and:

von Glaserfeld – An Introduction to Radical Constructivism

In: Watzlawick, P. (ed.) (1984) The invented reality. New York: Norton,
pp. 17–40.

English translation of: Glasersfeld, E. (1981) Einführung in
den Radikalen Konstruktivismus. In: Watzlawick, P. (ed.) Die Erfundene
Wirklichkeit, Munich: Piper, pp. 16–38.

http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/070.1 (pdf)

also: http://vonglasersfeld.com/

What is Radical Constructivism
and Who Are Its Proponents?
The notion “radical constructivism” (RC) was coined by Ernst von Glasersfeld in 1974 in order to emphasize that from an epistemological perspective any constructivism has to be complete (or “radical”) in order not to relapse into some kind of fancy realism. The basic tenet of RC is that any kind of knowledge is constructed rather than perceived through senses. As such, RC does not present a metaphysics in the strict sense as it does not make statements about an outside reality (“No statement” means neither confirming nor denying reality. The subject of much criticism, RC equals solipsism, doesn’t therefore apply). Now, the idea itself does not originate in EvG. Forerunners of the RC movement in the 18th century were Giambatista Vico, whose dictum “verum ipsum factum” already pointed in the direction of knowledge construction, and George Berkeley whose claim “esse est percipi” challenged metaphysics.

On a slightly different path, the cybernetic one, Heinz von Foerster approached the topic of what was called second order cybernetics. It focuses on self-referential systems and the importance of eigenbehaviors for the explanation of complex phenomena. Eventually, this idea would emerge the concept of “operational closure”: any cognitive system is semantically independent (and impenetrable). From the late 50s to the mid 70s, HvF had been running the Biological Computer Laboratory (BCL) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign which was a dwell of people thinking in similar lines. Among others, prominent members of the BCL were

Humberto Maturana who, as the founder of the theory of autopoiesis, focuses on the central role of the observer;
Francisco Varela who developed the ideas of circularity and ‘enacted’ cognition further;
W. Ross Ashby who was a main figure in the cybernetics movement;
Gordon Pask who developed a conversation theory.
In Germany, an avalanche was triggered in the late 80s by translations of major works by the above authors, plus original contributions in German, such as Siegfried J. Schmidt, Hans-Rudi Fischer, Gerhard Roth, Gebhard Rusch, and others. Also of German origin, but independent from the others, was Jakob von Uexküll, whose work in the 1920s and 1930s focused on the internal cognitive world of organisms.

Glossary
Autopoiesis: A process whereby a system constitutes and maintains its own organization

Cybernetics: The science of communication and control in animal and machine

Eigenbehavior: The behavior through which a system asserts its autonomy from other systems

Epistemology: The theory of knowledge

Metaphysics: The theory of reality

Realism: The idea that reality exists independently from the observer

Second order Cybernetics: The cybernetics of observing systems

Solipsism: The claim that reality does not exist

Created: June 2000. Last update: 26 Mar 2004
© Copyright by Alex Riegler 2000. All rights reserved. Part of the Radical Constructivist Homepage.
This material may be freely linked to by any other electronic text. Commercial use and any other copying are prohibited without the express written permission of the copyright holder.

via What is Radical Constructivism and Who Are Its Proponents?

Wow. There is a lot of stuff here.

And links to both the original Radical Constructivism site (last updated 2017) – https://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/

And the ongoing journal Constructivist Foundations https://constructivist.info/

Constructivist E-Print Archive
Publications: 5950 • Authors: 3092
Search CEPA
» Help with Search
The Constructivist E-Print Archive (CEPA.INFO) is a research tool providing a single-point access to the scholarly literature on constructivist approaches such as radical constructivism, second-order cybernetics, the theory of autopoiesis, enactivism, neurophenomenology, non-dualizing philosophy, and many others including critical publications. These publications cover a total of 53 disciplines.
Features:

Read and print the full text versions of most papers on your computer, tablet or smartphone
with the option of excerpting and collecting quotes with a single tap
Many full text versions are also available
as downloads in in PDF or Word
Find bibliographical details of constructivist publications (including abstracts)
ready to be exported in one of nine formats including EndNote, BibTex, and RIS
Add/upload your own constructivist publications
with the option of converting them to the portable device friendly CEF format
Collect, manage and edit quotes (“snippets”) from full texts
and exported them as Word documents
Make annotations to publications
either publically or for a research group or for a classroom assignment
Create reading lists
for yourself or for a classroom assignment
Receive weekly notifications
of newly added full texts based on your interests
For some of these services, you need to login in with your Constructivist Foundations account or create such an account for free.
For more detailed information and instructions check out FAQ in the menu above.
Please provide us with your
feedback/evaluation/suggestions

via ᏟᎬᏢᎪ Constructivist E-Paper Archive

Call for papers to the Luhmann Conference 2020 on “Moral communication. Observed with social systems theory”

Place: Inter-University Centre (IUC), Dubrovnik, Croatia
Address: Don Frana Bulicá 4, 20000 Dubrovnik, Croatia
Dates: 15-18 September 2020

The PDF version of this CFP is available for download here.

Theme: The conference committee invites contributions on the significance of moral communication in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. As readers familiar with his work will recognise, Luhmann’s approach to morality is characterised by a profound moral scepticism and a certain neglect of moral communication not only as an occasional topic, but also as a distinct form of communication. As contemporary society is continuously producing moral communication, however, social systems theory is bound to adequately deal with this phenomenon if its claim to a universal theory is to be maintained. We therefore welcome contributions from scholars with an interest in moral communication at all levels of society.

more in source: CFP | Moral communication. Observed with social systems theory | Dr. Steffen Roth

9th World Complexity Science Academy Worldwide conference, Ischia, Italy, 23-25 March 2020

GEGNET: A Complex System Vision on Global Governance and Policy Modelling

Gegnet is a German theoretical concept meaning limitless opening to the possible.

The current global economic context of worldwide business and direct foreign investment is comprised of a decreasing number of huge players named Global Players (GP), such as the European Union (EU), the United States (US), the MERCOSUR, the United African Market, along with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). It radically redesigns the public policies and their scale about digitalization, intangible asset portfolio creation (e.g. patents, trademarks, licenses, copyrights), taxation, public expenditures, international trade regulations and much more.

This network of treaties wrapping up our planet is shaping a spiral convergent trend, pushing forward the shift from international to supranational lawmaking through the setting up of a transnational agenda for global governance and policy modelling.

The key evolutionary challenge and paramount goal of the 9th WCSA Worldwide Conference is to be the host for innovative lawmaking / policy modelling, legislative implementation, institutional redesign, and economic development also by citizenship expansion. We will be working on shaping a triple helix of (1) legislative design, (2) free-trade alignment, and (3) digital standardization.

via Events – WCSA

Source: Review of Daniel Belgrad, ‘The Culture of Feedback: Ecological Thinking in ’70s America’

Mind in Matter
Scott McLemee reviews Daniel Belgrad’s The Culture of Feedback: Ecological Thinking in ’70s America.

By Scott McLemee
January 17, 2020
18 COMMENTS

Somewhere on its way to entering the vernacular, the word cybernetics took on connotations of high technology, with tremendous computational power almost as a given. But the quintessential cybernetic system is humble, indeed, and very much simpler than any computer. It is the thermostat.

Just to be clear, the “cybernetic system” in this case consists of not just the device on the wall with its dials or buttons, but also a temperature sensor as well as whatever apparatus heats or cools the room. When the sensor registers that the room’s temperature has fallen below, say, 70 degrees (to use a season-appropriate example of a likely setting), the thermostat translates that information into a command to turn the heat on, then off again, once the sensor reports that the target temperature has been reached. Framing this a little more abstractly, we have here a system engaged in posing a question to its environment, generating a binary (yes/no) answer and then, as necessary, taking action to cause change in a certain determinate direction.

Not much computational power is required. Then again, “cybernetics” derives from an ancient Greek word referring to the pilot of a ship. Navigation, not calculation, is at its root.

To the best of my recollection, I first came across the thermostat as quintessential example of a closed feedback system in a wildly interdisciplinary volume by Anthony Wilden called System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange (1980). Wilden in turn adopted it from Gregory Bateson’s Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972), an even more category-defying volume. Besides the anthropological fieldwork he had carried out (some of it carried on with Margaret Mead, his wife for a time) Bateson pulled together his research into schizophrenia, evolutionary theory and biological symmetry — besides which he had participated in the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics held between 1946 and 1953. Among the papers in Steps to an Ecology of Mind is Bateson’s analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous as a cybernetic system — one more adaptive and functional than the alcoholic’s personality, which otherwise remains trapped in a short-circuiting feedback loop of trying to establish its own power over the bottle.

Through Batesonian lenses, the world looked like one huge array of self-regulating systems. Some were at cross purposes (imagine two thermostats in the same room, at different settings) and some just did not work very well.

“An entirely new epistemology must come out of cybernetics and systems theory,” wrote Bateson in the alcoholism study. It would require “a new understanding of mind, self, human relationship and power.” Daniel Belgrad’s The Culture of Feedback: Ecological Thinking in ’70s America (University of Chicago Press) finds much the same set of priorities reflected in the work of artists, musicians, activists, film directors and the makers of public service announcements that ran on TV.

Continues in source: Review of Daniel Belgrad, ‘The Culture of Feedback: Ecological Thinking in ’70s America’

Click to access Living-Systems-Theory-and-the-Practice-of-Stewarding-Change-June-2015-min.pdf

So much good systems thinking in this discussion of physical literacy!

source Part 2: Considering the Individual -Environment Fit at the Core of Physical Literacy.  | footblogball

Part 2: Considering the Individual -Environment Fit at the Core of Physical Literacy.
January 20, 2020 footblogball-Mark O Sullivan Uncategorized
In part 2 of this blog, I will introduce a conceptual realignment of physical literacy that is different from the ‘business-as-usual’ concepts (see part 1), that seemingly underpin the construct in both policy and practice and even as a finally packaged product.

“Skillful interactions” refers to how a mover coordinates his/her behaviour within the performance context in relation to that environment, on the basis of not only the immediate physical and informational (i.e., situational) demands, but also on the basis of historical and cultural factors. Thus, following from Newell (1986), skillful interactions are sufficiently optimal solutions to the movement problem faced in terms of safety, efficiency and/or effectiveness for that individual at that moment in time – Phil Kierney (Footblogball,May 2018).

Such an emphasis shifts the narrative away from fundamental to functional, towards developing an adaptive ‘interactor’; considering the individual-environment fit.

Introduction

Current literature contains different representations of the concept of physical literacy (Edwards et al., 2016). Due to lacking a clear theoretical foundation, it can be argued that the construct has progressively evolved into something it originally was not (Young, O’Connor and Alfrey, 2019).This adaption of numerous definitions and interpretations across different countries, disciplines and organisation (Shearer et al., 2018), has arguably led to a lack of consensus as to how to employ it in practice (Hyndman & Pill, 2018; Jurbala, 2015).

This vagueness associated with the construct reveals aneed for a comprehensive theoretical rationale to underpin how to apply the concepts and ideas from physical literacy research. One such framework that can support the physical literacy journey is the theoretical framework of ecological dynamics. It has been previously argued by Roberts, Newcombe and Davids (2018) that ecological dynamics can inform how we can evolve the concept of physical literacy, both in policy and physical education curriculum, away from the dominant traditional approaches. I argue, from this perspective, the concept of physical literacy can be enriched and extended within and beyond organised sports and physical education, through the reconceptualisation of the nature of an individual’s relationship with the specific environments they interact with over a lifespan. The establishment of an individual -environment fit across varied movement contexts over a lifespan, should therefore be a central tenet of the concept of physical literacy.

continues in source: Part 2: Considering the Individual -Environment Fit at the Core of Physical Literacy.  | footblogball

I’m not comfortable with the description ‘the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy” – since if I understand correctly, ‘Liberating Structures’ is a collection of facilitation techniques which significantly post-dates a large volume of work around the concept of panarchy (covered here at https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/05/16/panarchy/ , https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/12/31/ecology-and-society-the-dynamics-of-purposeful-change-a-model-silverman-and-hill-2018/ , https://stream.syscoi.com/2018/08/27/silverman-h-and-g-m-hill-2018-the-dynamics-of-purposeful-change-a-model-h-silverman-and-gm-hill/ , and mentioned in https://stream.syscoi.com/2017/08/21/cyclical-history-and-generations/) – there is some referencing in the article – however it is an interesting article about operationalising a concept, so here for consideration.

via Change Organizational Systems with the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’ – Business 2 Community

Change Organizational Systems with the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’
Christiaan Verwijs— January 21, 2020

How do you change a complex system? This is the quintessential question facing the people eager to change systems — like politicians, Scrum Masters, thought leaders, and other change agents.

In this post, we explore how the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’ offers a powerful perspective and allows you to put systems thinking into practice. And even though it is perhaps the most complicated of them all, Panarchy brings together all the promises of Liberating Structures: engage everyone and unleash change on every level.

“Even though it is perhaps the most complicated of them all, Panarchy brings together all the promises of Liberating Structures: engage everyone and unleash change on every level.”

Continues in Change Organizational Systems with the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’ – Business 2 Community

Project and Program Evaluation
Ripple Effects Mapping
Overview
Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) is a versatile participatory evaluation tool. The intent of REM is to collect the untold stories and behind-the-scene activities that can ripple out from a specific program or activity.

Designed to work effectively for gathering evaluation data from program participants, community or coalition partners, or other groups.
Effectively identifies what has occurred, as well as what is not occurring
Provides an opportunity to decide what direction the community, coalition, or group should head next.
Overall, the REM process is an effective way to get information from participants and on to paper in a visual way.

Additional Resources:

A Field Guide to Ripple Effects Mapping

Using graphics, pictures, and real-life examples of how Ripple Effects Mapping has been successfully used in multiple settings, the Field Guide to Ripple Effects Mapping provides a comprehensive overview of REM. Providing an in-depth examination of the origins, elements, and how-to of the REM process, this book is a step-by-step guide to successfully implementing this process with a group, collaboration, or community of choice.

To access the Field Guide, click here (Note: Move down the web page to locate the Field Guide).

Using Ripple Effects Mapping to Determine Your Program Outcomes

Two of the original developers of Ripple Effects Mapping conducted a webinar for eXtension. Join Debra Hansen, Associate Professor at Washington State University Extension and Lorie Higgins, Extension Specialist, University of Idaho, as they demonstrate the Ripple Effects Mapping process. This webinar describes how the mapping process has been used in a number of states and settings. Additionally variations in how it has been implemented is discussed. Finally, instructions are provided for coding to the Community Capitals Framework, as well as digitizing the maps.

To access the webinar, click here.

In-Depth Ripple Effects Mapping: A Participatory Evaluation Tool

During the 2016 National Association of Extension Program and Staff Development Professionals Conference, a workshop was presented focused on the REM process.

During the workshop, participants learned the following:

The foundation of Ripple Effects Mapping, including its field development and testing, therefore understanding how and why it is an effective evaluation tool;
How to develop useful and relevant Appreciative Inquiry questions and how to conduct Appreciative Inquiry interviews;
How to organize and conduct a Ripple Effects Mapping session by actively partaking in a mapping with fellow participants;
And what to do with the qualitative data collected during the mapping session, including how to digitize, code, and analyze the information and report the findings.
To review the materials presented, click here.

Published References:

Ripple Effects Mapping: A “Radiant” Way to Capture Program Impacts

Ripple Effects Mapping: An Effective Tool for Identifying Community Development Program Impacts

Using Ripple Effects Mapping to Evaluate Program Impact: Choosing or Combining the Methods That Work Best for You

via Ripple Effects Mapping | Project and Program Evaluation | Washington State University

via Joss Colchester @sysinnovation on twitter, core systems thinking and one of the foundational papers of complexity.

Science link via More Is Different | Science

pdf http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

via In Search of the 5th Attractor – Jim Rutt – Medium

[This essay was transcribed from a talk I gave at The Feast in October 2014. Video of talk]

For those who are interested in discussion, elaboration, and action around these ideas, try the Facebook Group: GameB or my podcast series: The Jim Rutt Show.

After a 25-year career building network-based businesses and other tech-intensive stuff, I spent the next 10 years associated with the Santa Fe Institute, the world’s leading research center, studying complex systems. Combining my business and scientific experiences, I’ve developed a strong interest in how complex social systems, especially societies, work and change, and how such knowledge can help us build a better society.

Jerri Chou, founder of The Feast, asked me to talk about “progression.” So I decided to talk about progression from a big picture perspective: how societies and similar large-scale social systems evolve. One important thing to keep in mind is that “progression” doesn’t necessarily mean progress; rather, it just means one thing after another. I forget who it was who said, “History is just one damn thing after another.” (Oh, yeah, it was Arnold Toynbee [one of the advantages of transferring my talk to writing is that I can look up references like that!].)

I’d say “progression” in terms of the evolution of complex systems is the same thing as “history.” It doesn’t necessarily move in a straight line; sometimes developments are kind of surprising. Indeed, one reasonable definition of a complex system is that it should be capable of surprising an observer, at least sometimes. For instance, consider a star that’s been doing its thing quietly for a couple of billion years. After billions of years of being a bright and shiny star, it blows up, because it’s reached a major transition point as a complex system. By going supernova, it’s changed so much as to be unrecognizable. What was once a stable star has now become a rapidly expanding ball of dust and gas that emits more energy over the course of a few months than it did in its entire lifespan as a star — surprising, to say the least.

Continues in source In Search of the 5th Attractor – Jim Rutt – Medium

via Alexander’s objectivity in life or quality – YouTube

“All of my life I’ve spent trying to learn how to produce living structure in the world. That means towns, streets, buildings, rooms, gardens, places which are themselves living or alive… depending on who you talk to, they’d say, ‘Well, this stuff Alexander’s been discovering is a lot of nonsense. There is no such thing as objectivity about life or quality.’ … They are simply mistaken.” Christopher Alexander This is a quote of Christopher Alexander which he made in San Jose, California, October of 1996, at The 1996 ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programs, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98LdF… for the full talk. This is also the source of this video. For a full transcript of the talk go to: https://www.patternlanguage.com/archi… For recent developments regarding Alexanders work see: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/3/3/96