Article 0. Cybernetics
Cybernetics takes circularity, in its many forms and formulations, seriously.
It is a way of thinking, not a collection of facts. Thinking involves concepts: forming them and relating them to each other. Cybernetics arose when the notions of self-regulation, autonomy, teleology, and hierarchies of organization and functioning inside organisms were analyzed logically, mathematically, and conceptually. The results of these analyses have turned out to be applicable in many branches of science as well as other fields. Cybernetics is thus metadisciplinary, in that it distills and clarifies notions and conceptual patterns that open new pathways of understanding in a great many areas of experience.
The investigation of self-regulation, autonomy, and hierarchical arrangements led to the crystallization of concepts such as circular causality, feedback, purpose, goal, equilibrium, learning and adaptation, control, and, most important perhaps, the concepts of function, system, and model. The mere use of these terms must not be taken as evidence of cybernetic thinking. What constitutes cybernetics is the coherent interrelation of the concepts that have been shaped and associated with these terms in an interdisciplinary analysis.
Cybernetics has evolved from its early attention to the systemic implications of circular causal feedback loops to an interdisciplinary discourse that brings forth the realities we experience in a circular relationship between observer and world.
The scope of this discourse includes the study, design, and implementation of autonomous, self-organizing, autopoietic, conversational, interactive, and consensually coordinated systems.
As interdisciplinary discourse, cybernetics offers epistemological frameworks that can advance a variety of disciplines - especially those that take into account human beings and human activities. It recognizes the role of language, emotion, and attitude (as well as structure and mechanism) in the construction of material, individual, and social realities.
Cybernetics conserves its essential circularity by encouraging cyberneticians to play constructive roles within the very systems to which they attend, and to accept responsibility for the consequences of their contributions.
NOTE: This revised Article 0 text was created utilizing text from:
- Ernst von Glasersfeld’s 198X essay (commissioned by ASC) on cybernetics
- ASC members who participated in an ASC-MEMBERS discussion on this topic in early 2009
- Suggestions and comments submitted by By-Laws Committee and Exec members during the draft revision process (March - August 2009).
As a new comer to ASC I wish to express my deep impression of the work done on the new By-Law. As an engineer and geographer I found that the definition of the system boundary under studying is the key for significant Cybertetics results.
Drop the first sentence. It’s weak and doesn’t say anything; further the use of the word “serious” suggests that the Society is anything but (serious). The remaining sentences and paragraphs need word smithing to make them clean, well-ordered, and meaningful to their readers. A good first draft. I know this sounds cranky, but it doesn’t need to be done if we wish to be taken seriously.
I would suggest showing where the original has been changed.
Ernst, by the way, is a master stylist, careful with every word and every sentence. I would like to see his original side by side with the changes — or perhaps interleaved…
PROPOSAL 1
I propose that we replace the first three paragraphs of the new Article 0 by a revision of the forth, a shorter sixth and end with an invitation – cutting the proposed article in half:
“Cybernetics has evolved from its early attention to the systemic implications of circular feedback loops to an interdisciplinary discourse that brings reflexive realities into being.
As such, cybernetics encourages the study, design, and realization of autonomous, self-organizing, conversational, interactive, autopoietic, ecological, and consensually coordinated systems to arise. By focusing on reflexivity, cybernetics distinguishes itself from other disciplinary discourses which tend to celebrate linear causalities, hierarchies of representation, and disembodied theories.
Reflexivity occurs, for example, when operations are applied to themselves; when a process feed on itself; when organizations organize their identity autonomously; when social scientists assume responsibilities for the very phenomena their theories are creating, are no longer observers but social actors; when designers of technology include the effects of that technology, especially on the future designs; when politics is deliberative, coordinative while respecting the world of others.
Cyberneticians not only take responsibilities for what their discourse brings forth, they also actively challenge conceptions of reality that fail to recognize their underlying reflexivities and thus have the potential of promoting ecologically untenable practices of living.
Cybernetics recognizes the role of language in the construction of disciplinary knowledges and boundaries and offers its discourse and epistemological frameworks for crossing them, especially discourses that concern human beings. It invites scholars, practitioners, and students from any field into its conversations.”
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL 1:
Re 1st paragraph (line) of the new by-laws: Any academic or professional society takes its subject matter seriously. Stating this suggests that we might be perceived not to be serious.
Re 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the new by-laws: three points:
(a) Mapping the subject matter of cybernetics into a “state of mind” i.e., “way of thinking” brings cybernetics close to a religion. Affirming to each other that we have a common “way of thinking” surrenders the subject matter of cybernetics to authorities of the minds of others. My “way of thinking” cannot be compared with other fellow cybernetician’s “way of thinking” – except through their visible consequences. Therefore the by-laws should describe the language, concepts, methods, actions, and systems that cyberneticians create, not stipulate “a way of thinking,” and worse, deny that activity as relevant by stating that “the mere use of (cybernetic) terms must not be taken as evidence of cybernetic thinking.” – Who, and on what grounds does one decide what a cybernetician is?
More importantly,
(b) The 2nd paragraph seriously misrepresents the history of cybernetics. The first recorded interest in cybernetics is from a chronicler of mechanisms, Heron of Alexandria’s (70 AD). He recognized a device for regulating oil lamps. The first widespread use of a cybernetic mechanism was Watt’s regulator for steam engines. It fuelled the industrial revolution. When Wiener worked at MIT, there was a lab for servomechanisms, largely for industry. He worked on the mathematics for the military, though not exclusively. McCulloch, the first cybernetician connected to biology, was interested in neuronal networks as a model for computation. Shannon built little automatons. Von Neumann was an economist, codeveloped game theory with Morgenstern, but was mostly interested in computation. At the Macy conferences, the generality of circular feedback was realized. Notably, sociologists and anthropologists (Bateson and Mead) participated. Ashby was a psychiatrist but his background had little to do with his theories. Pask tinkered with machines to demonstrate his ideas. Von Foerster never looked inside brains but proposed computational devices whose structure could be interpreted as observing systems. Recall that he ran the Biological COMPUTER Laboratory. It is simply untrue that cybernetics “arose when” phenomena “inside organisms were analyzed … “ Cybernetics arose when contributors realized new mechanisms for regulation and computation and the attending mathematics. Even von Glasersfeld started his career by developing computational algorithms. This relates to the third objection:
(c) The by-laws bring the society close to what previous cyberneticians sought to distance themselves from in arguments and writing. Ashby contrasted the two traditions that were uneasy with each other. General systems researchers, he suggested, starting with Bertalanffy, sought to develop systems theories by generalizing biological organisms, explaining equilibria in terms of functions, hierarchies, holisms and the like, Opposing the generalization of biological concepts, cyberneticians start, so he suggested, from mathematically tractable mechanisms of a new kind, considered all conceivable systems, and were informed when some of them could not be BUILT or found in nature. Bateson linked this approach to ecology. McCulloch, for example, in whose lab Maturana worked, promoted the concept of networks in opposition to hierarchies, a concept that biologists pushed into sociology (not the concept of organization, describing social arrangements as organisms). McCulloch was not the only one who dissolved hierarchical conceptions into circular ones. Maturana is another. Von Foerster strenuously opposed treating hierarchies as givens. Bateson rejected the biological metaphor of mind in favor of tracing the circularities in an ecology in which brains participate. It would be a mistake for the by-laws of a cybernetic society to surrender to the unsupported abstractions of general systems theorists. Incidentally, I think general systems theory has ran out of steam and now talks, as we shouldn’t, about “systems thinking,” “holistic attitudes,” and “systems spirituality.”
For these reasons, the first three paragraphs are in my opinion untenable for a society of cyberneticians. Ranulph’s letter says that these paragraphs were derived from Ernst von Glasersfeld’s writing. Maybe I am wrong, but the objectionable terms do not read like Ernst’s. Although it doesn’t matter much where they come from, the concepts I mentioned have been avoided by cyberneticians for good epistemological reasons and I would not vote for including them in the ASC by-laws.
Re 4th paragraph.
In view of the history of cybernetics in creating reflexive mechanism, actively supporting self-organization, and, dare I say, audaciously challenging establishment conceptions, power structures and oppressions, I would not want the by-laws to settle on equating cybeneticians with observers. The observer position, privileged in the natural sciences, may be adequate in biology, where theories do not affect the theorized, in the social and technological domains, scholars always are more or less active participants, change agents.
Incidentally, I should remind you that Margaret Mead, who gave the famous speech on the cybernetics of cybernetics was not at all concerned with observers, as Heinz later alleged, but with cyberneticians taking responsibilities for the consequences of the technologies they were conceptualizing and building all over the world (now she might have talked about the information society which surely is the result of cybernetic conception being realized), and with applying cybernetic knowledge to the ASC. Also parenthetically, she found no resonance for her proposed reflexivity in the general systems research community, which is another reason to maintain our distance to that community’s philosophy.
Re 6th paragraph, I would remove “emotion and attitude (as well as structure and mechanism)” it doesn’t make sense as a specifiable cause of constructing realities.
Re false location of the origin of cybenetics in biology:
The NYT of 2009.10.29 D3 features the review of a book by Brian Arthur who explores the relationship between science and technology.
It confirms that both co-evolve with the design of technology leading the process. This describes the history of cybernetics as well. it was only after mechanical regulators were built that the mathematics of feedback developed, only after simple computers were built, the ENIAC, for example, that Shannon, von Neumann, McCulloch, and Ashby tinkered with computational conceptions of the brain. Maturana and Varela’s autiopoiesis became clear with the design of a computer program.
Cybernetics has a history totally different from general systems theory that modeled its objects after what i would call a construction of biological organisms
I believe our job is to be inclusive. By this I do not mean we should accept anything: but we should try not, in our by laws, to give precedence to any particular view, but rather include a wide range.
I do not mean we should confuse our subject with other subjects, but we should be careful of promoting the view of one practitioner over another, preferring rather to welcome both, or, better still, to find one overarching expression from which the many views can be derived.
By the way:
In reviewing papers I have become used to understanding that there was always someone who thought of whatever topic is in question before the earliest person whose work I know (which is often “earlier” that the source quoted by the paper’s author). For this reason I am reluctant to enter into battles about priority. In this case, I can refer to a book by Richard L Gregory published in 1981, called “Mind in Science”, but in doing so I am sure there are many that went before (Gregory mentions several). One advantage to Gregory is that, in his early days, he was closely associated with cybernetics.
I think back to an earlier website where we had different people each write their version of “what is cybernetics” and it turned out to be many different perspectives. In this sense too I find not only the original text of the entry (which I had some influence in) but also the proposed changes by Klaus each carrying a different focus, interest, or perspective.
We have all understood that cybernetics can be applied to many different disciplines. Hence the original formulation of it as a “way of thinking”… and I think this is technically still true, in the sense that it is a different way of considering problems in a systemic and reflexive manner. However, our simplification does evoke a kind of “new age” mood, and that can of course lead to us being swept aside as not serious.
What I think might be the best course is to reduce the introduction to the bare minimum and reinstate a place on our website where different people from different disciplines can enter a considered view of what cybernetics is, and in particular so called “2nd order” (or reflexive) cybernetics is.
i don’t quite follow why a history and extensive definition of cybernetics is required for the by-laws of an organization. this is taking huge bandwidth from an already complex set of issues of governance. while of course something about cybernetics affects how we wish to govern ourselves, is the debate needed right now? isn’t this harder than getting the rules right?
I agree fully with Paul. A long history of cybernetics is not required in the by-laws and would distract from the specification of our rules of operation.
Article 0 has little operational consequences except to say what we are interested in pursuing.
All i want to be sure of is that the few statements in Article 0 do not misrepresent the history of cybernetics. We cannot afford to be demonstrably wrong regarding the history of our subject. It would discredit ASC.
I would not vote for eliminating Article 0 altogether. Every association i know of has some kind of statement saying what their members do and what the association facilitates.
Paul brings up an interesting point when he writes, “i don’t quite follow why a history and extensive definition of cybernetics is required for the by-laws of an organization.”
By-laws are by definition a code or set of rules for an organization’s administration.
In light of the ongoing debates about how cybernetics might be defined - debates persistent throughout the long by-laws revision process to date - one might ask if the most reasonable response would be to simply delete the ‘definitions’ article from the by-laws.
I think we might be moving towards this. I understand this article as scene setting. I think it might go somewhere else. Perhaps it’s one of those prefaces that, in the end, becomes independent but linked. Let’s consider this possibility.
I like Pille’s suggestion that we might have a number of “characterisations” (definition is not a word I like much). If only the 5 of us who have written something about this matter here were to provide initial statements, that would be a good beginning. (It would also tie in with some other ASC projects: but this is not the place to discuss this: I don’t want to confuse us.) I don’t mean in any way to restrict this to the 5 of us, merely to suggest a beginning that comes from those who have so far chosen to respond.
well,
i just read pille’s suggestion, which i can sympathize with — except each of these views may be too long.
then i went back to the existing by-laws and they do something quite similar to to what pille proposes — although during the last 30 years our discourse evolved.
the original Article 0 includes five bullets with key concepts and major contributors to cybernetics giving the reader a sense of the breath of the discourse of cybernetics.
i could still live with some of it. now i would downplay the abstract and general nature of cybernetics and instead go towards its embodied and conversational practice, including how - referring to margaret mead’s point - cybernetics has changed individual identities and society.
A note on Pille’s comments regarding the presentation of variety in definitions for cybernetics …
The Web presentation to which she alludes has never disappeared from the ASC’s online presentations. It has been persistently present on the ASC website since its creation, and is currently accessible at:
http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/definitions.htm
Additional comments have occasionally been submitted over the years, and these subsequent contributions have been incorporated into the listing.
As such, there’s no need to revert to or reconstruct this item - it’s never gone away.
One of the recurrent criticisms heard about ASC concerns a perceived focus on specific past thinkers and theories - to the extent that some have described the society’s stance with terms like ‘ancestor worship’.
The set of contributors and works that could be cited is potentially huge. Furthermore, it’s not a closed or ‘known’ set, insofar as new people and ideas continue to arrive as time goes on.
Klaus’ alludes to the original by-laws’ enumeration of such a representative set. After 30 years there are additional names and items that recommend themselves for inclusion - if for no other reason than their prominence in current ASC conversations.
It seems to me the central issue is whether ‘enumeration’ is a reasonable approach at all. If the last 30 years’ developments have recommended many new names for inclusion, what basis is there for thinking the next 30 years won’t similarly extend the possible inventory of contributors and works?
Four names I’ve most often heard ASC members cite in recent years - Maturana, Pask, Varela, and Spencer Brown - do not appear among the 1979 Article 0 citations. How many more recommend themselves as of now (2009)? … And how many more will surface over the next 30 years?
randy, you may notice that i didn’t use names in what i proposed how article 0 should be reformulated. the existing by-laws describe exemplary concepts with names in parenthesis. indeed, during the last 30 years, new concepts have emerged and need to be added if that style is to be maintained - which i am not advocating. for the same reasons, use of ernst’s 1980 writing must be carefully reconsidered, perhaps even avoided.
Our corporate charter as an learned society states our purpose — without defining our notion of cybernetics. While Paul Pangaro is quite correct that a definition of cybernetics is not required to satisfy the requirement of internal corporate operation and governance, its inclusion at Article Zero is fine.
NOT REQUIRED BUT IT SHOULD BE INVITING:
Cybernetics has evolved from its early attention to the systemic implications of circular feedback loops to an interdisciplinary discourse that brings livable reflexivities into being.
Since its inception, cybernetic concepts of information, computation, communication networks, and circular causality have entered all spheres of life and radically transformed the infrastructure of our society. Meanwhile, cyberneticians have extended cybernetics to embrace its own consequences, applying cybernetics to itself, and are thereby able to take responsibilities for what their discourse brings forth.
Reflexivity occurs, for example, when processes feed on themselves, when observers see themselves through the eyes of others, when social theories affect those theorized, and when organizations organize themselves autonomously. Reflexivity may be destructive like in arms races, Ponzi schemes, and hate speech, or livable like economic checks and balances, open communication through the internet, unconstrained conversations, and deliberative democracies capable of coordinating multiple views.
Thus, cybernetics encourages the study and design of autonomous, self-organizing, conversational, interactive, autopoietic, ecological, and consensually coordinated realities. It also encourages cyberneticians to be critical of and actively challenge constructions of reality that fail to recognize their underlying reflexivities and have the potential of creating ecologically untenable practices of living together.
Cybernetics acknowledges that all discourses – scientific or practical – construct their own realities. It offers its own discourse and reflexive epistemology as a way to bridge their boundaries, especially between discourses concerning human beings, and invites scholars, practitioners, and students from any field into its conversations.
Hi everyone. I’m one of the people who has enjoyed involvement with the ASC for many years, mainly due to the treasured people and ideas I encounter at our meetings. Fortunately the bylaws do not require adherence to any creed including what cybernetics is, so a non-cybernetician like myself is still welcome. This is in some sense similar to my religious self-identification: I may not be a Christian, but I’ll always be a Lutheran.
Most of my comments at this point are meta-comments, so that’s why I’m posting here to article zero. I believe we should keep article zero, but just have its contents “this article is devoted to the concept of emptiness, quietude, reflection and serenity, the portal to cybernetics.”
I do have a few practical questions, however. First, regarding the financial / treasurer knots that occasioned these further knots (why has Lou not chimed in yet?) my recollection was that Paul Pangaro had involved a person who was going to help with the finances, structures, etc. I have not seen messages from him (and though I enjoyed meeting him in Olympia, I have forgotten his name). Was I mistaken?
Secondly, I love our annual meetings, though I have few discretionary funds and would equally enjoy biennial meetings. I think Klaus K. suggested in one of the posts that most of the organizational details at issue here could be worked through in person at a meeting — if he didn’t suggest that, I’m doing that now.
In general I’m in favor of a minimalist approach to the changes to be made at this point, so on this I sense I’m in accord with most of the comments made by Klaus along the way. It’s a cop-out to say “me too” but that’s where I’m at.
Email, even via the wonders of wiki, remains an imperfect tool for these deliberations. I leave for Delhi in 2 days and won’t be home till after the voting period - so may only have time to vote “no” during the culminating moments, with no further comment. Unless someone is brave enough to go back to the existing bylaws, change only the sentences required to resolve the officer succession issue and any immediate non-avoidable problems.
In the meantime, I think it would be great if some non-officer consultants such as Paul’s friend, Ern Reynolds, or others with experience in small group innovation, could be contracted to look at the legal and organizational requirements, as a preliminary to a more general discussion at an annual meeting.
Thank you for your patience.
Paul S.