With the distinction made between #PatternLanguage and form language by #NikosSalingaros, a broader vision of the "life" sought by #ChristopherAlexander has led me through #GeneralSystemsTheory and #RobertRosen into the R-theory of #JohnJKineman.
I agree that defining systems boundaries is problematic, @tg9541 . I sometimes prefer the labelling of a systems approach over systems thinking, because an approach has an additional sense of converging, particularly when it's a group thinking together towards collective action.
Seeing a system as open relates to there Sweeping In Process described by C. West Churchman. https://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/the-sweep-in-process-of-systems-science-churchman/
@daviding thanks for the reference to "Sweeping In"! I'm a bit skeptical about the applicability of "scientific laws" on the social. Experiment requires an mereological approach which is, (by definition) impossible in Rosennean Complex systems. It is, however, a matter of Weltanschauung if such systems exist. Social systems can be tailored to appear hierarchical (with all the normative baggage). Such a system is bridle unless a non-controlled ecosystem develops where the orthodoxy fails.
1/2
@daviding At that point I'd like to point to ANT "translation" and "leaky black boxes" (Callon & Latour), and to Whitehead's famous words: "The art of progress is to preserve order amid change, and to preserve change amid order. Life refuses to be embalmed alive. The more prolonged the halt in some unrelieved system of order, the greater the crash of the dead society".
Interesting pragmatic approaches to "scientific law" might come from Neurath's Physicalism (see Zolo, Reflexive Epistemology).
@daviding the question of system boundaries is tricky. Subjectivity is in the definition of "whole". I don't believe that a theory can ever credibly claim to fully explain a "whole".