Manfred Drack

On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy's “General Systemology”, and on its relationship to cybernetics

Ludwig von Bertalanffy was one of the first masterminds and advocates of a “general system theory”. Trained in philosophy and in history of arts, he also concerned himself with biology. His early works in those fields, most of the time unknown to the non-German speaking audience, are essential in order to understand the genesis and the meanings of his “general system theory”, which we prefer to describe as a “general systemology”. We here examine them and provide a comprehensive insight into the diverse roots of the concepts that led Bertalanffy to his later achievements. This paper is thereby devoted to the scientific, philosophical and ideological sources of his “theory”, as well as to the motivations and logic which governed its genesis. Our study concentrates particularly on the following points: the context of “general crisis” in which he developed his intellectual schemes; his “perspectivist” philosophy of knowledge; his elaboration of an “organismic” theoretical biology; his non-reductionist approach to the problem of mathematization of biology and his theory of organic growth; and his sketch of a general theory of “open systems” as nucleus and way of legitimising a “general systemology”.

On the making of a system theory of life: Paul A Weiss and Ludwig von Bertalanffy's conceptual connection.

In this article, we review how two eminent Viennese system thinkers, Paul A Weiss and Ludwig von Bertalanffy, began to develop their own perspectives toward a system theory of life in the 1920s. Their work is especially rooted in experimental biology as performed at the Biologische Versuchsanstalt, as well as in philosophy, and they converge in basic concepts. We underline the conceptual connections of their thinking, among them the organism as an organized system, hierarchical organization, and primary activity. With their system thinking, both biologists shared a strong desire to overcome what they viewed as a “mechanistic” approach in biology. Their interpretations are relevant to the renaissance of system thinking in biology—“systems biology.” Unless otherwise noted, all translations are our own.

System approaches of Weiss and Bertalanffy and their relevance for systems biology today.

System approaches in biology have a long history. We focus here on the thinking of Paul A. Weiss and Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who contributed a great deal towards making the system concept operable in biology in the early 20th century. To them, considering whole living systems, which includes their organisation or order, is equally important as the dynamics within systems and the interplay between different levels from molecules over cells to organisms. They also called for taking the intrinsic activity of living systems and the conservation of system states into account. We compare these notions with todays systems biology, which is often a bottom-up approach from molecular dynamics to cellular behaviour. We conclude that bringing together the early heuristics with recent formalisms and novel experimental set-ups can lead to fruitful results and understanding.

An attempt to reveal synergies between biology and mechanical engineering

Biomimetics is a continuously growing field. In this article specific examples for successful technology transfer among biology and engineering are classified along a newly proposed scheme of the field — biomimetics by analogy and biomimetics by induction — complemented by technical biology. Famous examples as well as niche applications are presented: winglets on airplanes, an optimized straw-bale screw, Velcro, and self-cleaning surfaces and paints, as well as investigations on spiders. The need of a common language for biologists and engineers, in which descriptions at different level of detail are more compatible, is stressed and general principles that can be applied by engineers who are not at all involved in biology are presented.

Tribology in biology

Abstract Man has conducted research in the field of tribology for several thousands of years. Nature has been producing lubricants and adhesives for millions of years. Biotribologists gather information about biological surfaces in relative motion, their friction, adhesion, lubrication and wear, and apply this knowledge to technological innovation as well as to the development of environmentally sound products. Ongoing miniaturisation of technological devices such as hard disk drives and biosensors increases the necessity for the fundamental understanding of tribological phenomena at the micro- and nanometre scale. Biological systems excel also at this scale and might serve as templates for developing the next generation of tools based on nano- and microscale technologies. Examples of systems with optimised biotribological properties are: articular cartilage, a bioactive surface which has a friction coefficient of only 0·001; adaptive adhesion of white blood cells rolling along the layer of cells that lines blood vessels in response to inflammatory signals; and diatoms, micrometre sized glass making organisms that have rigid parts in relative motion. These and other systems have great potential to serve as model systems also for innovations in micro- and nanotechnology.

On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s “General Systemology”, and on its relationship to cybernetics – part III: convergences and divergences

Bertalanffy’s so-called “general system theory” (GST) and cybernetics were and are often confused: this calls for clarification. In this article, Bertalanffy’s conceptions and ideas are compared with those developed in cybernetics in order to investigate the differences and convergences. Bertalanffy was concerned with first order cybernetics. Nonetheless, his perspectivist epistemology is also relevant with regard to developments in second order cybernetics, and the latter is therefore also considered to some extent. W. Ross Ashby’s important role as mediator between GST and cybernetics is analysed. The respective basic epistemological approaches, scientific approaches and inherent world views are discussed. We underline the complementarity of cybernetic and “organismic” trends in systems research within the unitary hermeneutical framework of “general systemology”.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy's organismic view on the theory of evolution.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy was a key figure in the advancement of theoretical biology. His early considerations already led him to recognize the necessity of considering the organism as a system, as an organization of parts and processes. He termed the resulting research program organismic biology, which he extended to all basic questions of biology and almost all areas of biology, hence also to the theory of evolution. This article begins by outlining the rather unknown (because often written in German) research of Bertalanffy in the field of theoretical biology. The basics of the organismic approach are then described. This is followed by Bertalanffys considerations on the theory of evolution, in which he used methods from theoretical biology and then introduced his own, organismic, view on evolution, leading to the demand for finding laws of evolution. Finally, his view on the concept of homology is presented. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 324B: 77–90, 2015.

Comment on “Innovation through imitation: biomimetic, bioinspired and biokleptic research” by A. E. Rawlings, J. P. Bramble and S. S. Staniland, Soft Matter, 2012, 8, 6675

We try to clarify some issues that were raised by an article that appeared in Soft Matter, 2012, 8, 6675. The main question was how to distinguish biomimetic, bioinspired and biokleptic research. We put forward a “continental” perspective that can help to avoid some of the confusion that might have been evoked.

An Affinity to Theories in Biology

“Kant outlined many interesting issues involving concepts, such as system, self-organization, teleology, etc. and today these are also relevant for systems biology. Kant mentioned for instance the reciprocal influences among the parts within an organism: the parts of a “thing as a natural product” (organism) “should so combine in the unity of a whole that they are reciprocally cause and effect of each other’s form” (Kant I. Critique of judgment. Digireads.com., Breinigsville, 2010, German 1790: §65). Here it becomes apparent that philosophy has already addressed questions that are also relevant for science. Looking back at such philosophical considerations is therefore crucial for science in order to get a clear view on basic questions. Of course, this is not relevant for many sophisticated, detailed models in systems biology. Nonetheless, keeping the big picture in mind is definitely an advantage.”

Making Life “Visible”: Organism Concepts in Biology and Architecture as the Basis for an Interdisciplinary Synopsis of Constructional Biomimetics

Within biomimetics, scientists are challenged by the interdisciplinary exchange of knowledge and concepts, which include functional principles in complex systems of biological organisms, buildings and machines. One concept, that is used in biology as well as in architecture and in engineering, is the concept of the “organism”. Despite representing the primary hierarchical level on which morphological form and functionality interact, the individual organism, as a functional unit, has been increasingly neglected within modern biology. A similar trend can be recognized within modern architecture: as an integral concept, the built form has been lost from view. This article raises the question as to how the term “organism” and its function in the discourse of architecture can be conceptualized and possibly used as a unifying concept in interdisciplinary biomimetic research. While in biology, the “organism” is a more or less well defined concept to denote living entities, in an architectural sense, it functions as a model or topos, i.e. a commonly plausible semantic form that is usually not explicitly stated, but still becomes operative in establishing form decisions. As a case example, in this contribution, the focus is on the use of the “organism” in the German Romantic discourse of architecture and aesthetics, namely in the writings of Schelling and in Schinkel’s architectural designs. Thereby, it becomes apparent how a scientific term can be transferred into a model for designing buildings.