While traditional disciplines develop a single consistent theory, or
perhaps multiple competing, yet still internally consistent, theories
within them, cybernetics and systems theory has not generally been successful at this task. The
foundations of cybernetics and systems theory show a frightening lack of serious attention, and
are marked by semantic squabbles, and (as a result of both ignorance and
turf fighting) an inexcusable separation of "camps" from each other.
Few have even attempted to address foundational theoretical and
methodological issues in anything other than an ad hoc manner. Some
conceptual "frameworks" exist at the formal, mathematical level
\cite{KLG85c,MEMTA88}. Some researchers have presented integrated
conceptual frameworks for major areas of systems science
\cite{JAE80a,ODH83,POW73,TUV77}, and there have been some attempts to
develop the foundations of the philosophy underlying cybernetics and systems theory
\cite{BUM74,LAE72}. Yet these works focus specifically on cybernetics and systems theory
from the perspectives of the traditional fields of mathematics
or philosophy respectively; they are still locked into the traditional
forms of development of academic work. There is as yet no systems
theory of systems theories.
There is at the same time a lack of researchers who are willing or able to
address themselves to the general problems and theories encompassed by
cybernetics and systems theory. The lack of a coherent terminology and methodology is reflected in
a lack of basic textbooks and glossaries, (with some exceptions \cite{ASR56,KLG91a,WEG75})
and further in a failure to establish even primary educational
programs to instruct upcoming generations. What little interdisciplinary
work has prospered has profited from the developments in cybernetics and systems theory over the
past few decades while either ignoring or deliberately avoiding any
reliance on cybernetics and systems theory (e.g. cite{SFI,WOS88}).
The lack of a strong foundation for or consensus within cybernetics and systems theory extends to
the very basic information about the field. How do we describe ourselves,
what can we tell new students and outsiders? Cybernetics and systems theory has been
alternatively described as a science, a point of view, a world-view, an
approach, an outlook, or a kind of applied philosophy or applied
mathematics. There are those in our community who approve of and even
champion this state of affairs. They focus on the creativity of the
maverick academics who are drawn to cybernetics and systems theory, and decry any attempts to
structure or build a solid theory.(Again, with some notable exceptions \cite{UMS90}.)
Clearly this lack of balance has led to rather poor review
standards in systems journals and conferences, and a low "signal to noise
ratio".
What can account for the current state of affairs in cybernetics and systems theory, the lack of a
consensually held fundamental theory? Is it inherent in the field, and
necessary in any broad interdisciplinary studies? Or is it an historical
accident, exacerbated by the personalities and careers of individual
researchers? The Principia Cybernetica Project holds that there are in fact fundamental and
foundational concepts, principles, and theories immanent in the body and
literature of cybernetics and systems theory which do hold to general information systems,
including all living and evolving systems at all levels of analysis. We
contend that the lack of a fundamental theory is due to a lack of
investment in the field. Support for and investment in a field are
mutually reinforcing. A lack of either will lead to a lack of the other.
