As a complement to the philosophy of language, the cybernetics of language-is to synthesise a picture of language as a whole; and runs into-(descriptive) difficulties where (at any one time) we can only speak about bounded portions of the world (Wittgenstein). This same difficulty permeates the short history of cybernetics in the concern for wholistic representation, and thus the concern of the cybernetics of language leads to (or arises in) the concern for the language of cybernetics. It becomes resolvable in the context of Second order cybernetics (i.e. the cybernetics of’ describing as well as described systems (von Foerster)). The difficulty and the possibility of its resolution are introduced in terms of differences between Russell and Wittgenstein; in terms of the second order cybernetic discussions of the black box (seen as capturing Wittgenstein’s silence and, in general, interpretation) and distinctions (G. S. Brown); and in terms of the distinction between natural and artificial languages and the problem of describing description (self-reference). Here the cybernetics of language concerns the nature of inquiry into our descriptive abilities and activities, and determines what we can and what we cannot (objectively) speak about. The notions of ‘the function of language’ and ‘the existence of language’ (presupposed in a first order description) are shown to be mutually interdependent, giving rise to a paradox of means (and giving rise to the question of the ‘origin of language’). This paradox is resolved where a language is seen as constructed (for a particular purpose), and thus the circularity is unfolded, considering that (i) in terms of a constructive function of language, there is no language (something is in the process of being constructed); (ii) in terms of a communicative function of language, such a construction is in the process of being accepted (something is being negotiated); (iii) in terms of an argumentative-function of language, a language (accepted, eg. having, been negotiated) is used to negotiate things distinct from-this language. Language is seen as comprising the interaction between these activities. The cybernetics of language is developed in terms of the requirements for an observer to construct, communicate and argue: a language is constructed for the description of these processes in terms of the; complementarity between description and interpretation (underlying the process of construction) and the complementarity between saying and doing (enabling an observer to explore, eg. question, test and explain his construction and distinguish another observer; and enabling two or more observers to negotiate and accept relations and argue by distinguishing both a language and the things this is used to describe).
Description:
This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.
This newslett er features numerous signifi cant contributions related to Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and Perceptual Control Theory.
Reprint / Copyright notice
Due to the historic signifi cance and educational value of the discussions embodied in Continuing the Conversation, all issues (#1, Spring 1985 through #24, Spring 1991) have been recreated complete by Dag Forssell in 2009. This newslett er is now available free to anyone interested. It was published in an era when agreements between authors and the newslett er editor/publisher were very informal. The original consent to publish contributions in the printed newslett er can be construed as extending to this complete digital reprint, but in the spirit of the copyright statements embodied in the newslett er, major contributors have been contacted for agreement where possible. The dozen who have responded have all been enthusiastic in their approval. In case of concern, contact Dag Forssell . posted at www.pctresources.com and www.asc-cybernetics.org
AN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL FOR DESIGNING A SOCIETY – ROBERT WHITE SCOTT (2011)
DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Policy Studies in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011
Some very interesting ‘intellectual history’ of cybernetics too – from the immortal line ‘Humberto Maturana did not attend’ to the presence of Werner Erhard AND James G. Miller AND a mime troupe at an ASC conference…
General complexity
A philosophical and critical perspective
June 30, 2018 · Philosophy
Print ArticleCitationPDF, XML
Email
Authors
Minka Woermann
Oliver Human
Rika Preiser
In this paper we argue that a rigorous understanding of the nature and implications of complexity reveals that the underlying assumptions that inform our understanding of complex phenomena are deeply related to general philosophical issues. We draw on a very specific philosophical interpretation of complexity, as informed by the work of Paul Cilliers and Edgar Morin. This interpretation of complexity, we argue, resonates with specific themes in post-structural philosophy in general, and deconstruction in particular. We argue that post-structural terms such as différance carry critical insights into furthering our understanding of complexity. The defining feature that distinguishes the account of complexity offered here to other contemporary theories of complexity is the notion of critique. The critical imperative that can be located in a philosophical interpretation of complexity exposes the limitations of totalising theories and subsequently calls for examining the normativity inherent in the knowledge claims that we make. The conjunction of complexity and post-structuralism inscribes a critical-emancipatory impetus into the complexity approach that is missing from other theories of complexity. We therefore argue for the importance of critical complexity against reductionist or restricted understandings of complexity.
Leading, managing, and changing organizations is hard. And it’s made harder by the constant whirl of new methods and models. What if there were a way of understanding and improving organizations that was timeless and fundamental? A way of seeing and acting that transcended the passing fads and fashions? GET THE BOOK
Emergence: Complexity & Organization (E:CO) is an international and interdisciplinary conversation about human organizations as complex systems and the implications of complexity science for those organizations. With a unique format blending the integrity of academic inquiry and the impact of business practice, E:CO integrates multiple perspectives in management theory, research, practice and education. E:CO is a quarterly online journal published (also available in print) by Emergent Publications in accordance with academic publishing standards and processes.
Intellectual ecology
E:CO’s niche is the opportunity to bridge three gaps:
The distance between academic theory and professional practice;
The space between the mathematics and the metaphors of complexity thinking; and,
The disparity between formal idealizations and actual human organizations.
Organizations of all kinds struggle to understand, adapt, respond and manipulate changing conditions in their internal and external environments. Approaches based on the causal, linear logic of mechanistic sciences and engineering continue to play an important role, given people’s ability to create order. But such approaches are valid only within carefully circumscribed boundaries. They become counterproductive when the same organizations display the highly reflexive, context-dependent, dynamic nature of systems in which agents learn and adapt and new patterns emerge. The rapidly expanding discussion about complex systems offers important contributions to the integration of diverse perspectives and ultimately new insights into organizational effectiveness. There is increasing interest in complexity in mainstream business education, as well as in specialist business disciplines such as knowledge management. Real world systems can’t be completely designed, controlled, understood or predicted, even by the so-called sciences of complexity, but they can be more effective when understood as complex systems. While many scientific disciplines explore complexity through mathematical models and simulations, E:CO explores the emerging understanding of human systems that is informed by this research. Engineered and emergent views of human systems can coexist, creating a useful tension that drives organizational evolution. However, neither academics nor practitioners can leverage complexity alone. Academic discussions about complexity are often biased towards quantitative research and mathematical models that are inappropriately prescriptive for systems comprised of actors endowed with free will, who are simultaneously part of and aware of the system. The metaphors of complexity have a usefulness of their own as well, but too often they are applied without adequate reference to the mechanisms, models and mathematics behind them.
Content in context
Readers of E:CO are managers, academics, consultants and others interested in developing and applying the insights of complex systems theories and models to analysis and management of private-, public- and social-sector organizations and applying insights derived from organizational experience to understanding complex systems theories.
E:CO encourages multidisciplinary contributions from all sectors of social and natural sciences and all sectors of organizational practice. The journal’s unique format presents both reviewed and non-reviewed content from three overlapping sources. Peer-reviewed articles are at the heart of our content, but with an emphasis on communicating across boundaries. Academic articles pass double-blind reviews by two academics and one practitioner. When subject matter is theoretical or reporting research findings, authors will be encouraged to discuss practical implications of the ideas. Similarly, practitioner articles also will be double-blind reviewed by two practitioners and one academic. When appropriate, authors will be encouraged to connect to theory or research that has either already been done or needs to be done.
Additional non-reviewed content includes feature articles, essays, profiles, conversations and conference summaries, as well as news, commentary, book reviews, etc. Each article is clearly tagged according to which path it took to publication. E:CO incorporates Emergence, originally published by the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence (which closed down in Dec 2018).
Scope and aims
The emerging theory of complex systems research has resulted in a growing movement to reinvigorate management. Theory, research, practice, and education can all benefit by adopting a more dynamic, systemic, cognitive, and holistic approach to the management process. As interest in the study of complex systems has grown, a new vocabulary is emerging to describe discoveries about wide-ranging and fundamental phenomena. Complexity theory research has allowed for new insights into many phenomena and for the development of new manners of discussing issues regarding management and organizations.
A shared language based on the insights of complexity can have an important role in a management context. The use of complexity theory metaphors can change the way managers think about the problems they face. Instead of competing in a game or a war, managers of a complexity thinking enterprise are trying to find their way on an ever changing, ever turbulent landscape. Such a conception of their organizations’ basic task can, in turn, change the day-to-day decisions made by management.
The most productive applications of complexity insights have to do with new possibilities for innovation in organizations. These possibilities require new ways of thinking, but old models of thinking persist long after they are productive. New ways of thinking don’t just happen; they require new models which have to be learned. E:CO is dedicated to helping both practicing managers and academics acquire, understand and examine these new mental models.
E:CO publishes articles of a qualitative and quantitative nature relating complex systems, sensemaking, psychology, philosophy, semiotics, and cognitive science to the management of organizations both public and private.
The readers of E:CO are managers, academics, consultants, and others interested in the possibility of applying the insights of the science of complex systems to day-to-day management and leadership problems.
Aims:
To further develop and extend the concepts, applications, and research in management and leadership practice;
To enlarge the domain of management theory, issues, and research beyond those currently recognized by mainstream academia and practice;
To use complex systems perspectives, theory, and research to integrate multiple perspectives in management theory, research, practice, and education;
To develop linkages between complex systems perspectives, theory, and research and other perspectives in management;
To consider new institutional practices that can help to reconnect management theory and management practice, and;
To discuss alternative approaches to management and leadership education and practice suggested by the more dynamic, systemic, cognitive, and holistic view of the management process derived from complex systems perspectives, theory, and research.
On describing the field of systemic design as an interdisciplinary field in 2018, Peter Jones wrote:
Perhaps, the most prominent interdisciplinary approaches of systemics and design thinking were developed in the Ackoff and Banathy-era social system design schools that promoted whole system approaches to the challenges of the modernist technological era. The systems science origins of systemic design can be traced to the influential operations research and planning schools, the East Coast schools (Ackoff, Özbekhan from University of Pennsylvania, Senge from MIT), and the West Coast (Horst Rittel, C. West Churchman, Christopher Alexander, and Harold Nelson all from U.C. Berkeley). [….] These social schools of thought argued against many of the precepts of the predominant systems thinking methods of the time, systems thinking as modelling and intervention (Meadows, 1999), and systems dynamics (Senge, 1986). Social system design did not achieve the broader acceptance of hard systems sciences, in part due to the superior fit of the hard systems thinking mindset to modernist culture in the late twentieth century and the perceived ambiguity (and lack of method) of social systems processes and technologies.
Jones, P. (2018). Preface: Taking Stock and Flow of Systemic Design. In P. Jones & K. Kijima (Eds.), Systemic Design: Theory, Methods, and Practice (pp. vi–xvi). Springer Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55639-8 (The front matter preface is free of charge, if you don’t have access to the whole book via a university library).
“This long introduction is the first part of a book which came out in Italy in 2003 by Bollati Boringhieri editore (Sistemica,voci e percorsi nella complessità), a very well known publisher. The book is built as a hypertext and collects 150 wordswhich are core constructs of the complexity frame. Each word/concept is described by more than one author in order to giveinformation of difference. This project was supervised by Heinz von Foerster who is also interviewed in these pages.”
SystemicsVoices and paths within complexity
1
Umberta Telfener, Luca Casadio
Human Systems Dynamics is a field of study, a non-profit institute, and an international NETWORK of certified HSD Associates. This social network map includes those Associates who choose to be represented along with their profiles and connections. You can use this map to:
Stay in touch with the HSD Institute and the network at large.
Reconnect with old friends and colleagues.
See who you connect to and how.
Find Associates who share your location or interests.
Explore the structure of the network as it transforms over time.
For security reasons, the map does not include contact information. If you want to be in touch with someone directly, send their names and your contact information to info@hsdinstitute.org. We will forward your request along to them. If you have questions or comments about the map or how you can be included, please be in touch with us at info@hsdinstitute.org. In the meantime, happy Adaptive Action!
Zoom in to read names
Click and hold on individual ‘nodes’ to see more about each person. Click and hold on the empty background to return all nodes to the canvas.
Press the ‘a’ key to get a current count of people and connections included in the view.
Press the O key to separate overlapping elements and labels
Come and join us to build a Systems-Centered® group, deepening our experience of Functional Subgrouping, the core method of Systems-Centered work
Our goal is to provide an opportunity to deepen our understanding and practice of Functional Subgrouping. We will practise introducing and applying Functional Subgrouping in real life contexts and use Functional Subgrouping to develop the group. We hope to have fun building an open learning system. OPEN TO ANYONECurious to learn and practise applying Functional SubgroupingWho has done an introduction to Functional SubgroupingWanting to contribute to developing a group with the same members over this six-session programmeWHATUsing SCT theory as our guide, we will work in large and small groups to practise introducing Functional Subgrouping, process our here-and-now experience and reflect on our learningWHEN & WHERESix 2.5 hour sessions: 23 June, 21 July, 8 September, 12 October, 16 November, 14 December13.00 – 15.30 UK timeZoomFEESEarly Bird discount until 21 May 2021: SCTRI members £425; Non-members £475After 21 May 2021: SCTRI members £475; Non-members £525There are 16 placesWe have a limited number of bursaries available. To apply, email: rdavis@rdaconsulting.netRegister now →
They describe themselves as a critical friend to the socio-political set-up, focusing on three sets of issues that we feel do not receive enough attention: the economics of the food network, also food safety, integrity and assurance, plus the role we can play in responding to the strategic challenges of food security whether at a global, national or city level.
They also offer The Game – an engaging, informative scenarios thinking tool to enable decision-makers in local and national government, emergency planners, senior leaders in the food sector, university researchers and other policy influencers to understand existing and emerging risks to our food system, and to explore what resilience in the food supply network means for their communities.
Come and join us to build a Systems-Centered® group,
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.