Theoretical Approach to the Interaction Between the Meta-system Schemas of the Artificial (Built) Environment and Nature José L. Fernández-Solís, Ph. D. Kent D. Palmer, Ph. D. Timothy Ferris, Ph. D. Texas A&M University, 3137 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3137 USA P.O. Box 1632, CA 92867 USA University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes Blvd., Mawson Lakes, 5095 AU Emails: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Abstract: This is an exploration of how the artificial environment links with the natural environment and requires a conceptual construct that bridges these two environments. Palmer’s General Schema Theory, a highly theoretical work, elaborated on in a dissertation by Fernández-Solís (2006), provides a theory of schemas and a theory of the schema of meta-systems which will be useful for interpreting the relationship between the artificial and natural environment. The concept of meta-system is used first to generate and then to validate the concept of meta-industry. This paper argues that the building construction industry (which produces the built or artificial environment) that is categorized as an ‘industry’ by academia, actually acts as a meta-industry. Meta-industry is a concept that encapsulates an ‘industry of industries,’ which implies that the artificial and the natural environment interact at the meta-level. Climate change is construed as the reaction of the natural to the artificial environment at the meta- level. The approach to this pre-paradigmatic work uses the tools of philosophical and critical thinking, rationality and logic. General Schemas thinking at the meta- systemic level is presented as a new approach towards the formation of a novel paradigm of the artificial environment. Keywords: Artificial (built) Environment, Natural Environment, Meta-system, Paradigm, General Schemas Theory 1. A Definition of Meta-systems An interpretation of the concept of meta-system (Palmer 2006) can be made by linking the concepts of ‘system’ and ‘meta’ together, as suggested by Gadomski (2007). Gadomski assumes that meta-systems are schemas which provide the environment for systems and are composed of the common properties of particular systems but not related to the properties of particular systems. According to V. Turchin, and C. Joslyn (Palmer 2006), this "natural" definition is not sufficient for the Theory of Meta-system Transition, (which is a transition between configurations), nor is it congruent with the definition of system of systems as normally understood in the field of Systems Engineering. The definition of meta- system as proposed by Palmer (2000a), uncovers a categorical inverse of the system which can be characterized as that which is ‘beyond’ the system. Meta-systems provide an Environment of Systems that extends from their boundary outward to the horizon. Once the difference between Meta-systems and Systems is understood, then we can provide a more meaningful context for locating Special Systems which are partially systems and partially meta-systems i.e. systems that are thresholds between the system and its environment. These thresholds have special properties that are called Holonomic, which is to say that they are organized as holons and thus are both part and whole at the same time . These holonomic special systems have the special property of ultra-efficiency. There are three types of such Special Systems, they are: Reflexive Social, Autopoietic Symbiotic, and Dissipative Ordering. According to Palmer’s (2000b) definition of Special Systems, Reflexive Social is based on the works of Sandywell (1980, 1995, 1996) and O’Malley (1972) who are Reflexive Sociologists in England. Autopoietic Symbiotic is based on the work of Maturana and Varella (2001), who are Chilean Biologists who coined the term, and finally, Dissipative Ordering, which is based on the work of Prigogine (1984) Nobel Price winner, who coined the term Dissipative Structures for spreading order in negentropic systems in environments far from equilibrium. A key concept of systems and systems interaction is efficiency . Special Systems are intrinsically ultra-efficacious which means extremely efficient and effective at the same time due to the slight lifting of the pressure of entropy on these systems locally which is compensated for globally. Where systems are judged in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, Special Systems are extremely efficient and effective while Meta- systems are less efficient and effective due to their intrinsic lacks rather than surpluses. 1.1. Totally Efficient Systems Following Garcia Bacca’s (1989) definition of invention as “first time technology” and everything else as “other than first time technology,” from one position we can ideally postulate that: At one end we ideally conceive of a totally efficient system , but alternatively we also perceive other than completely efficient systems . A completely efficient system is one in which the whole equals the sum of its parts (that is at an optimum without any surplus or insufficiency). Such systems are theoretically posited as anomalous and rare in nature. They have special properties such as holonomic , ultra-efficient , non-dual , integral , and we call them holoidal . Holonomic indicates that they are ordered as holons, i.e. as both parts and wholes at the same time (Koestler 1967). Ultra efficiency indicates that there is a slight negative entropy to these systems, and thus the pressure of entropy is slightly lifted from them within a confined region. Beyond that region entropy is increased in the highly energetic environment in which these systems exist which is far from equilibrium. Non-duality implies that they are organized as something other than one thing or many things, or as a conglomerate produced by juxtaposition and conjunction, like a swarm. Integral connotes that such systems have their own internal coherence based on hypercomplex algebras and other mathematical forms such as non-orientable surfaces. Artificial or built systems are alleopoietic, in other words they are other created rather than autopoietic which is self-produced . In general, manufacturing and industry, as arenas of built systems, may use this paradigm in order to determine their own limits in terms of the possibility of self-organization and self-adaptation of the building industry. A meta-system theoretical viewpoint is one that looks at the field between systems and is concerned with the integration of systems within a domain or world (i.e. the artificial environment within the natural environment). It also looks at the context, situation, environment, etc. in order to understand how the system fits into the meta- system. Our interest is to explore the possibility that this theory can serve as a basis for a better schematic construct than ‘systems theory.’ The goal is to be able to capture the reality of the artificial in relation to the natural environment or ecosystem. 1.2. Concepts of System to System Interactions at a Meta-level Our concern is that the construction industry, up to this point, has been developing ‘systems’ and ‘systems that interact with systems,’ but not ‘systems within a meta- system.’ First, meta-systems are the opposite of the concept that a system is ‘more than the sum of its parts’. Meta-systems are the inverse opposite, something that is ‘less than the sum of its parts,’ and contain singularities, paradoxes and incongruities. These aspects of meta-systems are anathema to systemic thinking, which attempts to eliminate singularities, paradoxes and incongruities. In contrast, higher schemas projected on nature (such as domain, world, universe) have lower levels of efficiency and less integral balance within the whole, as well as multiple and differing feedback levels. In meta-systems, systems are nested holistically (as in holons) or as both parts and wholes at the same time (Koestler 1967, 1979). This nesting progresses up the hierarchy of schemas being transformed at each level. Here we are concentrating just on the interface between systems and meta-systems where special systems arise, but the same analysis could be taken higher as we explore thresholds wider in scope within the emergent hierarchy of the schemas. 2. A Schema is needed as a Framework for an Artificial Environment Paradigm Unfortunately, this lack of understanding of the interaction between the artificial and the natural environments is a major contributor to our environmental predicament. At a simplistic level, human needs and wants drive production which requires processes that employ energy and the transformation of materials of products that become permanent consumers of energy. This energy produces emissions harmful to the natural environment. We can attempt to solve the problem of emissions by patching technologies onto the offending technologies or we can attempt to create first time technologies that will augment supply and eventually displace the offending technology. The appearance of first time technologies is often an emergent event for the society in which that advent occurs. A problem is created when the forces behind human needs and wants are given free reign because the technology that serves those boundless desires of humans becomes out of control. The general economy is predicated on continual acceleration of growth and all social and cultural forces are aligned for this unmitigated consumption. IPCC (2007) estimates that the Global GDP is projected to double in fourteen years (2006 to 2020) from $45T (trillions, one thousand billions)