Winiwarter, P.

, AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems

AUTOGNOSIS:
THE THEORY OF HIERARCHICAL SELF-IMAGE BUILDING
SYSTEMS
Peter Winiwarter
Bordalier Institute
412! Boursay, "rance
winiwarter#bordalierinstitute.com
www.bordalierinstitute.com
ABSTRACT
What is the meta$hysical $aradigm of %eneral &ystems 'heory( )naly*ing the ma+or wor,s
in %&' we find that a common feature is the ty$e of -uestions as,ed. )$$lying conce$ts to
themsel.es, or as,ing self-referential recursi.e -uestions distinguishes systems thin,ing from
the classical scientific )$$roach. Based on the conce$t of self-referential recursion we
$ro$ose a $roto-world hy$othesis ser.ing as conce$tual framewor, for the construction of
/reality/. 'his ultimate $rinci$le is meta$hysical, in the sense that it can0t be .erified nor
falsified. )ny /reality/ is an autognostic $rocess which can be described as a hierarchical self-
image building system consisting in the co-e.olution of local and global nested hierarchies:
1n each hierarchical le.el the local $henomena ma$ or com$ute 2$ut together3 local /images/
of the global $henomena in which they ta,e $lace. %lobal $henomena on the other hand ma$
the ensemble of local $henomena into a global /field/- or global /image/, which differentiates
itself under the influence of the contained local $henomena. 'he organi*ational categories of
the local bottom-u$ integration and the global to$-down differentiation are isomor$h on each
hierarchical le.el. 4anguage and formal systems are s$ecial cases of hierarchical self-image
building systems based on the same organi*ational categories as all other natural self-
organi*ing systems. 'his organi*ational isomor$hism e5$lains the e$istemological $u**le,
why we can describe natural $henomena in terms of language and formal systems.
1. INTRODUCTION
6ant said about meta$hysics that it was li,e a dar, ocean without shore and without light-
house 2a good reason for not tal,ing about it73. 1n the other hand the solitary thin,er of
6oenigsberg also said that if you dri.e meta$hysics out of the front door, it immediately
enters through the bac, door.
8ost scientists today $retend to be unaware of this fact: science is their business9 $hiloso$hy
and es$ecially meta$hysics are reser.ed to a few $rofessional /logogra$hs/ 2as Plato, called
them3. :atural scientists write about $hiloso$hical -uestions, only after their retirement or
1/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
after ha.ing been awarded a :obel $ri*e 2e.g. ;instein, <eisenberg, 8onod, ;igen, Prigogine
to cite only a few3. What they generally disco.er a $osteriori can be resumed in a single
$hrase: any scientific research is based on an im$licit world-.iew, some sort of conce$tual
framewor,, in which one belie.es, and within which one constructs all further edifices of
mental architecture. 'his conce$tual framewor, is more than the hundred-fold cited 6uhnian
$aradigm, it is a .ague hy$othesis about /reality/, a sort of proto-world hpoth!"#" 2%aines,
1=>?3 which can0t be .erified nor falsified, in short, a meta$hysical $aradigm.
$. %HAT IS THE META&HYSICAL &ARADIGM OF GENERAL SYSTEMS
THEORY'
@es$ite the affirmati.e title of 4udwig .on Bertalanffy0s 21=A>3 boo, /%eneral &ystems
'heory/, we $retend that no coherent %eneral &ystems 'heory e5ists. %&' can be considered
as an agglomerate of di.erse bodies of ,nowledge elaborated by scientists who share a
common belief: which(
&ince there e5ists no such thing as a coherent %&' as a con-se-uence there e5ists no single
body of ,nowledge which could be called a coherent &ystems Philoso$hy. 'oday0s systems
$hiloso$hical landsca$e can be described as a sa.anna with single trees standing out here and
there and some ine.itable botanists wandering round, re-drawing summary $ictures of the
trees in their $a$ers and classifying the trees into s$ecies li,e ;mergentism, &tructuralism,
and 1rganicism 2Bahms, 1=>4a, 1=>4b, 1=>?3. 1thers as, -uestions of the ty$e: /&ystems of
$hiloso$hy or Philoso$hy of &ystems(/ 2&ado.s,y, 1=>?3.
4et us ha.e a closer loo, at the structure of this -uestion:
System of Philosophies (or) Philosophy of Systems?
) self-referential recursi.e loo$7 What is of what( Is B the ob+ect of sub+ect C, or is C the
ob+ect of sub+ect B( 8aybe the answer to our -uestion on the meta$hysical $aradigm of %&'
is a -uestion( What is the common belief of %&' researchers( Don Bertalanffy 21=A>3 would
say the unity off science, Battista 21=3 s$ea,s of a /<olistic $aradigm/.We thin, that the
conce$t of unity of all $henomena describes only $artly the common underlying %&'
$aradigm. 'he conce$t of /holon/ 2Bahm , 1=>4a3 com$rises also a certain ty$e of relations
between /holons/ of discrete hierarchical le.els.
Pro$osition 1: The common metaphysical paradigm of GST is to formulate questions in
terms-of self-referential recursive loops.
4et us analy*e a sam$le of research wor,s which ha.e significantly influenced %eneral
&ystems 'hin,ing under this as$ect of recursi.e self-a$$lication of conce$ts:
8athematical thought always seems to be a $recursor of conce$ts, which find their way into
the disci$lines after a certain time-lag.
The provability of proofs? 8etasystems, 2%Edel, 1=F13.
2/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
The computability of computation? )bstract automata, 2'uring, 1=FA3. G
Hybernetics introduce self-referential recursi.e thought into the natural sciences:
The control of control? Hybernetics, 2Wiener, 1=4>3.
Iecursi.e hierarchical le.els are introduced by 6oestler.
The hierarchy of hierarchies? <olons, 26oestler, 1=A3.
In the se.enties self-referential thought emerges in nearly all scientific disci$lines.
The distinction of distinctions? "orm, 2Brown, 1=A=3.
The cycle of cycles? <y$ercycles, 2;igen, 1=13.
The formation of forms? Hatastro$hes, 2'hom, 1=23.
The perception of perception? ;igenbeha.iour, 2.on "oerster, 1=F3.
The ordering of order? &$ontaneous &ocial 1rders, 2.on <aye,,1=?3
The reality of reality? Hommunication, 2Wat*lawic,, 1=A3.
The structuring of structures? @issi$ati.e &tructures, 2:icolis and Prigogine, 1=3.
The organization of organization? &ynergetics, 2<a,en, 1=3.
The nature of nature? Hom$le5ity, 28orin, 1=3.
The boundary of boundaries? "ractals, 28andelbrot, 1=3.
The dimension of dimensions? "ractal dimensions, 28andelbrot, 1=3.
The system of systems? 4i.ing &ystems, 28iller, 1=>3.
The production of production? )uto$oiesis, 2Darela, 1==3
The loop of loops? 'angled <ierarchies, 2<ofstadter, 1==3.
In the eighties emerge the first tentati.es to synthesi*e a co-herent self-referential recursi.e
world-.iew:
The life of life? /4a 8ethodeJ for thin,ing com$le5ity, 28orin,1=>!3. .
The evolution of evolution? 'he self-organi*ing Kni.erse, 2Lantsch, 1=>!3.
&ummari*ing this ,aleidosco$e of self-referential thought we $ut forward a general
$ro$osition.
Pro$osition 2: The application of a concept to itself opens a new conceptual dimension.
)bbot0s 21=?23 no.el /Flatland/ written more than a century ago illustrates our $ro$osition.
4i.ing in one-dimensional Lineland the conce$t of a /line of lines/ o$ens the access to a two-
dimensional Flatland of a $lane. 4i.ing in "latland the conce$t of a /circle of circles/ o$ens
the access to a three-dimensional Sphereland. In any of our cited e5am$les the a$$lication of
a conce$t to itself /creates/ or generates a new dimension of conce$ts.
3/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
(. THE CREATION OF CREATION'
'he core $roblem of any meta$hysical system is to find an answer to the -uestion: how do
things and thoughts arise(
(.1. St)t#* proto-world hpoth!"#"
Platon0s answer could be translated into modern terminology in the following way: n-
dimensional timeless ob+ects 2ideas3 are ma$$ed into an 2n-13 - dimensional s$ace 2the mind3.
6ant0s answer could be resumed as follows: an indescribable 2in-finite dimensional(3 /@ing
an &ich/ is ma$$ed into a fi.e-dimensional mental s$ace. 'he mental categories 2three-
dimensional s$ace, time, and causality3 e5ist a $riori and cannot be reduced to anything else.
Both a$$roaches can be labeled /static/ in the sense that they $resume an unchanged
a5iomatic structure of either /ideas/ or /categories/ and -uestions about the creation of this
a5iomatic structure are taboo.
(.$. E+ol,t#o-)r proto-world hpoth!"#"
Wrons,i, a Polish mathematician and $hiloso$her, can be considered as a $recursor of
modern systems $hiloso$hy. 6nown by all mathematicians through his wor, on differential
e-uations, Wrons,i0s meta$hysical wor, has ne.er found its way into the te5tboo,s of
$hiloso$hy due to .ery $eculiar circumstances in Wrons,i0s life 2d0)rcy, 1=!3. 'he core of
Wrons,i0s meta$hysics is his general law of creation. Brea,ing with the dogma of a static
conce$t of the /absolute/ he $ostulates a self-generati.e conce$t as underlying $rinci$le of
e.ery reality.
"The generation of the constitutive parts of the bsolute can be done only by the bsolute
itself! Further" this generation can only ta#e place $ithin the bsolute" and conse%uently in
a single determined $ay conform $ith&the essence of the bsolute in $hich it operates.
Thus the development of the constitutive parts produces itself in a process of proper creation
called auto-genesis" and follo$s a process of its proper setting up called auto&thesis!/
2Wrons,i, 1>?!3.
'he conce$ts of boot-stra$$ing 2self-creation3, self-organi*ation and auto$oiesis or self-
$roduction ha.e been thought more than a hundredfifty years ago7
Without retracing the history of meta$hysical thought, let us +um$ immediately to the
$ro$osed answers of systems $hiloso$hers. )ccording to our analysis of section 2, the
systemic thought $rocess can be characteri*ed as self-referential recursion. &elf-reference-
im$lies $rocess and recursion im$lies directed $rocess. )s Prigogine has $ut it, the accent of
our -uestioning has been shifted from /being/ to /becoming/. 'he central meta$hysical
-uestion today is the -uestion of !+ol,t#o- )-d *r!)t#o-.
"ollowing Bahm 21=>4a3, three ty$es of answers are $ro$osed.
1. 'he $roto-world hy$othesis of ;mergentism can be resumed as a $rocess of bottom-
u$ integration during which a nested hierarchy of holons /emerges/.
4/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
2. 'he $roto-world hy$othesis of &tructuralism can-be resumed as a $rocess of to$-down
differentiation during which a nested hierarchy of holons /demerges/ or differentiate.
Both ty$es of answers struggle with the $roblem of an /ultimate/ hierarchical le.el
2truly elementary $articles at the bottom or uni.erse at the to$3.
3. 1rganicism $retends to resol.e the $roblem in $ro$osing a synthesis of ;mergentism
and &tructuralism, but no clear indications are gi.en of how to concei.e an
e.olutionary or creati.e $rocess in terms of /organic wholeness/.
'o our ,nowledge Lantsch 21=>!3 can be considered as the first systems thin,er who clearly
$ointed out the $arallels of macrosco$ic and microsco$ic e.olutionary $rocesses on all le.els
of today0s descri$tion 2ranging from astro$hysical o.er bio-chemical, biological u$ to socio-
cultural and scientific e.olution3. <e s$ea,s of a *o-!+ol,t#o- o. M)*ro-!+ol,t#o- )-d
M#*ro-!+ol,t#o-, identifying three stages on each hierarchical macro and micro le.el:
re&ligio, auto&poiesis, and auto&catalysis. <owe.er, no clear conce$tual descri$tion is gi.en
for the mutual interde$endence of 8acro-and 8icro-e.olution during the $rocess of self-
organi*ation.
(.( R!*,r"#+! proto-world hpoth!"#"
Based on an initial s$eculati.e intuition of a uni.ersal algorithm for a bootstra$$ing or self-
organi*ational $rocess 2Winiwarter, 1=>F3 we ha.e shown in an em$irical study 2Winiwarter,
1=>?3, that $ractically all autonomous or -uasi-autonomous systems re.eal an isomor$hic
statistical structure if analy*ed simultaneously on three hierarchical le.els 2system,
subsystems, elementary elements3.
'his isomor$hic structure of $o$ulation-si*e distributions of subsystems is found for the
uni.erse, for clusters of gala5ies, for gala5ies, for stars, for $lanets, for the earth crust, the
ocean and the atmos$here, for ecosystems, for biological families, for biological s$ecies, for
local clusters of indi.iduals of any biological s$ecies including homo sa$iens, for the $olitical
world, for nations, for enter$rises, for cities, for indi.idual incomes, for s$eeches and te5ts in
all languages of all times and for scientific $roduction in any disci$line.
Isomor$hic statistical structure does not necessarily im$ly isomor$hic generati.e $rocesses.
<owe.er, the fact that this similarity of subsystem-si*e distribution is obser.ed on $ractically
all le.els of descri$tion suggests an underlying common dynamic $rocess 2iso&dynamics3.
Based on the hy$othesis of the iso-dynamics of all self-organi*ing or e.olutionary $rocesses
2including language and formal systems3 we ha.e loo,ed for the most sim$le and best
understood $henomenon which could ser.e as a case study of self-organi*ation.
'he detailed results of this case study are $resented in a se$arate $a$er 2Winiwarter, 1=>A3.
Based on this case study we ha.e attem$ted to Mde-anthro$omor$hi*eJ ma+or conce$ts li,e
memory" learning" and intelligence in order to arri.e at truly trans-disci$linary conce$ts
which a$$ly to systems in general. Ksing the term gnostic for a generali*ed goal-oriented
learning $rocess, we $ro$ose the following self-referential recursi.e $roto-world hy$othesis:
1. 'he unitary conce$t of the /)bsolute/, /Kni.erse/,/:ature/, /Kltimate Ieality/,
/%od/, /'ao/, /@ing an &ich/ or whate.er traditional term you $refer can be best
5/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
a$$ro5imated in systems terminology by something called )utognostic or &elf-Image
Building Process.
2. Within the unitary conce$t of )utognosis or &elf-Image Building we can distinguish
between two com$lementary conce$ts:
a3 local bottom-u$ integration of $arts or elements
b3 to$-down differentiation of a whole or uni.erse.
Both $rocesses are com$lementary in the sense of -uantum mechanics 2light can
a$$ear as wa.e9 light can a$$ear as $article9 but light is neither wa.e nor $article.3
F. Both com$lementary conce$ts of local bottom-u$ integration and global to$-down
differentiation can be .iewed in terms of s$atial conce$ts or structure, in terms of
tem$oral conce$ts or $rocess and in terms of causal conce$ts or regulation.
4. &$atial, tem$oral, and causal conce$ts /emerge/ locally in a $rocess of bottom-u$
integration and /demerge/ globally in a $rocess of to$-down differentiation following
simultaneously the directed se-uence of organi*ational categories:
e.g. spatial concepts
Local bottom-up
integration
Global top-down
differentiation
| UNITY element space
| DISJUNCTION complementa!
elements
polai"e# space
| CONJUNCTION lin$e# co%ple &o%n#a!
| S'(U'NTI)* +,)NC-IN. o
T,''
+anc/ing c/ain0
tee
Opening0
compatments
| 1ODU*), C*OSU,' ,ing0 ann%la
st%ct%e
'nclose# space0 coe
o cell
| 1ODU*), ,'CU,SION ,ing le2el n e3%als
element le2el n41
Coe le2el n e3%als
space le2el n41
T/e pocess is sel56
e5eential an# ec%si2e
The self&image building process consists in the recursive co&evolution of nested local and
global hierarchies! 'ithin a given global hierarchical level local phenomena are com&puted
(put together) in a process of bottom&up integration under the constraint of the global
phenomenon (environment)! (n mathematical terms one could call this process mapping or
(mage&building!
7/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
The global phenomena on the other hand are the co&operative result of the ensemble of local
phenomena and map or constitute a global "image" or field $hich differentiates itself as a
function of the ensemble of local phenomena! bove a critical threshold density the ensemble
of integrated local phenomena form the ne)t nested global hierarchical level in the form of
an environment ($ithin an environment)! 'ithin this ne$ly "demerged" global level a
process of bottom&up integration "emerges" using the closed modules of the previous level as
elementary building bloc#s! (See nucleosynthesis in a massive star as e)ample)!
?. &ince both organi*ational $rocesses are com$lementary, e.ery local hierarchical
le.el has a corres$onding global hierarchical le.el. )ny coherent model of an
e.olutionary $rocess must therefore com$rise )- !/,)l -,01!r o. lo*)l )-d 2lo1)l
h#!r)r*h#*)l l!+!l".
'his as$ect is neglected by the reductionist a$$roach9 e.g., a biological indi.idual at
le.el n is decom$osed at le.el n-1 2organs3, le.el n-2 2cells3, le.el n-F 2genes3 etc.,
while the global le.els are $ut altogether into one blac, bo5 called /en.ironment/.
)$$lied to astro$hysical conce$ts, our hy$othesis would mean that the disco.ery of
sub$hotonic /$articles/ im$lies the e5istence of a /hy$er-uni.erse/.
24et0s wait and -see how long the big bang centered world-.iew will hold.3
7. 'he $ro$osed $roto-world hy$othesis $retends to model the generation of any reality.
'herefore it must a$$ly not only to /$hysical/ $henomena, but also to /mental/
$henomena li,e the e.olution of language, $hiloso$hical thought, and formal systems.
Parmenides, a Presocratian $hiloso$her, already $ostulated an isomor$hism of
$hysical and mental $rocesses9 /things arise in space as thoughts arise in mind/
24ebec,, 1=>?3.
Wrons,i 21>?43 has $ut forward the hy$othesis of structural and $rocess isomor$hism
in all e.olutionary and creati.e $rocesses. <e e5$licitly states that /th! l)w .or th!
*r!)t#o- o. th! U-#+!r"! 0,"t 1! th! l)w .or th! *r!)t#o- o. o13!*t" o.
ph#lo"oph#*)l 4-owl!d2!/.
In our case study we ha.e demonstrated a sur$rising isomor$hism of organi*ational
categories occurring in natural nuclear reactions com-$ared with the organi*ational
categories of human logic formali*ed in $ro$ositional calculus. ;instein wrote once to
one of his friends that the most miraculous thing about nature is the fact that we can
describe it. Why are natural numbers such a $owerful descri$ti.e tool( Why do
mathematicians disco.er theorems and formalism years before they find a sur$rising
a$$lication in a scientific model( ) common underlying self-organi*ational $rocess of
all. $henomena -- a ,-#+!r")l h#!r)r*h 2!-!r)tor 2Doorhees, 1=A?a3 - would be an
e5$lanation of this e$istemological $u**le. 2%Edel0s $roof and <ofstadter0s 21==3
refreshing boo, $oint into similar directions.3
8/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
5. TY&ES OF LOGIC AND %ORLD-6IE%S
"ollowing the arguments of Doorhees 21=>?b3, we can identify three fundamental ty$es of
logic.
4.1. )ristotelian 4ogic
'he a5ioms of this ty$e of logic can be e5$ressed with the organi*ational categories unity and
com$lementarity.
'he corres$onding world-.iews could be called "t)t#*.
4.2. @ialectical 4ogic
'he a5ioms of this ty$e of logic can be e5$ressed with the organi*ational categories
con+unction, dis+unction, and se-uential branching
'he corres$onding world-.iews could be called !+ol,t#o-)r.
4.F. 'rialectic 4ogic
'he a5ioms of this ty$e of logic can be e5$ressed with the organi*ational categories 0od,l)r
*lo",r! )-d 0od,l)r r!*,r"#o-. &$encer Brown, 1scar Icha*o, and "rancisco Darela could
be cited as re$resentati.e of this new ty$e of logic. 'he corres$onding world-.iews could be
called "!l.-r!.!r!-t#)l r!*,r"#+!.
:ote that the historical e.olution of logic a5iomatics follows the se-uence: 2unity -
com$lementarity3 --N 2con+unction - dis+unction - se-uential branching3 --N 2modular closure
- modular recursion3. Is this corres$ondence of the historical se-uence of world-.iews and
the general organi*ational se-uence $ostulated in this article a $ure coincidence( )n answer
cannot be $ro.en nor falsified and we re-enter the domain of meta$hysics.
We agree with Doorhees on the $oint that the three ty$es of logic ha.e only a limited domain
of a$$lication and a com$lete self-descri$tion of the /world/ needs all three ty$es of thought.
'he autognostic model attem$ts such a synthesis.
7. CONCLUSION
)ny scientific acti.ity is based on a meta$hysical $aradigm or proto&$orld hypothesis! We
$ro$ose such an hy$othesis consistent with the systemic thought $rocess. /Ieality/ can be
described as an autognostic or self-image building $rocess.
1. )ny autognostic $rocess can be described in two directional categories: lo*)l 1otto0-
,p #-t!2r)t#o- )-d top-dow- d#..!r!-t#)t#o-.
2. Both directional categories can be described in three dimensional categories: "p)t#)l8
t!0por)l8 )-d *),")l.
9/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
3. )ny dimensional category can be described, in se.en organi*ational categories: ,-#t8
*o0pl!0!-t)r#t8 d#"3,-*t#o-8 *o-3,-*t#o-8 "!/,!-t#)l 1r)-*h#-28 0od,l)r
*lo",r! )-d 0od,l)r r!*,r"#o-.
@irectional, dimensional, and organi*ational categories are called gnostic categories. 'he
e.olution or self-organi*ation of gnostic categories follows a self-referential recursi.e
algorithm.
REFERENCES
)bbot, ;.).
1=?2 "latland: ) Iomance in 8any @imensions. :ew Cor,: @o.er.
d0)rcy, P.
1=! <oene Wrons,i: Kne $hiloso$hie de la creation. Paris: &eghers.
Bahm, ).L.
1=>4a /<olons: 'hree Honce$tions/, &ystems Iesearch 1223:14?-1?!.
1=>4b /"i.e &ystems Honce$ts of &ociety/, %eneral &ystems 6DIII:4F-?
1=>? /&tages in the @e.elo$ment of &ystems Philoso$hy/. P$. 2?F-2?A in B. Banathy 2ed.3,
&ystems In-uiring: 'heory, Philoso$hy, 8ethodology. &easide, Halif.: Intersystems.
Battista, L.I.
1= /'he <olistic Paradigm and.0%eneral &ystems 'heory/, %eneral &ystems BBII:A?--1.
.on Bertalaaffy, 4.
1=A> %eneral &ystems 'heory, :ew Cor,: Bra*iller.
Brown, %.&.
1== 4aws of "orm. 4ondon: %eorge )llen and Knwin.
;igen, 8.
1=1 /&elf-organi*ation of 8atter and the ;.olution of Biological 8acromolecules/.
:aturwissenschaften ?>:4A?-?2F.
.on "oerster, <.
1=F /1n constructing a Ieality/. P$. F?-4A in ".;. Preiser 2ed.3, ;n.ironmental @esign
Iesearch. @owden: <utchinson Iose.
%aines, B.I. and &haw, 8.4.%.-
1=>? /'hree World Diews and &ystems Philoso$hies./ P$. 244-2?2 in B. Banathy 2ed.3,
&ystems In-uiring: 'heory, Philoso$hy, 8ethodology. &easide, Halif.: Intersystems.
:/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
%Edel, 6.
1=F1 /Ober formal unentscheidbare &Pt*e der Princi$ia 8athematics and .erwandter
&ysteme, I./ 8onatshefte fur 8athemati, and Physi, F>:1F-1=>.
<a,en, <.
1= &ynergetics. Berlin: &$ringer.
.on <aye,, ".).
1=? /6inds of 1rder in &ociety/. &tudies in &ocial 'heory, :o. ?, Institute for <umane
&tudies, 8enlo Par,, Halif.
<ofstadter, @.I.
1== %odel, ;scher, Bach: )n eternal golden braid. :ew Cor,: Dintage Boo,s.
)-2=
Lantsch, ;.
1=>! 'he &elf-1rgani*ing Kni.erse, &cientific and <uman Im$lications of the ;merging
Paradigm of ;.olution. :ew Cor,: Pargamon.
6oestler, ).
1=A 'he %host in the 8achine., 4ondon: <utchinson.
4ebec,, 8.
1=>? /Before @ualism: 'he ;mergence of 4ogical ;5$lanations of Knity/. P$. 1F>-14F in
B. Banathy 2ed.3, &ystems In-uiring: 'heory, Philoso$hy, 8ethodology. &easide, Halif.:
Intersystems.
8andelbrot, B.
1= "ractals: "orm, Hhance, and @imension. &an "rancisco: "reeman
8iller, L.%.
1=> 4i.ing &ystems. :ew Cor,: 8c%raw <ill.
8orin, ;.
1= 4a 8ethode 1:, 4a :ature de la :ature. Paris: &euil.
1=>! 4a 8ethode 2: 4a Die de la Die. Paris: &euil.
:icolis, %. and Prigogine, I.
1= &elf-1rgani*ation in :on-e-uilibrium &ystems, "rom @issi$ati.e &tructures to 1rder
through "luctuation. :ew Cor,: Wiley.
1;/11
Winiwarter, P. , AUTOGNOSIS: the theory of hierarchical self-image building systems
&ado.s,y, D.:.
1=>? /&ystems Philoso$hy or Philoso$hy of &ystems(/ P$.
2?-.21 in QB.-Banathy 2ed.3, &ystems In-uiring: 'heory, Philoso$hy, 8ethodology.R-
&easide, Halif.: Intersystems.
'hom, I.
1=2 &tabilitS &tructurelle et 8or$hogenese. :ew Cor,: Ben+amin.
'uring, ).8.
1=FA /1n com$utable numbers, with an a$$lication to the ;ntscheidungs$roblem./ Proc.
4ondon 8ath. &oc. &eer. 2, 4F:2F!2A2.
Darela, ".
1== Princi$les of Biological )utonomy. :ew Cor,: ;lse.ier.
Doorhees, B.
1=>?a /Is there a Kni.ersal <ierarchy %enerator(/ P$. ?4--? in B. Banathy 2ed.3, &ystems
In-uiring: 'heory, Philoso$hy, 8ethodology. &easide, Halif.: Intersystems.
1=>?b /Philoso$hical. Issues in 'rialectic 4ogic./ P$. 2>>-2=F in B. Banathy 2ed.3-9 &ystems
In-uiring,: 'heory, Philoso$hy, 8ethodology. &easide, Halif.: Intersystems.
Wat*lawic,, P.
1=A <ow real is real( Hommunication, @isinformation, Honfusion. :ew Cor,: Iandom
<ouse.
Wiener, :.
1=4> Hybernetics, or Hontrol and Hommunication in the )nimal and the 8achine. :ew
Cor,: Lohn Wiley.
Winiwarter, P.
1=>F /'he %enesis 8odel. Part I: Hom$le5ity, a 8easure for the ;.olution of &elf-
organi*ed &ystems/. &$ec. &cience and 'echnology A:11-2!.
1=>? /Iso-dynamics of Po$ulation-si*e @istributions in hierarchical &ystems./ P$. 1!F-112
in B.<. Banathy 2ed.3, &ystems In-uiring: 'heory,.Philoso$hy, 8ethodology.
&easide, Halif.: Intersystems.
1=>A /Honce$ts of &elf-1rgani*ation
0&elf-1rgani*ation of Honce$ts./ &ession on <ierarchy 'heory, this .olume.
Wrons,i, <.
1>?! 4es cent $ages decisi.es. 8et*: )lean.
11/11