Updated rough draft systems | complexity | cybernetics reading list

See my post on LinkedIn (replicated below) and join the discussion there:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antlerboy_rough-draft-systemscomplexitycybernetics-activity-7246779585235664896-64Xz

pdf: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/85zlt0t6ph8qarx7d7gic/2024-09-27-rough-draft-systems-thinking-reading-list-v1.1BT.pdf?rlkey=3rfavacsy4n6sl8j0pyedph1q&st=qagh1418&dl=0
Commentable Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tt8GgQQj4Qw4HnR7DxKeF370o_HlDlpv/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115526108239573817578&rtpof=true&sd=true

How do you get into systems | complexity | cybernetics?

Here’s my rough reading list.

There are a lot of answers to the question, many of them connecting with some kind of disjointing break from ‘normal’ ways of seeing and being. Anything from being bullied at school to being dyslexic. Being in an outsider group. Naively applying thinking from one domain to another. Studying a technical problem long enough to suddenly see it in a completely different light – then either have your breakthrough celebrated or rejected.

It isn’t some mystic thing and it doesn’t require to you break from polite society. But it is one of the richest, weirdest, most diverse and challenging, inspiring and confounding, confronting and validating things you can study.

I’m often asked for a reading list for people interested in the field, and I usually suck my teeth. Some of the books are engaging, insightful, humorous, relevant. Others are dry as old twigs but less likely to kindle a spark.

Really, it depends on you and your context – as David Ing says, it’s better to talk of the thinkers and their individual constellations of interests, history, learning, and personal tendencies than it is to talk of schools and fields and separate places.

And even presenting this reading list, I’d say that I’d recommend Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams, Ursula K Le Guin, Italo Calvino, Jorge Luis Borges, Star Trek, old 20th Century Sci-Fi and Apartheid-era South African writing, art movies and music more – if you happen to be a bit like me. You’ll find your thing, if you’re interested.

But. The books are there – and many of them are *really good*. Top ones I’d recommend came out this decade

  • Hoverstadt’s Grammar of Systems
  • Jackson’s Critical Systems Thinking: A practitioner’s Guide
  • Opening the box – a slim little thing from SCiO colleagues
  • Essential Balances by Velitchkov

The attached list is a bit systems-practice focused. It is also too long and incomplete and partial simply for lack of time and energy.

There are *so many* flavours of systems thinking / complexity / cybernetics – do yourself a favour and don’t flog through stuff that doesn’t work for you, find things that bring your mind alive. Start with the articles and skim through.

But do start, because you will find in here the thinking and tools to find better ways of doing things for organisations, societies, the ecosystem, for people – and a lot of fun.

Tip: to save the pdf, hover over the image of the first page and find the rectangle bottom right – click that and it should go full screen. Top right you’ll have a download option, which when clicked will then resolve into a download button… (which might then open in your browser, but at least as a proper pdf you can save).

So… deep breath… what would you recommend? What do you think is missing?

#systems-thinking

Why we don’t get complexity: Stafford Beer, ‘requisite variety’ and systems thinking

Why we don’t get complexity: Stafford Beer, ‘requisite variety’ and systems thinking. Claire Hartnell. https://open.substack.com/pub/clairejhartnell/p/why-we-dont-get-complexity-stafford?r=slo6&utm_medium=ios

Machine Intelligence is not Artificial – Part 7

Machine Intelligence is not Artificial – Part 7. Sean Manion. https://seanmanion.substack.com/p/machine-intelligence-is-not-artificial-d42?r=slo6&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article. Front. Syst. Neurosci., 24 March 2022

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article
Front. Syst. Neurosci., 24 March 2022

Volume 16 – 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201

Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere: An Experimentally-Grounded Framework for Understanding Diverse Bodies and Minds

Michael Levin 1,2*

1. Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States

2. Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States

Abstract
Synthetic biology and bioengineering provide the opportunity to create novel embodied cognitive systems (otherwise known as minds) in a very wide variety of chimeric architectures combining evolved and designed material and software. These advances are disrupting familiar concepts in the philosophy of mind, and require new ways of thinking about and comparing truly diverse intelligences, whose composition and origin are not like any of the available natural model species. In this Perspective, I introduce TAME—Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere—a framework for understanding and manipulating cognition in unconventional substrates. TAME formalizes a non-binary (continuous), empirically-based approach to strongly embodied agency. TAME provides a natural way to think about animal sentience as an instance of collective intelligence of cell groups, arising from dynamics that manifest in similar ways in numerous other substrates. When applied to regenerating/developmental systems, TAME suggests a perspective on morphogenesis as an example of basal cognition. The deep symmetry between problem-solving in anatomical, physiological, transcriptional, and 3D (traditional behavioral) spaces drives specific hypotheses by which cognitive capacities can increase during evolution. An important medium exploited by evolution for joining active subunits into greater agents is developmental bioelectricity, implemented by pre-neural use of ion channels and gap junctions to scale up cell-level feedback loops into anatomical homeostasis. This architecture of multi-scale competency of biological systems has important implications for plasticity of bodies and minds, greatly potentiating evolvability. Considering classical and recent data from the perspectives of computational science, evolutionary biology, and basal cognition, reveals a rich research program with many implications for cognitive science, evolutionary biology, regenerative medicine, and artificial intelligence.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201/full

The Cybernetics Thought Collective (Digital Surrogates). Digital Collections at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library

The Cybernetics Thought Collective (Digital Surrogates) | Digital Collections at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library https://digital.library.illinois.edu/items/82eaef70-29ac-0136-4d81-0050569601ca-d

On Our Own Terms: Systems change through Lived Experience Leadership

On Our Own Terms: Systems change through Lived Experience Leadership. Morgan & Co. https://morganandco.au/project/on-our-own-terms/

Systems Practice as a Practice of the Middle Voice

Systems Practice as a Practice of the Middle Voice. Philippe Vandenbroeck. https://philippevandenbroeck.medium.com/systems-practice-as-a-practice-of-the-middle-voice-f89d81509e1e

Conceptual understanding is a myth – by Greg Ashman

Conceptual understanding is a myth – by Greg Ashman

https://substack.com/home/post/p-198345707

Icon, Likeness, Likely Story, Likelihood, Probability • 2

Re: Peirce ListPhyllis Chiasson

I’m still a bit fuzzy on how Aristotle’s account relates to Peirce’s usage, though I’m pretty sure Peirce must have taken Aristotle’s usage into account, but it does seem that Aristotle drew some sort of distinction here, using a term “tekmerion” which gets translated as “index” to make the following remark later on in that chapter.

We must either classify signs in this way, and regard their middle term as an index [τεκµηριον] (for the name ‘index’ is given to that which causes us to know, and the middle term is especially of this nature), or describe the arguments drawn from the extremes as ‘signs’, and that which is drawn from the middle as an ‘index’.  For the conclusion which is reached through the first figure is most generally accepted and most true.  (Aristotle, Prior Analytics, 2.27.70b1–6).

Reference

  • Aristotle, “Prior Analytics”, Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181–531 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.

Resource

cc: Academia.eduCyberneticsLaws of FormMathstodon
cc: Research GateStructural ModelingSystems ScienceSyscoi

#analogy, #aristotle, #c-s-peirce, #icon-index-symbol, #induction, #inquiry, #likelihood, #likely-story, #likeness, #logic, #mathematics, #probability, #probable-reasoning, #semiotics, #sign-relations

The Last Redoubt of Complexity Theory – Downham (2026)

As launched on LinkedIn:

🔥 THE LAST REDOUBT OF COMPLEXITY THEORY is now live.

道 · 愛 · 革命 — The Way · Revolutionary Energy · Transformation of Things

📖 Full paper (HTML) → https://lnkd.in/eEQy_cKu

(6) Post | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-downham-frics-mba-fnara-rpr_complexitytheory-organisationalchange-leadership-share-7461465441153019905-RNCs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAACuq-oBecVFDW6PCf3lkoG-peMeuLBeoho#

Links to

https://markdownham88-crypto.github.io/the-last-redoubt-redux

[I have no way of evaluating this right now – it may be a heartbreaking work of staggering genius!]

Icon, Likeness, Likely Story, Likelihood, Probability • 1

Re: Peirce ListBenjamin UdellMichael Shapiro

Here’s a likely locus classicus for “icon” in its logical sense —

A probability (εικος) is not the same as a sign (σηµειον).  The former is a generally accepted premiss;  for that which people know to happen or not to happen, or to be or not to be, usually in a particular way, is a probability:  e.g., that the envious are malevolent or that those who are loved are affectionate.  A sign, however, means a demonstrative premiss which is necessary or generally accepted.  That which coexists with something else, or before or after whose happening something else has happened, is a sign of that something’s having happened or being.  (Aristotle, Prior Analytics, 2.27.70a3–10).

Reference

  • Aristotle, “Prior Analytics”, Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181–531 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.

Resource

cc: Academia.eduCyberneticsLaws of FormMathstodon
cc: Research GateStructural ModelingSystems ScienceSyscoi

#analogy, #aristotle, #c-s-peirce, #icon-index-symbol, #induction, #inquiry, #likelihood, #likely-story, #likeness, #logic, #mathematics, #probability, #probable-reasoning, #semiotics, #sign-relations

In Memoriam: Peter Checkland (1930–2026)

[On day when I was in (virtual) attendance at a service for Oliver Westall (my dad’s best and lifelong friend: https://portal.lancaster.ac.uk/intranet/news/article/oliver-martin-westall-acss-frhists and evidently a truly good man) at Lancaster University, it can as a shock to hear of the death of Peter Checkland]

Søren Kerndrup gives a lovely and very fitting tribute here: In Memoriam: Peter Checkland (1930–2026)

(1) Post | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/s%C3%B8ren-kerndrup-7a447715_in-memoriam-peter-checkland-19302026-activity-7462164623262257152-z3Vc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAACuq-oBecVFDW6PCf3lkoG-peMeuLBeoho

Here is Checkland himself, appropriately at the OR Society, from 2081:


A nice tribute to (more than) 50 years of Soft Systems Methodology (also OR Society):

https://www.theorsociety.com/ORS/ORS/Publications/Magazines/IOR/July-2025/SSM_Checkland.aspx


Systems explained, by Checkland also fittingly, on the OU website):

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-business/leadership-management/systems-explained-peter-checkland


A nice short summary of his ‘journey’:


His piece Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective


A piece I came across he wrote in 2021 [another echo of a world that is leaving us: my dad was a big Trad jazz man]


And other references here on syscoi.com – surprisingly tangential but perhaps illustrating his ‘background status’ in recent years, despite enormous influence [similarly, he has never been central to my personal thinking or practice – not explicitly, though implicitly hugely important]

https://stream.syscoi.com/?s=checkland

The Hand That Thinks – Complexity, causality and the gap nobody manages – Aziz (2026)

Main article:

https://abaz786.substack.com/p/the-hand-that-thinks


On LinkedIn, Abdul posted/asked

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7460422808808968193-BK9g?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAACuq-oBecVFDW6PCf3lkoG-peMeuLBeoho

New piece on Substack: The Hand That Thinks – complexity, causality, and the gap nobody manages.

Most critiques of complexity frameworks stop at the critique. This one tries to go further.

The argument in brief:
1) Senge’s famous line – “cause and effect are not closely related in time and space” – is self-defeating. It uses the reductive model to critique the reductive model.

2) Cynefin and Jackson’s SOSM and CSP are genuine advances. But even the most sophisticated pluralism, when organised as a process of methodological selection, leaves one question insufficiently examined: what kind of observer is doing the selecting?

3) Complexity is not a property of situations. It is a relational quantity – it exists between a system and a describing observer. Change the observer and you change the complexity.

4) Almost no methodology makes explicit the distinction between organising models (neurological – VSM, SSM, CSH) and structural models (anatomy and physiology – Enterprise Architecture, Agile, Organisational Design). The gap between them is where most transformation fails.

5) That gap cannot be managed with a one-off consultancy engagement that hands over to a unitary IT delivery. It must be perpetual. That is what the hashtag#ViableOperatingModel is designed to do.

Along the way: Maturana and Varela, Kauffman on Constraint Closure, Beer’s Triple Index, Gell-Mann on complexity as a relational quantity and a pragmatist reframing of what it means to develop as a practitioner.

And a Yorkshire verdict on where we currently find ourselves.

hashtag#EnterpriseArchitecture hashtag#DataMesh

The Hand That Thinks

Whilst general feedback is always welcome, I am especially interested in informed reactions to the specific hypotheses:

1) The organising model vs structural model distinction, how it could hold in practice
2) The Hand That Thinks metaphor as a way into the VSM
3) Complexity as a relational quantity and its dual implication for developing both situation and observer
4) The Systemic Performance Surface (not a dashboard) as the instrument that makes perpetual mediation operational
5) Domain-based VSM as a foundation for Data Mesh architecture

I am keen to follow up in individual conversations. This is not about right or wrong, or defending a particular approach. It is about developing understanding together.

I will tag a few people, who I believe are in the know, will push back, add to, or redirect where needed. These are people who live theory in practice and vice versa. If it helps a few others along the way, all the better.

Cybernetics – Viable Systems Model – Cybersyn – applied to Commitment Pooling in ancestral and today’s technologies – Ruddick (2024)


WILL RUDDICK
MAY 16, 2024

(3) Cybernetics – Viable Systems Model – by Will Ruddick
https://willruddick.substack.com/p/cybernetics-viable-systems-model

Applying Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model to Decentralized Organization – Kelsie Nabben & Michael Zargham (2022)

April 19, 2022

Applying Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model to Decentralized Organization
https://blog.block.science/applying-stafford-beers-viable-system-model-to-decentralized-organization

Lineages of Systems Practices – by Laura Winn and Saskia Rysenbry – January 29, 2026

[A good example of how ‘systems practice’ means many different things to different people. I would say this is a good example of many of the most important lineages present in what is generally called ‘systems change’]

How might we go about visualising lineages of systems practices?
A couple of years ago, us two – Saskia Rysenbry and Laura Winn – working together at the School of System Change – spent a few months in Aotearoa New Zealand. In the swirling energy of a post-cyclone summer season, we started to visually explore our understanding of how different currents of systems change thinking had come about, the lineages they have formed, and where the tools and frameworks of this field situate themselves in wider origins of practice. The image we created – beautifully drawn by Saskia – has now had the chance to be socialised with multiple groups of people, and we would like to share it more widely.

Lineages of Systems Practices – School of System Change

https://www.schoolofsystemchange.org/blog/lineages-of-systems-practices