The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision

This is a refreshing look at life based on a simple premise: that life is a self-regulating network in which essential properties arise not from the constituent parts themselves, but from the configuration of relationships within the integrated system as a whole. The authors guide us through an incredible range of scientific disciplines, revealing the uncanny ramifications of this subtle change in perspective. In the systems view, the parts have no meaning as isolated entities; they are defined only by their interconnections; they are inseparable patterns within the larger web. This approach is an eye-opening contrast to the mainstream viewpoint of reductionistic analysis, and the authors explain how reductionism had shaped our culture to the detriment of the environment we cohabit.The Systems View of Life treats readers to a rational expansion of self towards unity with the fabric of life and oneness with the universe, much like the monism of Advaita Vedanta or Monistic Idealism. Every distinction we presuppose as individuals, as nations, and as a species breaks down under this unflinching scrutiny. When we let go of our individual pride, we allow room instead for inclusive cooperation. Nothing less than this kind of fundamental shift of identity will prepare us to face the multifaceted global crises we have created for the biosphere.This book exhibits the systems view of life within the context of numerous academic disciplines including: history, philosophy, economics, physics, genetics, mathematics, ecology, biology, evolution, chemistry, cognitive linguistics, spirituality, sociology, medicine, and climatology. It is written for undergraduates but approachable to casual readers willing to delve deep into several different scientific fields. It is not an easy read, nor is it short, but the vision is beautiful, and the elevated viewpoint is worth every page. My only serious critique is that the systemic solutions to our global threats proposed in the last chapter seem generally unrealistic. However, to be fair, I couldn’t do better.The very notion of “I” is an emergent property arising from the simultaneous occurrence and resonance of feelings, memories, and thoughts, so that the “I” is not localized anywhere, but rather is an organized pattern without a center.When we look at the world around us, we find that we are not thrown into chaos and randomness but are part of a great order, a grand symphony of life. Every atom in our body was once a part of previous bodies - living or nonliving - and will be a part of future bodies. In this sense, our body will not die but will live on, again and again, because life lives on. Moreover, we share not only life’s molecules, but also its basic principles of organization with the rest of the living world. And since our mind, too, is embodied, our concepts and metaphors are embedded in the web of life together with our bodies and brains. Indeed, we belong to the universe, and this experience of belonging can make our lives profoundly meaningful.”

The book was great overall and I'm in so much agreement with it's basic premise that the particular and its own particular properties need to be understood in it's relation within the whole that I can't say much more on it.But I can't get out of my mind the authors discussion of Intelligent Design. Why did they take up this argument. And why - like so many fallaciously do - did they try to push a particular philosophical perspective?Forgive me if this is not what you were interested in reading - as I said, this was a great book packed with the latest knowledge of why and how a systems view of life is fundamental - but i have to get this off my chest.When you go to the route of things, you can't actually "know" with any certainty whether there is or is not a Creator. And the idea that you can use "logic" - such as the structure defines function or vice versa isn't really useful or compelling as an argument.However things came to be as they are today, through the processes we know that work i.e evolution, we can never really know whether WE were the ones to know this. Since what are scientific facts but mental representations human beings make of some approximate cause for a natural phenomena. And what are these representations if nothing but CREATIONS of our own minds. So why are we making pronouncements about things that lie outside - fundamentally - our capacity to understand.If a Creator exists, by definition, he would be everything. All that exists. All that has existed up till the present and the future. It's simply everything. So it doesn't create any problems, at least for me, that todays reality can be appreciably explained via evolution, biology, physics, etc and yet there remains an efficient indelible mystery: did this happen by accident? Sure, some will say. Cause they WANT to believe that. For whatever developmental history that only they (and perhaps their psychoanalyst) can know, they've become inclined to an atheistic - world without a God - perspective. Nothing wrong with that. You aren't any more likely to be less moral because of it. Compassion is a personal experience. All of us are capable of the greatest wisdom, and insight if only were patient and humble enough to find it within ourselves.But how can we claim to know that the various causes that led to the creation of todays species weren't orchestrated by INTELLIGENT DESIGN to be perceived, by us, the only creature on this planet to bear witness to this wondrous reality, at this point in our history. This improbable world with laws that allow this bounty to blossom.I mean. This is how inherently sticky the question is. You can provide a perspective that may be appealing to you and others - and even me! - and yet an equally plausible, if intelligently carried out, perspective, can be crafted to support the view of an intelligent designer.So I personally HATE discussions where one party assumes the knowledge to know what is more "logical' or "scientifically valid" - as if they forgot that even science can only describe things WITHIN a system, and can't explain the origin of the system, and thus the surreal experience some people have with the facticity of Existing. Of living in a world with a specific, highly symbolic quality to it. And is this something the human being perceives, even perhaps, illusory? Yea. And so? The fact that were confronted with such a situation - which you see as "illusion" but I may find to have an ultimate, existential value - is neither for you or I to make final pronouncements about. Just accept that ultimately it is a matter of personal opinion - Affect - and that although God may exist - or may not - we should try to respect the spiritual approach that another person feel towards the world. Nothing is more alarming than when a person who claims to be spiritual is willing to shred to pieces the world view that another person has every right to hold on to - if only because it has taken on meaning, significance and homeostatic status within their organism.Me personally, I like the idea of God, though I know I can fully live without it. So, if relativity is the question - Is God necessary? - thats a personal matter for an individual to figure out for himself. For me, I WANT to make him valid, because the mystery of existence - it's awe-power - is something not only to take in spiritually and emotionally. But even something to be explored within your awareness, to be symbolized within words.I mean, don't try to take away someones right to find meaning UNIQUE to them in being alive. Don't act as if an atheistic approach is the only respectable one.

In my opinion, there should be a course that is taught along with this textbook that is prerequisite for every undergraduate degree. The book does a good job of explaining interdependent origination from an interdisciplinary scientific point of view. We desperately need to overcome our mechanistic, binary view of the world and our lived sense of separateness from it in order to ensure the longevity of our, along with every other, species on this planet. Education and inner reflection are keys to overcome the maelstrom of conditioning that has been imposed upon us all. One can only hope that the modern era zeitgeist which has prevailed since the Industrial Revolution will give way to a more holistic/systemic/cooperative way of life. In all probability, the future generations of all sentient beings are dependent upon it. As a fitting conclusion to the book, Capra and Luisi offer us an inspiring quote from Vaclav Havel:"The kind of hope that I often think about...I understand above all as a state of mind, not a state of the world. Either we have hope within us or we don't; it is a dimension of the soul, and it's not essentially dependent on some particular observation of the world or estimate of the situation...[Hope] is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out."

One of the most important books of our time.