1.

In my opinion, the conceptual blending of system, mechanism and procedure is based on a formalistic way of thinking that dispenses with vividness. Whoever thinks of a mathematical formula (which of course describes an operation) when thinking of mechanism becomes linguistically and mentally arbitrary. Exactly for this reason I introduce the terms in this system theory by means of concrete machines.

back

2.

In the research practice of a biologist, the difference in formulations may be meaningless. In systems theory, on the other hand, different perspectives become visible in the formulations. I believe that nobody knows better than H. Maturana that living beings are not machines. So the question is probably how to interpret the term "mechanism" in its context. To this end, W. Ashby has provided a formalistic interpretation of a haunted house as a quasi idealistic mechanism.

back

3.

An inversion of this inversion is the idea that systems theory represents a universal model of science.

back

4.

Apart from the cybernetics of N. Wiener and H. von Foerster, which is discussed here superficially, there is in particular the systems theory of L. von Bertalanffy, the sociological functionalism of T. Parsons, the system dynamics of J. Forrester, the autopoiesis of H. Maturana and the functional systems theory of N. Luhmann, all of which are somehow systems theories and are in inverse relationship to each other (cf. Terminological Environment).

back