b\u200bshades in the interpretation of this concept.
For such a variety, it seems to us, we can distinguish some invariant of the meaning of the term systems ®: 1) the system is an integral complex of interrelated elements 2) it forms a special unity with the environment 3) as a rule, any system under study is an element of the system higher order 4) elements of any system under study, in turn, usually act as systems of a lower order

Various definitions of the concept of a system, in particular, proposed by the authors of this book, reflect, as a rule, only certain aspects of this invariant content. This especially applies to attempts at a formal approach to solving this problem. It is also logical to assume that it is unlikely that, in any cases in the near future, a synthetic, all-encompassing understanding of the content of the system will be achieved, rather than the qualitative characteristics of this concept will be built on top of various formal definitions interconnected to one degree or another. Proceeding further to other specific concepts of the system approach and not being able to give them any detailed analysis, we confine ourselves, in fact, only to their enumeration. A whole range of general scientific and philosophical concepts, which, as a rule, have a long history of their development, but have discovered their new aspects in connection with systemic studies, are closely related to the concept of a system. We mean, first of all, the concepts of property, relation, connection, subsystem, element, environment, part - whole, integrity, "summativeness", structure, organization, etc. Now it has become obvious that these concepts cannot be defined separately, independently of each other, they all form a certain conceptual system, the components of which are interconnected (the system is determined on their basis and in its own The queue helps to clarify the meaning of these concepts, and so on. Divas of their integrity give the first idea of \u200b\u200bthe logical framework of the system approach.
After defining the concept of a system, the question inevitably arises about the allocation of classes of systems and the specific features of systems of different classes. Today, one can rightfully be credited with the development of ideas about open
1 In the Soviet literature, interesting studies of the definition of the concepts of system and systems research have been carried out by AI. Uemov; see AI. Ueov, Logical analysis of a systematic approach to objects, its place among other research methods, in Systems Research 1969 ", M, Nauka, 1969, as well as Problems of formal analysis of systems, ed. AI. Uemova and V. NS a
dovsky, M, High School, 1968.
13

covered, organic (organismic) and inorganic systems (L. Bertalanfi, N. Rashevsky and other purposeful systems (MM esarovich), natural and artificial systems, man-machine systems R. A kof, etc.), etc. specific concepts that serve to characterize systems of different types, include a state-defined system,
“Equifinality”, purpose, degree of interaction, isolation and interaction, integration and differentiation, mechanization, centralization and decentralization, the leading part of the system, etc. It is easy to establish, in particular from the articles included in this edition, the known differences in the interpretation of these concepts by different authors, however, in general, these differences are not so significant.
The next belt of conceptual means of the system approach is formed by concepts that characterize the functioning of system objects. Among them, undoubtedly, the most important are those on the basis of which ideas about the conditions of stability, equilibrium and control of systems are formed. Concepts of this type include stability, equilibrium, stable, unstable, mobile, feedback (negative, positive, purposeful, changing target characteristics, homeostasis, regulation, self-regulation, control, etc.). Development of these concepts will significantly expand the set of possible principles of classification of systems allocation of multistable, ultrastable, controllable, self-organizing, etc. systems.
Another group of general system theoretical concepts is represented by the concept of the development of systems. In this group, first of all, the concepts of growth should be called (in particular, simple and structural, that is, unrelated or, on the contrary, associated with a change in the structure of an object, evolution, genesis, natural or artificial selection), etc. It should be emphasized that some of the concepts that characterize the development of systems are also used to describe the processes of functioning. These are, for example, the concepts of change, adaptation, learning. This is due to the fact that the line between the processes of functioning and development is far from always
1
cute, often these
H

processes pass one into another. In particular, such transitions are especially characteristic of self-organizing systems. As you know, the distinction between functioning and development in general is one of the most difficult philosophers
sco-methodological problems.
Finally, the last group of concepts of the systems approach is formed by concepts that characterize the process of constructing artificial systems in a broader sense - and the process of studying systems. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the fair remark of U Ash bi that in the study of the system we should, among other things, take the position of meta
a researcher who takes into account the real interaction between the researcher and the system he is studying (see page 141 of this book. Specific concepts that characterize the process of research and design of systems include systems analysis, systems synthesis, configurator ", etc.).
TO
All the named concepts of the systemic approach in their totality constitute a common conceptual basis for systems research. However, the systemic approach is not just a certain set of systemic concepts; it claims (and not without reason) to act as a set of principles for the theoretical description of the features of modern scientific knowledge. And as such (that is, as some theory, for example, general systems theory, the systems approach needs the development of methods and methods for its construction and development.
The results of this collection of translations give a detailed idea of \u200b\u200bthe views of foreign scientists on this matter. Comparing these ideas with the corresponding developments in our country, we come to the following conclusions.
First of all, it should be noted that it is more expedient to interpret the general theory of systems as a more or less generalized concept of the study of si.Note that one of the attempts to inventory the concepts of general systems theory was undertaken in the work of O. R.
General System Theory, "General Systems", vol. IX, 1964, p. 61- 80.
2 See, for example, Problems in the study of systems and structures, Materials for the conference, ed. M.F. Vedenova et al, M,
1965; Questions of logic and methodology of general systems theory, Materials for the symposium, ed. O. Ya. Gelman, Tbilisi, "Metsniereba", 1967; Methodological issues of system-structural is
15

system of a certain kind, than as a general theory, relating in principle to any systems. The world of systems is so diverse and heterogeneous that any attempt to interpret it uniformly, apparently, can hardly lead to scientifically significant results. In particular, the evolution of the general theory of systems JI leads us to this conclusion. Bertalanffy, who was originally understood as a kind of M athesis universa
lis, and later began to be considered by its author only as one of the possible models for the theoretical description of systems
TO
Thus, the general theory of systems, in any case, its current state, should be considered as a set of various models and ways of describing systems of various kinds. Among them, first of all, the high-quality system concepts presented in this edition by works stand out. Bertalanffy, K. Boulding, A. Rapoport, and others. Their common (and, undoubtedly, strong) side consists in singling out and fixing the systemic reality itself and in its initial, albeit sometimes very rough, dismemberment.
followings ”, Abstracts, ed. V.S. Molodtsova and others, MM GU, 1967; Problems of Formal Analysis of Systems, ed. I. Uyemov and V. N. Sadovsky, M, High School, 1968; Systems Research - 1969 ", ed. IV. Blauberg et al, M, Nauka, 1969; G. P. Shchedrovitsky, Problems of methodology of systems research, Moscow, Knowledge, 1964; IV. Blauber g. NS adovskiy, EG Yudin, A systematic approach to preconditions, problems, difficulties, Moscow, Znanie, 1969; Problems of the methodology of systems research, ed. IV. Blauberg et al, M, Thought, 1969, et al. In this regard, one remark should be made about the criticism of JI. Bertalanffy articles by V. A. Lektorsky and V. N. Sadov
skogo On the principles of systems research (Questions of philosophy,
1960, No. 8; see pages 48-50 of this publication. Bertalanffy writes that the attribution of general systems theory to the role of philosophy of modern science is the result of a misunderstanding. In an effort to dispel this misunderstanding, he explains that general systems theory in its present form is one — mustard gas very imperfect — model among others, and that it will never be exhaustive, exclusive, or finite. We fully subscribe to this characterization, but at the same time we cannot fail to note that in earlier works (see, for example, B e r t a l a n f - f y L. v o n, Das biologische Weltbild, Bern, 1949; Allgemeine System
theorie, "Deutsche Universitätszeitung", 1957, No. 5-6) Bertalanffy adhered to a different and, in our opinion, an erroneous idea on this score, which was noted in his time

Concepts can, of course, be built on this basis in various ways. One of them, quite obvious, consists in identifying isomorphisms of laws in different scientific fields and in constructing generalized scientific models on this basis. This path is undoubtedly very interesting, but its constructive, heuristic possibilities are limited. Another qualitative method of constructing a theory of systems consists in breaking up the studied scientific reality of a set of interconnected (so to speak, horizontally or (and) vertically) systemic spheres, which in the literature are sometimes called structural levels. In the book offered to the reader, perhaps only one K. Boulding clearly formulates this approach. The systemic pictures of RA constructed by him are, undoubtedly, very colorful and contributes to the understanding of both the world itself and the scientific knowledge that describes it. However, even in this case, the systems approach does not at all reveal all its possibilities. At the current level of research development, attempts to construct theoretical models of individual types of system objects seem to be more promising. Open system model and teleological equations
(JI. Bertalanffy), methods and fundamental research capabilities based on the approach to an object as a black box (W. Ross Eshb and), analysis of thermodynamic, information-theoretic, etc. description of living systems (AR ap op ort ), models of organization R. A to of), methods of cybernetic research of systems (I. Clear and others, models of multilevel multipurpose systems (MM esarovich) - this is a far from complete list of such developments, with which the reader can get acquainted with the submitted book.
Even such a problem, posed in a qualitative
content plane, requires appropriate formal methods for its solution. Thus, formal (sometimes even formalized) versions of this theory adjoin the qualitative concepts of systems theory. There is no need to talk about the importance of this area of \u200b\u200bmodern systemic research, we only note that it is here, perhaps, that one can observe the greatest variety of approaches and positions. This is largely determined by the difference in tasks, to Zak. 1G78 17

which are set by certain researchers. So, MM Esarovich is trying to construct the mathematical foundations of the general theory of systems - and the problem itself defines as the formal apparatus used in this case (set theory, the same degree of generality of the concept developed by him. Other researchers build the apparatus of systems research in relation to one or another type of systemic problems. -algebraic theory of the relationship between the whole and the part, as well as the process of development of the system O. Lange, theoretical
probabilistic analysis of the structure of systems M Toda and E. Schuford, set-theoretic definition of the concept of system by D. Ellis and F. Ludwig, set-theoretic
natural and logical-mathematical concept of homeosta
zisa W. Ross Ash B. - these are typical examples of such studies. These are the development of formal models of system objects (see, for example, the articles by N. Rashevsky and I. Klir in this edition).
Let us emphasize that nowadays we will admit a certain “spread of qualitative understandings of systems theory and, at the same time, a variety of formal apparatuses used. At the subsequent stages of the development of systems theory, the priority will be the task of synthesis.
The systematic approach belongs to those directions scientific knowledge, in which it is not so easy to draw the line between theory and methodology, on the one hand, and the field of applications, on the other. This is clearly seen in numerous examples, including the materials of this book. Indeed, to which department should the articles published here by N. Rashevsky, MM Esarovich, M. Tod and E. Schuford, I. Klir be credited - according to theory, methodology, or applications of systems theory The same question can be posed in relation to the works of a number of Soviet authors developing a systematic approach - KM. Khailov, seeking to find a way to combine the systemic and evolutionary approaches in modern theoretical biology A.A.Malinovsky, offering an original classification of types of biological systems according to specific
1 See, for example, K.M.Khailov, The problem of systemic organization in theoretical biology, in the Journal of General Biology,
XXIV, No. 5, 1963,
IS

ekime for them connections *, È. A. Lef evra, who develops the content and formal aspects of the study of reflexive processes in conflict situations, etc.
Obviously, to answer this question, it is necessary to first clarify what should be understood by applications in the field of systems research. The nontriviality of this problem is determined by the fact that the systemic approach does not have a clearly delimited and really identified single object of research. In this sense, the status of the systemic approach is even more complex than the status of cybernetics, which nevertheless distinguishes for itself a certain type of processes that are subject to study control processes, no matter how different the real objects in which these processes occur.
It seems to us that within the framework of systems research, at least two main types of applications of the application of the general theoretical principles of systems research (which constitute the content of the philosophical sphere of the systems approach or certain variants of the general theory of systems) can be distinguished to the development of more or less strict, formalized concepts, that is, attempts constructing a specific apparatus for systems research, and applications, which are based on the application of general system principles to the formulation and solution of various kinds of specific
social and scientific problems.
In the first case, we are talking about the application of the general principles of a systematic approach to solving certain, abstract or specific, scientific problems. From this point of view, applications can be considered the theory of open systems formulated by JI. Bertalanffi based on the principles of organismism even in the early period of his scientific activity. Another effective example is given by two articles by W. Ross Ashby, placed in this book; if the first of them is considered as an expression of Ashby's general system theoretical position, then the second acts in relation to her as an application
1 See, for example, A.A. Malinovskiy, Some questions of the organization of biological systems, in Organization and management, Moscow, Nauka, 1968.
2 VALe fevr, Conflicting Structures, M, High School, 1967.
2*
19

as an attempt to develop this position with the help of a rather strict formal apparatus. In the same relation are two articles by R. A to of and the second of them was written jointly with S. Sengupta). In all these cases, applications are attempts to build at least an initial formalization of the initial general theoretical content, that is, the development of the provisions developed in the theoretical sphere, in the plane of the apparatus of systems research.
In the second type of applications of systems theory, in turn, two varieties can be distinguished. In the first of them, the principles of systems analysis are used to formulate new approaches to specific scientific problems, to find new ways to formulate and solve them. An example of this kind of applied research is the article by CHL Oy Son from this book. Guided by some of Bertalanffy's ideas, primarily the principle of isomorphism of laws operating in various areas of reality, Louson seeks to formulate a new formulation of a number of problems of biological organization, the laws of functioning and development of the latter are interpreted by him on the basis of concepts gleaned from the study of communication in human society. In principle, the article by G. Weinberg is of the same nature, which, perhaps, is somewhat outdated from the point of view of the specific problems of computing technology considered in it, but retained undoubted interest from the point of view of the deep interconnection of the principles of the systems approach and the principles of development of computers shown in it. Incidentally, this development over the past few years has confirmed some of G. Weinberg's considerations.
Another variety of this type of applied systems research is formed by those works in which certain special-scientific problems are solved on the basis of the application not only of general system principles, but also the involvement of the corresponding research apparatus, and this latter is usually more or less traditional, gleaned from existing scientific disciplines ... In other words, these are studies in which new principles of cognition are carried out on the basis of the old (of course, relatively) scientific apparatus.

In this book, an excellent example of such applications is the article by K. Watt. The ecological problem posed in it - the analysis of the dynamics of populations in connection with these exploitation - is formulated on the basis of clearly visible principles of the systems approach; as for the solution proposed by Watt - a mathematical model of the dynamics of inputs and outputs of populations, it is achieved using a rather simple apparatus of classical mathematics.
This type of application is currently and, apparently, will be prevalent in systems research for a long time. The main reason for this situation lies in the absence of a specific system of logical and methodological means of systemic research. As practice shows, when solving many systemic problems (especially at the level of a specific special-scientific analysis, such a situation does not yet create fundamentally insurmountable obstacles. This is clearly seen, first of all, in those areas of knowledge where the very adoption of general systems
ideas allows you to significantly expand and clarify the initial understanding of the object of research and, on this basis, to involve in the analysis certain means of formalization that were not previously used in this area. The most poignant example of such a scientific discipline can be considered just ecology, being deeply systemic in its very foundations, ecology successfully with mustard gas is rapidly developing on the basis of the apparatus of classical mathematics and information theory.
But although thunder has not yet struck, such a situation cannot be considered cloudless. Already at present, the solution of a number of systemic problems is hampered by the lack of an adequate research apparatus. It is clear that the presence of such an apparatus, built in a systematic form, would radically expand the applied sphere of the systems approach. This would mean that a new type of applied systems research has emerged, based not only on a specific systemic worldview, but also on a specific systemic logical methodology.
logical and mathematical apparatus. As this book shows, great efforts are being made in this direction. It should be added that similar work is being done by Soviet researchers. Therefore, one can doubt that a new - and certainly more effective type of applied systems research is a matter of the not too distant future.
Let us master the general scientific aspirations of the articles that make up the content of this book, undoubtedly, deserve high marks. However, it should be borne in mind that most of the scientists represented here work in the United States, where some of their own scientific interests and a philosophical outlook were formed. Therefore, it is not surprising that some of the articles contain statements that the Soviet reader, who takes the philosophical positions of dialectical materialism, cannot agree with the ideological background. This, for example, refers to certain provisions of the article by K. Boulding. In particular, his statement about the revival of political economy, which allegedly died several hundred years ago, cannot but cause criticism, it is obvious that this nihilistic thesis is based on ignoring the Marxist political economy, which has proven its vitality not only in theory, but also in practice. On the conscience of Boulding, we must also leave that point of the hierarchy of systems proposed by him, in which we are talking about transcendental systems. The reader will no doubt notice traces of the influence of the philosophy of neopositivism beyond which the other articles of the book.
Such a philosophical interpretation of the systems approach should be firmly rejected. As for the main content of the book, it has an obvious positive meaning, allowing us to really represent the level that the systemic movement abroad has reached, and to use its now rich and instructive experience.
V.N.Sadovsky, E.G. Yudin

GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY - CRITICAL OVERVIEW *