Jack, I think that the way you represent systems is as if they really
exist. The idea that there *are* systems will result in then
deciding whether or not we *are* inside of them or outside of them.
Surely there are systems which I am outside of - even if I influence
those systems.
I have no trouble with the idea that systems exist inside of other
systems and that not only do distinct systems influence each other
but that then they can be seen to be constituents of larger systems
until we get out to "it's all one system". But declining to make
distinctions between various systems and collapsing them all into one
will leave us ineffective in many possible situations where a more
limited view of systems might be useful.
I suggest the view of systems offerred by Warfield in a paper on
complexity recently written where he quotes Gibbs as
defining systems as "any portion of the material universe which we
choose to separate in thought". I would extend this definition to
include the non-material. In this way, we are clear that the whole
can be seen as a system and be aware that we are creating all of the
"lesser" systems that we care to (linguistically) create for pragmatic
purposes.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk