This book originated from a conference as homage to Heinz von Foerster, conjointly organised by Afscet and AEMCX.
In it we find two conferences given by transdisciplinary-minded author on the subjects of ethics and responsibility; discussions from contemporary researchers show the distinctive heritage owed in such diversified fields as biology, genetics epistemology, moral philosophy and politics, psychotherapy or complex though.
One of the Heinz von Foerster particularities was never to have written a book, even if, in 2003, a year after his death, a collection of essays was published under the responsibility of his son.
His wish not to be found by label “ismes” undoubtedly had impeded the progression of the understanding of his work, so rich in foundation concepts for the advance of knowledge.
If one was to be chosen, the cybernetics of a second nature would certainly come first, HVF being the one who introduced the observant system into observed system, putting aside the famous “scientific objectivity”, based upon the distinction between object and subject.
When, in 1997, he was asked if he was constructivist, he replied: “No, I am Viennese”.
Behind the apparent facetiousness of the reply is a significant context: the Vienna of the 1920’s -HVF was born there in 1911- with his circles of savants initiating the transdisciplinar dialog and the questioning of questioning ...
At his arrival in the United States in 1949, he became the “editor” of the Macy Conferences which he baptised “cybernetics”. Here he met Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, Warren Mac Culloch, in multidisciplinary exchanges on the circular causality and feed-back in biological and social systems.
He founded in 1958, the Biological Computer Laboratory, working on the cybernetic concepts and their application to technical and social problems until 1975.
Original thinker far from the academic ways of thinking his contribution to science and epistemology in the XXth century in particular by the concept of circularity, is fundamental

The responsability of competency.

We can no longer remain knowledgeable spectators of a global disaster »

This conference reveals the responsibility of the cybernetics competency and thus of the cyberneticians in the face of a combined effort of thought upon contemporary problems. It opens by the second theorem, qualified by its author : “if the hard sciences succeed, it is because the problems with which they are confronted are soft, whereas if the “soft” sciences come up against so many difficulties it is because the problems encountered are hard.”
As a result we cannot use the reductionism method of analysis (that is to say dividing the whole into its separate parts to understand the behaviour of the system) to resolve the complex problems which the human sciences present, these being essentially related to the number of interactions between the parts of the system.
HVF proposes to call upon the competency –which is not the method used by the hard sciences- that is to say cybernetics seen as the science of regulations to help the human sciences to find an understanding to the problems encountered.
The concept of regulation is seen as a major phenomena in living organisms, given it “slows down the loss of energy and thus of entropy” (p 129) and associated with the slowing down of the process of entropy and computation, form the essential part of cybernetics.
Living organisms have several ways in which they react by computation with their environment: either by developing more adapted languages or by modifying their environment or a combination of both.
In the example of Turing Machine, the computation is divided into five types of adaptation: reading data
Comparing data
Acting in response
Changing the internal state
Repeating the sequence
The author then applies this cybernetic understanding to the human brain, master of art in computation and regulation, classified in four kinds of problems:

• The problem with one brain: this would refer to neuroscience
• The problem with two brains, which refers to education
• The problem with “n” brains, that is to say society and common to all brains: humanity

The neurosciences must define a theory of the brain; this theory seen as a theory written by the brain on its own way of functions place the concept of self-reference as a legitimate basis for this science which has a legitimate epistemology.
This brings HVF to his third theorem: “the sciences of nature are written by man, biological ones must be written by themselves.”
No use would it be look to the works of Gödel to try and refute this theorem; as the author says, the concept of self-referencing not being a part of his arguments.
The interaction between two brains represented by education should in itself treat the children as non trivial machines, whereas it searches to trivialise them by eliminating unpredictability and creativeness to produce predictable citizens.
He gives the example of examination questions “illegitimate questions” to which one must always give known answers; the preferable alternative being to invent the answers to legitimate questions of knowledge.
In problems involving “n” brains HVF sees the absence of cybernetics as a cause for numerous societal disorders: certain individuals lacking interaction with the society due to the fact that they have insufficient entry into the system to be able to act upon it. No entry, thus no interaction or retroaction, leading to absence of regulation and therefore no computation.
The author proposes “ a system of entry into society free for all to use. Proposition which would enchant many social workers if it was, although generous, not so reductionnist!
The problems common to all brains are illustrated by humanity, who continues to see itself as an open system whereas it should consider itself as a closed system if it hopes to touch a population an economic system and stable resources.
So if our knowledge in the world is sufficient to stabilise economy and populations, we should then look outside our own planet for the necessary energy resources, according to the second law of thermodynamics; V F proposes to look to the 2.10 ¹4 of solar radiation in order to protect the organic resources of the earth.
He concludes by an ethical loop: a social system which does not regulate itself does not produce finalities, in the absence of these finalities; the concepts of “society” and system lose their sense.
As the author ironically says, we can always search for glory and success, but we are all responsible for the problems of our time. To resolve them, let us work together to put into practice our ideas...

Ethics and second nature cybernetics

It is impossible to speak of ethic »

In this second conference, given in front of family therapists, HVF reminds us that Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Stafford Beer, Gordon Pask all had different definitions of cybernetics, fact which entrances interdisciplinary exchanges on the subject of circularity. This concept of circularity being gradually enlarged, it eventually contested the separation between the observer and observed, this having been the false foundation of scientific objectivity for so long.
The author tributes the perennity of this mistake to the fright of the paradox introduced by the researchers: by entering into the observed system, the observer took with him his own paradoxes.
Thanks to the neurophysiologists and neuropsychiatrics who dared first describe a theory of brain, sef-referencing became known, and the cyberneticians were able and obliged to account for their own circular activity: this is how the cybernetics of second nature were born – in opposition to the first order, where the observing system was not integrated into the observation-.
This produced a real epistemological breakthrough, visible in the family therapy circles, teaching, learning processes and organizations. Also for the moral world: for HVF, when the observer is outside the system observed, one is in the moral field. When the observer interacts xithe the system, one enters the field of ethics.
Although admitting his difficulty in defining it, to help himself he refers to Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus by Wittgenstein, (another Viennese).
He is sure that ethics have nothing to do with punishment and reward, it is more self-referencing and implicit, with the risk of degenerating to moralisation.
For it to be able to stay implicit, he calls upon two “Dames” (for he does not disdain metaphoric!) which are Metaphysics and Dialogics.
And so he goes ahead with the metaphysics postulate: giving a rather an orthodox definition: Metaphysician are those who cut and define “which is by essence, undecidable” (for example the origin of the Universe) as only these problems can give us the liberty to decide; the others leading to responses which are pre-determined by the context in which they are placed.
This extreme liberty goes together with the responsibility of our choices, often eluded, according to the author, by the hierarchy who dilutes it, or the objectivity of the observer who denies it.
So, we come to the important epistemological options: determinism or constructivism freedom: either I look at the world from outside and can only discover the rules or I am part of it and thus I invente it. The world is therefore divided into two types of individuals: those who discover (astronomists, physicians, engineers...) and those who invent (biologists, poets, family therapists...)
Quoting Ortega y Gasset: “Man is condemned to be free”, HVF gives the reply issued from ethics: “always act in a way which will multiply the number of possibilities to choose from”.
The author then relates his experience behind the one-way mirror during a sequence when he followed his colleagues family therapists with which he learnt “the dancing steps of language” almost like a magical practice.
For him, language is also a second degree circular practice, self referential in the sense that language is needed to speak of language. HVF differentiates the appearance and the function of language. The first is descripting allowing self conscientiousness; the second is constructive and turned towards others, which links it to ethics.
Man is dialogical like his language: self and the other as the whole. Self and its contrary, always two in one, with the wonderful capacity to relate to the contradictions within himself.

Fertile epistemological concepts

Self-organisation

Half a century has passed since its creation, during which this concept, which HVF was the pioneer, has continued its role as an incubator.
For Henri Atlan, who continued his biology research around the idea of self-organisation; for Mauro Ceruti who applies it to the ecology of human evolution; for Edgar Morin who admits owing the understanding of complex systems to the concepts of self-organisation and recursivity.
Second degree cybernetics, knowledge defining knowledge which identifies a “metalevel” at which the observer is present can but recognize the epistemological position.
As computation of computation of a reality, the knowledge is a translation and re-construction of a reality by the circular between subject and object, as the effects are at the same time productive and produced; thus bringing twentieth century knowledge a step further
Finally, “thinking in a second degree way entrance our freedom” and opens up possible fields. In this way HVF’s epistemology as well as recursivity, joins ethics.

Independence of observing/observed systems

Criticism has been made of the circular causal system, accusing it of closure, forming a circle upon itself. In fact, HVF explains in Understanding understanding that the independence of the observing/observed systems emerges from the oscillation between self-referencing issued from second degree cybernetics and hetero-referencing, the basis of first degree cybernetics, fact which considerable enlarges the frontiers of the circle...We can undoubtedly recognize HVF as the pioneer who pushed further the limits of self and hetero-referencing, making a decisive step towards the understanding of the complexity of systems; as recognized Jean Piaget: “from end to end we have the same constructivist epistemology”

The ecology of action

To complete the understanding of HVF’s thesis, we can choose without betraying his ideas, to unite three characteristics upon which he builds the ecology of action: freedom, creativity and ethics, each participating in the construction of the others.
As a heady illustrated by HVF “ man is condemned to be free” HVF not whishing to be closed in by a reductionnist doctrine, he prefers to question his own representations. In doing this he entrances his cognitive creativity as illustrated by Mauro Ceruti in his two kinds of change in knowledge: one in quantity, born of the consciousness of the fact that “I know that I don’t know” which leads to growth of our knowledge; the other in quality, born from the experience “I ignore not knowing” which induces a questioning of our frames of reference.
We see that the allowing ourselves the freedom to go towards this second degree leads to creativity. The greater the freedom, the greater our fields of possibility, the more our responsibility in the face of these choices.
Ethics, liberty and creativeness which are underlying in all thought of HVF, combine in his aphorism: “always act a way will multiply the number of possibilities to choose from.”

©2008 www.biausser.fr