Paul Pangaro:
>My addition would be to say that there is benefit in being careful about
>even the words we use to respond to items such as those that Francis points
>out. A problem that the Web brings out clearly is that the notion of
>"accurate information" is difficult to assure; "misconceptions" may merely
>be a difference of opinion. Who is to say what is the case? Am I expected
>to prefer Principia Cybernetica or ASC because of "they" (who are they
>anyway) are the source? Can the Web be harnessed to afford a means of
>dialogue?
[...]
>The technology does not yet clearly support the notion of the dialectic;
>user interfaces stink in this regard, to put it simply. However we can look
>forward to a better time, perhaps, when cybernetics and technology might
>provide an environment, mediated by screens and networks, that encourage
>the exchange of ideas and the emergence of individual and collective
>judgements for which responsibility to taken. Again I say that I do not
>agree with the definitions offered but I would not want to "eliminate" them
>(they are someone else's, after all) -- and would I want to respond to
>them, yes.
The way I see (and try to build) the ideal cybernetics glossary on the Web
is an extension of the way the original ASC glossary was developed: a
multiplicity of definitions by different people for each entry. Each entry
has the name of its author, so you can give it the importance that that
person's opinion has for you. If you see the different definitions the one
next to the other, it becomes easier to distinguish the bad ones from the
good ones.
The ASC glossary was started in that way: definitions were collected from
different books and people. If there was more than one definition, they
were simply listed together with reference to the source. I plan to expand
the ASC Glossary that is now on Principia Cybernetica Web
(http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/indexASC.html) in the same way. When I
discover new definitions, I will simply append them to the existing ones,
noting the author.
The good new is that we got the authorization of Klaus Krippendorff, who
wrote a short "Dictionary of Cybernetics", to republish his material on the
Web. This will considerably expand the existing Glossary. I also hope to
gather other glossary like material, and will append that in a similar
fashion. I hereby ask everybody who is willing to produce such material, or
knows where it can be found, to contact me. Stuart's suggestion to gather
existing definitions in books is certainly a step in the right direction.
The only problem may be copyright: like in the ASC glossary, definitions
taken over from books should be so short that they can be interpreted as
quotes.
As Paul notes, ideally people should be able to dynamically add new
definitions and discuss existing ones on the Web. Although that is not yet
available for the Glossary, this possibility exists for the rest of
Principia Cybernetica Web by using the "Annotation" mechanism. Selecting
the "Annotation" button calls up an electronic form in which you fill out
your name and address, and add the text of your comment, definition or
criticism. This new text is then published on the Web and linked to the
original annotated text. The interface is not yet ideal, but for short
comments, I certainly would not say that it "stinks". I will probably add
the annotation capacity to the new glossary (or perhaps it would now better
deserve the name of "dictionary") once I have incorporated the Krippendorff
material.
Paul:
>I agree with Francis that the definitions he cites below do not reflect
>more rigorous meanings, and I would say that they therefore lose power and
>utility. (The example of Requisite Variety is particularly painful, given
>the elegance and power of the original. In relation to Ashby's Law, clearly
>this formulation is not the same.)
Though my general approach is definitely "pluralistic" and "dialectic", I
would like to keep a minimal quality requirement. Though there may be many
different definitions, I expect these definitions to have a minimal degree
of "correctness". By "correct" I mean that there should not be clear
instances of the definition about which everybody agrees that they are not
instances of the term to be defined, or the other way around. Together with
this message, I forward another message, sent to the Principia Cybernetica
mailing list, in which I have clarified my position in that respect.
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Francis Heylighen, Systems Researcher fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be
PESP, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel +32-2-6292525; Fax +32-2-6292489; http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html