These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
STUDY 9. „SYSTEM“ AS A PARADIGMAL, AXIOMATIC CONCEPT IN THE SCIENCE OF SECURITY
The basic concept for the Science of Security – „system“ is analyzed. This is a paradigmal, axiomatic concept, embedded in the very foundation of this extremely intensively developing Science nowadays, and without its in-depth consideration, our understanding of security would be
to one degree or another inadequate and incomplete.
The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of this paradigmal, axiomatic concept:
Николай Слатински. Сигурността – същност, смисъл и съдържание. София: Военно издателство, 2011.
[Nikolay Slatinski. Sigurnostta – sushtnost, smisal i sadarzhanie. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2011].
Nikolay Slatinski. Security – essence, meaning and content. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2011 (in Bulgarian)
Modern Science of Security is built on eight paradigmal, axiomatic concepts: System, Process, Logic and Abstraction; Interest, Conflict, Power and Security [1].
Figure 1. Categorical architecture of the Science of Security
⁕ The first group of four concepts – System, Process, Logic and Abstraction – represent the basis, the infrastructure of the Science of Security.
Explanation:
Infrastructure – this is a group (a complex) of interrelated elements that serves as the basis for the functioning of a system.
Note. Clarifications for which no source is explicitly indicated are based on texts and definitions for them in Wikipedia.
These four paradigmal, axiomatic concepts form the basis of the Science of Security (as well as of any other modern science), since when any significant [scientific] object (phenomenon, category, model, entity) is studied and managed, four fundamental important conditions must necessarily be present:
√ Firstly, it is the consideration of the phenomena and properties associated with an object as a SYSTEM.
In this way, they will not be analyzed fragmented and chaotic, but will be understood in a unified and integrative manner.
√ Secondly, the object must be perceived as a PROCESS.
In this way, its development over time will be studied, and not some of an momentary state (or a limited set of states).
√ Thirdly, in all actions, connections, influences and relationships of which the object is a function, in which it enters and which it generates, it is necessary to look for the LOGIC contained in them and inherent in them.
In this way, it is possible to ensure optimal consideration of the interdependence of both the elements that make up the object itself and the object with other objects of the material world.
√ Fourthly, a certain degree of ABSTRACTION is necessary, that is, a certain separation of the essential from the non-essential, a detachment from the empirical and concrete.
In this way, it is possible to build – through symmetry, analogy, homology, homomorphism, etc. – bridges to other fields of knowledge and to use a number of useful and creative ideas from them.
Explanation:
Homology is the similarity of organs having a common structure, developing from similar embryos, but capable of performing different functions [2].
Homomorphism is the conformity in form or external similarity, but not in the type of structure (construction) and in origin [3].
⁕ The second group of four concepts – Interest, Conflict, Power and Security – represent the buildup, the superstructure of the Science of Security.
Explanation:
Superstructure – this is a group (a complex) of interrelated elements, that builds on the infrastructure and ensures the functioning of the system.
If the first group of paradigmal, axiomatic concepts (System, Process, Logic, Abstraction) are the foundation of any modern science (and of the Science of Security, in particular), then the second group of concepts (Interest, Conflict, Power, Security) are the most important concepts with which the Science of Security specifically operates. They are paradigmal, axiomatic, precisely because without them it is not possible to build the entire semantic architecture and philosophical essence of this Science.
In this Study we will focus on the first of the eight paradigmal, axiomatic concepts – System.
SYSTEM AS A PARADIGMAL, AXIOMATIC CONCEPT
Modern Science of Security considers human communities and societies as complex, self-organizing, dynamic and non-equilibrium systems operating under conditions of high uncertainty.
Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901 – 1972) understands a „system“ as a complex of interacting elements [4, 5]. However, when it comes to a system representing a human community or society, it is necessary to take into account the fact that this is a single whole with a high degree of complexity and non-linearity, in which there is a so-called feedback (when not only the cause affects the effect generated by it, but the effect also affects the cause that generated it), and there is mutual complementarity and mutual influence between its constituent elements.
The Science of Security imposes another requirement on the systems it considers – namely, that they be synergetic, i.e. to be such systems for which synergy is inherent, i.e. their characteristics (properties) are a synergetic result of the corresponding characteristics (properties) of their constituent parts.
SYNERGY is an effect (called „SYNERGETIC EFFECT“) in which the interaction of the elements that create the system leads to such an improved property (capability) that cannot be obtained by the mechanical sum of the properties (capabilities) of its elements.
The necessity for a synergetic effect is a natural requirement for the creation and functioning of complex social systems. It makes no sense to create a system of several elements if the main result of their joint efforts is expressed only in the mechanical unification (summation) of their properties. The reason is that during the interaction of elements, part of the energy is always spent on synchronization (coordination) of interaction, on overcoming „friction“ between them, in working out common goals.
The synergetic effect can be quantitative (weak) or qualitative (strong).
• With the quantitative (weak) synergetic effect, the value by which the total result of the interaction of the elements that create the system is measured is greater (i.e. exceeds) the mechanical sum of their values (properties).
For example, if we denote the security of some system X by S(X), then the quantitative (weak) synergetic effect means that the security of system C = A + B is qualitatively similar and quantitatively greater than (exceeds) the sum of the security of system A and the security of system B, and this effect is written as follows:
S(С) = S(A + В) > S(A) + S(В).
• With the qualitative (strong) synergetic effect, there is not only a quantitative excess of the sum (synthesis) of certain characteristics (properties) of the constituent elements of the system over the mechanical sum of these characteristics (properties), but qualitatively new improved characteristics (properties) are obtained.
For example, if the security of system X goes into a new positive qualitative state S+(X), then the qualitative (strong) synergetic effect means that the security of system C = A + B is qualitatively better and quantitatively greater than (exceeds) the sum of the security of system A and the security of system B, and this effect is written as follows:
S+(С) = S+(A + В) > S(A) + S(В).
The synergetic effect means not just the „addition“ of the properties of individual elements, but in fact their „multiplication“, i.e. the acquisition of QUALITATIVELY new positive (and better) properties. A system in which this effect is observed not only benefits from an increase in the total effect of all the properties possessed by its constituent elements, but also acquires QUALITATIVELY new positive (and better) properties that are not inherent in any of its constituents elements.
Accordingly, DISSYNERGY is an effect (called the „DISYNERGETIC EFFECT“), in which the interaction of the elements that create the system leads to such a worsened property (capability) that cannot be obtained by the mechanical sum of the properties (capability) of its elements.
This means that the effectiveness of the functioning of the system decreases due to the negative impact of its constituent elements on each other. Such systems, for which dissynergy is inherent, are said that their characteristics (properties) are a dissynergetic result of the corresponding characteristics (properties) of their constituent parts.
The dissynergetic effect can also be quantitative (weak) or qualitative (strong).
• With a quantitative (weak) dissynergetic effect, the value by which the total result of the interaction of the elements that create the system is less (i.e. decreases below) the mechanical sum of their values (properties).
For example, if we denote the security of some system X by S(X), then the quantitative (weak) dissynergetic effect means that the security of system C = A + B is qualitatively similar and quantitatively less than (decrease below) the sum of the security of system A and the security of system B, and this effect is written as follows:
S(С) = S(A + В) < S(A) + S(В).
• With a qualitative (strong) dissynergetic effect, there is not only a quantitative decrease in the sum (synthesis) of certain characteristics (properties) of the constituent elements of the system below the mechanical sum of these characteristics (properties), but qualitatively new deteriorated characteristics (properties) are obtained.
And if the security of the system X goes into a new negative qualitative state S–(X), then the qualitative (strong) dissynergetic effect means that the security of system C = A + B is qualitatively worse and quantitatively less (decreases below) the sum of the security of system A and the security of the system B, and this effect is written as follows:
S–(С) = S–(A + В) < S(A) + S(В).
Analogously, it can be said that the dissynergetic effect means not just „subtraction“ of the properties of individual elements, but actually their „division“, i.e. the acquisition of QUALITATIVELY new negative (and worse) properties. A system in which this effect is observed not only loses a part (due to its decrease) of the total effect of all the properties that its constituent elements have, but also acquires QUALITATIVELY new negative (and worse) properties that are not inherent in any of the constituents her elements.
This is precisely what is important to understand – that, in fact, the dissynergetic effect is not only a quantitative decrease in the sum (synthesis) of certain characteristics (properties) of the constituent elements of the system, but also the acquisition of qualitatively new worse characteristics (properties).
When studying such an extremely important category for systems as synergy, we have so far adhered to one of two extreme approaches in the analysis of complex, self-organizing, dynamic and non-equilibrium systems, namely the HOLISTIC (i.e., „whole“) approach.
The holistic approach studies the system as a whole.
In managing the security of a system, the holistic approach is oriented towards exploiting the strengths of that system.
The alternative approach is the REDUCTIONIST (i.e. „in parts“) approach, in which, for the purposes of research, the system is „decomposed“ into its constituent elements, which are studied separately.
In managing the security of the system, the reductionist approach is oriented towards diagnostics („feeling“) of the weak points of this system.
In the Science of Security, the holistic approach is given priority. This is due to the fact that, as a rule, most, if not all, challenges, risks, dangers and threats coming from outside, from the external environment, reflect primarily on individual elements through their overall impact on the whole system.
Abraham Maslow (1908 – 1970) believed that the reductionist (he called it „atomistic“) way of thinking „is a form of mild psychopathology, or is at least one aspect of the syndrome of cognitive immaturity“, while „the holistic way of thinking and seeing seems to come quite naturally and automatically to healthier, self-actualizing people, and seems to be extraordinarily difficult for less evolved, less mature, less healthy people“ [6].
But in managing the security of a system, its managers cannot afford to remain only within the framework of the holistic approach. Because real impacts and effects will also appear on specific elements, so they can even cause significant changes in them and in their functions, and this can affect the overall functioning of the system. In other words, the reductionist approach should be used, at least to some extent.
Systems thinking and action is today the only possible and effective method in the study of security. Therefore, for the purposes of further analysis, we give the following definition of a system:
A system is an integrated community of interrelated elements, the effect of interaction between which is measured by properties that are a synergetic result of the properties of individual elements.
Each system is characterized by two categorical levels, to which correspond two sets of concepts (see again Figure 1):
■ CONCEPTUAL LEVEL („shell“), which includes the concepts Goal, Strategy, Subject of Management, Object of Management;
■ CONTENT LEVEL („core“) which includes the concepts Structure, Values, Rules, Resources.
• The concepts Goal, Strategy, Subject of Management, Object of Management can be considered as a CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, i.e. as a shell, as a form of a system.
These concepts usually answer the questions: „What should be done?“ and „Why should this be done?“.
‣ The GOAL determines what the System aims for, what is the meaning of its functioning, for the sake of what its elements interact with each other.
A goal usually consists of various interrelated, intertwining, complementary sub-goals.
‣ STRATEGY determines how to achieve the Goal so that the System realizes itself as efficiently as possible and makes sense of its existence.
A strategy may consist of different sectoral, sub-system strategies.
‣ SUBJECT OF MANAGEMENT is the one that manages the System, i.e. it is that integrative part of the System that implements the Strategy of the System, leading to the realization of the Goal of the System.
A subject of management can be either an institution (a subsystem of institutions) created by the System or an element of the System (a subsystem of elements).
‣ OBJECT OF MANAGEMENT is the one that is managed in the System, i.e. it is that integrative part of the System, through and in the name of which the Strategy of the System is implemented, leading to the realization of the Goal of the System.
The object of management can be either a single community of individuals or a set of separate communities of individuals.
• The concepts Structure, Values, Rules, Resources can be considered as SUBSTANTIVE ENTITY, i.e. as a substance, a core of the system.
These concepts usually answer the questions: „How should it be done?“ and „Who should do it?“.
‣ Structure defines the architecture of the system, its hierarchical levels, interaction links and information exchange channels.
In Study 6 it has already been said that one of the main characteristics of the present is the increasing conflict between hierarchical and network structures, in particular between the hierarchical nature of institutions in security systems and the network nature of the challenges and risks facing these systems.
At the same time, the state, the institutions of the national security system, the thinking (and not least the teaching of knowledge) in the field of security retain their hierarchical structure, their pro-hierarchical reflexes and hierarchical-obsessive instincts. But these days the emphasis is shifting to flexibility – flexible knowledge, flexible structures, flexible approaches, flexible countermeasure geometries. There are no organizations and architectures that are structurally unchanged once and for all.
Since challenges and opponents are flexible and mobile, so must be the institutions and the people within them.
It is necessary to organize pools of resources – ministries and departments are too hierarchical, prone to bureaucracy and bureaucratic thinking, and it is necessary to create flexible and mobile coalitions of professionals. The specialization will not be based on types of activity and spheres of activities, but on challenges: crime, terrorism, emergencies (natural, technogenic, anthropogenic, pandemics), demographic crisis, quality of life, etc. And the value of each expert will depend not on the will of the immediate superior or any party, but on his uniqueness and professionalism, skills and abilities to participate in as many such pools of resources and flexible coalitions of specialists as possible.
In other words, we need mission strategies and mission goals, mission priorities and mission thinking.
And from this follows a conceptual problem for the State, namely that the State still cannot but be hierarchically organized. This is due to its nature, due to the goals and objectives that it implements, due to the way it operates, and due to the procedures by which the State makes decisions. However, the State will no longer be able to cope with new challenges and risks, adversaries and enemies, unless it moves to new approaches, methods and means and begins to acquire at least partially the character of a network. Therefore, the State must combine the hierarchy, since it is still a State, with a network in order to be able to give an adequate and flexible response to new challenges and risks.
In today's complex and increasingly risky security environment, a State that builds an effective hybrid organizational network will gain strategic initiative. This means striving for structures that are less hierarchical (do not create new hierarchical levels) and more flatter (as much as possible the structure should be „flattened“), gradually moving towards a network architecture with the minimum necessary hierarchy and with a maximally adaptable configuration, in which the emphasis is on consolidation and integration, and on coordination and decentralization, rather than on command and centralization. If the enemy has a variable geometry, as well the institutions with which we will face him must have such a geometry.
‣ Values are specific markers of the System associated with its culture, memory, traditions and customs.
Values „glue“ the elements of the system and distinguish, separate them from the elements of other systems.
Regarding the unconditionality of the Values, the System could say: „That's how it is with us!“.
When new management models are introduced and implemented in the System, its Values must be taken into account. Otherwise, however modern and effective these models are, if they are applied literally, they will not function in the same effective way and could even fail.
Values can also be recognized by the fact that in order to ensure their observance, the System does not necessarily create disciplinary, much less repressive structures, and sanctions are usually of a moral nature – impugnment, isolation, rejection, stigmatization.
Values today must undergo a meaningful development, since the creation and application of a modern culture of risk and security management always leads to new aspects and dimensions of the system culture, to its modernization and democratization.
‣ Rules are laws, standards, regulations according to which the System functions. In general, they represent the will of the rulers clothed in norms.
Regarding the conditionality of the Rules, the System could say: „It will be like this with us!“.
Usually, the Rules are restrictions that serve the normal management and functioning of the System in a given environment and at a corresponding stage of its development.
Rules can also be recognized by the fact that to enforce them, the System creates appropriate disciplinary and sometimes repressive structures.
‣ Resources are the means by which the System ensures its normal functioning and overcoming crisis situations.
In social systems, resources are primarily material, financial, cognitive (related to knowledge), and human.
We will add that the management of the System, as the production of decisions to achieve its goals, carries out a transfer of will from the „shell“ to the „core“.
Various researchers – cultural anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists – analyze complex, self-organizing, dynamic and non-equilibrium systems using integrative and multifactorial approaches and methods. At the same time, they very often think and describe these systems as living and vital organisms. Such an analysis of systems gradually evolves, exhausts its initial biologism, i.e. the simpler, biological analogies, and reveals deeper social mechanisms, thereby transforming systems as an object of study from biological into social entities. In this steady unfolding process, above the purely biological imperatives of survival are superimposed social imperatives of development, which are of a higher order and require corresponding scientific models of a higher order.
An exceptional role in the realization that not every set of elements can be called a system and that in order to talk about a system, a set of elements must perform certain functions, was played by the works of the remarkable American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902 – 1979).
A major emphasis in Parsons' theory is the initial aspiration of any social system towards a homeostatic state of equilibrium. For Parsons, this aspiration of the system is not just a critical manifestation of its will to survive, but much more – a natural condition, the essence and purpose of its existence, of its vitality and aspiration for development.
A social system expends significant efforts and resources for its survival and development, for its complexity and interaction with its environment and with other competing and cooperative systems, for enriching its „memory“ and „experience“ and for optimizing its basic functions.
But the main thing that motivates and gives meaning to the existence of the social system is its continuous effort to keep close to the equilibrium position and return to its homeostasis. In such a way, the dynamics of the system is in fact pseudo-dynamics, it is possible and feasible only in areas close to the homeostatic position and such that support adherence to it or the possibility of returning to it.
Of course, at some point it could turn out (and this happens more and more often in the Risk Society) that the system has reached (got into) the point of its existence and development, when it can no longer return to its equilibrium, homeostatic state or when the scenario of returning to this equilibrium, homeostatic state is only one of the possible (and often not even the most probable) scenarios for the development of the system. Then the system is faced with an acute and inevitable need to decide where and how to continue its existence and development.
Such a point in the existence of a system is called a bifurcation point.
Explanation:
Homeostasis is the ability of an open system to maintain a constant state of dynamic equilibrium, as well as to return to it after a relatively short period of time if, due to internal and external reasons, it was forced to move away from this state.
A bifurcation point is a point of the trajectory (development) of a given system, in which the system faces a strategic or spontaneous choice from several possible scenarios (alternatives, paths), one or more of which can lead to the transformation of this system into a positive or negative direction.
Summarizing, we can say that, according to Talcott Parsons, there are three more significant elements of the process of self-preservation, evolution and implementation of the functions of social systems, namely [7]:
> increasing differentiation of the system units into functionally interdependent structures;
> establishment of new principles and mechanisms of integration in the differentiating systems;
> increase in the differentiated systems of the ability to survive under certain conditions of the external environment.
In our monograph [8], following the logic of Talcott Parsons [9], we have given EIGHT BASIC FUNCTIONS inherent in every social system (and therefore also in every community of individuals and every society). These functions are also characteristic of almost all complex, self-organizing, dynamic and non-equilibrium systems that are stable and able to survive and develop [10]).
EIGHT BASIC FUNCTIONS of complex, self-organizing, dynamic, non-equilibrium systems are:
(1) Adaptation – ability of a system to adapt to the constantly changing environment.
Adaptation means: 1. availability of organs, means, devices, channels for material and non-material exchange, through which the system „adapts“ itself to the external environment and facilitates positive, constructive communication with it; and 2. development of new structures and functions, or modification of existing ones, by which the system can realize its normal existence in accordance with the risks and changes in the environment or in spite of and regardless of these risks and changes.
(2) Absorption – ability of a system to adopt effective strategies, correct approaches, best practices and modern standards from other systems – both from systems similar to (regardless of whether it is in cooperation or competition with them), and from systems that do not intersect with it in relation to goals and resources.
Absorption is a manifestation of the system's openness to other successful models and solutions, and is evidence of its ability to apply these models and solutions with maximum utility for itself, in order to strengthen its defense mechanisms, maintain its viability, and increase its competitive advantages.
(3) Integration – ability of a system to unite its constituent elements and bring them together to fulfill mutually complementary and compatible roles.
Integration includes coordination among the elements that create the system, generating in each of them a sense of necessity and involvement in the normal functioning of the system, redirection of resources, energy and attention to potential places of increased tension between individual elements and for overcoming the „friction“ between them.
(4) Renunciation – ability of a system to reject, discard, abandon and give up its ineffective strategies, wrong approaches, bad practices and outdated standards.
Renunciation is a self-actualizing attitude of the system to deny and free itself from everything that – no matter how related to its very essence – disrupts its internal cohesion, prevents the emergence of a synergetic effect in the interaction of its elements and complicates the normal course of processes, in which this system participates, and thereby prevent it from responding to growing challenges and risks and neutralizing emerging dangers and threats.
(5) Latent pattern maintenance – ability of a system to continuously reproduce and save certain essential patterns (models), thereby maintaining its structure.
Latent pattern maintenance allows the system at any moment to recognize itself, and its elements and subsystems to be able to satisfactorily remove the uncertainty that accompanies their actions, so that the system as a single organism and its individual elements and subsystems to always have both objective criteria for diagnosing the structure and for self-assessment of whether they are doing exactly what corresponds most fully to their responsibilities and tasks, as well as sustainable reference points – indicators, markers, signs or anchors, by which to compare the current state of the system with the stable position in which the system functions optimally.
(6) Learning capacity – ability of a system to „learn“ what behavior it should have and how to respond to processes (or events) in the external and internal environment.
Learning capacity is associated with the system's commitment to perceive new ideas and approaches in knowledge acquisition and management, to adopt new models and technologies for social reengineering and process management, in order to respond proactively, i.e. before changes in the environment occur, and to respond adequately when those changes occur.
(7) Goal setting – ability of a system to set new goals, to change set goals and reprioritize desired goals.
Goal setting is expressed in continuous efforts of the system to find a new or additional meaning for its existence, to formulate high, but realistic causes and tasks that will mobilize its constituent elements for their realization, and in parallel with this, to update in a timely manner the vision and mission of the system and the level of its ambitions, depending on a possible change in circumstances and the external environment.
(8) Goal attainment – ability of a system to achieve its goals.
Goal achievement primarily reflects the presence of growing skills of the system to synchronize the purpose and content of its existence with the quantitative and qualitative results of its functioning, and at the same time to develop adequate criteria for evaluating the completeness of the goals pursued by the system, as well as for evaluating the result, effect and efficiency in their implementations.
Explanation:
The result is the achieved final state of the system. The effect is the difference between the final and initial state of the system. Efficiency is determined by the ratio of achieved goals/invested resources.
Four of these basic functions – (1) Adaptation, (8) Goal Attainment, (4) Integration, and (5) Latent pattern maintenance – were first identified by Talcott Parsons and they became known with the famous abbreviation AGIL (A – Adaptation, G – Goal Attainment, I – Integration, L – Latent pattern maintenance) – Table 1.
Table 1. The first four basic system functions identified by Talcott Parsons
If we arrange the basis functions in a 2 x 4 table, respectively:
vertically – Passive function (statics) and Active function (dynamics);
horizontally – System in relation to the external environment; System in relation to its elements; System in relation to itself and System in relation to the meaning of its existence,
then, as can be seen from Table 1, four cells are filled, and the other four cells remain empty.
But as it was already mentioned in Study 7, our firm belief is that there are no and cannot be empty „cells“ in nature! If a „cell“ has remained empty at one point, it is either because it has not yet been studied, or because it has been considered insignificant up to that point.
Of course, Talcott Parsons hardly laid out the basic functions of the system in such a Table, but he clearly felt that there were gaps in the description of these basic functions.
One way or another, two more basic functions inherent in each system were later added – (7) Goal setting and (6) Learning capacity [11] – Table 2.
Table 2. Six basic functions of the system – together with two more added functions
In the Table proposed by us, despite the two added basic functions, there are still two empty „cells“!
Moreover, these two empty „cells“ in Table 2 are related to the so important Active function (dynamics) – when it comes to the key relationships of the System to the external environment and to its elements!
Only when these two „cells“ are filled in, the Table will acquire a complete form and the functions of the system will be exhausted from the point of view of its passive and active activities and its relations with the external environment, its elements, itself and the meaning of its existence.
With the filling of empty „cells“ in Table 2 (and, more importantly, in the theory of Talcott Parsons) we took up. And yes – indeed, this filling turned out to be possible! And it could not but turn out to be possible – after all, there are no really empty „cells“ in nature and cannot be!
So, Table 2 is filled in by entering two more main functions of the system in it – (2) Absorption and (3) Renunciation – see Table 3.
Adaptation and Absorption are related to transformations that the system must carry out consciously and purposefully with itself. Yes, it is true that both Adaptation and Absorption are elements of the process of adjustment to external conditions, but with the difference that while Adaptation is a more passive adjustment to the environment and a striving for static equilibrium with it, Absorption is associated with a striving for dynamic equilibrium with the environment, with efforts to implement practices and methods that allow it to respond adequately to external impacts, to minimize their effects and better manage risks.
At the same time, Renunciation is an extremely important and incredibly risky, inevitably complex and incredibly responsible function of the system. A function associated with a number of pitfalls and challenges, invisible at the beginning of its undertaking. But without this function, it is very difficult for the system not only to develop, but also to survive! The system is obliged – for the sake of its effective existence – to self-analyze and self-evaluate itself, to consider and decide at every moment, in every state – what of itself to reject, so that it can improve and optimize itself, but to remain true to itself and continue to be adequate to its essence. This is achieved by carefully looking at the system in itself and in its elements – in each separately and in all together; this is realized through careful, sensitive „conversations“ with these elements and with itself, resulting in the difficult but vital decisions of optimal Renunciation. Only systems that can develop, achieve success and cope with the challenges and risks of the external and internal environment are able to promptly give up parts of themselves in a timely manner for the sake of the progress of the whole – the system itself.
Table 3. Eight basic functions of a system
Let's emphasize again:
The two new basic functions – (2) Absorption and (3) Renunciation – have been added by us. They undoubtedly have the same level of importance as the other six basic functions, and without them the description of the behavior of complex, self-organizing, dynamic and non-equilibrium systems would not be complete. Each system performs all eight basic functions in a (target and value, structural and functional) complex.
Finally, we will note that regardless of the complexity of Theory of Systems, Systemology and its wide application in various fields of scientific knowledge, in principle, systems thinking is inherent to human beings – at least to a certain extent. We are able to realize, as long as we think about it, that a set of elements is not purely and simply a mechanical sum of these elements, but between them there is some kind of internal dependence, some kind of arrangement, some kind of hierarchy, some channels through which there are information flows, i.e. that it is not at all a matter of something like a bag of Lego pieces that are scattered, that are sketched out spontaneously, chaotically and randomly, but on the contrary, they are arranged in some kind of structure and somehow interact with each other.
The point, however, is that very often we do not think about these problems and consider the elements of the system separately, do not try to aggregate them, to look for synergy in them.
According to our hard-won scientific experience, without the Theory of Systems, Systemology it is to go deep into the Science of Security, and any knowledge in this science to one degree or another will remain superficial, incomplete and poorly argued.
References:
1. Слатински, Николай. Сигурността – същност, смисъл и съдържание. София.: Военно издателство, 2011, с. 35 – 118.
Slatinski, Nikolay. Sigurnostta – sushtnost, smisal i sadarzhanie. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2011. (in Bulgarian)
(Slatinski, Nikolay. Security – essence, meaning and content)
2. Речник на чуждите думи в българския език. София, Издателство на БАН, 1993, с. 969.
Rechnik na chuzhdite dumi v bulraskia ezik. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN, 1993, s. 969. (in Bulgarian)
(Dictionary of foreign words in the Bulgarian language)
3. Ibidem.
4. Берталанфи. Л. фон. Общая теория систем – критический обзор, http://evolbiol.ru/bertalanfi.htm.
Bertalanfi, L. fon. Obshchaya teoria system – kriticheskii obzor. (in Russian)
(Bertalanfi. L. von. General system theory – a critical review)
5. Абъркромби, Н., Ст. Хил, Б. С. Търнър. Световен речник по социология. Бургас: Делфин прес,1993, с. 290.
Abarkrombi, N., St. Hil, B. S. Turner. Scetoven rechnik po sociologia. Burgas: Delfin, 1993, s. 290. (in Bulgarian)
(Abercrombie, N., St. Hill, B. S. Turner. World Dictionary of Sociology)
6. Maslow Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., p. XI.
7. Тернер, Джонатан. Структура социологической теории. Москва: Прогресс, 1985, с. 80.
Turner, Dghonatan. Struktura sociologicheskoi teorii. MoskvaL Progress, 1985, s. 80. (in Russian)
(Turner, Jonathan. Structure of sociological theory)
8. Слатински, Николай. Сигурността..., ibid., с. 53 – 58.
(Slatinski, Nikolay. Security – essence, meaning and content..., ibid., с. 53 – 58)
9. Луман, Никлас. Въведение в системната теория. София: Критика и хуманизъм, 2008, с. 23.
Luman, Niklas. Vavedenie v sistemnata teoria. Sofia: Kritika I humanism, 2008, s. 23. (in Russian)
(Luhmann, Niklas. Introduction to Systems Theory)
10. See also: Deutsch, Karl W. The Analysis of International Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Harvard University, 1968, 15 – 16.
11. Ibidem.
23.01.2023
Brief explanation:
The texts of my Studies have been translated into English by me. They have not been read and edited by a native English speaker, nor by a professional translator. Therefore, all errors and ambiguities caused by the quality of the translation are solely mine. But I have been guided by the thought that the purpose of these Studies is to give information about my contributions to the Science of Security by presenting them in a brief exposition, and not to demonstrate excellent English, which, unfortunately, I cannot boast of.
