78
Engineering Systems Integration
observer), resulting in arbitrary categories of objects, and by extension, arbitrary boundaries between them.* Therefore, the unanswerable question
remains, “What is a system?” By inference, without being able to define a
system, the objective to discuss, extend, or build a system would appear problematic. We cannot consider that which we cannot conceptualize or define.
The rationalities of inference are based on induction (Mill 1882; Holland 1962;
Newell and Simon 1972; Holland et al. 1986; Hutter 2007), abduction (Peirce
1934), deduction, comparative (Przeworski and Teune 1970), and systemic
thinking (Francois 1999). And, inferring a system is neither knowing nor contemplating the interaction and integration that must take place. Yet we presume to answer the question of “what is a system” when we contemplate
systems as such things as people, families, planets, oscillating gadgets, trees,
cities, networks, ships, and insects. This is a question that is remarkable by its
innocent fundamental nature, yet unanswerable as presented. The question is
intractable, having either an infinite number of answers or none. Like the
universe such questions may have no bounds.
The domain of knowledge that has accompanied our inquiry over the past
2500 years does not have the requisite features or power to example all that
is required to provide an answer. But we are not without choices. Continuing
to invoke philosophical notions that have maneuvered our thinking and
enquiry has helped humankind with both conceptual and material progress.
This choice is available, adopted, and widely practiced. I pose another choice:
consider applying the Parmenides method—What is it that is? What is it that
is not? What is it that cannot be?—not to the question of what is a system, but
as what processes are involved in making a system. The answers might be
suggestive of processes that portend systemness rather than a literal answer
to the question: What is a system? With some contemplation on how to think
about the problem of determining how integration works and does not work
(i.e., not beginning with a definition, but instead investigating the nature of
integration from objects that are not integrated, objects that could be integrated, and objects that we believe are integrated, and then having more luck
than we deserve when developing constructs to try out) the results just might
happen to turn out to be robust and offer insights. At the very least, the past
five years of research on integration has shown me too many false hopes and
exposed a paltry few nuggets of insight. Fortunately, those nuggets served as
guideposts to develop a reasonably robust consistency of ideas. These are
* Private communication with Dr. James H. Lake, board-certified psychiatrist, clinical assistant
professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University Hospital,
Stanford, California, September 13, 2011. Dr. Lake asks us to “consider the concept of an
inherent human/psychological ‘need’ to think about the universe in an ordered way, which
inevitably leads to attempts to categorize things in terms of hierarchies or systems? Kant
discusses this concept, i.e. there is no ‘pure seeing’ (or other perception), but only ‘seeing
aspect’ which is the imposition of the mind’s order onto the world.” Dr. Lake continued,
“Would it be helpful to include discussion of time in your ontology, as causality in relation to
time was Parmenides’ major concern?”
Engineering Systems Integration
observer), resulting in arbitrary categories of objects, and by extension, arbitrary boundaries between them.* Therefore, the unanswerable question
remains, “What is a system?” By inference, without being able to define a
system, the objective to discuss, extend, or build a system would appear problematic. We cannot consider that which we cannot conceptualize or define.
The rationalities of inference are based on induction (Mill 1882; Holland 1962;
Newell and Simon 1972; Holland et al. 1986; Hutter 2007), abduction (Peirce
1934), deduction, comparative (Przeworski and Teune 1970), and systemic
thinking (Francois 1999). And, inferring a system is neither knowing nor contemplating the interaction and integration that must take place. Yet we presume to answer the question of “what is a system” when we contemplate
systems as such things as people, families, planets, oscillating gadgets, trees,
cities, networks, ships, and insects. This is a question that is remarkable by its
innocent fundamental nature, yet unanswerable as presented. The question is
intractable, having either an infinite number of answers or none. Like the
universe such questions may have no bounds.
The domain of knowledge that has accompanied our inquiry over the past
2500 years does not have the requisite features or power to example all that
is required to provide an answer. But we are not without choices. Continuing
to invoke philosophical notions that have maneuvered our thinking and
enquiry has helped humankind with both conceptual and material progress.
This choice is available, adopted, and widely practiced. I pose another choice:
consider applying the Parmenides method—What is it that is? What is it that
is not? What is it that cannot be?—not to the question of what is a system, but
as what processes are involved in making a system. The answers might be
suggestive of processes that portend systemness rather than a literal answer
to the question: What is a system? With some contemplation on how to think
about the problem of determining how integration works and does not work
(i.e., not beginning with a definition, but instead investigating the nature of
integration from objects that are not integrated, objects that could be integrated, and objects that we believe are integrated, and then having more luck
than we deserve when developing constructs to try out) the results just might
happen to turn out to be robust and offer insights. At the very least, the past
five years of research on integration has shown me too many false hopes and
exposed a paltry few nuggets of insight. Fortunately, those nuggets served as
guideposts to develop a reasonably robust consistency of ideas. These are
* Private communication with Dr. James H. Lake, board-certified psychiatrist, clinical assistant
professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University Hospital,
Stanford, California, September 13, 2011. Dr. Lake asks us to “consider the concept of an
inherent human/psychological ‘need’ to think about the universe in an ordered way, which
inevitably leads to attempts to categorize things in terms of hierarchies or systems? Kant
discusses this concept, i.e. there is no ‘pure seeing’ (or other perception), but only ‘seeing
aspect’ which is the imposition of the mind’s order onto the world.” Dr. Lake continued,
“Would it be helpful to include discussion of time in your ontology, as causality in relation to
time was Parmenides’ major concern?”