Autognomics Institute

A quiet revolution is occurring. There is something beginning in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, which holds the potential to transform the nature and function of science and mathematics-- and the very foundations of human inquiry and discovery, from physics and biology, to medicine and the social sciences. We are presently standing on the threshold of a truly profound and sweeping paradigm change, a real revolution in science whose implications are every bit as significant as the ancient discovery of fire. With the understanding of fire our civilization was born. With the understanding of life itself, civilization will take on a new dimension of completeness, ushered in with a new Renaissance in the sciences and humanities.

Mystic, Connecticut, an historic harbor town made famous as the starting point of many intrepid voyages, is home to Autognomics Institute, a place where a global community of thinkers will soon embark on a new venture-- to give form to a new kind of science, the science of autognomics.

What is autognomics?

The term "autognomic" means "self-knowing"(Greek auto, self and gnosis, knowledge), referring to innate natural processes which allow living organisms to regulate and manage themselves. Autognomics is the study of the natural inherent principles organizing life itself, which involves the discovery of the natural logics within living systems. (A system is a composite unity-- that is, a collection of components integrated into mutual dependencies to function as one entity. Many non-living systems are simple systems such as our machines, that obey the laws of classical Newtonian physics. An automobile is an example of a simple non-living system. It is assembled from many parts, all of which have to function together.)

Living systems are natural systems-- that is, systems comprised of infinite functions and variables that cannot possibly be described or explained by the finite laws of Newtonian physics or Cartesian logic. Holistic fields form the living system (the organism, groups of organisms, and the ecosystem). The organizing field changes the "parts", such as the atoms. They are not the same in the system as they were before they became part of the system. Organisms and their communities, according to autognomic theory, are inter-connected, inter-dependent, yet autonomous, harmonic-holistic living systems. The term "logics" as it is used here refers to the organizational and structural patterning of a living system, in the sense that logistics applied to an organism would represent specifically the handling of the details of processes in that organism-- such as cycles, osmosis, mitosis, chromosome arrangement, etc.

Autognomic study recognizes a distinction between man-made logics and natural logics, and concerns itself mostly with describing the latter. The traditional domain of logic has been the expression of laws of deliberate, rationally controlled thought and conduct. Logic has been consigned specifically to the format of man-made reason, the necessary but artificial figurative cable or railing we hold onto as we navigate through our human existence and coexistence. But the guidance offered by conventional reason involves only a superficial layer of our experience and thought, and hence also of our actions. Reason-- and therefore traditional logic-- leaves out the irrational forces of fears and desires that compel us from beneath the surface level of the thinking we learn from our family and our society.

The new logics, and the new broader use of the term "logic", take on a meta-logical, or epi-logical dimension. That is to say, they consider courses and forms of thinking that are outside of the traditional course or track of rational thinking-- and even of human thought itself. "Logic" in its broader sense can now apply to the factors influencing "decisions" made by organisms never before considered intelligent enough to be evaluated in light of logic. Such newly considered logical decisions may even be made on a cellular level: a logic may be said to govern the processes of chromosome arrangement, for instance, or cell division.

At present, autognomics exists as a philosophy in the early stages of ushering in a new science-- the first science of natural logics. The emerging foundation for the coming science of autognomics lies in the natural laws and logics now being discovered in the working totalities of living systems. Individual scholars around the globe are working within several disciplines to create new models to illustrate the hidden dynamics in these natural processes in ways that will allow us to understand them. The goal at the Autognomics Institute is to synthesize those collective discoveries into one coherent theory-- a holistic theory of living systems and life itself. The science of autognomics will integrate new logics which will be foundational to the transformation of existing sciences and other disciplines, including fields in the humanities such as aesthetics and ethics. There will also be entirely new disciplines that will arise along the lines of the new logical foundation.

The Autognomics Institute was founded by Norm and Skye Hirst, Jon Ray Hamann and Eugene Pendergraft in 1992 as a response to the Gulf War. When President Bush said he had sent a clear message to Saddam Hussein we knew there was something wrong. Understanding life it is clear that sending a clear message in impossible. For the President of the United States to claim to have done so indicated to us that even men in high places lack understanding of life and that is a dangerous condition.

Norman F. Hirst is an M.I.T. graduate in mathematics and physics who designed early autognomic programs at the University of Texas in Austin and holds several patents in artificial intelligence. Hirst's work on the theory of autognomics goes back to his taking a course on value theory with Robert Hartman, an internationally renowned philosopher visiting M.I.T. He realized that there was some systemic defect in our knowledge of the time that prevented our understanding values. Since the mid 1950s, Hirst has engaged in extensive studies of logic, philosophy (metaphysics), the foundations of scientific thinking and various sciences from physics to computer science. In addition he has been involved in many computer applications from calculating interplanetary transfer orbits to the field of computer language translation, developing programs at M.I.T. and the University of Texas.

Today, Hirst works at the Autognomics Institute, "a research and educational organization dedicated to the theory of living systems which, in addition , provides the logic for multi-enclave self-organizing computer systems." Using new computer simulations, Hirst and other pioneers of autognomic theory are taking closer looks at the seemingly random and "chaotic" changes in both the large-scale and the small-scale universe, from the micro-movements of quantum particles and fields, to the organization processes in living cells, and out to the formation patterns of billions of galaxies and star clusters, which on that newly surveyable grand scale bear striking resemblances to living tissue. Hirst invites scientists and other leading thinkers of all fields "to present their ideas and experience in an informal discussion process inviting exploration and inspiration."

"Human knowledge evolves through philosophy to science."

-- Robert Hartman

Dr. Robert Hartman, a professor of philosophy at M.I.T. during the 1950s, when Norm Hirst was a student there, presented a profoundly significant thesis. Philosophy, Hartman said, analyzed experience and in the course of time-- in the case of our history, more than two thousand years-- analysis yielded synthesis and scientific inquiry replaced philosophical inquiry. In a well-known incidence of this process, Isaac Newton turned the philosophy of motion into the science of motion. As a result, we live in a world transformed by Newton's laws of nature and his calculus. Now, Hartman believed, the time was right to turn the philosophy of value into a science of value.

The philosophy of autognomics

Autognomic theory in its present form is a holistic, "organicistic" philosophy of infinite dynamic process and natural meta-logic, inspired by the works of Charles Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead, and several other process philosophers, and carried forward into the present century by Norman Hirst and the scholars and scientists at the Autognomics Institute. The terms "holism" and "organicism" are for most purposes interchangeable. Holism, as it appears in autognomic theory, refers to a mode of organization found in natural, or living systems, in which parts are integrated into wholes, or totalities, which in turn relate to a greater whole (organisms, to eco-systems, ultimately to nature as a whole), and in which the properties and functions of any system cannot be reduced to or predicted by the smallest units in the system.

The idea of looking to the patterns found in nature for inspiration-- whether artistic or technological-- is not a new one. In fact, it's probably one of the oldest ideas out there, as the pictures on the walls of the Lascaux caves in France so vividly suggest. Process philosophy itself has a long history that began with Heraclitus in the sixth century B.C. (and perhaps earlier in China) and includes George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, William James, Charles Peirce, Henri Bergson, John Dewey, G.E. Moore, and Alfred North Whitehead, to name a few. The vigorous, roiling, revolutionary movement at the core of their thinking has never been well understood by the majority of any era in the past. Simpler, more static thinking has always dominated the inquiry and procedures in all fields of human endeavor. It is a matter of conjecture whether the true revolutionary mode of thinking in dynamic, holistic terms will catch on during our present century. But this time there is a very big difference in our looking to nature with an eye to change and the new. Today we have access to technology that is helping us dig beneath the surface of the very fabric of our universe itself.

With the study of living systems, the process of synthesizing a new science from the emerging theories and logics now becoming available will be one of two ongoing endeavors at Autognomics Institute. Alongside of long-range research, existing autognomic theory is currently being applied by consultants at the Institute in the areas of business, education, medicine, economics, government, and other fields.
The science of autonomics will integrate new logics which will be foundational to the transformation of existing sciences and other disciplines such as aesthetics and ethics. There will also be new disciplines that will arise along the lines of the new logical foundation. Applications of autonomic theory will change the way we look at life and the universe in the next century.

A hypothesis

Here is the working hypothesis of Autognomics Institute in a nutshell (minus the technical equations), to paraphrase Norm Hirst:

A. When applied to life and living systems (including human) and other highly complex systems, our current scientific thinking and procedures, combined with the prevailing profit motive, are largely misguided, narrow, and dangerous. Much of today's science is not really true science at all, but more closely resembles ideological dogma and commercially driven propaganda. It is a science clogged with antiquated and primitive logic and obsolete notions, and with resistance to the spirit of change and open learning, which is above all else the true spirit of scientific inquiry and discovery. We can only understand and apply what we can think fully about, and 2500 years of traditional thinking combined with present day quick-fix approaches systematically prevent us from recognizing and respecting the dynamics-- and the wonders-- of any living system. Strong words, but not intended to be antagonistic; rather a tonic to a system in some need of rethinking.

B. We need, according to Hirst and his colleagues, a new process science of meta-logics, or epi-logics that can serve as a foundation and adjunct to other sciences. The new science will be a study of newly discovered patterns observed in the structures and processes within and around living systems of all kinds. It will be a science characterized and informed by an infinite dynamic systems perspective, and inquiry and experimentation will welcome change and paradox as vital, essential elements of learning and advances. The following are basic principles of the autognomic proto-science, broken down into seven axioms (again, minus the equations):

1. Organisms and groups of organisms-- including humans and our communities-- are infinitely complex dynamic systems of process-- living systems, complete and autonomous in themselves.

2. Being infinite and complete in itself, a living system is itself the only viable foundation for its study. No comprehensive standards exist outside of a living system which can aptly be applied to understanding the infinite dynamics of that specific system.

3. A living system is not a machine, and cannot be built by a mechanistic or reductionistic approach. The actual processes of organization, structure, building, and maintenance of a living system are paradoxical and cannot be understood from a Newtonian or Cartesian perspective. The "parts" of an organism or an ecosystem are given their design by the whole, or totality of the system.

4. Living systems are made up of processes that permit self-organization and self-building, recursiveness, self-knowing, and self-management (autonomy) by means of internal values. Living systems are driven by values-- a 'democratic' heterarchy of functions of living process. Values give order and direction to living systems.

5. Living systems constantly generate a coherence (holistic and harmonic), a rhythm, motion, and change that is growing, contracting, expanding, forming, maturing, and transforming.

6. The natural order and logic of living systems transcend traditional thinking and logic. The natural foundation of life and living systems will serve as a complete body of unfolding standards to which all of the sciences of the future will aspire.

7. Our understanding of the processes of life, living systems, and nature in general will increase dramatically as we begin to create versions of a scientific language and meta-logic of nature and living systems. This will be accomplished by letting go of obsolete (and in some cases to a large extent arbitrarily invented) symbols, syntaxes, and logics-- e.g., Aristotelian, Cartesian, Newtonian-- ultimately even Einsteinian and quantum-- and embracing worthy new perspectives and models discovered at the vanguard of all fields of science, notably biology as it will exist in the near future.

C. The new science will emerge out of the now fully-mature autognomic process philosophy with the successful synthesis of a sufficient formal scientific language to describe and carry the emerging epi-logics now being matched with specific dynamics observed in natural systems. As new discoveries and innovations appear on the scientific horizon, autognomic theory will reorganize and revolutionize itself to match the ever-expanding and deepening picture of our universe as it reveals itself to us.

The purpose of science

Since we are considering the ushering-in of a new science, it might be helpful to ask the question, what is the purpose of science? Most scientists would probably agree that the purpose of science is to discover and create new ways to perceive and explain reality with ever-increasing clarity and in the context of ever-broadening and more complete perspective. Simply put, the purpose of science is to make more sense of more of the objects and activities that comprise our various environments and our universe (or universes) with the progression of time. In the physical sciences this means perceiving the shapes and colors and behaviors of objects and organisms and activities in the physical universe, and their relationships from an ever-broadening viewpoint. In the social sciences it means perceiving the patterns in personal, social, economic, and political systems and behaviors of people with the same ever-expanding perspective.

Given the static structure of our English language, that is probably the best we can do to suggest the element of constant change that true scientific inquiry involves.
The 'other half ' of the purpose of science, which is more easily obscured or dismissed in a reductionistic-mechanistic climate of procedure, is the responsibility that every scientist has-- whether or not he chooses to recognize it-- to carefully place his discovery in the context of his local and global community. From a living systems approach, Hirst emphasizes, this is a natural part of science. In an approach to science that relies entirely upon the whole organism or community functioning in a healthy living condition, a scientist puts on his respect, so to speak, when he puts on his glasses.

The world of tomorrow

What will our world look like a hundred years from now? If a growing minority of scientists have their way, the world will look as different then as the seventeenth century world looks to us today. We've already experienced one scientific revolution. Now another one is on the verge of beginning.

What will make the difference is not an extension of today's science, but rather an entirely new "paradigm"-- a new model of science. The old model served well for almost three hundred years, and brought us into a much different world than that of our Renaissance ancestors.

Out of science history

That old theoretical foundation was the seventeenth century reductionist, or mechanistic approach (the two terms being mostly interchangeable) inherited partly from the ancient Greek atomists and further developed and formalized by philosopher Rene Descartes and mathematician Isaac Newton. According to the reductionist/mechanistic view, a system is best understood by analyzing an assemblage of its basic parts, with the belief that, when we know how the smallest components are put together, we will know how the object (or organism or community) under study works. Physics, chemistry, and biology have used this approach for centuries. If you isolate the most fundamental particles they can be assembled into atoms. Atoms can be assembled into molecules. Molecules can then be assembled into cells. Cells can in turn be assembled into organs, and finally organs into organisms. Entire living systems can be put together in the same way that they were taken apart. It worked fine with machines. Today we know that it isn't that simple with organic systems. For Descartes and Newton, the material cosmos was a vast machine. Every object was a part in the machine, and every organism was a little machine within the larger one. But a number of unprecedented scientific findings abruptly burst the boundaries of the old model.

Everybody do the paradigm shift!

In the decades since philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn published his theory of scientific revolutions, there has been a lot of talk in scientific circles about a new paradigm. "The word 'paradigm,' according to Hirst, refers to those scientific assumptions, both stated and unstated, which give meaning and validity to potential knowledge. For example, physicians are trained to view the body as a biochemical machine. Illness suggests that the machine is broken and someone has to fix it by known physical means, such as the addition of chemicals that alter the chemistry of the machine. Thus physicians turn to drugs. In contrast, the ancient Chinese and Indian models of energy flows carrying out the processes of self-creation and maintenance of the physical body may appear nonsensical to someone who believes in biochemical machines."

In the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first few decades of the twentieth, a rapid series of discoveries and innovations occurred in the fields of human thought which, figuratively speaking, turned the known universe upside down-- and inside out. With the discovery of a number of paradoxes in mathematics and in the observed behavior of sub-atomic particles, it became evident that some of the theories and models basic to existing physical sciences-- especially physics-- and mathematics were obsolete. Those discoveries precipitated a crisis on a scale never known before. Suddenly, the sciences became disciplines shaken by revolution. The best minds in every field were not merely searching for isolated laws and classifications; now they were looking beyond small local structure and behaviors to discover larger, more inclusive patterns that could be part of a new foundation for understanding the deepest workings of the universe as a whole. Early notions of a science of systems appeared at the torn edge of physics, taking on several forms, all fragmentary but promising in terms of the evolution of science as a whole. Intriguing words have been attached to several tentative approaches to the awaited new science. Terms such as "chaos", "complexity", "systems approach", and "emergence" have been circulating energetically since the '60s and '70s, but although they represent fascinating and potentially valuable insights from beyond the cold dark "fringe" of the old paradigm of physics, they are all still homeless fragments of theory drifting in search of a solid foundation. That makes them no less exciting, and probably not a bit less useful in the search.

A new ground for biology

For centuries, physics has been the fundamental science, the parent science from which all others have derived their root principles and models. The chemical models of molecules, compounds, crystallization, and even biochemistry's early models of DNA and neuron synapses, were all based upon and informed by preceding models in physics. With the bedrock of physics theory as an unquestioned foundation-- after all, even in the twentieth century climate of radical change, what other foundation would replace the science of how things move and arrange themselves?-- the complex tower of chemistry and biochemistry in turn supported an even more complex figurative attic of biology, on top of whose roof the social sciences grew.

A century ago, this hierarchical arrangement made neat logical sense. But even today, physicists and mathematicians still stand looking into a yawning chasm that stretches between the macro-cosmic theory of Einsteinian space-time and the micro-cosmic sub-atomic quantum mechanics. Half a century ago it would have come as a surprise to many that the theoretical foundation for the next step in science would be found in an overview not of physics, but of biology, and such "soft" sciences as psychology-- not in the traditional foundation of science, but in its attic-- and even, perhaps, out on its roof! Now, for the first time in our history, biology stands on even ground with physics as a seminal theoretical science.

Promising variations on the holistic systems view popularized during the 1970s and '80s by Fritjof Capra, Ken Wilber and others have met with sporadic support, and remain largely in waiting for a formal system of language and logic to carry them into full scientific effectiveness. But like others working out on the frontiers of science, Hirst believes that our universe-- and our place in it-- are ultimately intelligible, though in a gradually unfolding course of discovery. We will never understand or intuit every aspect of those graduated enigmas, but our understanding of the various environments and activities and relationships that make up our universe and our existence in it will broaden and deepen, and in the process our collective human consciousness will evolve. The process, Hirst believes, is already underway. Like other important revolutions that have swept through our world since human time began-- the cultivation of fire, iron, the printing press, vaccines and antibiotics, and the current information revolution-- the movement in our consciousness that is showing itself now will increase in force and span as the new century gives up its new discoveries.

Upsides and downsides of paradigms

The positive side of any paradigm, or scientific model, is the practical guidance it provides. Scientists need a certain degree of structure before they can apply their thinking to any subject or problem practical intelligence and skill. The negative side of a paradigm shows itself when, in spite of a pressing need to let go of the old temporary model-- and all models in science must be treated as temporary-- we continue to rely upon it. To take the example of computer technology, if we had never replaced our old transistor circuit boards with microchip technology, our personal computers would require large areas of our houses and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and supercomputers would be the size of small cities. In the case of medicine, where even the smallest differences can mean life or death for thousands or even millions of people, Louis Pasteur's demonstrations that microorganisms produce diseases (rather than "humors" or the even vaguer "bad blood" attributed as the cause of diseases by doctors of his time) saved many lives and laid a platform for further research in the new field of microbiology, which was carried into the twentieth century with the development of van Leeuwenhoek's microscope. If Pasteur hadn't abandoned old notions in the medicine theory of his day, who knows how long preventative sterilization and a lot of life-saving vaccines and antibiotics would have waited? Today, the search continues for cures for cancers, Aids, diabetes, and other serious diseases for which no effective vaccines or antibiotics yet exist. Perhaps the next breakthrough in viral disease research will come out of the work of someone who had a hunch and looked in a completely new direction for a solution.
In spite of the fact that thousands of discoveries have burst the old scientific framework, there is still today a lingering adherence to antiquated procedure, following the lines of the traditional theoretical foundation, which has now been proved obsolete many times over.

As an example of the contrast between the traditional reductionistic-mechanistic logic and philosophy supporting past science and the new logics and philosophy now being matched to patterns observed in nature, organisms are systems that have traditionally been seen, as pointed out above, as being constructed like erector sets or automobiles out of trillions of parts, from atoms, to cells, to organs, to organisms. This view works for simple machines, but not for living systems, according to the new theories. Holistic, harmonic fields of electromagnetic energy and even consciousness form and inform organisms and the "parts" that make them up. The organizing field changes the "parts", such as the atoms, in accord with a higher-order design. The "parts" are not the same within the system as they were before becoming part of it.

Windows and handles on paradox

Jon Ray Hamann, a co-founder of Autognomics Institute, writes:

Humankind is poised for an imminent worldwide paradigmatic metamorpho- genesis in the very essence of scientific, technological, humanistic, cultural,
social thought and actions... causing fundamental shifts which will reveal new logics, mathematics, even new sciences beyond our current scientific world
view... moving us towards a wholeness that transcends a polarized, splintered
separated, competitive and despairing existence.

What our newest windows of insight into the complex and mysterious corners of our universe are offering us, is a collection of small handles that we can use in order to gain some measure of grip on the paradoxes which we repeatedly encounter in this new universe that began unfolding before us a century ago. The "new paradigm" in the sciences seems to be comprised entirely of natural paradox, like one smooth, continuous, and impenetrable contoured surface that winds its mysterious way through everything. It is necessary to have some understanding of what natural paradox is about, in order to comprehend the kinds of logic that support and carry autognomic theory.

By definition, paradox is a condition of having contradictory characteristics. A paradox seems to be both true and not true simultaneously. Perhaps the most famous examples of paradox are Zeno's paradoxes of space and motion, which "prove" by logic that motion is impossible. Paradox of that kind points mostly, if not entirely, to the inherent incapacity of language and existing concepts to describe or explain a phenomenon or situation in its entirety. Paradox appears in nature whenever a pattern found in a natural system is too large or too complex to be perceived or measured in its entirety by a human observer. Quantum physics abounds with paradoxes, and each one of them has sent its own shocks through the physical sciences. Says Hirst, "Quantum physics, with its paradoxes, comes the closest of any phenomena we know to the paradoxes we find in living systems. Resolutions of these paradoxes requires a paradigm beyond what is currently imaginable. It appears that quantum physics and living systems may require the same new paradigm." Paradox, of the magnitude we find it in quantum physics is not something any scientist can just shake off.
An example of paradoxical behavior in quantum physics that did not fall into existing standard atomic theory when it was discovered experimentally, is the single electron that, when fired at multiple targets acts like a wave and passes through all of the targets simultaneously. It would appear at first to be a contradiction for a physicist to assert that what he had isolated before all of the targets were simultaneously hit was in fact one electron. Surely, there must be some mistake, or some flaw in the equipment. Electrons are, after all, sub-atomic particles, and such particles take up small, definite volumes in space. Waves and fields had the capacity to spread out to multiple locations, but everyone knew that electrons were solid particles. --Or were they? Enter the notion of the quantum function of an electron. A paradoxical new model, or part of one. The quantum electron encountered by the early interpreters of quantum mechanics was neither fully particle nor fully wave or field, but could function as all three alternately. Physicists were left to argue whether those shifts were between actual functions of the nature of electrons or merely shifts in the perspective of human observers. That debate, along with others sparked by quantum discoveries, still continues.

A few other equally mysterious behaviors displayed by the electron were observed in the orbit shells around atoms. Physicist Max Planck's term "quantum" referred to specific quantifiable amounts of energy that determined which orbit an electron positioned itself in. The orbit shell closest to the nucleus of an atom-- orbit shell S-- was comprised of two electrons in field state-- two quanta. These two electrons were said to be in orbit separately as two distinct particles, yet together they formed one field, called the orbit shell. Werner Heisenberg, one of the international team of physicists and mathematicians who worked during the first three decades of the twentieth century to solve the quantum puzzle, presented the statement that at the microscopic, or quantum level, it is not possible to determine the momentum or position of a sub-atomic particle with absolute precision. Strange, but it gets stranger. Each electron within a given orbit shell S, P, or K was found theoretically to be vibrating at a specific frequency and with a specific level of energy, which together determined which of the three orbit shells the electron belonged in. Electrons with higher energy (and proportionately higher frequencies of radiation) were positioned in outer orbits, according to a precise architectural design that all atoms seemed to go by. Whenever an electron receives extra energy or loses energy, it no longer belongs in its current orbit shell and must jump to the closest neighboring shell-- farther away from the nucleus if it gained energy, or closer to the nucleus if it lost energy. But here is where it gets very mysterious. At the moment when the electron leaves a shell bound for another one, it completely vanishes from detection. It seems to cease to exist. And then, just as mysteriously, it reappears in a new and proper position around the nucleus, with a new precise level of energy and an exactly proportionate frequency. What was happening in that space between the two orbits? Where did the electron go in between orbits? Was it travelling through a wormhole in subspace? Or was the new electron even the same one that left the old shell? Did it cease to exist upon leaving the first shell, and was a new electron spontaneously created in the next shell-- and at what might have been the exact same moment? If so, where and what did the old electron disappear into, and what was the invisible matrix it was created out of?

For a future science

There were no conclusive answers found for these questions in the first thirty years of quantum interpretation, and as it stands today, the same questions are just as puzzling. A few theoretical predictions have been verified with the development of certain pieces of equipment for measuring and observing objects and activities on microscopic levels. For example, our newest electron microscopes are capable of such extreme magnification that we can now view individual atoms and even actual quantum fields, which appear like crests and ripples on a liquid surface. Are we perhaps getting close to being capable of viewing something beyond our present sub-atomic model-- perhaps even an undiscovered energetic foundation with a shape so paradoxical that we presently have no visual frame of reference to imagine it?
One thing remains as certain now as it was a century ago: neither Newtonian physics nor Cartesian binary logic (which insists that an electron is either a particle or not a particle, and exists or does not exist) can touch the new electron. Real understanding of the quantum particle/wave/field entity belongs to a future science. In 1900 there were already a number of examples of phenomena which that future science would have to explain, but even as another century turned, no new foundation had yet been discovered in which to arrange all of those pieces of the cosmic puzzle together in a way that makes sense.

When paradox and complexity hit mathematics

At the same time as physicists were attempting to make sense of the quantum discoveries, a crisis was erupting in the field of mathematics. One example of the baffling problems that greeted mathematicians of the new century was the "three body" problem, stated by Henri Poincare in 1890. When calculating the gravitational effects of one heavenly body on another-- the moon on the earth, for instance-- the force of gravitational attraction between the two bodies could be calculated with practical accuracy using Newtonian equations. But when a third body-- say, the sun-- was introduced into consideration, the entire operation exploded into infinite complexity. As soon as the gravitational influence of the sun was factored in, a staggering difficulty arose. The pull of the moon on the earth caused disturbances in the orbit of the earth around the sun, which in turn altered the moon's prior orbit around the earth. That variation affected the moon's pull on the earth, which in turn caused yet another disturbance in the earth's orbit around the sun. The "three body" problem would prove in the twentieth century to be just one of many problems mathematicians would encounter which would involve very real infinite regression and would call for an entirely new calculus-- and a new foundation for mathematics as a whole. The "new paradigm" mathematics would need to be compatible with activities of infinite complexity, a challenge which both our technology and our logic would have to rise to.

A logical revolution

According to Hirst, "The fundamental revolution will occur in logic." The logics that will provide a new formal foundation for the coming sciences will not rely upon consistency. "These new logics," says Hirst, "unlike the old ones, will allow for time, change, novelty, and even paradox as basic features in the process dynamics of nature. The logics forming and guiding process philosophy are distinct from traditional logic in their departure from a frame of reference dominated by things. The languages of the old logic are dominated by nouns. But there are languages that emphasize verbs, languages more suitable for describing events, acts, and activities. Process philosophy. Central to the notion of process is the idea of what is being done, or acts, rather than the static idea of what is." Can logic be expressed strictly in terms of acts? The answer is yes, it can be. A relatively new and promising branch of non-standard logics called combinatory, or epi-logics, fit this requirement of process philosophy. Acts are features built into the working design of combinatory logic equations.

Logic is presently undergoing a revolution. Logic today is as different from logic of the past as quantum physics is different from Newtonian physics. Perhaps even more so!

"The whole revolution," Hirst says, "is in the shift from the traditional static model to a dynamic process model. My conclusions will indicate that our contemporary science has been magnificently successful in dealing with the simple systems of [past] technology, but when it comes to life and complex systems, contemporary science is misleading, even to being largely wrong."

Mechanistic, reductionistic, and binary thinking (true, or not true; existing, or not existing) will perhaps always have their place in sciences and technology, but their limits need to be recognized and their roles reevaluated in accord with the new perspective that has already long been emerging in the sciences.

The precise and orderly behavior of electrons around atomic nuclei is a prime example of the natural patterns scientists are discovering everywhere and today's mathematics has an almost uncanny capacity to describe. "No one," says Hirst,"has succeeded in explaining why the math works as well as it does in some cases-- why natural patterns of order and numbers are so close. What was once called the "music of the spheres" is today found in the harmonic and marvelously precise patterns of electrons rising and falling from one orbit to another, and of organic molecules vibrating in liquid suspension and arranging themselves into cells-- the symphony of the natural universe.

Laying the new foundation

In selecting new theoretical and logical underpinnings, builders of the new science have been determining the domain of discourse. "For physics, in Newton's time," says Hirst, "the domain of discourse consisted of such basic notions as numbers, space, time, force, and particles. Also needed was a formal scientific language and a calculus, which was created by Newton and Leibniz. Today, three hundred years after Newton, we live in a world transformed by the formal system of the infinitesimal calculus combined with the natural laws discovered by Newton, Maxwell, and others. We can only vaguely imagine the extent of the next transformation, which will occur when the theories and discoveries now being unraveled are unified in one scientific theory.
Autognomics, as a science of life and living systems, will rely upon a philosophy of process, which is built upon a number of notions that are very different from the ones that supported the science of the past. Says Norm Hirst, "The real revolution is in the process viewpoint. Process philosophy goes from the traditional static consideration of objects and fixed states, to dynamic consideration of function, movement, and activity." The difference between the old perspective and the new is as large as the difference between viewing still slides on a projector screen and watching a movie in a cinema of the future, where the images are projected three-dimensionally in the space in front of us, and sounds and smells and breezes surround us. In fact, the difference is even larger, since it is actually infinite.

A process science-- the science of the future-- will describe an infinitely vast and complex living universe, a universe that we don't have to stop or break apart to learn about.

Here are a few examples of the limitations built into traditional logics, which make them obsolete, contrasted against characteristics of newly emerging logics that serve a living systems approach:

Traditional logics

are truth preserving

are thing oriented (extensional)

are consistent (which denies process)

are static

exclude self-reference, self-knowing require self-reference

exclude values

Living systems logics

are creative

meaning oriented (intensional)

allow oscillation

are dynamic

self-knowing

are value-driven

Similarly, Nicholas Rescher, a contemporary philosopher and meta-logician studying new logics, contrasts the new process philosophy of a true dynamic open systems approach against the long-dominant static, object-bound substance philosophy:

Substance philosophy

discrete individuality

separateness

condition (fixity of nature) activity (self-development)

uniformity of nature

unity of being

descriptive fixity

classificatory stability fluidity and evanescence

passivity (being acted upon)

Building life

Process philosophy

interactive relatedness

wholeness (totality)

innovation/novelty

unity of law (functional typology)

productive energy, drive, etc.

activity (agency)

Try to build an animal or a plant-- even a single-cell plankton-- out of raw organic compounds. Good luck. It would be easier to rebuild every city on earth, or rewrite every history book, than it would be to create one tiny living cell from scratch. Why? The answer-- or part of it, anyway-- is that something is missing. Something invisible, yet undetectable, but something very important nonetheless.

Some say that that something emanates from God. Others say it's a kind of energetic matrix and leave it at that. Whether the perspective is spiritual or purely scientific, it is a matter of philosophical speculation. But one fact remains: something is missing.

Aristotle's philosophy of physics featured the doctrine of the "four causes". The causes were listed in their functional order. The first cause was the material cause, which, if one were building a house, would be the materials used-- the lumber, the nails, the shingles for the roof, etc. The second was the moving, or efficient cause-- the carpenter building the house and the movements he made, such as swinging the hammer, drilling the holes in the boards, and raising sections of the frame. The third cause in building Aristotle's house was the formal cause-- the planned form or design of the physical house. And the last and highest level of causation Aristotle asserted was the final cause, by which he meant the purpose or end of the house.

Since the Renaissance, that final, teleological cause has been conspicuously absent from scientific-- and certainly from mathematical-- consideration. For centuries form has been the descriptive and explanatory ceiling in the physical sciences and their coexisting mathematics, with a material floor, and movement, energy, and change of all kinds as the efficient, moving cause overemphasized in the modern and postmodern eras as the entire continuum in which all objects and events take their places in the universe, with no teleology-- no underlying, overarching plan or intelligibility of wholeness. Our current (residual) dominant scientific paradigm accounts for nothing more than the most predictable motion of particles-- the domain of physics. Biology, as it is predominately conducted today, accounts for only material cause (of the four causes Aristotle recognized)." But life, and living systems, involve all four causes, according to Hirst, including the final, teleological cause. For centuries, that final, teleological cause (Greek telos, end, purpose) has been conspicuously absent from scientific-- and certainly from mathematical-- consideration. Subsequently, today's sciences are restricted to the first three causes, based on the prevalent belief that consideration of final causation introduces unacceptable teleology. That belief is rooted in the ongoing struggle to keep science free and clear of clouding mystifications which might come from contact with religion or mysticism. It is a historically justifiable issue, but the restriction it brings, says Hirst, "introduces serious distortion in the study of infinitely complex self-organizing systems such as organisms and their communities.

Mathematical biologist Robert Rosen, one of the growing population of scientists whose forward-thinking approach to inquiry is drawing the attention of the researchers at Autognomics Institute, proposed in his book Life Itself (19 ) that we reconsider Aristotle's fourth level of causality in light of the emerging scientific perspective. Aristotle's doctrine of "final" causation stated that things and events in the world can best be explained by some purpose or good to which they are conducive. "If a biologist of today proposed a final cause, writes Hirst, "he or she would be drummed out of the profession. But from a whole system perspective it makes sense that in the multiple levels of divergent logic governing an organism, a higher level's logic places demands on a lower level. For example, a liver requires the cells that compose it to be quite different from the cells that compose an eye. Can we not consider the requirements of the higher level to be a final cause for the lower level? By contemporary thinking, we can't because the higher level doesn't exist until the lower level exists to make it. There can be no liver until there are liver cells. But where did the plan for liver cells come from? From an autognomic perspective, the liver instructs and guides the coming cells-- not only after the liver is formed, but also before its formation has begun." The theory is not mere blind Platonic mysticism: the process theory of autognomics proposes specifically that biology of the future will demonstrate that the code we read in genetic material is much more like a journal of events than it is like a governing chemical computer. Although genes have catalytic function, they are organized rather than primary organizing agents themselves. Now we are getting to the most fundamental level-- the level of metaphysics (or, more accurately, meta-physics) and logic. At this level we can begin to understand the blinding limitations of our most fundamental paradigms and how they contribute to our failure to comprehend processes, the values which order and drive those processes, and life itself.

If we were to rely solely upon our traditional models of scientific inquiry we could have no adequate understanding of life. There are important processes in life and living systems which are not being acknowledged by current scientific procedures. Learning these dynamics would benefit us greatly. Problems such as the organization of genomes, the arrangement of molecules composing a virus shell, and the processing of thoughts and decisions in the human brain might have solutions in the near future.
Biologists such as Mae-Wan Ho, Beverly Rubik, and Valerie Hunt are studying the bioelectrodynamic qualities of living organisms. Their studies of the bioelectric fields organizing various types of organisms have demonstrated that living organisms are liquid crystalline in their composition, permeated with low-level, highly organized electrical activity. Studies of the bioelectrical processes within and around living organisms could provide observable evidence of an organic (harmonic-holistic) teleology involving organizing bioelectric fields. Applications of the new theory could lead to significant advances in medicine.

Surrounded as we are by a universe filled with complexity and unpredictable changes, scientists in many fields, from artificial intelligence, to immunology, to psychology, will find it increasingly practical to think beyond the merely physical, and increasingly impractical not to. Meta-physical and meta-logical problem-solving need not be confused with religious faith or blind mystification of processes which are ultimately-- if gradually-- intelligible. Meta-physical thinking, in terms of twenty-first century science, is needed thinking "outside the box." Without thinking like that, the sophisticated cutting edge equipment and techniques that are pushing medicine forward so rapidly today wouldn't have a ghost of a chance.

From the inside

There is a principle which all of the particles and minerals and organisms in nature are built upon. It's a precious secret that every one of us has seen at work, but our science does not possess the key to: everything natural-- diamonds and trees and our human bodies alike-- all take their design and grow from the inside out. We, on the other hand, do and create everything in the opposite direction-- that is, from the outside in. The way nature works is a kind of open secret we've known about for uncounted centuries but haven't ever known how to apply in our sciences and technologies. Working from the inside out is one of the primary principles of the processes making up any living systems we've encountered. It's something so close to us-- literally closer than our own breath-- and yet we've never learned how to use it.

The idea of beginning to understand this principle-- which is an entirely new logical foundation-- inspires questions. What benefits would there be with thinking and creating from the inside out, like a vortex moves, or a tree grows? Could we solve our problems more easily and more completely? Could we better handle the paradox and complexity we encounter in our world and in our universe-- even infinite complexity? Nature manages pretty well. Why wouldn't we?

In social theory, the word "autonomy" connotes personal liberty and the ability to manage oneself. Likewise, in nature autonomy refers to the ability of an organism to manage the processes of its internal functions and thereby sustain itself within its environment, which in many cases can be extremely hostile to the organism. Unlike machines, which are closed systems relying upon the outside environment only for energy input, organisms are open systems which, by definition thrive on almost constant interaction with the environment 'outside' their boundaries. Autonomy in a plant or an animal involves not only sustaining within its skin, but also in an environment that includes widely varying temperatures, food shortages, predators and parasites, and even periods without life-sustaining water. Autonomy implies some form of intelligent organization. It is this innate intelligence in living systems which some biologists are beginning to look at in a new way. They are beginning to put aside the strictly biochemical model and considering the possible presence of a level of consciousness within cells.

In recent years, two Chilean biologists, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, began developing a study of this principle of self-making and self-sustaining in organisms, which they termed autopoiesis-- literally "self-making." Biologists who follow this line of study will concern themselves with the internal processes by which living organisms both create and maintain themselves in a state of autonomy in a constantly changing ecological niche.

"The behavior of simple (mechanical) systems," according to Hirst, "is changed by an applied force, from outside the system. But living systems are governed from within, by laws of value. Value laws are rules for navigation. They are fixed, like traffic laws." On the highway the importance of certain fixed rules is obvious when we consider the alternative to following them. In nature laws of navigation are just as crucial.

Values directing process

What are values in a living system? "Values in nature are functions of process which order and drive the dynamics of an organism or a community of organisms," says Norm Hirst, sounding slightly abstract. "Facts serve a process of valuation," he continues, giving us a key into his meaning. The fact of a limit-- concerning food or temperature, for instance-- sets value for an organism, such as a polar bear, who must increase her food intake weeks in advance to prepare against the demands of the coming winter, or a desert skink, who uses the light of the morning sun to warm his body after a near-freezing night.

As with the traditional connotations of logic, when we hear the word "values" we think immediately of ideas invented by people to describe and prescribe what is important to us. But the use of values is not dependent upon brains with the capacity for abstract thought-- or even upon brains at all. For a microbiologist searching for laws of value, values would be found within the walls of living, working plant or animal cells, where essential organic compounds (such as the thousands of vitamins that still remain uncatelouged and unstudied) are assimilated by ingestion of food, or where waste is ejected before it can poison the cell, or where a protective membrane is thickened against a danger of cell wall compromise. An ecologist, on the other hand, studying an entire community of organisms, or a sociologist studying changes in one or more human communities, might conduct his search for laws of value in a population of millions, billions, or even trillions.

But regardless of the scale the search was conducted on-- micro or macro, individual or community-- that search would begin in precisely the same place where all values and activities come together and have relationship with each other-- namely, the whole, or totality of the living system. A biologist, a sociologist, or a psychologist working from a living systems perspective considers all functioning values from the ground or base of the entire system itself. What exactly does that mean? It means simply that values are conceived within the totality of the living system itself, whether that living system is a single tree frog in a Costa Rican rainforest, an eco-system of marine extremophiles thriving in darkness around a thermal spring thousands of feet below an ocean surface, or a nation of humans with dialects and customs so divergent that communication between villages is difficult. The specific living contexts differ widely, and each system is its own context.

Of course, values for many non-human organisms are largely or almost entirely set by their instinctive natures. In the case of humans, most values must be taught, tested by experience, and discovered. According to G.E. Moore, the central problem of human ethics is the definition of "what is good." One of the most obvious "bottom line" understandings of "the good" would seem to be that it does not threaten the organism with injury or extinction. But the phenomenon of altruism in the animal kingdom points in a very different direction. Socially oriented organisms, such as ants and bees and humans-- and of course the mothers of many species-- frequently demonstrate a higher valuation placed in something outside of the physical borders of their own bodies. Among worker ants, the greatest "good" seems to be the continuation of the colony as a whole. A worker will voluntarily lay down her life, for instance, as a bridge over dangerous water so that others of her colony can climb to safety. Because of the extensive development of our brains, the human relationship to values is necessarily a more abstract one; still altruism is a value with high priority among many of the members of our species. Rescue workers in disaster situations-- after earthquakes, floods, and bombings-- risk serious injury and death in every incident.

Drawing partly upon the works of G.E. Moore, Robert Hartman developed a theory of axiology-- the study of values and value laws-- applicable to living systems, including humans and our communities. Hartman's theory of axiology is one of the first of a growing number of new bodies of insight which Hirst and his colleagues have found both instructive and inspiring in the ongoing development of autognomic theory.

Human values

"For the first time in history," Hirst says from his desk at the Autognomics Institute, "we are beginning to understand what values are all about. Up until now, most of our thinking and logic have been based upon things-- objects and machines. Our sciences have forced us into an impasse and crashed." The empty, monolithic values that drive and govern much of our social and personal lives are far too superficial, vastly incompatible with the demands of a complex and living world. "The values we humans live by set the tone for our experience of living," says Hirst. The predominant values that are currently driving our collective global civilization are money (validation of personal and organizational power), status (fear of being left behind), and immediate gratification (short term gain, compulsive spending, addictions, and other forms of escape, not the least of which, especially in the U.S., are sensational entertainment which sells sex and violence as substitutes for thinking creatively and feeling deeply).

"It's often said that we're all connected at some deep level", Hirst says. "I find that to be true, although the deep level is not understood. As long as our psychological spaces were independent enough, to maintain virtual separation, we were able to act as if that connection wasn't real. But as the world shrank our psychological spaces became interdependent. We began to experience ourselves as cells in a living system. Now we need to think differently and act differently. I detect a change in consciousness occurring-- the first step in learning to think differently." However, Hirst continues, "while much of the talk is different, people's actions are still following the old ways of thinking. That is why so many institutions are failing to keep pace with the demands of contemporary civilization.

"The current technological and information explosion out-pace our human capacity to comprehend or discover consequences resulting from a borderless world, a second industrial revolution, the world of digerati. There is both an information and a technology explosion beyond anyone's ability to manage or absorb. Product developments are being driven solely by free enterprise values with little consideration for ethics or consequences to all forms of life. We have no way of knowing short and long range consequences of such activities as genetic engineering, for instance."

Tracking loops and knots

The Union of International Organizations (UIA) in Brussels, Belgium, which was founded in 1910 and has 20,000 organizations as members, maintains a database of 1200 world problems. An interesting development in the world problems database is the tracking of connections between problems, including the display of circularity. For example, problem A exacerbates problem B, which in turn exacerbates problem C, which then comes back to exacerbate problem A. This constitutes a reinforcing loop. In addition to tracking such loops, the database also tracks the interactions of separate but related loops. Thus the various problems in the world form a holistic network. This is in line with autognomic theory. It is clear that attempts to solve the problems piecemeal will fail. Specific examples abound in the fields of medicine, aeronautics, city planning, the court systems and corrections, to mention only a few.

According to UIA, what is needed to get out of the loops and solve the world problems is an understanding of values that can lead to a coherent worldwide human potential movement. But, as the UIA argues, there is no such understanding of values. Their own studies list hundreds of value words, both positive and negative, along with value oppositions and some surprising empirical observations. For example, belief systems that combine both positive and negative values work better than belief systems dedicated to positive values alone. They confess that a belief system everyone could agree to isn't in the offing. But a single belief system everyone could agree to is neither necessary nor desirable. Holistic perspective regarding social systems does not call for a potentially totalitarian approach. Instead, what is required is to understand the axiological equivalence of diverse systems. This will require understanding the role of values in the life processes.

"It's better," Hirst believes, "to have variety and diversity in belief systems. What is key is greater understanding of values and how to navigate around differences of values. Then there can be a coherent human potential movement without recourse to totalitarianism. The human world we live in is folding in on itself and tying itself up in figurative knots. Those knots are problems which our present level of technology or know-how does not equip us to solve. With the proliferation that has occurred in our sciences and technologies, and in our sheer population, many of the problems which have grown to be both gargantuan and urgent are also inextricably interconnected--interwoven-- with other problems both large and small. The problems we face are chemical, social, bureaucratic, economic, technical, and so forth. Many of these world problems are very different from each other, but all of them converge in one place-- namely, the personal/global sphere of our lives. Those many figurative knots cannot be approached piecemeal, one by one. They must be treated as local manifestations of a single collective global knot, or super knot, as if they are all composed of the same thread. The logic of this view is not that all world problems are caused by the same thing, but that they are all problems impacting each one of us, to one degree or another, either actually or potentially, and that they are all related by the human denominator-- that is, they are all related in our lives.

The global knot of problems is growing bigger by the day. Precisely because it is a tangled conundrum that cannot be resolved completely at any one place, it will be of tremendous benefit to all of us that as many individuals and teams as possible in every conceivable field come to understand and apply the living systems approach-- the sooner, Hirst believes, the better.

Functions of a scientific language

The first step in building the science of autognomics out of the philosophy of autognomics was to reform our notions of logic. The second step-- having gathered our basic notions and chosen workable new logics that match and describe to a greater degree than before the dynamics of natural process-- is to construct a formal scientific language for the precise description of autognomic theory. That new language won't be displayed in this article-- only because it hasn't quite been formulated yet-- but a few things can be said about its two main functions and its structure.
The first function of a scientific language is to unify useful existing notions and logics within one practical system of consideration and study. The new scientific language will be required to describe the dynamic notions of change, complexity, harmonic holism, and paradox, among others.

For Hartman, the difference between philosophy and science was found in the sign vehicles-- the language-- used for inquiry. For philosophy, the sign vehicle is relatively colloquial language shaped and honed by philosophers to fit the particular usages their subjects demanded. For science, the sign vehicle is formal language-- notably those used for logic and mathematics. Philosophy addresses the meanings of concepts, based on the personal perspectives and beliefs of individuals, and in language subject to wide variations in meaning. By virtue of that fact, the meanings expressed in philosophy are not precise.

Science concerns itself with the relations of objects and activities and behaviors to each other in precise language. In order to build a full science that describes the processes and laws of value in living systems, a scientific language will need to be formalized, based upon a 'deep' logic and 'geometry' of functions not yet discovered.
The methods of notation projected by Hirst for the new language will stem from innovations such as the newly developed epi-logics and the work of G. Spencer Brown, whose equations are compatible with aspects of infinitely complex systems.
.
"The difference between philosophy and science is a difference in methods of inquiry."
--Norm Hirst

Norm Hirst elaborates: "The methods of inquiry of philosophy and science are complementary, being applied to the same subject matter. The methods of philosophy are analytic and inductive, whereas the methods of science are synthetic and deductive. For any given subject matter, the initial inquiry must be philosophical. Science can only begin when philosophical inquiry has sufficiently matured." Hirst agrees with Hartman's assessment that process philosophy has matured sufficiently to take the next step.

The essential difference between the philosophic and scientific languages involves the progression of thought, or how one thought may lead to the next.

For the nonformal language employed by philosophy, thought progresses based on the "felt sense" of meaning invoked by the progression of sentences. People may differ on their senses of meaning, but in dialogue they converge on a common acceptable sense. This process of rendering meaning is useful for exploration in areas of consideration that are not yet fully understood and where, if we had to speak precisely nothing could be said. To develop a science, a formal language needs to be constructed.

The second function of a scientific language

A scientific language is made up of terms that are fixed and definite in their meanings, so that they are incapable of causing confusion in their use. Using a formal scientific language, specific rules are then identified by which scientists can talk with each other about the subject of their inquiry.

For the formal language employed by science, the meaning of every symbol or sign is totally specified, often by defining axioms. Thought processes proceed by rules of inference applied to the specified meanings represented in that precise language.
"A scientific language is like a thought-recipe", Hirst explains. It has to be written using terms and symbols that are precise, definite, and fixed in their context and meaning, so that when one scientist in Arizona types in a term or symbol another scientist in Osaka or Sao Paulo knows with certainty that she has precisely the same understanding of its meaning as the scientist who sent it. That isn't always possible with philosophy, where the language used to convey meanings is relatively colloquial, and therefore subject to shifts in perspective, personal bias, and other distortions. For example, when a social philosopher refers to "capitalist" or "socialist" policies, there are a number of possible meanings for each of these terms, depending upon contingencies such as which time period is being specified, which nation or regime, and even which branch of the ideology one is concerned with. And, as is the case with many words relied upon for meaning in philosophy, the terms "capitalist" and "socialist" actually overlap in some contexts of political and governmental policy and procedure. A nation or regime which calls itself "socialist" may also be largely "capitalist" in its structure and operation. And then there are the differences in perspective, where one self-called "socialist" nation may be considered predominately "capitalist" by another "socialist" nation. The question may arise, which nation's or regime's perspective do we acknowledge as the authoritative one?

If we had that much variation in a recipe for baking a cake-- where "milk" could mean cow's milk, or elephant's milk, or whale's milk for that matter, and "flour" might mean wheat, or rice, or yam flour-- the cakes baked in Osaka and Sao Paulo would probably be very different than the cake baked in Arizona. And so it is with science. The terms and symbols used have to exert control over a definite corner of the literally infinite field of variables which surround every situation, and every equation. Exerting that kind of control is significantly more challenging, of course, when the equations are describing infinite complexity, and the need for controlling represented meaning is perhaps all the more essential.

As a new science coalesces

Autognomics will evolve as an increasingly precise science of natural meta-logic-- that is, the study of various formats of logic in living systems and their functional relations to each other. As studies of living systems continue, the scientific natural language will continue to evolve from its original foundation. With each new discovery made about the dynamics of living systems, a new piece will be added to the gradually unfolding picture of nature. Some of those pieces added into our picture of nature are bound to radically transform the entire theoretical framework of the science of autognomics itself from the ground up. Autognomics is projected to be a science unlike any other that has come before it in at least this one sense: it will be a true science of process-- namely, one that revolutionizes its own hypotheses and methods of inquiry at frequent intervals in order to increase the accuracy with which it describes and explains the workings of nature.

The formation and maintenance of such a vigorously self-transforming science will require an unprecedented level of flexibility and open-mindedness on the part of the architects of its evolution, at its beginnings and throughout its service.

Research: new questions for new answers

At the "grass roots" level of vanguard science, the real foundation and prerequisite to all discussion and application of cutting edge theory, is the independent basic research. True independent research is the single most effective agency for generating foresight and responsible change, both in the "hard" sciences and in the "soft" social sciences. Unfortunately, independent research is in short supply. Independent basic research is the only way in which corporations and institutions-- and each one of us-- are challenged with new questions that help us discover what we don't know. Independent research is an unwelcome concept in many organizations, largely because it is not profit-driven. Most academics are forced to conduct applied research solely towards product development instead of looking as well to new questions and directions. Too often original thought is neither encouraged by mainstream institutions nor supported by the mainstream press and media. Discovery of the unknown should not be neglected-- because in that unknown is precisely where we'll find the solutions to many of our present problems.

More has been discovered about living systems in the past twenty-five years than in any other period of history. Pioneer sciences in this field are emerging all around the world, largely outside the major academic institutions. Independent researchers are synthesizing unique new fields of inquiry, such as electromagnetic fields research, biosemiotics, and new paradigm biophysics, which are rapidly pointing to new insights and directions for practical application in numerous fields. Living systems basic research is currently taking place in England, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, France, and to a lesser degree, in the United States. But there has been no unified organized effort to bring this work together and make it available to the public-- until now.

A global collaboration of inquiry

A science of dynamic process systems, being a science for describing infinite complexity, will not be created or applied solely by one person, or one team or school. It will need to evolve out of a process of dialogue between thinkers from every field of intellectual endeavor, and from every corner of the globe.

Individuals and teams, working in fields as diverse as medicine and international diplomacy need to put their minds together on the most pressing problems affecting the human population as an interconnected and mutually dependent global network. There is a sizeable list of urgent problems that need addressing immediately, and which can only be solved by a new approach of whole-system synergy-- the complementary and mutually cross-strengthening strategy made possible for the first time in our history by a global computer network and by a new perspective that is emerging to match our science and technology and guide them into the new millennium.

Researchers at Autognomics Institute continuously compile insights and experience needed for the ongoing creation and the erstwhile application of the new scientific theory, through what are called inquiry circles. Inquiry circles are informal conferences in which scientists, technologists, and academicians in all fields of inquiry can discuss current problems and questions in an atmosphere of cooperative exploration. Much of the work at the Institute will come out of gathering individuals from many fields together, but not to discuss what they have already thought. Says Hirst, "We will get nowhere with old recipes. We need to think entirely new thoughts. What is required for the sciences of the twenty-first century to move forward is a radical transformation of our present understanding of our universe and Life itself." The proliferation of new ideas presently circulating in scientific literature gives strong evidence, Hirst believes, that there is the potential in the scientific community to achieve what he envisioned more than forty years ago-- namely, the establishment of a full science of life and living systems, complete but designed to revolutionize itself by subsequently and successively emerging discoveries and innovations, with a formal language of infinitely complex open systems designed to evolve and a compatible system of realistic natural logics suitable for the demands of the twenty-first century.
It is Norm Hirst's hope, and the mission of Autognomics Institute, to help bring into awareness and practical application the vast wisdom contained within the domain of living systems and Life itself, by developing available new logics which reveal aspects of reality that are left out of the current (residual) mechanistic and reductionistic scientific world view.

Insights leading to the new formal system of autognomic science are already demonstrating possibilities for guidance in finding solutions for many presently intractable social problems facing world leaders today. Researchers in autognomic theory are developing and applying new formats for practical solutions in many corporations and organizations, even as the project of building a new language and a comprehensive theoretical foundation continues.

The shape of the future

What new features will we discover in our universe-- both inside of atoms, among living communities, and out in the far reaches of space? Our global scientific community stands before a tremendous new opportunity. In the coming century it will be within our grasp to enter into entirely new models of scientific vision and technological advances beyond our present imaginings. As our parents walked in a world newly transformed by a few revolutionary ideas about sub-atomic particles and celestial gravitation, so our children may grow up in a world where both technologies and problem-solving strategies not yet imagined have been developed out of secrets that now lie hidden in the organizational dynamics of living cells, and of waves and fields that order and unite our energy and matter, and even dynamics of thought and consciousness itself.

A lot depends upon how we approach the scientific challenges which our next hundred years of discoveries brings-- what questions we ask, and how we ask them. One thing Norm Hirst and his growing circle of colleagues in the frontier sciences can promise with the conviction and momentum of a hundred years of change and search and exploration: the answers to the most important questions-- from better energy sources, to the eradication of disease and even perhaps of war-- will come in the form of a spherical wave that originates simultaneously at its center and at its periphery and leaves nothing standing unchanged in between.

The answer to tomorrow's questions will come in the shape of paradox-- the shape of revolutionary thinking.

Attending the Emergence of a New Science