​​

​​​​​​​​​​Different Perspectives

​

The general systems tend to look at a system and its interacting (sub-)systems through arbitrarily delineated system inquiry. They  typically depict a system as a circle and the interaction between them as arrows (see Figure 1), while in a system dynamics model the variables are arbitrarily determined (i.e. by the participants in the inquiry) with their impact on each other being depicted by arrows.

By comparison, Biomatrix Systems Theory distinguishes between different types of systems (i.e. activity/functional and entity/organismic systems) and describes how they give rise to each other across different levels in the containing systems hierarchy. It also describes the generic principles of their organisation, which give rise to a generic system dynamics.

The web of the biomatrix refers to the interconnected and interacting entity and activity systems that we observe or surmise (see Figure 2) and the perspective of an underlying field of in-formation (see orange fields in Figure 3) according to which the systems manifest as concepts or in physical reality. 

NOTE: Information is Latin for “putting form into”. There is a distinction between information as a description of a system (i.e. data), and information as a force that shapes a system. Therefore we spell the former as information, and the latter as in-formation. Biomatrix Systems Theory refers to in-formation as ethos. Other systems thinkers use different terms, such Sheldrake’s morphogenetic field (morphogenetic is Greek for “generating form”), Jung’s collective unconscious and Bohm’s explicate order. Ultimately, according to quantum physics, there is also a universal energy field from which all manifestations arise, described by Chopra as “quantum field”, Laszlo as “Akashic field” and Bohm as “implicate order” (which he defines as "unbroken wholeness in flowing movement").

From a methodological perspective it should be noted, that the organising principles differ between these system realities.​

​

Unique contributions of Biomatrix Systems Theory

The contributions of Biomatrix Systems Theory to General Systems theories are threefold: conceptual contribution (adding new concepts), synergistic contribution (integrating the concepts into a larger theory) and visual contribution (depicting the theory graphically).

​

Conceptual contribution

Biomatrix Systems Theory has contributed the following unique theoretical concepts:

• Distinction between activity and entity systems

• Three-fold organisation of entity systems

• Interaction and co-production of entity systems and activity systems

• Entity system as emerging middle from co-production of the outer and inner environment and the self

• Co-evolution across three levels

• Three sub-webs of the biomatrix

• The concept of substance as an interacting mei field

• The continuity of mei (substance) through tapping

• Physical and conceptual reality of a system

• Seven forces of system organisation

• Clockwise and counterclockwise change within a system

• Generic systems dynamics of the biomatrix

• Purposeful (i.e. teleonic) nature of systems

• Dual perspectives within biomatrix theory

• Duality of process and structure

• Duality of time and space

• Holographic / fractal nature of systems organization

• Webs within webs

• Organizing forces within organizing forces

• Generic frameworks for and approaches to problem analysis and problem dis/solving derived from key concepts of the theory

 

Synergistic contribution

• Probably the most important contribution of Biomatrix Systems Theory is the integration of the key concepts of other systems thinkers with its unique contributions into a coherent and internally consistent theory of how the biomatrix (or web of life) is organised as a coherent whole in time and space.

​​

Visual contribution

• Biomatrix Systems Theory adds a visual dimension to systems thinking through its graphic alphabet.

• By combining a few symbols that are the elements of the alphabet, each concept, their combination into bigger theoretical constructs and ultimately the theory as a whole can be depicted graphically.

• We believe that this makes the understanding of complexity simple and a shift to w/holistic thinking easier.

 

List of systems thinkers

Concepts discussed in publications by the following authors have been incorporated and / or considered by the Biomatrix Research Group. They are specifically referred to in their relevant context in the various scientific publications on Biomatrix Systems Theory.

​

Ackoff,RL;   Anderson,D;  Ashby,WR;  Banathy,BH;  Bateson,G;  Beer,S;  Bohm,D;  Boulding,KE;  Byrne,D;  Capra,F;  Champy,J;  Checkland,P;  Churchman,WC;  Cilliers,P;  Coates,JF;   Coyle,RG;  Cross,N;  Deal,R;  Espejo,R;  Flood,RL;  Forrester,JW;  Garet,M;   Gharajedaghi,J;  Gleick,J;  Gomez,P;  Greene,B;  Hammer,M;  Champy,J;  Hawkins,DR;  Heines,SG;  Hibino,S;  Jackson,MC; Jantsch,E;  Johnson,S;  Jordaan,W;  Jordaan,J;  Katakis,C;  Katakis,D;  Kauffmann,DL; Keeney,BP;  Keohane,RO;  Keys,P;  King,G;  Koestler,A;  Lane,DC;  Laszlo,E;  Lilienfeld,R;  Lovelock,JE;  Luhmann,N;  Maruyama,M;  Masson,RO;  Maturana,HR;  McNeil,DH;  McTaggart,L;  Miller,JG;  Mitroff,II;  Nadler,G;  Olivia,TA;  Prigogine,I;  Probst,GJB;  Rands, GP;  Reason,P;  Riedl,R;  Robbins,SS;  Roberts,N;  Rowan,J;  Sabelli,H;  Shaffer,W;  Senge,PM; Sheldrake,R;  Smuts,JC;  Skyttner,L;  Starik,M;  Stengers,I;  Strümpfer,J;  Ulrich,W;  Uprichard,E;  Van der Hoorn,SM;  Varela,FJ;  Verba,S;  Vester,F;  Vickers,G;  Von Bertalanffy,L;  Warfield,J;  Wheatley,MJ;  Weinberg,GM;  Wiener,N;  Wolstenholme,EF;  Woodhill,J;  Packam,R;  Young,AM.

​

​