I desire social transformations that eventually generate a new society. I don't want to fix the old society -- it's too broken. I want a new one. Transformation requires (not just) starting with self as a way thinking about ways of thinking. Ways of thinking that include I, me too, require ways of composing so that I speaks me, rather than me speaking it. Too often communication.
Gertrude Stein once wrote, when there is communication there is no creativity.
I say, when there is creativity there is anticommunication.
Herbert Brün invented the term anticommunication as a premise for designing a new and honest language, since:
insistence on communication ultimately generates social and physical violence because communication feeds-on, speeds-up the decay of information in human systems.
Anticommunication feeds on newness and retards decay of living systems, since anticommunication ultimately insists on composition and peace as a need.
So, when I want to create a new, I observe asynchronicity, design an anticommunications (nested in communication) and act accordingly. Action includes languaging.
Humberto Maturana's biological model known as Structural Determined Systems does just this. It entails at least three domains, the bodyhood, the relationall space and the psychic space. It is a model about the biology of being, observing and loving.
Cybernetics, a transdiciplinary approach for exploring variety in regulatory systems, their structures, constraints and possibilities.
Cybernetics is relevant to the study of mechanical, physical, biological, cognitive and social systems including the arts.
First cybernetics (as science) was defined in the mid 20th century by Norbert Wiener as "the scientific study of control and communication in the animal and the machine.
During the second half of the 20th century cybernetics evolved in ways that distinguish first cybernetics (observed systems) from second cybernetics (observing systems),
The circularity of cybernetics leads to ons's self, shifting one's (thus our) language(ing), thinking, doing and thus being -- human.
When "I am" is nested in "I is" variety in ways of thinking about thinking and languaging emerge.
Second cybernetics includes the observer in one's explanation, including in science. (HvF)
Third cybernetics is in the doing of including oneself in one's descriptions intentionally. (H.B.)
Why a third cybernetics? (Kenny)
Cybernetics is not about generating a grand theory or ideology, It is about epistemology.
Epistomology study of how we oome to know and how one's knowing is buiilt on one's history or herstory of knowing.
One cannot come back to the question when is knowledge too often, and the answer knowledge is what one knows, -- Gertrude Stein
As a science epistemology is; a) a branch of philosophy concerned with the question how is it possible to know anything and what is truth. b) two studies of natural history, b1) the study of how people think they know things, b2) the study of how people know things. Everybody has an epistemology or they could know anything and those who say they don't have an epistemology have a lousy one. -- Gregory Bateson
Different epistemologies, thus, entail different postures or relational attitudes that determine different domains of validity for human actions. -- Humberto Maturana
To take seriously that everything said -- everything said -- is said by an observer (an epistemology) to another observer (again an epistemology), is to revolutionize human experience. It is to hear every assertion not as 'fact' or 'truth' but as an invitation to orient in a particular manner, and no more. -- Rodney Donaldson
cyberneitcs of cyberentics and responibility for one actions -- regardless of the constraints one finds oneself emmersed in hvf 79
Premise: an art of being is doing what one wants, and in order to do what one wants one must know what one desires.
Right or Wrong MY Desires
While using the word “desire” to mean something wanted with the momentary urgency of a need and necessity, write a list of statements for which you would say:
While it is not the case, I desire it to be the case that ______.
A Desire Statement: I desire all human needs be satisfied.
Generating False Statements
In order for desires to become tools for designing one’s desires I then turn my desire statements into False Statements based in a dynamic premise that suggests: “The past is past, the present happens anyway so understanding and agreement has to be given to False Statements.
False Statement: All human needs are met.
Paradigms, Models and Premises
I like using words to describe particular phenomena so that I can build on my knowing when using certain words. I want to make the distinction between paradigm, models and premises since it helps me design a society I desire to be a part or more accurately a society I desire to be an element of (recursions).
Assumption: our language is embedded in the old paradigms for communicating. For example, the sun still sets and the moon risesin our languge even though we know that is not the case. Even though we know the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric paradigm a thousand plus years ago the language of the old paradigm haunts our epistemologies and our worldviews.
So in order for social transformations to emerge anything that is not the case may be a more valuable a statement then anything said about what is the case, since “what,” usually reflects old paradigms, models, premises and assumptions from the past rather than a present or future.
Old Paradigms Die Hard
A reward-oriented hierarchy guides our language, languaging, communications in ways that maintains the way things are a status quo that prevents “social” transformations I desire.
Reward-oriented hierarchy: needs are met when appropriate actions are achieved = status an element of a system for stratification. Stable hiearchies of power, nature and beliefs.
Longing for Links
Longing for Links which favors change over stability, yet insists that these changesbe non violent and NOT be improvised BUT composed in search of changing forms.
Composing, Triadic Relations and Performance
When might the power of a respondent, powerful images and the responsibilities of a designer generate triadic relations? (Enslin, Eglash, Richards, von Foerster)
When does the power of a respondent, powerful images and the responsibilities of a designer generate triadic relations? (Enslin, Eglash, Richards, von Foerster)