" So many people claim to be thinking 'systemically', and while on the level of content they indeed are avoiding simple cause-effect logic, the entire meta-frame is soaked in the assumption that 'this' is causing 'that' which causes 'this' which causes 'that'.  And yes, they point out helpful notions like feedback and homeostasis, but the actual way in which they are thinking still relies upon the mechanics of seeing with cause-effect filters.  I applaud and deeply value the help which 'systems' thinking has contributed to so many different realms, personal and social, but I wonder if you could comment on this observation that there is a bit of a discrpency between the claim of avoiding cause-effect thinking and actual mode of thought which they are utilizing as they claim this." You've piqued my interest with this line of thinking. It has been my take on reading systems-thinking literature that the move is less from cause-effect thinking to multi-causal thinking. With feedback, feedforward, positive and negative re-inforcement loops as central concepts in systems thinking i tended to think of the switch from linear to spiral (goal-directed linear, but circular in method and influence), but that's my own internal diagram. I haven't detected a distinction in your post that reflects the difference between what i think of as systems thinkers proper (engineers, biologists, etc) and wholistic thinkers (grand unified theorists talking about and exploring 'ultimate reality', quantum phenomenon, spiritual reality, holographic universe and such). I differentiate the two sectors because of the territory in which they cast their stones. I make a distinction between the newtonian paradigm and the quantum paradigm. In the newtonian paradigm (which concerns our normal scientific and perceptual reality) we have a set of rules and beliefs :) that work to explain and understand what goes on. The systems thinking proper that i refer to stays within this paradigm and moves to multi-causal and multi-linear (multiple goals) systems. In contrast, the quantum physicists move to level of reality different from our normal perceptual system and therefore describe a different reality, though using similar terminology. It may help to make a distinction between systems thinkers and wholistic thinkers. Systems thinkers stay within our normal perceptual newtonian experience whereas wholistic thinkers move outside of our normal perceptual experience to describe a different aspect of reality. Though i tried to go at the same point a few different ways, i'm not sure that i'm too clear. But anyway, hope this scratches where it itches. Amilcar ps: could you give me some reference books and personalities/authors so i could try to sort them into my categories for you to help you better understand this distinction?