Aartje (Aartje Hulstein)
Treloar Trust, Alton, UK
Email: aartje@glanville.co.uk
Bio:
EoI: This year’s conference theme is close to my heart. Experience as the source of learning is something I encounter daily in my work as a physiotherapist in a residential school and in my life too. Being in the circularity of experience through action, learning and understanding is how I try to live.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
adam ( )
Email: a.r.cooper@bolton.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Adnaro ( )
Email: alex@duniamedia.ch
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
aimiliakritikou ( )
Email: aimiliakritikou@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
AlbertMueller (Albert Mueller)
Email: albert.mueller@univie.ac.at
Bio:
EoI: comes later
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
allennaleonard (Allenna Leonard)
Principal, Complementary Set
Director, Cwarel Isaf Institute
Email: allenna_leonard@yahoo.com
Website: http://www.allennaleonard.com
Bio:
EoI: I am especially interested in broadening the channels between theoretical and practical applications of cybernetics. Transparency, accountability, seeking out and integrating multiple perspectives and negotiating appropriate means of measurement are key to this effort. I am also interested in seeing how books and articles linked to, if not directly connected to, an understanding of systems and cybernetics can be used as a means of making these approaches more accessible to public dialogue. It seems to be very risky that public debate on everything from ecology to macro economics is polarized around dichotomies that are partial and confusing. This makes it very difficult to exercise responsible citizenship and make good choices.
The role of the arts is very important here. Although that is not an area where I can make much of a contribution, it is very important both as an expression of where things are and might be and of the connections that exist among all of us.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
ammonhaggerty ( )
Email: mobile@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
andrei.cretu ( )
Email: cretu.2@osu.edu
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
angelaespinosa ( )
Email: a.espinosa@hull.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
asimong (Simon Grant)
Senior Researcher, University of Bolton
Email: asimong@gmail.com
Website: http://www.simongrant.org/home.html
Bio:
EoI: I’d like to join my IEC / CETIS colleagues and learn more about how this area of work interacts with mine.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
barney.townsend (Barney Townsend)
Senior Lecturer, London South Bank University
MPhil research student, Royal College of Art
Email: barney.townsend@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: I am relatively new to Cybernetics, but I am intrigued by the relevance of it as a theory for design, and for the research that I am doing. In particular, I am interested by conversation theory, and the encouragement of conversation between designers and consumers in order to mutually participate in the process of design. The conference focus on circular causality between acting and understanding is pertinent not only to my own processes of learning and approach to research, but also specifically to my research topic, in the differences in approach between the professional and the amateur, operating at different stages of the acting-learning-understanding continuum.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
BCEScott (Bernard Scott)
Senior Research Fellow, Center for Sociocybernetics Studies, Bonn
Email: bernces1@gmail.com
Website: http://www.sociocybernetics.eu/people_scott.html
Bio:
EoI: As a cyberneticians, psychologist and educationalist, I have longstanding interests in all aspects of human learning, human interaction and human communication. My research has included work on computer models of learning processes, studies of learning strategies and individual differences in learning style, the design of interactive learning environments and principles of course design for effective learning. I also have interests in the conversational processes that constitute social systems. I am looking forward to engaging in constructive conversations about these topics.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
In this respect, studies of how humans learn are second order pursuits. Not only do such studies add to the body of scientific knowledge in psychology, reflexively, they inform the investigator (and the reader who studies her findings) about his or her own cognitive processes. This reflexion can be used in powerful ways to improve on one’s ability (i) to learn (ii) to teach (iii) to teach other’s how to learn (iv) to teach other’s how to teach.
In the 1970s, the first author implemented a computer program model of the cognitive processes involved in learning and skill acquisition based on a series of empirical investigations (Scott, 1976). Recently, with assistance from the second author, the model has been reviewed, updated and re-implemented (Bansal, 2010).
The model is an explanatory model designed to provide understanding of the processes and empirically observed phenomena that are involved in learning and skill acquisition.
Key features of the model are:
1. The learner is modelled as a complex adaptive system that is dynamically self-organising.
2. Achievement of goals set is subject to a free energy economy simulated as available processing time.
3. Learning is conceived of as an evolutionary process in which problem-solving ‘operators’ are selected from a population of possible responses.
4. Complex operators may be composed from simple operators. The driver for doing so is simulated by the rule that a complex operator consumes less processing time than the equivalent set of simple operators.
The paper discusses the relevance of the model for understanding and improving learning and teaching practices.
The model is available online with an interface that (i) permits the setting of relevant parameters and (ii) provides a visual display of the model’s workings as it learns. If thought appropriate, the model can be demonstrated at the conference.
Bansal, A. (2010). A Cognitive Architecture for Learning and Skill Acquisition. Intern report, Department of Engineering Systems and Mathematics, Cranfield University, Defence Academy – College of Management and Technology, Shrivenham, Wilts., SN6 8LA, UK.
Scott, B. (1976). Cognitive Representations and Their Transformations in the Acquisition of Keyboard Skills, PhD thesis, Department of Cybernetics, Brunel University.
bednar (Peter Bednar)
Senior Lecturer, University of Portsmouth, UK
Research Associate, University of Lund, Sweden
Email: peter.bednar@ics.lu.se
Bio:
EoI: In organizational environments people act and work with problems on daily basis. I am interested in the reflective process when professional knowledge workers are engaging with purposeful change activity in their organizational environment. When people who work with complex and uncertain problem spaces make an effort to together pursue desireable change including the development of better problem solving capability in practice. This usually starts with action which is reflected upon and explored from multiple and holistic perspectives as part of an continuous change activity and ongoing problem resolution.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
bensweeting (ben sweeting)
Senior Lecturer, University of Brighton
PhD student, University College London
Email: bensweeting@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: I was at the wonderful ASC C:ADM 2010 conference at Troy and look forward to a similar experience.
I am particularly interested in something I find fantastic in cybernetics: that, understanding epistemology in terms of circularity, one both rejects objectivity and escapes subjectivity in the same terms (that being part of the world we are neither apart from it in the sense of an independent observer or in the sense of an isolated subject). This is manifest in the conference theme—in the acting and understanding present in the circularity of learning; that we must act to understand as well as understand to act.
It seems to me that this reflects on our relations with others (that is in ethics but also in the example of design). While cybernetics and ethics have been said to coincide, the consequences of cybernetics for ethics have only been put tentatively (understandably given one of these is that “ethics cannot be articulated”). This can become confused with an ethical reticence—to avoid impacting on others at all costs (or at least, I have confused it with this in the past). While we often spend too much time talking and not enough time listening, the opposite can also be the case. This observation returns to circularity—that in order to act we need to listen and in order to listen we need to act.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
bettinanuernberg (Bettina Nürnberg)
Email: bettinanuernberg@gmail.com
Website: http://www.bettinanuernberg.de
Bio:
EoI: I will film at this year’s conference with the help of my frequent collaborator, filmmaker, Dirk Peuker. My knowledge of cybernetics is new, but at this point in my research my main interests are in the connections between performance, movement and cybernetic and the “cybernetic” way of ethical understanding and philosophical thinking, and, of course, the relation to art, film and sound. As an artist, participating at the conference is a great opportunity for my research and to further my understanding of where my main interests lay. As a filmmaker, I look forward to meeting interesting people and learning from experts in this field. I am excited at the prospect of conversation and sharing ideas. In the end I will make a film for and about the ASC conference, which will be made available to all the conference participants.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
bill.seaman@duke.edu (Bill Seaman)
Department of Art, Art History & Visual Studies, Duke University
Member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences
Email: bill.seaman@duke.edu
Website: http://billseaman.com
Bio:
EoI: Insight Engine
This research seeks to work toward the digital authorship of a tool to empower insight production, distributed interdisciplinary team-based research, and to potentially enable bisociational processes as discussed by Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation. The goal of the 1st year of research is to create an interactive system to enable intelligent juxtaposition of relevant media elements via focused interaction, dynamic computational functionality, and intellectual “seeding” of the system.
The system seeks to reverse engineer some of the processes that we use as researchers. It then works toward a human / machine symbiosis where the machine presents an interface to many different researchers work. It does so in a way that enables the human user to playfully explore many different areas of research that may or may not be relevant to their current work in a novel interactive manner. The system presents a “word swirl” in 3D for each different researcher. These can be called up and displayed in the interface or put away. These word swirls have buzz words or titles (that you will supply for your own papers/ or I will add if need be) at the top of the hierarchy (one can also look deeper in the hierarchy with multiple finger touches) and even read an entire paper if it is of interest.
Often new knowledge arises in the space between fields —in interstitial zones of knowledge. If one choose one “buzz word” or Paper Title from “your” word swirl and one from another researcher that looks to be of interest, the system will seek to find the most relevant examples in the database [by making both a statistical and semantic comparison] (and eventually searching the internet, in the next iteration of the system) and provide those papers for you as a new word swirl of the most relevant juxtapositions.
The system seeks to be a learning system, where as you use it, you generate new word swirls of papers or media, that we hope to be relevant to you, in a playful iterative manner, or you can throw things away that are not relevant. The goal is in generating “intelligent research juxtapositions” that may arise through the use of the system – either for you or for a person who might learn from your work. This seems to me to be a situation of mutual intellectual gain between differing researchers…
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
This research seeks to work toward the digital authorship of a tool to empower insight production, distributed interdisciplinary team-based research, and to potentially enable bisociational processes as discussed by Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation. The goal of the 1st year of research is to create an interactive system to enable intelligent juxtaposition of relevant media elements via focused interaction, dynamic computational functionality, and intellectual “seeding” of the system.
The system seeks to reverse engineer some of the processes that we use as researchers. It then works toward a human / machine symbiosis where the machine presents an interface to many different researchers work. It does so in a way that enables the human user to playfully explore many different areas of research that may or may not be relevant to their current work in a novel interactive manner. The system presents a “word swirl” in 3D for each different researcher. These can be called up and displayed in the interface or put away. These word swirls have buzz words or titles (that you will supply for your own papers/ or I will add if need be) at the top of the hierarchy (one can also look deeper in the hierarchy with multiple finger touches) and even read an entire paper if it is of interest.
Often new knowledge arises in the space between fields —in interstitial zones of knowledge. If one chooses one “buzz word” or Paper Title from “your” word swirl and one from another researcher that looks to be of interest, the system will seek to find the most relevant examples in the database [by making both a statistical and semantic comparison] (and eventually searching the internet, in the next iteration of the system) and provide those papers for you as a new word swirl of the most relevant juxtapositions.
This puts your research in proximity to someone who otherwise might not find it or know of it. Alternately, if you play with the system it may provide a juxtaposition that is relevant to you and your research in a new way… in an emergent manner… thus the system might provide a historical instance, or newly published paper, etc. that suggests a moment of insight for your research.
The system seeks to be a learning system, where as you use it, you generate new word swirls of papers or media, that we hope to be relevant to you, in a playful iterative manner, or you can throw things away that are not relevant. The goal is in generating “intelligent research juxtapositions” that may arise through the use of the system – either for you or for a person who might learn from your work. This seems to me to be a situation of mutual intellectual gain between differing researchers…
burlgrey ( )
Email: burl@pobox.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
cabralfilho (Jose dos Santos Cabral Filho)
Associate Professor, School of Architecture – Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
Email: cabralfilho@gmail.com
Website: http://www.arq.ufmg/lagear
Bio:
EoI: Last year I took part in an ASC Conference for the first time (at Asilomar) and it was a very enriching experience, especially in regard to the diversified background of participants. That led me to decide that I would make an effort to participate in the following ASC conferences. My interest in attending this particular conference in Bolton is due to the fact that the discussion about acting, learning and understanding connects directly to my concerns as a professor of architecture. Ana Paula and I teach a course that seeks to make a transdisciplinary introduction to the practice of architecture, with subjects ranging from electronics, art, design process to contemporary digital culture.
Thus, our contribution to the conference will be to present and discuss the results of an experience of almost two decades of ‘teaching’ based on the paradigm shift from teaching to learning. In recent years the course has evolved and became grounded in second-order Cybernetics, which allows a structure open to organizational indeterminacy aiming at the autonomy of students. However, the balance between curriculum determination and the development of students’ autonomy is something difficult to negotiate. We hope that the discussions at the conference can help us on this matter.
In other words, we see the conference as an opportunity to present the results of the work we are doing and at the same time to discuss the limitations we have reached, in the hope that a diversified group of people can shed light on possible Cybernetic strategies for dealing with the interplay between determination and openness.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
The paper describes the modular organization of the course, its principles and its evolution over the last 17 years. Currently, the main course project is an urban interactive intervention that is the culmination of four modules: perception, creation, execution and representation. Despite the incremental aspect of the modules sequence, each of which has in itself a recurrence of the fourfold structure, nesting similar discussions and increasing in complexity as the students refine their critical and instrumental abilities.
The course is based on the development of students’ abilities to self-develop further abilities. For example, instead of being taught how to use instruments, students are required to develop a design task and for that they are encouraged to find out by themselves how to use the instruments (software or hardware) needed to complete the task. This process is done in a collective way, with each student investigating a specific tool or process and then sharing the acquired knowledge with the whole group. The analysis and critic of the resulting works is also done amongst classmates. In this way they develop their own process of learning without being taught.
Thus, the development of abilities, or instrumentalization, happens by means of the critique of instruments as they are used to create content, improving not only the use of instruments but as well as the creativity. As students develop their critical ability they also improve their use of instruments. In other words, acting and understanding leads to learning and back again, in a truly entangled process. However, we face a problem that is the constraints imposed by the school curriculum. So, even if we intend to open the development of abilities in a completely critical manner, it is limited by the specificity of the training proposed in the curriculum.
chathusk (Chathurika Kannangara)
PhD student, University of Bolton
Email: csk1mpo@bolton.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI: This International Conference is going to be my first attending international conference after I started my PhD. I am keeping my mind open to various types of inputs and experiences which I would gain during the conference. I belive , this is an advantage that I have obtained the opprotunity to take part in the Cybernetics conference 2013, which will of course add more to my experiences and exposure. I am also interested on the theme and excited about the research discussions and papers. Looking forward to the new experience, meeting experts from diffrent backgrounds and networking.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Claudia (Claudia Dutson)
PhD Student, Royal College of Art
Email: claudia.dutson@network.rca.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI: This year’s theme is of great interest to me as I am writing a chapter for my thesis
on performance; I am using ideas of performance from theatre and fine art to critique the optimum-performance paradigm of management and techno-capitalist production.
I am currently reading Stanislavsky’s texts on Acting, with a cybernetic view in mind – identifying congruences between his theories of Actioning and Objectives with computing concepts of behaviour, black-boxing, heuristics and feedback. I am very keen to learn more about cybernetic ideas of acting and learning through conversations at the conference.
This April I invited students from the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts, Royal College of Art and Imperial College to come together to improvise, script and perform a series of short dramas involving human and non-human actors. The outcome was surprising, challenging and gave rise to a lively debate afterwards on the status of human-machine interaction, machine intelligence, and what it means to be a human actor.
I am keen to share and question these ideas further, and hope to participate in lively conversations and interactions at the conference on acting and learning!
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Set against the context of the performativity of architecture, which is primarily an environmental concern that depends on the technical performance of the environmental systems; the productivity, mood and wellbeing (performance) of the human occupants; and the cooperation between the humans and machines within the building.
In order to achieve optimum performance, it requires a commitment of all occupants (human and non-human) to perform – or play their part.
As smart technologies are programmed to act with increasing autonomy, learning and even attempting to change the behaviour of their human counterparts, this paper seeks to question the status of things that do and act – in other words what they do has consequences and thus includes the potential to do things to others.
Replaying these interactions through theatrical techniques, this paper investigates the theme of performative action through interrogating Stanislavsky’s acting theories of Actioning and Objectives, Judith Butler’s reading of J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and power relations, in order to critique the high-performance paradigm present in this context.
Stanislavsky’s work on actions and performative speech, published over two decades before Austin’s How To Do Things With Words, couples tightly the action to the objective of the performer, rather than its effect. In Stanislavsky’s terms one cannot act emotion. One can see a similarity in cybernetic projects such as Valentino Braitenberg’s Vehicles, where the behaviour or emotion is the observable effect of action. Action, therefore, comes first.
These actions are used generatively – rather than just observed – by this I mean that the theatrical theory of actioning is practised, tested, rehearsed, reviewed – it is ‘in action’ – whereas the Speech Act theory discourse is more analytical and given to situations where the power relations are already set. There are also strong resonances with cybernetic theories of feedback, and artificial intelligence discourse on heuristics that allow me to proprose a rescripting of interactions between human and machine so that they participate fully in an environmental performance.
The paper is a development of a workshop I devised in the Spring which brought together students from London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts, Imperial College, Birkbeck and the Royal College of Art. Working through Stanislavski’s techniques of Actioning and Objectives, the participants scripted their own narrative performances between machines, humans, other machines, and in some cases, animals.
daigriffiths (Dai Griffiths)
Professor, Institute for Educational Cybernetics
Email: dai.griffiths.1@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: Computing has expanded the resources available in intellectual endeavor, but also radically increases the variety of educational management and its ability to control educational processes. Learning activities mediated by technology leave traces which can be used to create ‘actionable intelligence’ for managers (including teachers managing learners), and decision making can be automated. I fear that this will close up the uninspected space in the educational system which provides opportunities for creative individual endeavor, and move the purpose of the system into a still less desirable space. This lines up with commercial interests, and with risk management (education and certification as a system for apportioning blame?). Which is why I see more potential distopias than utopias.
We can wait for the education system to collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions (though it may be a long wait).
Or we can follow Belloc’s advice
‘And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.’
But my intention is to apply cybernetics and its fellow travellers in an attempt to defend educational activities which we see as valuable, and to make an informed argument for interventions in the activities, technology and organisation of the education system.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Reflecting about the importance of the recognition and acknowledgement of this informal competences and skills, the dialogue between the stakeholders involved in the organizations, managers and decision-makers on one hand and employees on the other side, and finally the last analysis of this discovered hidden knowledge to make decisions and evolve the knowledge management processes inside the organization.
This task should be easy taking into account that the technological and organizational innovations, and the affordances of the Internet, are facilitating increased access to knowledge and training for individuals that range from formal courses to informal ad hoc learning. However, the greater part of the informal learning that takes place, both within and outside institutional and organizational contexts, remains unacknowledged.
Technological basis for the informal learning competences recognition and tagging and the methodological workflows to create a dialogue layer between organization and employees has been studied inside TRAILER project. It aims to articulate the activity flow involved in the integration of informal learning as part of an individual’s development. The project involves partners from six different countries in which has been studied how informal learning was considered by organizations and individuals. After this first exploration a methodology was defined and a technological platform to support it. From this experience and several pilots it is possible conclude that informal learning recognition and acknowledge it is not, in practice, an easy task, mainly because there are several barriers:
•Organizational. Informal learning is not always appreciated by the organizations; they do not understand what it is and how this knowledge can be exploited.
•Technical. It is very complex to facilitate a simple, transparent and friendly system to make possible the recognition, management and publication of informal learning.
•Personal. The individuals understand different things about what they learn, the capabilities they achieve, what to communicate to the institution and what do not, etc.
dirkpeuker (Dirk Peuker)
Email: dirkgelb@gmx.de
Website: http://www.dirkpeuker.de
Bio:
EoI: I will help filming at this year’s conference as assistent for filmmaker Bettina Nürnberg.
My first contact with cybernetics was during a lecture by musician Brian Eno in 1996.
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
ds10 (David Sherlock)
University of Bolton
Email: ds10@bolton.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Eliana Herrera-Vega (Eliana Herrera)
Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa
Email: eherrera@uottawa.ca
Bio:
EoI: Dear Cybernetics Org.,
I am interested in exploring cybernetic theories for understanding the current social-system panorama. I bring a clear understanding of N. Luhmann’s theory of social systems along with a philosophical, critical perspective on the media of communication that seems to prevail in the case of the economic system. I am also familiar with the works of many cybernetic authors and look forward to establish a long-term conversation with the participants in ASC- Cybernetics.
Finally, I believe that the current crisis is the opportunity for developing a paradigm change in respect to our collective observation and human possibilities of action, in a system-mediated global society. This paradigm shift has to address emergent properties in socio-technical systems. A renewed paradigm also has to cope with the consequences that those new modalities of systems intelligence entail for the level of humanity.
Best,
Dr. Eliana Herrera-Vega
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
emel ( )
Email: amani.assaad@yahoo.fr
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
enolagaia (Randall Whitaker)
Email: enolagaia@aol.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Faisal (Faisal Kadri)
Email: faisal@artificialpsychology.com
Website: http://artificialpsychology.com
Bio:
EoI: Interested in the cybernetics of Artificial Psychology; the creation and validation of an artificial personality model with motivational and cognitive components.
An artificial personality is a dynamic design structure mimicking real human behavior. I intend to talk about the interface of the artificial personality with language on one hand and the expression of feelings or the emotions on another, Language offers near infinite diversity of expressions, the emotions offer a diversity which is comparable with the types of motivation. Cybernetics as the study of information processing has to tools to address the contrasting diversities and suggest the mechanisms that may explain how they are linked.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Chomsky is a linguist who believes that the medium of thought is natural language, he asserted that the structure of sentences is overwhelmingly similar to the structure of thought and that language is the mirror of the mind. So, inherited human disposition to learn language separates (cognitive) humans from (motivational) animals, and the structure of language follows formal logic rules, while animals and their behaviour have “nothing to teach us about our thought processes and languages.” This understanding set the stage for a collision course with the leading animal behaviourist B.F. Skinner in a well publicized critique of the latter’s work.
Chomsky argued that laboratory concepts, such as stimulus, response, and response strength, are inadequate when applied to human behaviour. Skinner argued that there is no reason to assume that animals under laboratory conditions will behave differently from being outside and suggested that animal behaviour extends to humans. Chomsky suggested that language structure leads to “near infinite” number of combinations and it would be impossible to learn them through rote memorization. The near infinite linguistic variety contrasts sharply with a small number of categories of animal motivations. To a cyberneticist this is revealing; while the jump in variety from near infinite to a single thread of behaviour seems impossible, the existence of intermediate non-linguistic stages of reduction is a realistic assumption, and the different varieties point to the likelihood that the arguments of linguists and behaviourists are not mutually exclusive. The artificial personality is constructed on a structure that limits the diversity of motivational contexts, thus reflecting a B.F. skinner scale of diversity and providing a transitional diversity for a Chomsky near infinite scale of linguistic diversity.
Another example is the difference between the higher diversity of the emotions with other motivations. The emotions are displays of feelings; feelings are the subjective representations of the emotions, yet both are separate subjects of academic research and have their own varieties enumerated by scholars, mostly without reference to a structure that can limit their growth. One noted exception is the Plutchik model, where different emotions and feelings are located on two dimensional coordinates over a wheel with 8 spokes, representing 8 primitive emotions which are common with animals and form the basis for higher diversity of emotions. Plutchik placed the primitive emotions in the centre of the wheel and the higher diversity radiating outwards. The location on the wheel describes how the emotions are related uniquely to each other and can be understood as projections from the dimensions of the artificial personality.
In both cases we have a situation of higher diversity that is bound by structure and a lower diversity with no apparent structure, the artificial personality reconcile the diversities by adding structure to the lower diversity.
Observing the differences and similarities between diversities is a process of recursive learning and construction of a structured model of reality.
g.dieumegard (Gilles Dieumegard)
Associate professor (Educational Sciences), Université Montpellier 2 – ESPE
Member of the board, ARCo – French Association for Research on Cognition
Email: gillesdieumegard@wanadoo.fr
Website: http://www.lirdef.univ-montp2.fr/user/16
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
GabrielJ31 ( )
Email: nubpneurl@hotmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
gcviolin (Graham Clark)
Email: gcviolin@tiscali.co.uk
Website: http://www.grahamviolin.com
Bio:
EoI: After several discussions about music and cognition, Dai Griffiths suggested to me that I might like to participate in this conference, and he was right.
I can bring to the conference my way of thinking about interactive group improvisation, which looks at the the musical context, and how that influences what the individual musician does within that context. Of course that musical context is, in part, constructed by what the individual musician does. We can see the circularity of “Action – Learning – Understanding” in process in any musical group improvisation. What we do contributes to what we hear, and what we hear influences what we do.
I recognise that there are other musical contexts to be thought about – e.g. that of the individual musician’s internalised understanding of music, then how that interacts with the internal frameworks of other musicians through the music they each play to allow a mutually constructed external context to emerge. This provides the potential for the music making experience even before we take into account, the range of internalised musical contexts of the listeners in any audience, what they produce, and how that might reflect back into the performance, or inform the musical experience of those listeners.
It is also useful in teaching approaches to improvisation, where I am often concerned with getting students, in practice and study sessions, to focus on internalising the principles of musical relationships (as well as their techniques on their instruments), while shifting that focus in performance to the musical context being constructed by the other members of the group, and trusting their own internalised system enough to allow it to contribute to the overall sound of the band without conscious direction.
This approach regards the conscious mind, or awareness, as a monitor of the music making system rather than the creator of the music itself. It is the placing of our attention, directing curiosity, maintaining interest, and asking questions. This feedback system depends on aesthetic judgements about what both the individual’s contribution to the music, and those of the other group members, is doing to the group sound.
I see this as a metaphor for many other group dynamics.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
gillytf (Gill Green)
reader in business technologies, university of bolton
Email: gillytf@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
HelenC ( )
Email: helen.cronshaw@treloar.org.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
hsun520 ( )
Email: hsun520@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
imaginedpm ( )
Email: delia.p.macnamara@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
IreneMueller (Irene Mueller)
Email: irene.mueller@vsp.at
Bio:
EoI: following later
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
jankuiper (Jan Kuiper)
Partner, Kuiper & van de Kieft
Partner, icoDrome
Email: jan.kuiper@xs4all.nl
Website: http://www.kvdk.nl
Bio:
EoI: I’m a practical cybernetician who applies cebernetics in day to day work with clients. I have a large experience in designing cebernetic dialogue-protocols. With my collegue, Mike vd Wijnckel, we designed “Workspace”. A set cof cybernetic interventions based on measurables.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
JasonJixuanHu (Jason Hu)
Managing Director, Wintop Group
Email: jjh@wintopgroup.com
Bio:
EoI: At the time we’re preparing for this conference, the Chinese media is debating whether China should have a constitutional government. Chinese people started their struggle [i.e. Action] of trying to build a constitutional government since the beginning of 20th century. Many mishaps and bitter lessons [i.e. Learning] happened during the previous 113 years. But until today, they are still not able to build a true constitutional government nor to reach to a full consensus [i.e. Understanding] of the necessity of a true constitution. Why?
Two economists, Acemoglu and Robinson, co-authored a 570-page tome “Why Nations Fail” last year based on 15 years of research, trying to answer a vital question “why are some nations poor and others rich?”. The book has been praised highly by a big number of scholars, including at least five Nobel laureates, and opinion leaders such as Francis Fukuyama. It is quite fair to say that this book represented a mainstream academic thinking at least in the field of economics.
Their main point is that, open pluralistic political system leads to “inclusive” institution which then leads to sustainable growth, while “extractive” institutions tend to end up poor and unsustainable. Geography or culture should not be explanations of whether a country can obtain prosperity, only institution can explain. Extractive institutions are those extracting wealth from groups of society to benefit a small group, while inclusive institutions provide open opportunities to everyone in the society.
Bill Gates criticized this book as “disappointment, analysis vague and simplistic.” I agree most of Gates’ observations, but I would like to say more from a cybernetic perspective. Economists sometimes use cybernetic concepts such as “feedback” or “self-fulfilling prophesies”, but most of time they do not see circular causalities of various types underlying the phenomena they targeted to explain. Linear causality models do not work because they cannot really capture the complexity of what exactly going on. This book falls short to explain my question at the beginning, i.e., why Chinese people cannot build a true constitutional government so far? A true constitutional government is the first step towards the “inclusive institution,” even some constitutions are not “inclusive.” Without a true constitution the society is far from “rule of law,” it might be in absolutist monarchy, totalitarian despotism or rule by covert jungle law.
Let’s use self-organization theory to decipher the dynamics of institution formation, to answer the key question raised at beginning.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
For ASC 2013 Conference in Bolton, UK
Jason Jixuan Hu, Ph.D.
Managing Director
WINTOP GROUP
jjh@wintopgroup.com
Abstract
First a general formula is proposed to represent self-organization processes as identified by Ashby, von Foerster, Prigogine etc., i.e. R=Ǒ[M], or Results=Ǒ[Mechanism], in which Latin capital O with Caron is used to represent the general self-organization process. The letter “O” visually symbolizes a closed loop of causality in focus. The bud-looking “Caron” visually symbolizes something grows from that circular causality and sustained by this causality loop, i.e. emergence. The formula offers a convenient way to identify, discuss and compare different types of self-organization processes in various fields of study and disciplines.
Second, an attempt is made to identify a multi-layer of self-organization processes in reaction chains of human behaviors from very local to very global – from the cognitive process of individual brain, to the interactions among brains that form families and societies, all the way to the interactions of different societies leading to a global organizational eigen-result for the whole planet. A grand perspective is offered following footsteps of Ashby and HVF. This multi-layer frame need to be refined and expanded through the discussions with colleagues during this conference. A clear understanding of the relationships of these specific self-organizing processes, going on at levels of individual, family, state, and global, might improve our understanding of these processes as well as provide guidance in personal development, organizational development, and international relations.
Jennifer Kanary (Jennifer Kanary Nikolov(a))
PhD Candidate, Plymouth University, Planetary Collegium
Independant Artist
Email: jenniferkanary@yahoo.com
Website: http://www.labyrinthpsychotica.org
Bio:
EoI: I visited my first ASC conference when it was held in TROY NY, the alternative conference structures made a lasting impact on me, on the level of intellectual stimulation and interaction, as well as simply meeting wonderfully interesting people, many of whom I still correspond with today. Now that ASC is so close to home, I am eager for more explosions in the brain, in particular because of the Acting-Learning-Understanding theme. I have a particular interest in alternative forms of learning in an art science context. I have taught creative philosophy to children, as well as guided Art and University students of Amsterdam for 3,5 years in the honours programme Art and Research. What I bring to the table is practical knowledge on how to combine artistic and academic methods in knowledge production practice, with an emphasis on collaboration.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Jerome Carson (Jerome Carson)
Professor of Psychology, University of Bolton
Email: j_carson@o2.co.uk
Bio:
EoI: I have been researching the field of occupational stress in mental health professionals for several years. With others I have conducted several large stress surveys and also designed and carried out two small randomised controlled trials. This research has had a very negative focus. We have tended to look at the percentage of staff experiencing burnout, the numbers who might be seen as “psychiatric cases” given the severity of their scores on questionnaires, such as the “misnamed” General Health Questionnaire. This is really a measure of “psychiatric caseness.” Having developed an interest in Positive Psychology and wellbeing in recent years, I think this calls for a paradigm shift in occupational stress research in mental health. Concepts such as resilience and recovery, may have as much to offer mental health professionals as they do for people who use mental health services. Working with psychiatric problems can be inherently stressful. Personally, part of my own decision to take early retirement was that I was becoming burned out myself, even though I was engaged in pioneering work around mental health recovery. Patient suicide and attempted suicide and an increasing workload caused me particular stress. Along with Professor Bill Ollivier, we have discussed trying to use our own University here at Bolton as a “laboratory” for studying occupational stress and its alleviation through the use of Positive Psychology and other interventions. Thus far we have not succeeded in getting this approach established and maybe it can only really be attempted in an external academic setting.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
julianstadon (Julian Stadon)
Associate Lecturer, Curtin University
Associate Lecturer, Murdoch University
Director, Dorkbot Perth
Email: julianstadon@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: I am currently completing a PhD in Post-biological identity politics in real time mixed reality data transfer systems art. My thesis explores the evolving field of mixed reality data transfer and how this relates to current research regarding post-biological identity. The research aims to develop new notions regarding post-biological identity through innovative real time data transfer systems that incorporate biological information and mixed reality applications as artistic mediums.
Using the notion of hypersurfacing as a starting point, the research juxtaposes traditional representations of identity and the body with modern metaphors relating to the ownership of personal information, specifically ‘data bodies’. The practical outcomes relate data bodies to organ trade and panoptic/surveillance networks as a way of exploring how post-colonial approaches to developing semiotic structures within telematic virtual environments need to be expanded, in order to address new issues and languages arising from such systems.
My research interests are grounded in an ogoing investigation into feedback systems relating to artist, representation and viewer. My particular interest in the role interfaces and interaction design plays in this scenario has led the research to include cybernetics within its discourse. Having previously attended ASC2010 (unfortunately having to leave early due to prior commitments), I am very eager to again attend this conference. I found the format innovative, constructive and enjoyable and feel the progression of my own research will allow me to participate ever further in discussions, while learning more about related fields from some very interesting researchers.
FInally, I will also be finalising my PhD thesis around this time so I hope this conference would provide some feedback in regards to my own research, along with furthering my understanding of how it fits into the dense field of cybernetics.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
The idea is to establish the issue of dispersion and identity in this chapter, ie difference and how repetition creates connections that are quite arbitrary and incapable of answering the bigger questions of identity and existence. First I establish the shift that occurred in the academy model, then discuss dispersion as deterritorialisation, then repetition and reterritorialisation and how this, if seen as a molecular process (conceptually) creates a strong debate between the esoteric syncretic model of connectedness ; the grounded actor network theory model and the recent speculative realist model of dislocation and unconnected affect in such systems.
A Historicisation of identity politics within techno-systems, particularly digital arts
I will use Heidegger and Virilio to discuss it in terms of politics and power and Simondon to break it into basic paradigms of classification. I will use Lacan and the mirror stage to discuss our awareness of body/identity politics and the transition into data bodies through the archiving of identities via social networks. This will be related to the notion of post biological digital identity, with a focus on the real time aspects to interaction in these platforms and how this creates a paradigm of mixed reality data body transfer
I will use boyd, harraway, hayles, Jenkins & Turkle to discuss online identity in virtual social systems and networks, particularly, I will try to progress traditional dualistic arguments regarding identity and bodies as a theoretical relationship, particularly in relation to technologies but not so specifically on the new form of the ‘dual cyborg’ (I mean here, that most of the work on identity and bodies is about either a) the disembodied self – the consciousness in the machine or b) the cyborgic self – the fused meat/machine entity
Disparate Theoretical Convergence in Regards to Data Bodies
This will then relate to look at these topics comparatively:
*Ascott’s Syncretism and post biology
*Deleuze/Guattari’s Rhizome/Deterritorialisation/Reterritorialisation of the body. An investigation of ambiguous telematics agency. This will dissect telematics in regards to both autonomous and non-autonomous interaction (agency vrs non agency based) and how this related to data bodies.
*Latour’s Actor Network theory and the body- the role of visceral bodies in relation to data bodies.
*Speculative Realism and unconnectedness, or object orientated ontology- referencing primarily Graham harman’s test The Speculative Turn.
Positive Panopticism: Tracking Biological Identity and Interaction in a Socially Available System of Exchange.
Here I will talk about the notion of surveillance, ownership of biological informatiom and virtual content. I will discuss the idea of tracking in a realtime architectural context, meaning I will discuss the importance of data collection through surveillance and tracking in hypersurfaced systems. I will relate Foucault’s notion of “The Ambigous Panopticon” To Levy’s articulation of Collective Intelligence, introducing the idea of an open source arts practice based on a model of panoptic transparency. I will Introduce the idea of situational cartography as the process of mapping, where a concept/ idea/ ‘thing’ is archived through the various outcomes it produces and how this has become the method by which value is assigned to the products of creative practice. I will then relate this to postbiological representation, particularly deterritorialised and reterritorialised notions of the body. I will conclude by articulating the ambiguous nature of this system and it’s tendency to be mediated/rearticulated and reinterpreted.
julie wilson-bokowiec ( )
Email: julie.wilson-bokowiec@hud.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
juliebokowiec (Julie Wilson-Bokowiec)
Visiting Research Fellow, University of Huddersfield
Email: juliebokowiec@yahoo.com
Website: http://www.juliebokowiec.com/bodycoder.html
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
KatlynLinder ( )
Email: slatteryqx@hotmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
kesienaokooboh (Mercy Kesiena Clement Okooboh)
Doctoral Researcher, Institute for Educational Cybernetics (IEC) University of Bolton
Email: kesienaokooboh@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: I am a PhD candidate in the institute for educational cybernetics in the University of Bolton, and also the head of organizational learning and development in Veolia Energy (Dalkia) Ireland. My expression of interest is to learn more on how to adapt the cybernetic models to training practices in organizations. In my PhD research that is currently undertaken in my organization, some of the principles of cybernetic systems are apparent in this study as it informs a mechanism for continuous improvement for every evaluation of training program conducted. This cyclical continuous enhancement process illustrates the changes and improvements as they occur.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
The cybernetic model of viable systems is employed in this study as a diagnostic tool to investigate viability through an illustrative case study of a service industry. This paper illustrates the similarities of a viable system model (VSM) to a learning organisation model; the viable system model (VSM) developed by Stafford Beer are important steps to improve current operations, prepare for new operations and adapt to change inside and outside the environment. The technique of integrating what is happening (observed state) and desired state is the basic comparator in this simple cybernetic model. The emphasis of this study is on continuous enhancement of the effectiveness of learning and development practices within Veolia Energy (Dalkia) Ireland. The effectiveness question and the basis of this study is ‘How can Veolia Energy (Ireland) improve its learning and development initiatives and practices to enhance performance improvement?’
The need to have an evaluation framework in place in the organization was vital. The purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of the organizations learning and developments practices and measure the improvement process. This linkage is aligned to System 1, 2 and 3 of the VSM model. The pre-course questionnaire is the current state of what is happening in the organization and team, while the level 1 and 2 evaluation is the reaction and learning that actually took place comparing it with the desired state set out in the pre-course questionnaire, level 3 and 4 of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model compares the observed state and desired state of the delegates that attended training. Levels 3 and 4 evaluation emphasizes the Impact on the organization, the first impact is the operational benefit, here the relationship built and developed with clients increases business scope with the client, bridges the communication gap and builds on trust to foster good relationship between employees and clients.
Finally, I have carried out evaluation of the training and learning programs; the next level of the cybernetic loop will be evaluating the improvement that I have been making, that is improvement of the process and interventions. The next step will be to give the feedback of the findings of the evaluations to the managers, highlighting the improvements. I am introducing the multiple levels of evaluation, I am evaluating and getting people to evaluate the improvement process, and I am putting in a feedback program so that the training can be continuously improved.
laudrich (Larry Richards)
Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Indiana University East
Email: laudrich@iue.edu
Bio:
EoI: While I attend ASC conference primarily to listen, learn and have conversations, I also look for ways to participate more “formally”. I have given pre-conference tutorials at numerous past ASC conferences and am willing to do so again at this one if a need arises; these tutorials include prepared materials but are more conversational than presentational and can happen one-on-one or in small groups.
For this conference, I am particularly interested in pursuing the notion advanced by Humberto Maturana that : “all doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing.” My instincts tell me that unravelling this notion will require an alternative way of thinking about learning, knowledge, understanding, wisdom and thinking itself–that is, an alternative to the common way of thinking about education and its value. This alternative will bring “doing” (and action) to center stage and even address thinking as a type of doing. If I can find the time, I may prepare a paper on this topic and its implications for both educational processes and the prospects for a new society (see abstract).
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Section Headings–
1. Introduction: Knowing, Doing and Understanding
2. A Way of Thinking about Learning and Competence
3. The Cybernetics of Wisdom
4. A Radical Proposal for an Alternative Educational System
5. Conclusion: The Transformation of Society
leydesdorff (Loet Leydesdorff)
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
Email: loet@leydesdorff.net
Website: http://www.leydesdorff.net
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon’s theory by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchanges in reflexive communications. The information is redundant because based on “pure sets,” that is, without subtraction of mutual information in the overlaps. We show that in the three-dimensional case (e.g., of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information (Rxyz = Txyz); but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions and proceed to the interpretation.
Using Luhmann’s social-systems theory and/or Giddens’ structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of (“absent”) options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann’s “functional (sub)systems” of expectations or Giddens’ “rule-resource sets” are positioned mutually, but coupled operationally in events or “instantiated” in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation, but the “structures” are (re-)positioned towards one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. The positional differences among the coding and decoding algorithms provide a source of additional options in reflexive and anticipatory communications.
li yuan (Li Yuan)
Senior Researcher, Institute for Educational Cybernetics, University of Bolton
Learning Technology Advisor, Cetis
Email: l.yuan@bolton.ac.uk
Website: http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk/
Bio:
EoI: I would like to join the conference and learn more about the latest development of theoretical models and practical applications in cybernetics. I am interested in applying cybernetics to understand technology related innovations and interventions in education systems.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Line Bruun (Line Marie Bruun Jespersen)
assistant professor, AAU, department of AD:MT
Email: lmbj@create.aau.dk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Lineappelsine ( )
Email: lineappelsine@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
LINGQL (Ling Tan)
Research student , UCL-BARTLETT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
Email: qinglingtan@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: Mediated Reality, Augmented Reality, Ubiquitous computing, pervasive media
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
This paper interrogates Mediated Reality through experimental prosthesis. The notion of bearable design as opposed to wearable is introduced as a framework to question the relevance of the built environment in relation to Mediated Reality. It investigates the limit to which human behaviour can be altered with such type of implantable or body-borne devices during interaction with, and inhabition of the environment. In the case when technology become pervasive, questions of control between user and prosthesis are raised. The paper argues that in the circularity of information sharing between human and machine, each with their own teleological mechanisms, there will be instances where machine dominance and human subservience can occur.
The design project is used as a speculative platform for exploration on this topic. It focuses on Bearable Prosthesis as a category of technological devices through which surveillance and intervention is facilitated by Mediated Reality. Fitted with sensors and actuators embedded within or affixed to the the body, the effect of Mediated Reality enables a localised effect. To better understand the impact of Mediated Reality on users and and its relevance to the current built environment, this is tested with a series of devices designed to be used in experiments and films. This leads on to a speculative investigation of the future of the human body with the integration of such invasive technology. In addition, questions are raised by the merging of our virtual and physical spaces. The dichotomy between transparency of information sharing and human privacy is collapsing to create a new form of design language, merging the user and the built environment as a result.
LucioMabry ( )
Email: yousysotell1@hotmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
ludmila.malinova (Ludmila Malinova)
PhD. student, University of Economics in Prague
Email: lida.malinova@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: I am working on my dissertation thesis and I need to get some experience from so great experts from ASC environment. My master thesis was based on second order cybernetics theory. In my master thesis I prepared structured questionnaire in consulting company. I got really interesting results which I would like to share with you (experts) and to consult it for my further research. My mentor was Antonin Rosicky, who helped me with his priceless advices in this field. Now he is bedridden and I need to find some experts from your community to discuss my dissertation topic. I want to prepare some methodology or tool for organization to imply second order cybernetics combined with information management and social networks. My goal is to be able persuade managers, that they need sociocybernetics for understanding their employees, processes and business.
I would like to find at the conference inspiration for my thesis and also to find new colleagues or hopefully friends.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
The employees were asked in the survey questions in the following areas: information and knowledge in the organization and their use, employee training, relations of business and personal values, fulfillment of needs according to the Maslow’s pyramid, feedback, company unity and integrity, satisfaction in the organization, corporate culture, and more. Based on the evaluation of questionnaires and a series of interviews with the managers of the organization there was found out a different approach and understanding of reality in the organization. Due these two different perspectives there resulted a number of issues in the organization (e.g., a high staff fluctuation, dissatisfaction, low productivity, overtime, etc.)
The idea of this article is that if the management understands how the organization works and how problems arise among employees and when the management can respond appropriately, then the employees would work (act) better (work will be carried out more efficiently) and at the same time this will lead to understanding of various relationships in the workplace. This creates a positive circularity, when the more satisfied employees help managers better understand what is happening in the organization and regulate their behavior that will lead to effective problem solving and satisfaction of employees, who will, once again, know better what to do and how.
The question is whether the social cybernetics can become a tool for understanding the systemic relations and show managers how to work better and more effectively with subordinates in an organization, so that there are well used potentials of individuals and also possibilities of modern information technology.
The main issue is to understand the importance of individual observers (employees) within the system, their education so that they understand the values and content of their work, so that they are satisfied, and the subsequent actions, which should be appropriately guided by the authority (management) that fully understands the principles of social cybernetics, learning organization and systemic approach.
The article should clarify what affects the behavior within the organization. E.g. availability of information and documents, the right knowledge, both formal and informal communication, satisfaction, trust, other employees, etc. Is there a way to encourage the behavior of employees in the organization? The second stage is an influence on learning in the organization. This can be supported by quality of available information, the leaders in the organization, formal and informal relationships, feedback, etc. But, how can we motivate the employees to such learning? The last stage is understanding. When employees had done a good job somehow and for example undertaken some training, it does not mean yet that they have understood the issue. Understanding is tied to knowledge, especially with tacit knowledge of each employee. How to support understanding of the issues and challenges in a best way? It is said that everyone is replaceable but the organization could suffer greatly from the departure of some key employees. This is mainly due to their contribution in the field of knowledge, experience, and other relationships with other employees. What are the options for discovering such employees and is it possible to pass their knowledge and experience further?
The social cybernetics should be considered as an opportunity for organizations to better understand the circular process of learning, acting and understanding within the complex environment of organization.
macondeg (Miguel Conde)
Associated Lecture, University of León
Researcher, GRIAL reseach group
Email: macondeg@gmail.com
Website: http://grial.usal.es/grial/mconde
Bio:
EoI: To this conference I can bring my experience and GRIAL research group experience in eLearning projects. Some examples of these experiences are related to personalization of learning, recognition of informal learning, mobile learning, multicultural learning experiences, etc. In most of these experiences we have seen that defining a procedure or designing a learning solution may be more or less easy, however when you try to put it into practice the situation changes. What I am looking for is for other leaning experiences that have dealt with different persons and contexts, and how they have overcome the problems.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Reflecting about the importance of the recognition and acknowledgement of this informal competences and skills, the dialogue between the stakeholders involved in the organizations, managers and decision-makers on one hand and employees on the other side, and finally the last analysis of this discovered hidden knowledge to make decisions and evolve the knowledge management processes inside the organization.
This task should be easy taking into account that the technological and organizational innovations, and the affordances of the Internet, are facilitating increased access to knowledge and training for individuals that range from formal courses to informal ad hoc learning. However, the greater part of the informal learning that takes place, both within and outside institutional and organizational contexts, remains unacknowledged.
Technological basis for the informal learning competences recognition and tagging and the methodological workflows to create a dialogue layer between organization and employees has been studied inside TRAILER project. It aims to articulate the activity flow involved in the integration of informal learning as part of an individual’s development. The project involves partners from six different countries in which has been studied how informal learning was considered by organizations and individuals. After this first exploration a methodology was defined and a technological platform to support it. From this experience and several pilots it is possible conclude that informal learning recognition and acknowledge it is not, in practice, an easy task, mainly because there are several barriers:
•Organizational. Informal learning is not always appreciated by the organizations; they do not understand what it is and how this knowledge can be exploited.
•Technical. It is very complex to facilitate a simple, transparent and friendly system to make possible the recognition, management and publication of informal learning.
•Personal. The individuals understand different things about what they learn, the capabilities they achieve, what to communicate to the institution and what do not, etc.
magnusramage (Magnus Ramage)
Lecturer in Information Systems, The Open University
Email: magnus.ramage@open.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI: I have been interested in learning processes considered in a cybernetic manner for many years, both in organisational learning and in formal education. One of my first introductions to cybernetics was through the learning theory of Gregory Bateson, and also through the organisational learning work of Argyris and Schön (which ultimately has its roots in Ross Ashby’s work). In recent years, much of my research has focused on information and the way it is treated by a variety of disciplines. It seems clear there are close parallels between information and learning. Taken together, this makes the centrality of learning in the conference theme of great interest to me.
Moreover, I have long been puzzled and fascinated by the relationship between acting and understanding (or, put another way, between theory and practice) and their mutual dependence. I am much more of a theorist than a practitioner, but I am very interested in however practitioners behave and act, and what is the relationship between their work and my work.
Lastly, I am keen simply to continue conversations with ASC members. Having recently become editor-in-chief of the journal Kybernetes, I find the ASC a very important body to keep in contact with. I learnt a great deal from attending the Asilomar conference in 2012, and hope to find the experience similarly enriching in Bolton.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
We live in an age which is often described as the information age, and information is all-pervasive in our society. Very many objects and phenomena which were previously considered as material are now considered in terms of information: just a few examples include money, music and friendship.
We also live in an age where ubiquitous computing has shifted from being an aspiration of computer scientists to being the lived experience of very many people in society (at least in developed countries). Smartphones, tablet computers and small laptops, combined with widespread networking, have brought computing power to the pockets of most of us. This is likely to be extended considerably further with the rise of wearable computers, such as Google Glass.
It might be argued that ubiquitous computing is turning us into cyborgs, blended beings so dependent on our computers that we have become a single organism. I will argue in this talk that this is the wrong focus – that we should look not at the devices but at what they convey: ubiquitous information. In this sense we are turning not into cyborgs but into ‘infoborgs’. Massive amounts of information is being created by and about us, stored in networks of large data-servers (the cloud).
This shift of our lives to being information-driven, enabled by connected devices, is exciting to some but deeply threatening to others. It raises many questions (some of which have been asked in different ways previously by figures such as Katherine Hayles) about what it means to be human, and what is the nature of materiality.
There are parallels here to the conference theme which relates acting and understanding in a circular relationship, linked by learning. In the same way, the technological and the human are conjoined in a circular relationship (as the cyborg/infoborg), linked by information. Examining the processes of the technological-human relationship will help us to see the links between acting and understanding.
Mark Durkin (Mark Durkin)
Email: mad1hss@bolton.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI: Having already had my first taster and experience of cybernetics through my participation on a workshop with Dr Mark William Johnson I am intrigued to know more. I am most interested in understanding how cybernetics can blend with research/psychology and create new ideas.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
MckinleyBXK ( )
Email: climesbkxo@hotmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
mconde ( )
Email: miguel.conde@unileon.es
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
mdr66 (Martin Reynolds)
Senior Lecturer in Systems Thinking in Practice, The Open University, UK
Email: martin.reynolds@open.ac.uk
Website: http://sites.google.com/site/jjntest1/Home/people/martin-reynolds-1
Bio:
EoI: My particular interest is in looking at the value of triple loop learning for systems practice, and in particular exploring the relations of power exercised through systemic learning processes
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
From a systems perspective, the essential difference between the single and double loop is that the former accepts goals as given whereas the latter involves questioning and possibly changing goals or aspirations. Such ideas resonate with purposive and purposeful systems thinking respectively. Single-loop learning is associated with what Ackoff and Emery (1972) would call goal-seeking purposive systems, whilst double-loop learning is associated with goal-searching purposeful systems. The two can be summarised by questions raised through each loop: (i) Are we doing things right? (single loop) and (ii) Are we doing the right things? (double loop).
Flood and Romm (1996) in a book entitled Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning introduce their third loop in terms of addressing the political dimension behind learning. The question they raise is what relations of power might circumscribe particular purposes being privileged or valued, whilst other purposes are not so valued. This third dimension goes beyond looking at ‘what is the right thing’ (an essentially ethical question) towards appreciating that the right thing might appear ‘right’ because of the power invested in who espouses it (a political question). The third loop asks:
(iii) Is rightness buttressed by mightiness and/or mightiness by rightness?
This third loop of learning suggests coercive relations of power associated with either domination of (a) ‘decision makers’ – those in authority with control over resources associated with a situation – expressing ‘mightiness’; for example, through corporatism or capitalism, or conversely (b) ‘experts’ – those with particular expert judgements associated with a situation – expressing notions of ‘rightness’; for example, though economism or fundamentalisms. These expressions of coercion can sometimes be referred to in terms of (a) decisionism (power over resources such as money – plutocracy) and (b) technocentrism (power with specialist professional knowledge – expertocracy) respectively.
The relative failure of triple-loop learning to gain traction in systems practice triggers questions regarding potential loss of deeper understanding of Learning III provided by Bateson. This paper explores the potential of a wider cyber-systemic space embracing three core systems concepts – interrelationships, perspectives, and boundaries – for making explicit the value base and political dimensions of systemic learning. Using a case-study of pedagogic innovation at the Open University, triple-loop learning is explored as part of a more politically informed teaching of systems thinking in practise; retrieving in turn the virtue of wisdom.
Mehr.rtp (Mehrnoush Rostampour)
Email: mehr.rtp@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: I am so sensitive about the way students’ knowledge is assessed during and at the end of their education. What is so important is that even a so little wrong action in assessing them leads in underestimating or overestimating their capabilities which bring about lack of motivation or choosing wrong ways to continue the way of their lives. In this modern and changing world being knowledgeable is an undeniable necessity and vital issue to keep our students specially in primary and secondary stages motivated and willing to have educated, motivated, and innovative people and skilled society to be able to grow and sophisticate.
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
mgpln (Narayana Mandaleeka)
Vice President & Chief Scientist ; Head, Business Systems & Cybernetics Center, Tata Consultancy Services Limited
Email: mgpl.narayana@tcs.com
Bio:
EoI: I am happy to note that 2013 ASC Conference has set the theme as Acting-Learning-Understanding and I am interested to participate in the deliberations at this conference. I am a firm believer that every idea born gets done twice. It gets done first in the mind before it gets manifested in a physical/tangible form. How things are to be done? Means are as important as the end, for the success is very much dependent on what one intends as envisaged in the goals setting and how one performs as per values.
In our center (Business Systems and Cybernetics) we believe “Values to Value™” as a working philosophy to design the offerings that interests our associates to help them to solve their client problems. The second term in the above working philosophy, “Value” refers to the stakeholder value that should come out holistically. A key component in problem solving is to understand the problem from different perspectives / dimensions. Learning takes place by designing the solution with this understanding and performing as per the design. In reality, achieving the goal may not be as simple as it thought out to be. In the complex and uncertain situations the goals may be evasive till the point a good enough understanding of a situation is arrived. With each successive action cycles the learning deepens the understanding and prepares one for the next cycle of action bringing close to targeted outcomes. Thus achieving goal is a journey involving reflection on the results, conceptualization of the reality followed by experimentation (innovation). The goal itself may be changing with changing environment (in businesses or otherwise)
My idea of attending the conference is as much to learn as to contribute on the aspect of knowledge creation that takes place while the entity (organization, individual) is seeking a goal. By being in the software industry for the last three decades and by having served various roles as programmer, designer, architect, practitioner, and consultant and now as researcher I feel that I will be able to contribute by my participation. The insights that I may gain by networking and interacting with the fellow participants will be some useful takeaways in terms of right questions that need to be addressed.
I look forward to the invitation to attend this conference and wish the conference a great success.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
The key challenges faced by today’s manager are coping with the rapid change and complexity and uncertainty. The managers need to be enabled to act themselves into a “new way of thinking” rather than think themselves into a “new way of acting”. Most visionary leaders agree that Systems Thinking is critical to solving complex problems. Managers also need to find a balance between the opposing interests of the firm’s different stakeholders. The Multidimensionality character plays a very important role in understanding this tension and brings about the balance.
Business is about creating and delivering Value to all its stakeholders. More importantly, the value created is to be captured too, through its business models and complementary assets. How is the value created in the first place? It is the Processes that the firm adheres to embedding the required Qualities into its offerings.
When one understands things holistically, the future of humanity depends on the sustainability of a complex system involving three interdependent, highly fragile sub-systems: the natural environment, the social/political system and the global economy. With the melting down of the financial sector, social unrest, global warming and natural calamities showing up more often, we are beginning to feel the ‘system is acting as a whole’ to reach certain (?) equilibrium. Instead can we Design to steer our own destiny? The important stakeholders connected with these sub systems act on different time scale than the stakeholders in the vicinity with which a firm explicitly deals with. Any “Responsible Business” should be equipped to think into these aspects and work towards Sustainability. On this aspect the very survival of a business organization hinges. This way of thinking will bring about right amount of efficiencies and effectiveness to firm’s operations. This is easier said than done. The bed rock for all these actions are Values that the firm internalizes and shapes its attitude, behavior and thinking into its daily routines. Thus Values to Value play a very important part in excellence journey.
By adopting “Values to Value™” as a working framework and philosophy to design the offerings that interest the clients, organizations stand to gain in excellence. The second term in the above working philosophy, “Value” refers to the stakeholder value that should come out holistically. A key component in problem solving is to understand the problem from different perspectives. Learning takes place by designing the solution with this understanding and performing as per the design. In reality, achieving the goal may not be as simple as it is thought out to be. In the complex and uncertain situations the goals may be evasive till the point a good enough understanding of a situation is arrived. With each successive action cycles the learning deepens the understanding and prepares one for the next cycle of action bringing close to targeted outcomes. Thus achieving goal is a journey involving reflection on the results, conceptualization of the reality followed by experimentation (innovation). The goal itself may be changing with changing environment (in the contexts of businesses or otherwise)
mhohl (Michael Hohl)
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau
Email: michaelhohl@gmail.com
Website: http://www.hohlwelt.com/en/index.html
Bio:
EoI: I will bring to the conference an improvised musical instrument, openness, curiosity and critical listening as well as my own experience and thoughts about acting, learning and understanding.
I am interested in learning more about the relationship between acting and learning and how they inform each other creating understanding. This is of particular interest to me on multiple levels. As an educator and phd supervisor I would like to get a better understanding and approach on how acting can facilitate understanding and how this may inform new ways of teaching. As a designer & researcher I am interested in how implicit knowledge gained through practice, can be made explicit and in this process perhaps link theorising and practice in a more intuitive manner. When is acting a way of theorising? When does theorising become a way of acting?
I am looking forward to hearing new perspectives on these and other themes from different disciplinary backgrounds and fields and trust that some of these will help to enrich my own understanding.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
In this text I set out to reflect on the role of theory and practice and how they inform each other in the design research process. In design research it is possible to distinguish between two distinct approaches: The first applies theory, often abstract ideas, in a top-down manner to frame practical works and in order to develop a particular theoretical understanding that can inform a design. Some knowledge of this kind may be applied to inform future actions. The second approach emerges out of designing and allows knowledge to emerge out of reflections upon practical design activity in a bottom-up manner. (Is it possible to clearly distinguish how differently these approaches may inform acting? (Villa Savoye vs. iPod, Krippendorff quote on design semantics.))
In this paper i will argue that the practice-led approach is currently in need of being developed further (without implying that the more abstract theory-based approach was to the detriment of the users and the profession?).
Michael Polanyi wrote that ‘we know more then we can tell’. This is also true in the design process. Here we could speak of a third kind of design knowledge, the tacit, knowledge gained through experience that we might not consciously be aware of. In my view an important role of academic design research is to make such tacit knowledge explicit (often in the form of a written text) and thus being able to communicate this new knowledge, open it up to debate and scrutiny and also to allow others to benefit from new insights.
Another goal of design research might be to develop novel approaches to share and communicate knowledge (beyond written texts [sic]), additionally to the development of innate methods and methodologies that allow practitioners to better understand the design process and thus design better things and services. How are these types of knowing different? How does their understanding inform acting? How might they be balanced? Are they relevant in different phases of the design process? If an expert demonstrates his or her skill, tacit knowledge is more likely to become visible then in a written text, as the text is confined to that which the expert consciously knows. How may we find a balance between theoretical positions and this tacit dimension? And how can we teach this?
A subtext to the paper is the concern that written texts, while well established in traditional scientific research, might not be the best medium to solely communicate design knowledge. What alternatives are there and how might they inform acting? When an expert demonstrates a design activity he or she may also communicate knowledge that he/she is not consciously aware of. Does, from this perspective, a written text imply that it can only communicate what is consciously known?
Preliminary sources:
John Dewey: How we think
Richard Sennett: Together
Sherry Turkle: Alone Together
Neil Postman: Teaching as a subversive activity
Donald Schon, The reflective practitioner
Nigel Cross: Design Thinking
Weinberger, David, 2013, Knowledge in its natural state (Blog post)
Polanyi, Michael (), The Tacit Dimension,
mi_shi ( )
Email: molyart@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
michael.lissack (Michael Lissack)
Trustee, ASC
Executive Director, ISCE
Email: michael.lissack@gmail.com
Website: http://lissack.com
Bio:
EoI: I hope to partake in a conversation with a prior beginning and a later end which involves the ideas of reflexive anticipation and how that affects affordances for action.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
michael.lissack@gmail.com ( )
Email: micheal.lissack@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
michael1975 (Hongliang Ma)
Department of Educational Technology at Shaanxi Normal University in China
Email: yangmahl@gmail.com
Website: http://elearning.snnu.edu.cn/
Bio:
EoI: Being a teacher who have taught for more than 10 years in universities, I always expect to use all kinds of theories and tools to improve my teaching and facilitate students’ learning. Although Cybernetics is a new theory for me, quite different from learning theories, there could be some new implication of Cybernetics for my teaching practice, especially for remixing and developing OER for undergraduate students and post-graduate students in China. So my interest is what kind of new perspectives Acting-Learning-Understanding model and other Cybernetics models can give us on teaching and learning, and how these human knowing models could be used effectively to facilitate students‘ learning in classroom setting and online setting. In other words, I am looking forward to the practical value of Cybernetics on teaching in face-to-face, online or blended situation.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
mike.vandewijnckel (Mike van de Wijnckel)
Consultant, Van de Wijnckel Adviezen BV
Email: mike@vandewijnckel.nl
Website: http://www.vandewijnckel.nl
Bio:
EoI: This will be my first time participating in an ASC conference (or any ASC event for that matter). My close friend and colleague Jan Kuiper made the suggestion to go to Bolton together to participate. As fellow cyberneticians, our relation is based on “living second order cybernetics” so the style of this conference is attractive for us. Shortly after Jan made his suggestion, Ranulph Glanville invited me to meet him and Michael Hohl in Gent (BE). We had a nice evening with good conversations about our work. These two interactions have made me “feel at home” to participate in this conference. In my work as consultant, organizer and facilitator I want/can/do work in a congruent way with conversational principles that I learn from second order cybernetics. I have quite some experience with designing and delivering work forms that make conversations work better for individuals, teams and larger groups (in business, non-profit and education). Based on those experiences, I want to construct an agenda of relevant topics with the other participants for further exploration. In my daily work I sense new potentials to further integrate second order cybernetics, for which I do not always find requisite time, space and conversation to articulate them in a workable fashion. I hope this conference gives me an opportunity to generate new questions and insights to go and realize these potentials. In the last years I have studied the works of Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana and in particular Gordon Pask’s Conversation Theory and Interactions of Actors Theory. I find these concepts rich and useful to support me to reflect on my work as a practitioner. I want to contribute by fulfilling the purpose of this conference in making it circular and conversational, which is very aesthetic for me and have in-formed me to embody second order cybernetics as a person.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
morrison (Ann Morrison)
Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark
Email: morrison@create.aau.dk
Website: http://anmore.com.au
Bio:
EoI: I will bring a paper. My interest is in the meta-level of the conversation as I see it applies widely and too many aspects of for example; teaching, learning, research, project development and design. I am looking for conversations, inspiring discussions and presentations and possibilities for further projects, collaborations and publications.
Keywords for the intended paper: Design Cycle, User Centered Design, Learning, Design Problems, Sketching, Prototyping
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
However, those ideas that did shape and develop the process but do not fit the final-decided-upon direction are often ignored or forgotten in the haste to find a solution and produce an outcome.
In the finished design there is often little or no evidence of these intermediate ideas and the understanding and learning that took place on the way are no longer self-evident and not readily accessible. This can lead to an increasingly superficial understanding amongst the designers and viewers of the work of what that particular design problem began to engage with. Subsequently, the potential inherent in the larger idea is barely realised, with important elements skimmed over or lost, As a result potentially ‘great’ ideas (or ideas with larger potential) and the work involved in developing them are too easily wasted/discarded.
In this paper, we seek to address how to highlight the learning process, as a concrete part of the whole cycle—as important as sketching, as prototyping and building— which are after all outcomes and manifestations from the learning-acting-understanding loop. If the design process promoted demonstration of learning as an outcome in and of itself (in the same way a physical prototype is seen and evaluated) in each design phase, we ask if and how this could impact the final design outcome. In this revised approach each phase in the design, use/test, reflect cycle provides learning opportunities to further the understanding of the design problem at hand as well as the limitations and strengths of the employed methods in the current context.
We developed two new courses that we ran side-by-side February-May, 2013 with several joint sessions for 33 Media Technology students in their final Bachelor semester. One course concentrated on learning techniques and methods for sketching and design, while the other focused on learning and applying evaluation tools and methods. The students were required to iteratively apply the course material to their main semester technology design projects. While the students came from a Problem Based Learning background, it became obvious they were not used to applying and implementing the lecture material in their own projects. For each design phase we required them to apply the taught methods on their project and share their intermediate outcomes and insights in presentations and peer-critiquing exercises. We encouraged them to leverage the gained understanding in the subsequent design phase, which included a new loop of applying methods to the design object. In each design phase we therefore promoted understanding through acting (applying of and reflecting on methods) and to inform this acting from the evolving understanding of the design problem.
Often learning is mistaken for reflection and all the elements of learning that are not implemented in the final product in a design cycle process are somehow discarded or minimalised. By promoting better understanding of the design object and the methods and their application in each phase of the cycle, we aim to improve the process, the end product and the design experience both for the designer and for the end-user.
mwj1 (Mark Johnson)
Reader, University of Bolton
Email: johnsonmwj1@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: Acting, Learning and Understanding are all worthy (but very difficult!) topics. But basically I’m asking “what matters?”
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
olegliber (Oleg Liber)
Email: o.liber@bolton.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Penny Marrington ( )
Email: penelope.marrington@sigmatwo.co.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
petertudd (Peter Tuddenham)
Executive Director, College of Exploration
Board of Advisors, Plexus Institute
Email: peter@coexploration.net
Website: http://www.coexploration.org
Bio:
EoI: I bring varied organizational and personal sets of experiences developed over 50+ years living in three countries and visiting and working in many more, always looking for the practical ways to apply systems and cybernetics ideas and approaches. So in a sense I have been acting – learning and perhaps understanding all along….
I am looking for 1. Ways and means to make these ideas more relevant to more people
2. Evolve the ideas to meet the demands of a more rapidly changing, interconnected, interdependent, technology rich, nature knowing poor, global experience.
3. Explore circularity and our connections/relations to spirit and emotion in communication and decision making. .
4. How to best shape my activities in (the) future in light of the above and the experience of the conference.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Philipb (Philip Baron)
Lecturer, University of Johannesburg
Email: pbaron@uj.ac.za
Website: http://www.ecosystemic-psychology.org.za/
Bio:
EoI: I have a multidisciplinary background enjoying engineering and psychology as my favorites.
I enjoy art and music. I am working on cybernetics in relational therapy and would like to incorporate the things i learn from the conference into my therapeutic work.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has one of the best long-term success rates in dealing with psychological problems (Barlow & Durand, 2005; Lambert & Garfield, 2004), including success in treating depression that has a better prognosis than antidepressants (Butler et.al, 2005). Within the CBTs there is much diversity. However, there is unity in the core premise of CBT, including the belief that psychological distress is largely a function of disturbances in cognitive processes; that by changing cognitions to produce desired changes, preferred behaviour can be affected for the solution of problems in a time-constrained manner (Corey, 2005). The marrying of second-order cybernetics including the principles of wholeness, self-reference, autopoiesis, structural determinism, coupling, and non-purposeful drift into CBT poses several challenges. Further, the therapeutic posture commonly used in CBT would also need adjustment to embrace second-order cybernetics. Incorporating cybernetic principles to the leading therapy is an important step in the further adoption of second-order thinking into the psychologies. This paper presents a practical method of applying second-order cybernetics to CBT, while incorporating lessons learnt from family therapy.
pille (Pille Bunnell)
adjunct professor, Royal Roads University
Core faculty, Chair of Academic Programs, SelfDesign Graduate Institute
Board Member, Self Design Foundation
Email: life.works@mac.com
Bio:
EoI: In the last decade I have become more and more deeply engaged in a kind of “action research” of what it means to teach and to learn. Thus the theme of this conference is of great interest to me, and I wish to explore further with stories and explanations among colleagues.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
ranulph (Ranulph Glanville)
Director and Owner, CybernEthics Research
Professor, Innovation Design Engineering, Royal College of Art
Senior Professor, Luca Faculty of Arts and Design, KU Leuven
Email: ranulph@glanville.co.uk
Bio:
EoI: I consider cybernetics to be intimately concerned with circularity. I don’t believe in application, but in the bringing together of, for instance, theory and practice. I also believe we should live what we say and say what we live: thus, these ASC conferences are about sharing and developing; and I believe cybernetics is not simply “a way of understanding” as Ernst von Glasersfeld wrote, but a way of living: we have to learn to live our understandings, and to understand our living.
So, for me the theme and way of working of this conference exactly present the world as cybernetics tells us it can be. But to learn to live this way, within this understanding, is the challenge. To bring this circular understanding and to develop it in our living is part of this: but it’s richer, for this way of looking suggests ways we might aim to live, and to live better. Ethics is part of this, too.
I come to learn.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Ray Ison (Ray Ison)
Professor of Systems, Engineering & Innovation Department, The Open University
Professor, Systems for Sustainability, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University
Email: ray.ison@open.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI: We have a new research project, CADWAGO – see http://www.cadwago.net/ in which we are concerned with effecting the conditions for more systemic governance of water catchments understood as a structurally coupled social-biophysical systems. The praxis of systemic governance is a major concern, espcially how different policy imperatives such as flooding, water quality and quantity, climate change adpatation, food security, biodiversity etc can be joined-up in place-based adaptive ways. To this we add a concern for how governance learning can be understood and enacted.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
RicardoBarrera (Ricardo Barrera)
member from 2005, ISSS
Past president from 2009 to 2011, ALAS
Coordinator from 2006 , CESDES
Email: rbarrera@rbya.com.ar
Bio:
EoI: Last year I went to Asilomar, before the ISSS meeting in San Jose. This year I will go to Hai Phong for the next meeting of ISSS, and when I return to my country (Argentine), my fly will arrive on Amsterdam. So I can go to Bolton and reinforce my interests and thinking vision in the field of cybernetics and systemic.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Rika ( )
Email: rika@sun.ac.za
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
robin asby ( )
Email: robin.asby@sigmatwo.co.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
rogerharnden (Roger Harnden)
Email: roger@rogerharnden.com
Bio:
EoI: I missed last year’s ASC event on conversation in US, but heard good things about it. I am continually entranced and mystified by the ways in which individuals communicate and mis-communicate both in person and online, and value the opportunity to engage with others on this, and to continue my own cyclical communication and mis-communication.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
SadokM (Moufida Sadok)
Assistant-Professor, University of Tunisia
Academic visitor, Portsmouth University
Email: moufida.sadok@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI: I am interested in the exchange and the development of understandings and in the mechanism through which action and understanding can be associated toghether through learning.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
sdncook (Noam Cook)
Professor, San Jose State University
Email: sdncook@pacbell.net
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
sgecko (Sabin Densmore)
Email: sabin.densmore@jsc.edu
Website: http://www.onegecko.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
So11krates (Karl H. Müller)
Director, Wiener Institute for Social Science Documentation and Methodology (WISDOM)
Email: khm@chello.at
Website: http://www.wisdom.at
Bio:
EoI: The main interest lies in three domains.
First, there is a vivid historical interest in the early texts of second-order cybenrnbetics and in the differences and similarities between authors like Heinz von Foerster, Gregory Bateson or Gordon Pask.
The second area of interest lies in the production of a toolbox with the necessary instruments for being able to operate with and in second-order cybernetics.
And the third and by far most important domain for me lies in a series of actual second-order investigations in the field of the social sciences which are able to show the comparative advantages of second-order cybernetics and the profound new insights which can be gained through it.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
The presentation wants to demonstrate the transformation capacity of second-order cybernetics in a particular area, namely in the field of social research. The lecture will focus on a series of recent investigations in which second-order cybernetics is used to create a new second-order field of analysis. For this purpose ordinary social science concepts like standard of living, social inequality or quality of life are transformed into second-order concepts.
The main part of the presentation is focused on the new and deeper insights which can be gained through this shift to the second-order level and through empirical investigations at a second-order level.
Finally, the presentation will conclude with a series of general conditions that apply to other fields outside the social sciences as well in which such a shift to second-order concepts should produce significant and innovative effects and results.
So1krates ( )
Email: mueller@wisdom.at
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
sotiris_t ( )
Email: triantis8@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
sparenti (Susan Parenti)
School for Designing a Society
Champaign Urbana Independent Media Center
Gesundheit Institute
Email: sparenti@illinois.edu
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Media, mass or otherwise, is the amplification of this inherited emphasis on speaking. Media is ‘what have you got to say’. The listener is considered part of the booty of what have you got to say—a captive, hostage to the saying— not a force in her own right. A listener who is named a ‘good listener’ is considered nice and kind and considerate–but not powerful. In the 20th and 21st centuries we try to wrestle media away from corporate control, because—we’re told– it’s the control of what have you’ve got to say where we’re told power we’re told lies. But no one is trying to wrestle away ‘what have you got to listen?’
The paper ‘What have you got to listen?’ places listening in the context of music. It addresses the dilemma of a listener racheted between two contradictory imperatives: imperative one, consequence of our objectivity-conditioned language, posits the listener as passive object of music’s active subject (“the music made chills go down my spine”); imperative two, consequence of belief in desirability of freedom, posits the listener as an autonomous subject free to make of the music what she likes (“music is whatever the listener makes of it”).
What constitutes the doing of listening, in each case, is left undescribed.
In this paper I address these contradictory imperatives by making a counterproposal to answer the question ‘what have you got to listen?’ This counterproposal positions the doing of listening as being recursive and complex, rather than linear and complicated. Linearity in listening assumes an acoustic uni-directionality; recursive listening requires fictive bi-directionality. Complicated listening assumes a variety of activities that can be executed within one set of emotions; complex listening asserts a variety of actitivites that cannot be executed within one set of emotions, but rather require different sets, and, at times, even contradictory sets of emotions.
The paper also describes probes into listening where listeners are invited to play with listening as an activity that can be designed, and thus, aligned with ones’s desires and intentions. These probes are called ‘Designing Listening’, and could be offered at the ASC conference.
suyashchopra1 ( )
Email: suyash.chopra@tcs.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Ted Krueger (Ted Krueger)
Associate Professor of Architecture, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Email: krueger@rpi.edu
Bio:
EoI: As an educator with 25 years of experience teaching (and considerably more on the receiving end), I come to the conference prepared to unlearn even more.
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
tfischer (Thomas Fischer)
Associate Professor, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
Email: Thomas.Fischer@xjtlu.edu.cn
Website: http://www.tfischer.de
Bio:
EoI: I attend ASC conferences since 2008, and co-organised them since 2010. Besides the valuable encounters and ideas I enjoy at our conferences, I appreciate very much the “slow-cooking” if ideas leading from our conferences to publications. In recent years, I developed a glowingly coherent view on the co-existence of linearly and circularly causal structures, particularly with a view to learning and creativity. This conference is a valuable opportunity to continue this line of thinking with others, and I am looking forward to it.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
a) I imagine this cyclical relationship assuming that understanding is internal to the learning system/organism in question, while action is external to the learning system/organism in question. Is this an oversimplification? Is this a valid assumption? Is this a crude but helpful (simplifying) way of thinking about these things?
b) If the assumption stated under a) is agreeable (if only for the sake of being able to think in simple terms), then it can be stated that the move from understanding to action and the move from action to understanding are both boundary-crossing, the first one in the form of output from, the second one in the form of input to the system/organism in question. In both these boundary-crossing moves, learning hinges on variety amplification.
c) If this is the case, then how does the system/organism in question learn (amplify variety) where action is a basis for new understanding? How can a system, autonomously, amplify its variety (move from “seeing less” to “seeing more”)?
Tirumala (Tirumala Vinnakota)
Scientist, in Business Systems & Cybernetics Centre, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd
Email: tirumala.vinnakota@tcs.com
Bio:
EoI: I am interested to participate in the ASC 2013 conversational conference to see how the cybernetics is at work in real life scenarios that takes the concepts of acting and understanding, and forming circular causality using the linear causality between them, all this by way of talking and acting together. I strongly believe in that, acting will lead to a rich understanding due to unique and enormous possibilities that exist in the environment. This is one of the learning. The other learning is that we get from applying the understanding to be used for acting
To be holistic in learning, we need both kinds of learning’s. But main problem in today’s world is that
— these two learning’s are seen as independent and without circular conjoining, what we call as separate linear causalities, leading to reductionism.
Unless these two learning’s are conjoined in a circular fashion, there won’t be holism, which is a risk. In other words, we need to feedback the understanding that we gained from acting back to the understanding to be used in future for acting and this journey goes for continuous improvement of each other bringing in real value.
I will also be interested to know the risks associated with improper acting and understanding that will ultimately lead to improper learning, as risks is my broad area of research.
I will bring in my knowledge on Cybernetics , Systems and Conversation theory that will be useful for this conference to develop new questions acting collaboratively on the theme and sub-themes. I would like to contribute different ways of acting, different types of understandings based on my work experience in cybernetics and systems, both as a practitioner as well as researcher.
ASC 2013 will put me in touch with many interdisciplinary professionals outside my field with whom I will collaborate by way of listening and conversing.
I am very happy and thank the organizers for choosing the main theme as Acting—Learning—Understanding: reflecting, collaborating, conversing, doing, as this is very useful in all types of work.
I have even used the conference sub-themes, ‘action leads to understanding’ and ‘understanding leads to action’ to write this expression of Interest statement. I am looking forward to participate in this conference and am hopeful that I will contribute in an emergent way that is: From ASC conference to Participant (me) and from Participant (me) to ASC conference in circular conjoined way.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Is holistic learning equal to map of learning’s? Learning’s that we get from reaching a goal and those we get from not reaching a goal. Is it holistic learning, when the variety of all learning’s of the object world matches the variety of learning’s in the mind world. Is holistic learning more than the sum of the parts: parts’ being learning’s from variety of acting and variety of understanding? Is holistic learning, the circular conjoining of learning’s from acting to understanding and understanding to acting? Is holistic learning a journey and not an end by itself?
Correct understanding is necessary but not sufficient to complete the goal. We need correct acting as well. Wrong actions/misunderstandings may lead to loss of time, money or other undesirable outcome. Occurrence of positive feedback loop resulting from incorrect understanding and incorrect acting reinforcing each other in a circular way may be a bigger risk in reaching a goal. There is learning when the goal is reached and there is also learning in not reaching a goal.
Also explored on how the relationships between acting and understanding can be explained using commute principle, cybernetics circular causality and foreground-background approach.
In this paper, We propose a cybernetic framework that can describe linear causalities in terms of “Actions/Activities to Learning’s/Understandings(A2LU)”, “Learning’s/Understandings to Activities/Actions(LU2A)”, “Activities/Actions to Understanding/Learning’s(A2UL)” and “Understanding/Learning’s to Actions/Activities(UL2A)” with them forming spiral conjoining to gain holistic learning when actions performed and understandings applied taking risks also into account. The framework basing on X-matrix is implemented using Microsoft Excel. The four quadrants of X-matrix based framework are Actions/Activities, Learning’s/Understandings, Activities/ Actions and Understanding/Learning’s in a clockwise direction labeling them as first, second, third and fourth quadrants respectively. The framework will be useful for explorations, testing of the previous understanding’s/Learning’s, analyze the relationships between ‘actions/activities and understandings’ and vice-versa and it can customized to suit various explorations with an emphasis on iteration, reflection and change.
titogv (Santiago Garcia)
CEO, FINSA
Email: tgv@finsa.es
Bio:
EoI: Ever since I meet cybernetics 20 years ago as part of my formal electrical engineer curriculum, it remained with me as a invaluable tool to understand and cope with difficult aspects of my professional and personal life. Today in my role of CEO of a mid sized company going through turbulent times, im relying more than ever in my undesrtanding of cybernetics to deal with the complexity we face. Surprisingly for me, I have never seen my self more as a variety engineer than now. Not even in the times when I was a practicant “engineer. Now I dont deal any more with machines and automation, but with people, and culture. Organization, and particulary, conditions for variety coping as and emergent fenomena is my main interest.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
tpgoddard (Timothy Goddard)
Doctoral Researcher, University of Bolton
Email: tpg1ect@bolton.ac.uk
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
umpleby@gmail.com (Stuart Umpleby)
professor, George Washington University
member, Am. Asso. for the Advancement of Science
member, Washington Academy of Sciences
Email: umpleby@gmail.com
Website: http://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby
Bio:
EoI: Acting, learning, understanding fit well with reflexivity theory and the idea that people both observe and participate in social systems.
I am interested in the past, present, and future of cybernetics. I’ll be giving a tutorial with Karl Mueller.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
The first one is the question whether we are experiencing another silent revolution in science and the emergence of a new cognitive architecture of science in general. Here, the concepts of Science I and Science II will be introduced and discussed as a possible difference which makes a significant difference.
The second general problem to be addressed in this tutorial is the role and function of cybernetics within this silent revolution in science. First-order cybernetics was an inter- or transdisciplinary field with a clear focus on controlling and regulating technical, biological or social systems. The tutorial will explore possible roles and functions for second-order cybernetics or, as Heinz von Foerster called it, “the cybernetics of observing systems”. But who is observing what? What does it mean to include an observer into cybernetic investigations? Are we confronted with logical paradoxes and with insurmountable barriers by bringing an observer back in? And what could be the goals of cybernetics as a “theory of the observer”?
Welchc (Christine Welch)
Visiting Research Fellow, Portsmouth Business School
Director, UK Systems Society
Email: christine.welch4@ntlworld.com
Bio:
EoI: What I can bring to the conference
Over the past ten years, working with a number of other researchers, I have been exploring, developing and writing about ideas related to contextual inquiry from an open systems perspective. Our work has engaged with human sense-making and the ways in which people approach problem spaces within which decisions are required. We have noted how sense-making has been examined by others through a number of reductionist lenses, e.g. psychological or sociological, but these always leave unanswered questions and unexplained gaps. Systemic approaches to analysis of human problem spaces have also tended to be unsatisfying since the idea of human systems as ‘elements coming together’ to form a larger emergent whole somehow makes the people disappear. We have therefore chosen to look at human systems as collectives emerging from interactions among human individuals, and recreated/renewed on a continuous basis – an open Systems view. In the course of reflections, discussions and analysis in the field of contextual inquiry, common themes of acting, reflecting, learning and achieving some understanding have been surfaced. I hope that this experience of studying and writing about human sense-making in context will enable me to contribute to ASC2013.
What the conference will do for me
In my work over the past ten years, I have encountered many other researchers who inquired into sense-making and learning but mostly from reductionist or systemic perspectives, and mostly to pursue some stated purpose in the field of business, e.g. managing organizational change or deploying IT effectively. Some of the foundations upon which my work has been built would be situated in what is termed ‘cybernetics’, e.g. Gregory Bateson’s idea of information as ‘a difference that makes a difference’. However, I have not considered acting, learning and understanding in human endeavour through a lens of performance and feedback on performance. I am hoping to be able to engage with other delegates in relation to the activities outlined in the conference description, and in so doing flip my own perspective on sense-making, learning and appreciation.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
westermann (Claudia Westermann)
Associate Professor, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
Principal, LITRA : Laboratory for Inhabitable Theories and Research in Architecture
Email: Claudia.Westermann@xjtlu.edu.cn
Website: http://www.litra-design.com
Bio:
EoI: I took part in the C:ADM2010 conference, and will be happy to meet and discuss again with those whom I met then and others. I will bring to the conference the term ‘poaching’ and my willingness to discuss/perform/dismiss its usefulness as a potential intermediator between acting, learning, and understanding.
Let me know if you still need any contributions for the ‘art’ part of the conference. I’ll be happy to think and contribute (if it’s considered useful).
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
Behind the window a girl enjoys a perfect view by looking through the clear circles that she has drawn into the transparent moisture aspirated onto the glass’ surface. ”Myth is close to the sacred source of language in gesture”, she whispers. I live, thus I am consistent. (All Truth is Other)
Is it ever clear (when) how (many) warnings are (good) enough, before one can begin to tell one of these stories that deal in one or another way with Magic Theaters? We know that sometimes it helps to equip the story already in the title with such a warning – a kind of ‘for madmen only’. Some additional citation at the beginning might be helpful for issuing just another confirmation of the same warning. And yet, can one ever be sure that the reader is finally well prepared to accept another reflective layer – this strange dimensional shift that seems to be at the beginning of cybernetic understanding?
The story goes as follows:
A box with children toys that originate in future’s time and place is sent to Earth. A young boy finds it and carries it home. He plays with some of the toys and can make sense of them, but he cannot fully understand them. They present riddles to him. While he is at the borderline of understanding the toys, to his parents – ‘conditioned by Euclid’ – they remain absolutely obscure. It is the boy’s younger sister – still unconditioned by language – who seems to understand best the toys’ spatial configuration. And thus, from this understanding of a different order, she draws an exit, and both the children escape the world of prediction.
Perhaps it is not very surprising that the short story “Mimse go the Borogoves”– which is very roughly summarized above – was included by editor (and cybernetician) Gotthard Guenther in a volume translating for the first time for the Geman speaking audience a series of American Science Fiction short stories – in 1952.
Reading is like ‘poaching’ suggests De Certeau. ‘Poaching’ is a form of creation whose principle is appropriation (1984, p. 174).
william.bondin ( )
Email: wbondin@gmail.com
Bio:
EoI:
Participation accepted: NO
Registered on RegOnline: NO
Paper proposal:
xescadeia (Xesca Deya)
Email: xescadeia@mallorcaweb.net
Bio:
EoI: I am a body and mind therapist and was trained in Diafreo fifteen years ago. Diafreo is the work which developed from the method of work called ‘anti-gimnasia’ established by the physiotherapists Therése Berterac and Francoise Mezieres. They named
the work after observing how the accumulation of tensions and stress often results in deformation to the shape of the body. They describe how the body develops compoensations in order to remain standing and avoid pain. They propose that the personal history of physical and emotional stress on muscle and bone is carried with us, and has an important impact on how we feel and function.
I trained in ayurveda abyanga massage and studied its philosophy on nutrition and as a way of life in Kerala in 2006.
I have also qualified as a gestalt therapist at the Escuela de gestalt mediterraneo in Palma de mallorca in 2009.
I apply these three traditions in my practice as a therapist. In the course of my study and work I have frequently encountered systems theory and I have come across the writings of Gregory Bateson, Ronnie Lang, Humberto Maturana and Stafford Beer. I would like to participate in the conference in order to explore how this tradition can inform my practice, and my understanding of my work as a
therapist.
Participation accepted: YES
Registered on RegOnline: YES
Paper proposal:
Most Discussed