L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

Modern Science burst upon the scene in the 18^th and 19^th centuries as the early pioneers in scientific thinking began looking for Stimulus—Response patterns. To understand such things, they based it upon the foundation of the concept of "causation," or Cause-Effect relationships. This initiated a whole new paradigm. Instead of believing in superstition, the power of rituals to control the forces in the universe, mere coincidence, luck, happen chance, etc., the pioneers of modern science assumed that there were knowable relationships between events. They assumed that some events result from other events, that when we perform one set of procedures, we can count on and predict certain effects. And so the scientific adventure began...

If we have this stimulus, what results?

Does this effect result consistently every single time?

What variables play a role in this relationship?

What "laws" can we posit as a hypothesis that would offer an explanation of this relationship?

This new way of mapping things from the territory revolutionized everything and began the modern industrial age. At first, the early discoverers made some big assumptions about the very nature of the universe. Newton thought of it all as a well-regulated machine or clock. This lead him and others to search for "the laws" of physics. This lead to Empiricism. In psychology, it lead to Behaviorism and the Stimulus—Response Psychology of Watson, and then later Skinner. In philosophy, it lead to Modernism.

And all of this was a great boon to human science and sanity. In spite of its limitations, strict, linear Cause-Effect thinking lead to the Industrial age and millions of practical inventions. By "the laws" of physics and many other disciplines, we were able to predict stimulus—response patterns.

With the opening of the 20^th century, pioneers in the sciences pushed the envelop beyond the limits of the old paradigms so that new models had to be postulated. Einstein did this in physics thereby introducing additional influences. Later In the field of Systems, Cybernetics, quantum mechanics, Family Systems, Artificial Intelligence, etc., ongoing discoveries of the limitations of linear causation thinking, moved these fields into the next step—systemic "causation" models. In these models, the very presence of the observer influences the field. Here, feedback loops and feed forward loops added a new complications and complexities to our understanding about how things actually work. It brought to our awareness that the effects, results, and products of a previous cause can, and frequently does, enter back into the system itself as a cause of yet another effect. Now we have cause-effect-cause-effect-cause-etc.

With circular or cyclical cause-effect-cause thinking, physics shifted into Einsteinian and Quantum Physics, philosophy moved beyond modernism into post-modernism, psychology outgrew Behaviorism as it became Cognitive-Behavioral as a system of many contributing factors.

Systemic Thinking about Causation

In a system of many inter-related parts, simple explanations about what stimulus "causes" what effect no longer suffices. The very systemic nature of influences, contributing factors, and environments embedded in environments (contexts within contexts) adds a complexity to the whole picture. No longer can we think in linear and static ways of flow chart arrows moving us step-by-step through a process. Now we have to consider various processes and dynamics occurring simultaneously at different parts of the system. Now we have to think more in terms of cyclical and dynamic movements occurring and influencing each other.

The macro-level view of things from the old Stimulus—Response models still work—for the macro-level contexts. Yet now we can see and perceive that our simple mapping of such did not take into consideration all of the other systemic factors at work. Sometimes, of course, for the mapping objectives, it did not matter. Sometimes mapping at that gross level served science very well. It was where it did not that the old paradigm became unuseful and had to make way for the new paradigm.

To think systemically in a post-modern way enables us to become much more sophisticated in our analysis, predictions, and invention of new processes and interventions. In the field of psychology, language, and neuro-linguistics, Korzybski (1933/1994) pioneered the way. The subtitle of his classic work, Science and Sanity forecasted his brilliance and awareness of the importance of systems and systemic thinking—

An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics

Korzybski put his finger on a system of languaging, thinking, and reasoning as the source of mankind’s problems. He called that system, the Aristotelian system. This system of mapping creates major problems for both science and sanity for several reasons: identification of map/territory, confusion of levels, linear Either/Or thinking, linear and static Cause-Effect thinking, elementalism, non-referencing terms, semantic reactions, etc. Most of our social, personal, and interpersonal problems arise from primitive, elementalistic, identifying and false-to-facts Aristotelian language that we use in thinking and communicating.

Korzybski sought to replace the old subject-predicate system with a new Non-Aristotelian system. In General Semantics he aimed to create the foundations of a non-Aristotelian system. He envisioned it as moving away from using a noun-dominated language encoding the world as static and linear, and moving toward a more functional, behavioristic, dynamic, and systemic language. This new language would enable us to encode the world as dynamic, ever-changing, never the same, and comprised of hundreds of interrelated components in complex layers of systems.

What did Korzybski contribute to systemic thinking?

And, especially, what did he contribute to systemic thinking with regard to causation, cause-effect relationships, and stimulus—response processes? While he wrote a lot on this subject, I’ve summarized very brief in the following.

1) Holistic Non-Elementalism.

Elementalism breaks the world down in to separate elements, treats the elements as if they can exist apart from each other, and thereby fails to see the systemic inter-relatedness of the whole. This tends to make things linear and static rather than systemic and process oriented. Elementalistically, we speak about stomachs and intestines, etc. apart from digestion, we speak about "thinking" apart from "feeling."

General Semantics assumes a holistic and non-linear view of reality. As a non-Aristotelian world view it avoids "delusional verbal-splits" like "time" and "space" (elementalism). Instead it uses hyphenation as a linguistic device to put the world back together again as a whole. Then we can deal with it holistically, as an entire gestalt with all of its inherent complexity. This represents a radical change of thinking about reality and steps out of the logical-positivist mold and reflects more of a systems point of view. It was Korzybski who put the hyphen in the terms neuro-linguistic, neuro-semantic, mind-body, etc.

2) Extensional devices

As with hyphens to put the world back together again in a more holistic and systemic way, Korzybski also provide numerous other devices whereby we could think in terms of extension rather than intension¹ (with a "s," not a "t").

Extension refers to extending the details out and thereby obtain see-hear-feel, empirical and sensory-based language. Instead of assuming that our definitions in our heads are sufficient (intension). We can distinguish meanings and orientations in terms of Intensional and Extensional.

When we orient ourselves in the world intensionally we over-trust the definitions of words. We over-value our intensional meanings of terms. When we orient ourselves in the world extensionally we point to, or denote our reference. Extensional meaning cannot be expressed in words. Hayakawa (1941) wrote:

"An easy way to remember this is to put your hand over your mouth and point whenever you are asked to give an extensional meaning." (p. 61).

The intensional meaning of a word refers to the reference you have inside your head. To remember this, put your hand over your eyes and let the words spin around in your head(!).

An intensional orientation describes the habit of guiding oneself by words alone. This can lead to lots of mis-evaluations, non-referencing words, and "maps" independent of the "territory."

Korzybski focused on developing the extensional orientation—the scientific method of questioning, observing, evaluating, and revising. Extensional devices include: indexing, etc. (et cetera), dating, over/under defined terms, E-priming, using quotes, and hyphenating.

3) Non-Allness

We can never know or say all about anything. We inevitably leave characteristics out as we map things. We delete information in order to generalize. Non-Allness combats the pathology of "allness" since we can draw no final conclusions. We always operate with incomplete knowledge (a meta-level statement!). Failing to understand this, we fall into "Deity mode" talking and speaking as if we can know or say it all. We cannot.

4) Non-Identity

What we "say" about the world does not comprise the world. "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." (p. 58). We need a language to map this map/territory distinction since words and territory exist on different levels. Nor does any event stay "the same in all regards" over time. Change inevitably occurs. Since most language fails to reflect this, we need to time and date index things to indicate non-identity. "Identity" as absolute sameness does not exist in the world.

5) Self-reflexiveness

We not only make maps or internal models of the world, we also make abstractions of abstractions, and abstractions of those, and so on. By our self-reflexive consciousness or reflexivity we keep layering thoughts, emotions, and states upon each other. This generates logical levels, and only reflexive awareness of this process (consciousness of abstracting) enables us to deal with this system of thinking-feeling states. Korzybski (1941) wrote:

"This self-reflexiveness of languages introduces serious complexities, which can only be solved by the theory of multiordinality" (p. 58).

6) Probability

With a world of change, where everything constantly changes, probability dominates, not certainty. Even we exist as dynamic processes.

7) To-me-ness

Each of us symbolizes in our own nervous system, from our own experience, and hence speaks our own language. We each have our own personal version of "reality." Starting with this realization we can thereby avoid assuming and projecting our maps onto others.

Causational Mapping with Regard to a SYSTEM

In a system, every influence operates as both a "cause" and an "effect." This shifts from Either/Or thinking to Both/And thinking. Peter Senge (1991) in The Fifth Discipline has extensively described systemic thinking in the business context. There he repeatedly asserts that, "The structure causes the behavior." (p. 77, italics added).

"In systems thinking, feedback is a broader concept. It means any reciprocal flow of influence. In systems thinking it is an axiom that every influence is both cause and effect. Nothing is ever influenced in just one direction." (p. 75)

Now we have to map out "causational" factors and influences bi-directionally. How is my response influencing you, which then evokes a response that influences me, etc.? This eliminates the old response of seeking out someone to blame and leads to a healthy form of collective response-ableness.

"All casual attributions made in everyday English are highly suspect! Most are embedded in linear ways of seeing. They are at best partially accurate, inherently biased toward describing portions of reciprocal processes, not the entire processes. ... A linear view always suggests a simple locus of responsibility." (p. 78)

This shifts thinking from blaming a single individual or department, to recognizing that sometimes the problem or fault lies in the entire system and that everybody plays a significant role. Causation becomes multi-causal.

"In mastering systems thinking, we give up the assumption that there must be an individual, or individual agent, responsible. The feedback perspective suggests that everyone shares responsibility for problems generated in a system." (p. 78)

Thinking systemically leads us to ask questions about involvement. Systemically, it helps to see how our own thinking, reasoning, and actions contribute to making things worse, or better.

How have I contributed to this response?

What thinking in the back of my mind is contributing to this?

How am I responsible?

What fault truly and accurately lies in how I have responded?

With systemic thinking, we recognize that "the cause" frequently lies in the very structure and organization of the system. Such structural awareness enables us to ask, What are the over-arching structures that hold the system together?

"Structures of which we are unaware hold us prisoner. Once we see them and name them, they no longer have the same hold on us." (p. 160)

"Discovering structures at play is the stock and trade of people with high levels of personal mastery. Sometimes these structures can be readily changed. Sometimes... they change only gradually. Either way, once an operating structure is recognized, the structure itself becomes part of ‘current reality.’‘ (p. 160)

Given this governing nature of frames within a system, we can now much more easily figure out what is "causing" a problem. Thinking systemically, we know that some frame is governing, determining, and even "causing" the system to operate as it is. In this, frames can both limit and restrain and they can just as easily drive and enable. This gives us, what in systems language, are called "restraining forces" and "driving forces."

If then, "structures of which we are unaware hold us prisoner" (Seige, p. 94), this provides us a big why for learning to see structure—the very heart of Korzybski and his system of general semantics.

In terms of systemic thinking, Seige notes that—

"It is not enough to see a particular structure underlying a particular problem ... This can lead to solving a problem, but it will not change the thinking that produced the problem in the first place." (p. 95)

This suggests that there are different levels of causality. With each higher level there is a higher level of causality operating. We have primary level Stimulus—Response type of causality. We also have meta-level causality. If we want to change a system, we need to see how a system works, and how the levels interface. Once we know that, then we can design well-focused actions that will make system-wide transformations. Low leverage changes will only repair symptoms and will therefore only serve a temporary value. As long as they do not deal with structural causes, they will not change the system itself.

Transforming a system means monitoring the processes, feeding information back into the system so that the system can learn and improve, and considering how each of the parts and processes that comprise the system fit together as a whole

End Notes

1. (Note the spelling here, not "intention," but intension. Bandler and Grinder missed this in The Structure of Magic and mis-spelled it! See Note 9, page 56).

References:

Korzybski, Alfred. (1933/ 1994). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics, (5th. ed.). Concord, CA: International Society For General Semantics.

Senge, Peter M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. NY: Doubleday.