We isolated ourselves from the circular knowledge and turned nature into an object. Since the time of the Reconnaissance a few hundred years ago, we have been pursuing this view and as a result, we are facing global crises. We regularly create damaging feedback loops.

This seems not only quite simplistic but also mistaken.
In fact, today we are facing less poverty, less crime, less hunger, less war, less violence than ever before in human history. Life expectancy is going up in almost every country, more and more people are breaking free from absolute poverty and so on.
This has not only but as well to do with the disregard of irrational beliefs such as a "pure state of nature" (I'm looking at you, Rousseau).
The stricter we distance ourselves from our savage nature, the more peaceful human societes become.

Anyway. I do agree, there are feedback loops in every interaction we experience, but this does not mean, we have always to be aware of them to achieve a better life for ourself and the ones around us.
As far as I understand it, systemics seems to have a lot in common with philosophical constructivism, especially when it comes to perception of reality and concepts like objectivity. It is quite likely, that we will never be able to perceive reality as it really is, but we don't need to as long as we have methods, which aren't relying on human perception, thus can at least get some degree of objectivity.

Additionally, I'm not sure, if I agree with your conclusion, that systemics is the best offer there is.
For example: I don't think, communication without violence is always a good idea - sometimes it's not only useful but necessary to communicate in a violent way to ensure certain goals.
It seems to me, if you choose a strictly systemic approach, you will get trapped in a limbo of relativity at some point, because you have no way of agreeing on universal truths (or call them axioms), which are necessary for the survival of a society.