A spiritual Ishmaelite

A journey to communicate science and religion

[
[
[

]
]
]

Summa Systematica

,

A Blueprint for a Modern Metaphysics Inspired by Cybernetics and Systems Engineering

Prologue: The Vision

You aim to construct a systematic metaphysics that treats reality not as static substance but as dynamic, relational, and processual—where being is understood through communication, control, and emergence. This is metaphysics for an interconnected, computational, and ecological age.

I. ARCHITECTURAL PRINCIPLES

1. Foundational Inspirations

  • Cybernetics (Wiener, Ashby, Bateson): Reality as information exchange, feedback loops, and circular causality.
  • Systems Theory (von Bertalanffy, Meadows): Hierarchical organization, emergent properties, and interdependence.
  • Second-Order Cybernetics (von Foerster, Maturana): The observer included within the system; autopoiesis and self-reference.
  • Engineering Disciplines: Control theory, network theory, resilience engineering, and model-based design.

2. Core Methodological Stance

  • Anti-reductionist but rigorous: Reject substance dualism without collapsing into naïve materialism.
  • Interdisciplinary synthesis: Treat insights from biology, computing, sociology, and ecology as ontological evidence.
  • Operational metaphysics: Concepts must have explanatory power for real-world phenomena (pragmatic coherence).
  • Explicit modeling: Use diagrams, flowcharts, and formal notations alongside prose.

II. STRUCTURE OF THE SUMMA

Adopt the scholastic quaestio format but modernize it:

Pars I: First-Order Ontology – The Architecture of Reality

  • Quaestio 1: What is being in a systemic key? (From substance to process-network)
  • Quaestio 2: On the modes of existence: entities, relationships, and information.
  • Quaestio 3: On causation: efficient, formal, and feedback causality.
  • Quaestio 4: On levels of organization: nested hierarchies and scale-dependence.
  • Quaestio 5: On boundaries: how systems individuate without isolation.

Pars II: Second-Order Ontology – Observers, Models, and Knowledge

  • Quaestio 6: On observation: the cybernetic loop of perception-action.
  • Quaestio 7: On models: reality as a multiscale modeling relation.
  • Quaestio 8: On meaning: information as difference that makes a difference.
  • Quaestio 9: On truth: stability, coherence, and viability of mental models.
  • Quaestio 10: On values: ethics as homeostatic imperatives in social systems.

Pars III: Dynamics – Change, Stability, and Emergence

  • Quaestio 11: On change: dynamics, attractors, and bifurcations.
  • Quaestio 12: On stability: feedback, regulation, and resilience.
  • Quaestio 13: On emergence: novel properties from relational complexity.
  • Quaestio 14: On evolution: variational principles across domains.
  • Quaestio 15: On intelligence: distributed cognition and collective mind.

Pars IV: Special Metaphysics

  • Quaestio 16: On life: autopoiesis and biological autonomy.
  • Quaestio 17: On mind: embodied cognition and extended mind.
  • Quaestio 18: On society: communication networks and cultural evolution.
  • Quaestio 19: On technology: the extended phenotype of humanity.
  • Quaestio 20: On the cosmos: the universe as a computational process.

III. KEY CONCEPTUAL TOOLS

Cybernetics-Inspired Categories

  1. Feedback Loops as ontological primitives (reinforcing/balancing)
  2. Variety (Ashby’s Law) as metaphysical principle
  3. Black Box/White Box epistemology
  4. Circular Causality replacing linear chains
  5. Autopoiesis (self-production) as criterion for living systems

Systems Engineering Concepts

  1. Interface/Protocol as fundamental to relational being
  2. Modularity and Coupling degrees of system integration
  3. Requirements and Constraints as formal causes
  4. Verification and Validation applied to metaphysical claims
  5. Trade-off Analysis in ontological design

IV. STYLISTIC AND RHETORICAL APPROACH

Modern Scholasticism

  • Clear article structure with objections and replies
  • Cross-references to contemporary science and engineering
  • Diagrams illustrating relational ontologies
  • Formal notations where helpful (e.g., systems dynamics symbols)
  • Glossary of technical terms from multiple disciplines

Exemplar Format for Each Article

  1. Statement of the Question
  2. Seemingly plausible opposing views (historical positions)
  3. Systematic analysis using cybernetic/systems concepts
  4. Objections addressed
  5. Corollaries and applications
  6. References to other articles

V. PRACTICAL COMPOSITION STRATEGY

Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-3)

  • Read key cybernetics/texts (Wiener, Bateson, Beer) and systems classics
  • Create concept maps of relationships between ideas
  • Draft the Prologue and first few articles

Phase 2: Systematic Development (Months 4-12)

  • Write one article per week following the structure
  • Create accompanying diagrams for each major concept
  • Maintain consistent terminology across articles

Phase 3: Integration and Refinement (Months 13-18)

  • Ensure cross-references are complete
  • Test concepts against edge cases and counterexamples
  • Seek feedback from philosophers, engineers, and scientists

Phase 4: Publication Strategy

  • Consider digital-first with interactive diagrams
  • Possible multimedia supplements (video explanations)
  • Companion workbook with exercises

VI. POTENTIAL PITFALLS AND ANTIDOTES

  1. Jargon overload: Ground every technical term in concrete examples
  2. Over-engineering the system: Allow for fuzzy boundaries and exceptions
  3. Neglecting tradition: Engage substantively with Aristotle, Spinoza, Whitehead, etc.
  4. Pseudoscientific overreach: Distinguish metaphysical speculation from scientific claims
  5. Impenetrable abstraction: Use engineering case studies as illustration

VII. EXEMPLAR OPENING ARTICLE (Condensed)

Article 1: Whether being is better understood as substance or as process-network

Objections:

  1. Traditional metaphysics from Aristotle onward treats substance as primary.
  2. Without enduring substances, identity through time becomes unintelligible.
  3. Common sense perceives stable objects, not dynamic networks.

Systematic Response:
I answer that being is fundamentally relational and processual, with stability emerging from dynamic patterns. Drawing from systems theory:

  • What we call “substances” are relatively stable nodes in process networks
  • Identity is maintained through homeostasis and autopoiesis
  • The substance-view is a useful approximation at medium temporal scales

Corollaries:

  1. This explains quantum entanglement and ecological interdependence equally well
  2. It resolves the mind-body problem as different organizational levels of the same network
  3. Ethics becomes concerned with the quality of relationships in systems

CONCLUSION

Your Summa Systematica would be a unique contribution: neither purely philosophical speculation nor technical manual, but a bridge connecting profound ontological questions with the practical wisdom of cybernetics and systems engineering. By treating reality itself as the ultimate system undergoing continuous design iteration, you offer a metaphysics for the age of networks, AI, and global interconnection.

The project’s success will depend on maintaining the difficult balance between systematic completeness and openness to revision—embodying in its own structure the very principles of feedback and adaptation it describes.

Remember: The goal is not to build an impregnable fortress of ideas, but to design a conceptual ecosystem—robust, adaptable, and fertile for further thought.

Leave a comment