>Reply to Gary Boyd and further discussion on cybernetics and politics:
>With regard to cybernetics and revolution, the revolution is already
>underway. As we pontificate about one theory or another, the web and the net
>>are doing their own thing....[etc.]
Don's 'cri du coeur' provides a challenge to anyone who wants to be more
hopeful, a challenge which must be met by strategic considerations and not
unsupported optimism. So I will give this a try.
First, IMHO, Don is not here clearly distinguishing the role of conceptual
thought and scientific models from the world of real events it is the job
of our thoughts to manage. He does, of course, make the distinction, but
not in a way that is useful in relation to the societal problems. Moreover
Don seems, in recent posts, to feel some ambivalance about how
theoreticians should be involved, not wanting PCP to get involved in what
he may have seen as particular political contests.
The web and the net are, of course, doing their own thing. It is one of the
premises of PCP, as I understand it, that this is how the world evolves. As
PCP contributors write about the issues involved in managing complexity,
etc., they are not so much pontificating as they are wrestling with
conceptual problems. (Of course, I know that Don knows this very well.)
There is also probably a common hope that now and again it may be possible,
with the correct knowledge and strategic insight, to give the real system a
push in the "right" directions.
Herein lies the core of some the problems however - an unwillingness to
take any position on what might be seen as questions of values, of what
"ought" to be as well as what "is", to have any insight into what may be
"right".
> .... I think that the nature of
>complexity is clearly demonstrated by the world we live in. The nature of
>cybernetic reality is too. Reductionist science taught prediction and
>>control.It has failed on a big scale as we watch in amazement.
Of course the world demonstrates complexity, but this in itself leads to no
conclusion about conceptual strategies which might be possible. To give up
on human capacities for doing this is potentially a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
>Now, the basis for political support for science and technology is being
>shown to be of little substance, since what was wanted of us is prediction
>and control.
I thought that prediction and control, far from false to science, were
among the desiderata of a science according to its own principles,
admittedly within the framework of its own specification.
>We are in an interesting position...if we tell the truth, they will no longer
>>support us... if we lie...they will see that we can't produce.
We should not be carried away by a rhetorical statement, which may express
strong feelings, but cannot represent any problem for a science that
adheres to its own principles.
>This is the nature of the revolution as seen through the eyes of complexity
>>in action.
> If this thesis is correct, then what do we do? The answer seem simple.
>If asked to deliver, we go back to our mechanistic, reductionist haven and
>>make mechanistic solutions. Whenever posssible, we use complexity and
>>holistic >thinking to try to understand as best we can. Then we modify our
>limited, >mechanistic approach to be more compatable with our latest learning.
This is perhaps fair enough as far as it goes, and I agree with the implied
suggestion that someone who really understands cybernetics and systems will
not view even mechanical solutions through the eyes of a reductionist. What
he likely will do is clarify his various possible frames of reference,
without supposing he is being asked to sacrifice some absolute truth.
>Meanwhile, the visionaries among us will keep on trying to build models which
>do a better job of anticipating. As that is happening, the system will be
>changing, so the chance that the visionaries will do much is slight. The best
>>we can hope for, it seems, is that we might have a flash of insight as to
>what >is happening now and then.
Well I think we can do better than that. (In any case, we should not look
to the values of "visionaries" who make implicit claims to have privileged
access to the Truth anyway.) But it requires some basic reorientation,
which is the point of this note.
One of the premises of PCP is that systems evolve "by themselves", and that
PCP can also do so. At the same time I expect that the troika which works
so hard to provide guidance and the sapiential authority for PCP think
correctly that they may not be without positive influence. So the hard
evidence, based upon observations of behavior rather than words alone,is
that PCPers do not really believe things are best left to themselves.
Felix Geyer, in his paper on Sociocybernetics, remarks that:
" ... in self-referential systems like
social systems, feedback loops exist between parts of external reality on
the one hand, and models and theories about these parts of reality on the
other hand."
Cybernetic models are uniquely capable of allowing us to describe the role
of values and emotionally held objectives in the lives of individuals and
of social groups.
In my view, the possible contribution of PCP in terms of principled content
(as opposed to an automatic or blind "self-organizing" system) is not being
adequately exploited in providing societal guidance as to the structures
required to relate social values to political action. In the hard sciences
the basic definitions of such abstract terms as energy and force were
pinned down, for purposes of convention and scientific description, very
precisely in abstract terms. Systems scientists do not appear to have yet
arrived at that point with respect to basic terms (e.g. responsibility and
freedom, two terms that cybernetics might illuminate, with its insights
into the conditions which liberate systems from the effects of
contingencies where there are higher reference goals and criteria).
It seems that, in the minds of some, every perspective is to be given equal
weight. After all, it is said, there is no privileged Archimedean point, it
is not given to human beings to know the "best" perspective, and according
to academic traditions everyone has a right to an arguable opinion. However
alsolutes of this kind are really not the issue. The real problem is one of
conceptual structures that are coherent and consistent and that permit us
to communicate clearly and usefully about the real world. This can only be
solved by the acceptance of useful intellectual or conceptual conventions.
The recent PCP discussion of the meanings of basic terms was headed in the
right direction, IMHO, but not guided, as far as I could see, by goals that
were clear and specific enough in terms such as these.
On a similar point, it has also seemed to me, not all proponents of systems
sciences accept the principle that systems are only to be properly
described in terms of their functions, outcomes or ojectives. However, when
so described, human beings and social systems can be described in terms of
purposes and values. Values, or higher level inclusive purposes and the
criteria that these establish for lower level operations, are unavoidably
relevant to an adequate description of such systems.
Geyer also points to the paradox that "the accumulation of knowledge often
leads to a utilization of that knowledge - both by the social scientists
and the objects of their research - which may change the validity of that
knowledge." However, it may be suggested that strategic knowledge related
to governing values, which condition such responses to research, is not so
subject to change. The relationships of what is known may change, but not
the validity of the principles involved.
Since values are in their turn higher level cybernetic guidance structures,
the overview required is that of a Second Order Cybernetics, where an
immense and potentially fertile territory is open for development.
However, the first prerequisites are conceptual clarity and consistent in
discussion of the basic elements and their relationships. The problem
appears to me that systems scientists have not yet reached the necessary
consensus on the nature of this task, nor agreed upon the necessary
conventions in terminology which would make this task an attainable
project.
As Geyer also writes:
"the consequences of self-referentiality are
interesting not only for gaining an insight in the functioning of social
systems, but also for the methodology and epistemology used to study them."
Surely the problem is one of clarifying the role and potential contribution
of ideas, and through appropriate methods to reflect and act on the
problems of the world situation into which we are thrown. Cyberneticians
will be taken seriously when they have a serious contribution to make.
Just some thoughts... If I am totally mistaken in this I would appreciate
relevant references :-)
Cheers and best wishes.
Bruce H. Buchanan, M.D., D.Psych. buchanan@hookup.net
4690 Dundas St. West, Etobicoke Ontario M9A 1A6 CANADA
"We are all in this together!" (416)231-6235