This chapter is extracted from a paper by the author to appear in the International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics.

The principal objective here is to explain the multitudinous preferences, values and activities in the context of the massive system of interactions that are generated between world systems and the human environment. We take the example of the family and ecology to explain the systemic worldview.

The interactive meaning of the family as a social minuscule can be realized only in the presence of certain unifying set of values premised on knowledge sharing and development within itself and with the socioeconomic environment around. In all of these investigations we will keep to the ethico-economic epistemology of premising the structure of a system in its ethical endogeneity. The extended implication of this family-centered emergence of social interactions is that all subsystems that interact and regenerate the values of the family are themselves governed by the principle of ethical endogeneity.

We will begin by explaining a number of concepts as follows: By the concept of a system we mean an organismic whole in terms of extensive interrelationships that it can generate within and across itself. No interactions are expected in a state of perfect individualism nor in a limited sense of methodological individualism. Such individuated cases cannot be said to be systems in light of the definition here. The contrary concept of such a social case is that of optimal monadic states of agents taken either in their individualistic forms or in the form of significant polarity. In light of the above definition of a system, a family can never be non-interactive among its members. Yet interactions may be either of the coercive or of the consensual types. In the coercive type we have a trend in the family as a social system to converge to a breakup or to hegemony by means of increasing individualism within itself.

Three cases of the social system in light of the definition centering on the concept of interactions, are given below. We take these up one at a time.

Case 1: Hegemonic Subsystem

We can show the case of independence among the subsystems, S1, S2, S3. Then the total social system, S of which Si are subsystems, is simply a lateral aggregation of these subsystems.

Furthermore, each of the subsystems is furthermore characterized by a set of preferences; the number of agents in it, say Ni; avaliable resources, such as incomes and wealth, Ri; allocation of total time, Ti, in time spent in earning wage-goods, Twi, and time spent in earning other social goods, Tli, so that T=Twi+Tli; and the economic activities it relates with, i.e. consumption, Ci, production, Pi. All these we write symbolically as, Si=Si(Ci,Pi,Ri,Ti,Ni,given preferences), given, Ti=Twi+Tli. Now since S is a lateral aggregation of the three independent subsystems, its characteristics also remain independent of each other. The total systems characteristics in terms of those of the subsystems are then lateral aggregation of those for the independent subsystems. This implies that socioeconomic characteristics of S are made up of additive preferences, additive incomes and wealth (resources), additive time allocations and additive consumption-production menus. Such aggregations are performed mechanically by assuming that there exists no correlations between them. This state in other words explains the state of optimal monadism realized as if by an assumed fullness of knowledge in the Ni agents from the environment. Hence, the space of knowledge flows is exactly apportioned among the agents. Let this knowledge space be denoted by ki, i=1,2,3, with an underlying null set signifying independence of preferences.

In this first case, since Si has members in itself, it signifies the state of hegemonic subsystems that may have conflicted with the other ones to finally arrive at the non- interactive optimal monadic states in which we find them. An example of such a state is the neoclassical optimal equilibrium in which no interactions can be attained. Shackle characterizes such a state as computational equilibrium that are not of our making and hence we cannot be sure whether such states can at all be attained. We also deduce that optimality, equilibrium and perfect information in their complete and long-run sense, as found in much of economic theory, are equivalent to each other. In any of these states systemic non-interaction exists by cause and effect.

Case 2: Limiting Case of Hegemony Leading to Individualism

The limiting case is to be found in the perfect individualism. Now each of the Si subsystems break up into optimal, equilibrated, fully knowledge-endowed agents. There are now countable number of subsystems denoted by SN. The total system S alongwith its various characteristics, is described by the lateral aggregation of the individualistic subsystemic ones.

This is the essence of non-interaction in the limiting case of global individualism. Such a state has characterized economic theory and its extended implications in institutions, e.g. through utilitarianism, public choice theory, rational choice theory, Hayek's market catallaxy, etc.

Case 3: Partial Interdependence Collapsing into Polarity

We can also show the case of two of the three Si becoming interdependent partially in the region indicated. The meaning of polarity arises in this case by means of the hegemonic states characterized by the conflict that continues to persist between S1 and the other systems. Bipolarity of this type is essentially a particular case of individuation. It represents hegemony by virtue of the coalition that exists between partial number of agents for purposes of conflicting with the other one(s). Thus the problem of non-interaction is still not solved, as the extension of these three subsystem world to multiple subsystem world, implies that many such differentiated coalitions can be possible. Now in the limit of NÀÀ, the case of partial interactions becomes identical with either of case 1 or 2 given above. All the other implications of systemic independence follows.

One furthermore infers, that if the process of coalitions continued among the (N-1) number of susbsystems by means of these inter-systemic interactions among characteristics as mentioned, then a multipolar system must necessarily collapse into a bipolar system. For such a state to occur, the long-run evolution of social systems must be viewed to be experiencing a strictly dual and partitioned histories of their own, with non-substantive interactions. Where weak interactions exist. Hence, multipolarity collapses to bipolarity in a convergently hegemonic system.

Case 4: Systems with Extensive Interactions

Finally, we have the system with extensive interactions among its subsystems. Now the subsystems Si must mutually intersect and then grow out of that common region into increasing consensus as knowledge in the system increases. A few points have to be noticed with respect to the interactive evolution of the subsystems under the impact of knowledge induction. First, as interactions increase, the area `s' of the common region among the subsystems must be so induced as to bring more of their individual regions into interdependence with each other. This in turn must mean that the elements of the subsystems must experience two kinds of interactive effects. One is internal to the subsystems; the other is outward oriented to the greater social system. Second, the intra-systemic interactions must become more dense, since localized weak interactions are eliminated as a result of overall systemic interactions. Third, the limiting knowledge of the subsystems (hence of the system) can now never be complete, though it grows always to comprehend increasing domains of interactions horizontally (across systems), vertically (extensive interactions) and intra-systemically (denseness).

This kind of evolutionary knowledge-centered interactions does not show optimality and equilibrium as a permanent feature, but simply in the instantaneous sense. When continuity of evolution rather than discrete phenomena is assumed, then evolutionary knowledge-based equilibria are of the continuous type as well. The particular reason for non-optimality of knowledge in the global sense within temporal phenomena is due to the capability of expanding and multiplicity of subsystems that permanently interact to grow out of themselves into larger domains of reality. The continuity of the knowledge-based evolutionary equilibria is the essence of the process comprehension of systems.(Hubner, 1983) Hence there is the following set of equivalences: non-optimality and temporary but evolutionary knowledge-centered equilibria is related by cause and effect with extensive interactions and this with the process model of systemic characteristics.

The evolution of the systems-characteristics is readily seen in respect to the above type of extensive interactions. We examine this point as follows. Now the Si expression in terms of the state variables, decision variables, policy variables and knowledge variable must be considered as a social wellbeing criterion function.

Thus, Si=Si(Ci,Pi,Ri,Ni,Ti)[ki] is a social wellbeing criterion function, in which all the agent-specific variables are influenced by the degree of interactions, i.e. by knowledge and preferences attained. The social wellbeing function is completely defined alongwith the following interrelationships that together generate all the knowledge-induced variables iteratively. Si is thus simulated as knowledge in the system, kit evolves by interactions.

The legal foundation are of two types. Epistemologically, it corresponds to the unitary essence of all knowledge in every system at all phases of evolution and interactions. Thus, by the one-to- one correspondence between knowledge and systemic characteristics, the unitary nature of the epistemology of the system must imply the same unitary nature of the evolutionary phases of the systems that is found in the process of knowledge evolution and its corresponding cognitive materiality. This total expression of the interrelationship between knowledge and materiality; their emanation and continuity on the plane of unity, is termed as the unification process.

Ontologically, the epistemological root generates flows of knowledge in the temporal domain as derived and guided continuously by primordial Unity and the unification process. But in the process of instantanteous presence and absence through moral-material continuity, a circular causation and continuity process of unified reality is established. This itself is the essence of the unification process that remains unanswered in all of occidental thought because of the absence of structural Unity at the epistemological root and its functional relationship with the real world, the temporal order. In the sense of circular causation and continuity by unification and recreation between the moral and material form, the epistemological and ontological dualism of reality ceases to exist.

By using the evolutionary nature of intersecting systems we can develop the concept of the total system. In this the Law of Unity becomes both the primordial and the end Stock of Knowledge through the unification process in temporal domain. All system characteristics must assume meaning, explanation, application, guidance, control and inferences by the medium of the Law of Unity.

There is a profound implication of mathematical completeness in this worldview of a primordial and end-point interactive universe from which temporal order assumes its meaning. It can be shown that the primordial premise of the Unitary Law (L) impacts upon the epistemic-ontic circular causation content of the temporal order. Thus while, the relational universe derives its meaning and dynamics from this priomordial premise, the universal system evolves towards it. Finally in the process of such an evolution, the universal cumulation of knowledge must embrace the primordial Unitary Law at the end. L is thus primordial and terminal through the emanation (cause) and reorgination (effect) of knowledge flows in the temporal order. Hence, we have a temporally open knowledge- based universe as a relational system; but a closed and compact (i.e. attainable) universe in its entirety (i.e. in terms of the knowledge stock = perfectly unified knowledge).

The question of attainability of the stock of knowledge in its most unified form rests on the epistemological explanation that rules are derived in interactive form from this root, which itself must remain non-interactive (i.e. devoid of growth), for otherwise, there would be no precise root from which to derive knowledge except from rationalism. This is the old occidental view starting from the Greeks to present times, and is certified in the works of Kant, Hegel and Husserl. On the other hand, if the end is non-attainable, then there remains the possibility of knowledge flows to cumulate into a stock that can be of higher measure than the primordial stock. The primordial and end stock would then not be equal. This contradicts the fullness attribute of the primordial stock and hence of the possibility of deriving Laws from it. Thus, the primordial and end point stocks must be exactly equal to each other. This is the idea of a mathematically complete relational universe.(Maddox, 1970) Now by the properties of such manifolds, every subset in it must attain an equilibrium. However, because of the `open' nature of every of these temporal points, the equilibrium is stable only in the instantaneous sense. It is permanently changing by the effect of knowledge sensitivity. The systems theory of a relational universe is thereby, characteristically meaningful only in the midst of such a complete universe. If it was otherwise, we would not attain the case 4 of systems given above.

We now apply the systems theory as presented above to the case of the family and human ecology. Both are defined here as systems in the meaning of extensive interactions.

As we have mentioned, family takes its meaning in the fold of man-women-child interrelationship in reference to a certain social contract, that is of marriage and divorce. Through the embedded interrelationships, the family links up and grows both intra- systemically within itself and inter-systemically in relationships with the community, subnation, nation and the global order. In this way, all the systemic characteristics of a system are found to exist for the family. These are namely, the agent-specific preferences, consumption, home-production, resources and time allocations. These lead to social wellbeing of the family.

The Unitary Law applying to the family means that there are prescribed tenets of the social contract of marriage, such as, relationships among husband, wife and children (also extended family) that are transacted in the midst of the attributes of balance (justice), purpose, certainty (security), wellbeing and enforcement, all that recreate the knowledge-based evolutionary process of interrelationships. There cannot be any coercion or individualism or group pressure in the midst of these attributes. The reference of the consensual agreement in the family is taken away from the premise of rationalism in which individualistic preferences rule powerful over other ones, and is replaced by reference to the Unitary Law as realized by the human experience in the family. This experience is indeed the result of the knowledge process that enables the attributes to be realized. Without any of the attributes existing by degrees, both the knowledge process and the familial interrelationships fail to reinforce themselves and the family to that degree, reduces to be an example of the minuscule social system. Such a precept of the Unitary Law forms the basis of the social contract. This in turn establishes the unification process through the family.

Now the characteristics of the family in terms of its socioeconomic variables of social wellbeing, externalizes to the greater social order. Thus to the degree that familial interrelationships are reinforced, it influences by cause and effect, the greater socioeconomic order. The simulational model of the extensively interactive system is now invoked to explain the nature of the family as a social system. We will not reproduce this simulation system, as the technical implications are identical to the case of the family social wellbeing and to the total social wellbeing. Instead, we will investigate the nature of relationship of the social wellbeing in terms of variations of the characteristics due to ki-variable.

However, since ki is a value of total systems interactions, therefore, sustainability of the positive relations among the characteristics is determined in the same system of knowledge- induced interrelationships. It must therefore be the nature of interactions, that will determine the nature of sustained relationships among the characteristics. Any unidimensional increase of an X(i,j) characteristic over another is a kind of hegemony. Such a state cannot therefore be sustainable, for the interrelationships of social wellbeing to continue between the hierarchy of the family and the total social system. Such is also the direct implication of the attributes of the Unitary Law, namely, balance, purpose, certainty, wellbeing and recreation of knowledge, in the unification process of human lives.

The ecological order is defined as a system in terms of the relations between human values and sustainability of the subsystems that support human lives. Of these is the particular case of the environment as a physical ecological system. One then notes the special kind of relevance that environment now comes to acquire in the midst of the systemic definition of human ecology. This approach to the environment is that of endowing it not as a substantive target but rather as an instrument to be used in order to establish and recreate the interactions among moral laws, human order and the physical enviromnment. Such interrelationships are of the type enabled by the circular causation and continuity model of the knowledge-based worldview. Once again, surrounding these ecological interrelationships is the unifying essence from which the ecological order now derives its unification process.

The critical attributes of Unitary Epistemology, namely, balance, purpose, certainty, wellbeing and recreation of knowledge, are now once again activated. Since the Unitary Law is knowledge per se, therefore, the attribute of justice and purpose ground the primordial roots of this ecological order. The often referred to economy-environment relationship now loses its neoclassical and macroeconomic meaning in terms of resource substitution, controls and pricing incentives and disincentives. These are instead replaced by the primal re-definition of prices and resources in terms of a cognition of what the Unitary Law sees as the appropriate basket of precepts, goods, technologies and social motivations that must be fused together to attain the moral attributes.

As a result of this change in treating the nature of ecological relations, the environment-economy concept is replaced by that of moral-material simultaneity. In this context of treating ecology, the moral precepts would comprise values such as, participation, empowerment, entitlement, distribution, employment and self-reliance and the like. The material precepts would comprise values such as, economic growth, price stability, economic efficiency, capital accumulation and the like. Interlinkages defining simultaneity or complementarity between these values are brought about by choice of instruments, institutions, organization and technology as prescribed by the Unitary Law. Examples of such instruments are as follows: participatory instruments as opposed to interest transactions, moderation as opposed to waste, principle of trusteeship as opposed to absolute ownership, dynamic basic needs approach to development as opposed to catching-up effects of growth, joint ownership and grassroots politico-economic facets of economy-society- institutional interrelationships, and above all, the motivation of leadership to comprehend and apply the Unitary Laws. These and the like, become the driving source for realizing the interconnection between the moral and material goals. It can be easily argued how one reinforces the other: Participatory instruments generate ownership and self-reliance. This in turn generates wealth and output. Economic waste reduces private and social costs, which in turn increases resource availability and hence increases output and efficiency, etc. The environment-economy interrelationship is now redefined as a primal problem in the avoidance of waste by recourse to injunctions of the Unitary Laws, using the objectives of moral attributes mentioned earlier and the appropriate instruments.

A very important concept that now arises in the midst of the complementary nature of resource use and regeneration that negates the existence of opportunity cost concept in the intergenerational allocation of environment as resource, is the social attitude to consumption, production, resource and allocation of time. The argument presented by the systemic nature of Unitary Law is that knowledge must increase present preferences among responsible consumers and producers. This in turn would minimize the cost to future generations. Hence savings for future generation is accordingly reduced except by means of goodwill of the present generation to its children. In either of these two ways of intertemporal allocations, the notion of sacrifice of resources is replaced by the increase of knowledge and goodwill. Thus an intergenerational resource allocational problem is solved not by discounting the present for the future. Rather this problem is now changed into one of reducing a continuous sequence of costs by increase of knowledge. This leads to the resultant increase of output, and hence to efficiency, participatory approach to decision making and alongwith this to an increase in goodwill.

The general theory of systems established in this paper can be applied to almost all situations where decision making is perpetually interactive. The limiting cases of such situations are non-systemic, as they breed either individualism or hegemony. Thus, the interesting and significant property of social systems is the essence of knowledge-based interactions that structure it and make the systems functional.

But while we have explained social dynamics in terms of knowledge formation by recursive iterations, there is also a parallel problem of studying de-knowledge. These explain the dynamics of systems that either interact to generate individuation and hegemony on the basis of self-seeking or group power of alienation. In such systems the Unitary foundation of world system is abandoned. With this, the unification process of moral experience on the basis of the Laws that emanate from Unitary Epistemology, is also absent.

Thus, while the worldview of knowledge-centered relational order is premised in Unitary Epistemology, that of the de-knowledge is premised on emergent plurality and duality, individuation and conflict, all founded on the roots of rationalist epistemology. Yet the dynamics of evolution of the two systems are similar, with the exception that due to the principle of marginalist substitution that embodies all forms of resource allocations, development and usage in the de-knowledge order, there is growing entropy in this order by virtue of increasing costs. This implies an inverse relationship among knowledge, cost and substitution. Vice versa, there is a monotonic relationship between de-knowledge, cost and substitution. These are the attributes of entropic processes. Even in the Darwinian case of initial microcosmic interactions, these subsequently become affine to natural selections and create individuation and conflict.

Just as Truth and Falsehood remain permanently dichotomous and non-interacting, so also knowledge and de-knowledge and all their separate social characteristics, embody non-interacting categories between themselves, except for trials and errors of processes. But such shortfalls do not alter the predominant dynamics of either of these histories. We have explained in this paper the dynamics of social systems on the plane of knowledge. We have simply implied the dynamics of the de-knowledge to be represented in the individuation and hegemonic domains.