Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relevance of second‐order cybernetics for a theory of architectural design and related discourse.

First, the relation of architectural design to the concept of “poiesis” is clarified. Subsequently, selected findings of Gotthard Günther are revisited and related to an architectural poetics. The last part of the paper consists of revisiting ideas mentioned previously, however, on the level of a discourse that has incorporated the ideas and offers a poetic way of understanding them.

Gotthard Günther's conception of “You” is specifically valuable in reference to a theory of architectural design in the sense of an architectural poetics.

The research furthers the field of architecture by contributing to it a new theory in the form of an architectural poetics. It addresses questions of design with a procedural framework in which critical engagement is an intrinsic principle, and offers an alternative to existing discourses through a poetry of architectonic order that is open to the future.

Bateson's model of classifying different types of learning will be analyzed from a logical and technical point of view. While learning 0 has been realized for chess playing computers, learning I turns out today as the basic concept of artificial neural nets (ANN). All models of ANN are basically (non linear) data filters, which is the idea behind simple and behavioristic input‐output models.

The paper will discuss technical systems designed on the concept of learning 0 and I and it will demonstrate that these models do not have an environment, i.e. they are non‐cognitive and therefore “non‐learning” systems.

Models based on Bateson's category of Learning II differ fundamentally from Learning 0 and I. They cannot be modeled any longer on the basis of classical (mono‐contextural) logics. Technical artifacts which belong to this category have to be able to change their algorithms (behavior) by their own effort. Learning II turns out as a process which cannot be described or modeled on a sequential time axis. Learning II as a process belongs to the category of (parallel interwoven) heterarchical‐hierarchical process‐structures.

In order to model this kind of process‐structures the polycontextural theory has to be used – a theory which was introduced by the German‐American Philosopher and Logician Gotthard Günther (1900‐1984) and has been further developed by Rudolf Kaehr and others.

To discuss the concept of cybernetics, and to point out its complexities.

Cybernetics can be seen as a scientific concept of harnessing complexity as a feedback phenomenon and a project aimed at establishing a new control science and adaptive technology based on the formalization of complexity. Today, we still do not have adaptive or complex computers.

Cybernetics has failed both as a concept and a project, and is becoming a case for historians. But before it is classified as just a short scientific episode between the atomic bomb and cyberwar, a closer look will show that it was not only a military sponsored project driven by the cold war of the 1950s but also a rebellious movement inspired by the visions of the 1960s. Heinz von Foerster more than anyone else represented this human face of cybernetics.

Considers some of the thought‐provoking ideas of Heinz von Foerster in the history of cybernetics.

In 1974, Heinz von Foerster articulated the distinction between a first‐ and second‐order cybernetics, as, respectively, the cybernetics of observed systems and the cybernetics of observing systems. Von Foerster's distinction, together with his own work on the epistemology of the observer, has been enormously influential on the work of a later generation of cyberneticians. It has provided an architecture for the discipline of cybernetics, one that, in true cybernetic spirit, provides order where previously there was variety and disorder. It has provided a foundation for the research programme that is second‐order cybernetics. However, as von Foerster himself makes clear, the distinction he articulated was imminent right from the outset in the thinking of the early cyberneticians, before, even, the name of their discipline had been coined. In this paper, the author gives a brief account of the developments in cybernetics that lead to von Foerster's making his distinction. As is the way of such narratives, it is but one perspective on a complex series of events. Not only is this account a personal perspective, it also includes some recollections of events that were observed and participated in at first hand.

Selections from topics discussed on the CybCom list over a particularly active period in early 2006 are reviewed. These include the relevance of autopoiesis to sociology, courses of instruction on cybernetics, cybernetics applied to social theory, the “ethical imperative” of von Foerster, and Günther's “polylogic”. Other lists on the internet are also described.

The aim is to review developments on the internet, especially those of general cybernetic interest.

The relevance of autopoiesis to sociology is dubious; various courses of instruction exist but cyberneticians should try to enhance visibility; information flows in social systems have useful correspondence to those in living organisms; the “ethical imperative” is not a universal rule; “polylogic” is of interest but not yet embodied in a working computer.

The CybCom list, and others mentioned, are valuable sources of stimulating material.

It is hoped this is a valuable periodic review.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore, analyze, and compare the different solutions that Luhmann has provided throughout his work to the problem of the psychic element. We depart from the construction of a corpus of texts that includes most of the Luhmann's published production. They are chronologically analyzed to observe the evolution and changes. The categories of this analysis are divided according to the two distinct periods of Luhmann's production. For the preautopoietic writings, we looked at system/environment as inside/outside the system, and selectivity as the difference between process and system. In the autopoietic writings, we analyzed operation and selection, medium and form, operation and observation, structural coupling and operational closure, and differentiation. The chapter shows how, from an initial superposition of concepts, Luhmann distinguished the personal aspect (a structural trait) from the operation of the system. Then, the problem becomes how to unify all the capacities of consciousness under a single operation. We individualize the two main hypotheses and their shortcomings. This also includes the discussion of the possibility of differentiation of consciousness. The chapter avoids discussing single texts or temporally limited concepts. Instead, it discusses the problem throughout the complete work of Luhmann. As a result, it identifies the distinct hypotheses, their changes, and their weaknesses, offering a systematic study of the theme.

The purpose of this paper is to target the problem of awareness of the history of cybernetics as a field with different actors inside and outside cybernetics. It provides a short overview on research and literature during the last two decades and pleads for a multiplicity of historical views.

Historical research, review of literature.

While it can be found that there was a growing historical interest in cybernetics, this cannot be claimed for the history of the American Society of Cybernetics (ASC) as an organization and a productive network. One reason seems to be the lack of archival sources. The article provides a proposal to reconstruct such an archive for the history of the ASC.

Stimulation of historical awareness for and in cybernetics.