This
essay asserts that we cannot find the schematic basis for constructing
a model within the world of philosophical or religious thought nor in
the more generally accepted approaches to science. It says that we must
look elsewhere, which is why the model is developed from within the
ways
of thinking of General Systems theorists.
General
Systems Theory promotes the appearance of structural similarities
or isomorphies in different fields. It looks for correspondences In the
principles which govern the behavior of entities which are
intrinsically, widely
different. General Systems Theory permits one to view
behavior as
an
ordered evolution from some less organized state to some more organized
state. It allows one to view the final state as being reached from
different initial conditions. It allows one to think in terms of
movement from homogeneity
to heterogeneity. Thus it allows one to think of systems which develop
toward states of greater heterogeneity and complexity while, at the
same time, one thinks of states which maintain steady conditions moving
steadily to the ultimate of that particular state. Since this way of
thinking
seemed to correspond with my observations and with my thinking
in
respect to ethical behavior, it was natural that the model presented
should
be developed within General Systems Theory.
Having
settled on the broad theoretical basis for the model, the need
arose for more specific conceptions within which the thinking could be
ordered. A concept was needed which expressed that a particular, yet
variable, resultant (an ethical system) arises when certain forces meet
at a particular moment in time. This concept had to allow, also, for
the abnormal over and underdevelopment of the particular resultant (a
particular ethical system). The concept needed seemed to be much like
that of epigenesis, a concept in the field of embryology. The interpretation
of epigenesis that all which grows has an ordered ground plan,
not always achieving its final form, yet if achieving this final
form, still
infinitely variable, fitted well three specific conceptual needs.
1.
The
need to represent ethical behavior as a growth phenomenon.
2.
The
need to represent organized intermediate stages on the
way to later stages.
3.
The
need to represent conceptually the idea that stage might fail
adequately to
develop or might display a
monstrous over-development.
<<back
8 next>>
|