Talk:New Cybernetics (Gordon Pask)

message: I started looking for some sources on New Cybernetics, and these are the first I found - Mdd 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pask is asking for finite (Conversation Theory-CT) and infinite interaction (Interactions of Actors Theory- IA) to be considered as a basis for a new cybernetics (c.f. Minsky "Finite and Infinite Automata"). I think that's all there is to it. Except we can now talk about forces (carapaces around self-referential coherences, action etc) etc. Pask (1993 para 264 himself say "Conversation theory and Lp, even more so I.A.Theory, were put together with the intention of entire generality They are not intended as a universal theory, because of certain moral and aesthetic qualms". I think this may have be an attempt to get people away from sterile talk of subjective model building and start making clear sharp distinctions that could be applied to the bounds of autonomy- particularly in the Social Sciences. Pask's toolkit supported a post modern approach (hermeneutics and all) but I don't think there are many that understand this yet. Happy for you to make additions to the New Cybernetics article and, indeed, I will clarify what I have already written but I'm not clear your quotes are leading anywhere that "new" in Pask's sense. I'm not familiar with the work you cite, but 1. Harries-Jones uses new perhaps in the sense that there was more to SO than Wiener saw then gives an excellent description of why political beliefs survive. There's a place for that the second-order (C2) people will go along with that. 2. Darby too makes a good point. Amplifying noise may get us away from disorder if the "noise" signal is treated as a signal not just random junk (but it's not a good quote for making that point). 3.van de Vijve also makes some good points but they don't highlight the significant innovations by Pask's (1993,4,6) calls. I daresay he discussed this before with colleagues in Amsterdam but they don't run with the significant distinctions of force, finite productions and infinite processes. They may not have been so obvious at that time. I don't know enough about their work to say more. Why not post a query to CYBCOM and see what they say? No Dopps, the Carapace, CT and IA are a fairly comprehensive toolkit and the later axioms: similarities, differences, context, perspective, amity, faith, unity (not uniformity), evolution, observability, responsibility, agreement, agreement to disagree, permissive and imperative action should render some of this at least easily applicable. Without those elements it isn't "New" in the Paskian sense, to me at least.--Nick Green 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressed by the work you are putting in. I have emailed the Council re Cybsoc- I don't know one of the Fellows mentioned. Thanks for acting on Scriptnetics and Fibernetics maybe for the Uncylopedia but not us. Are ScoobyDuke or 128.135.57.4 and Steve@brunmedinc known before?--Nick Green 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Pask's New Cybernetics is all I know about. If others have used it in a different sense fine but we must make the distinctions clear. I'll keep an eye on the watch list more often. Didn't you do the work on the CybSoc? Anyway Pask (1993) was very critical of much work in ritual science, systems and cybernetics "I DO maintain, however, that "viable system" theory and "C.T.,Lp, and I.A." theory stand out, it is no accident that they do so because they are foundationally Cybernetic in type, as competent and very general if not universal theories, against a background of badly considered, pretentious and often meaningless general theories, greatly publicised and advertised by empty rhetoric." Don't look too hard for new material it may be superficial. Let's have criticism by all means, it's essential. Pask's New Cybernetics may be very important but it may be overlooked for many years yet. A rigorous coherence set theory with forces won't happen overnight. Still we can hope. He said "Indubitably, there is a scientific method and it is very elegant, employed with the proper type of evidence. But the elegant is defaced, becomes nauseating and ugly, if misused in order to ape, with gestures, grunts and grimaces the respectable character of otherwise untenable findings or displays." There's a new collection of papers due out next year. It may lead to some new work.--Nick Green 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources on New Cybernetics 

message: Now what I am trying to tell is, that up here I made an new article form scratch and it is completely different from the content of the current article. I would therefor state the question, are we talking about the same thing here? - Mdd 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pask is asking for finite (Conversation Theory-CT) and infinite interaction (Interactions of Actors Theory- IA) to be considered as a basis for a new cybernetics (c.f. Minsky "Finite and Infinite Automata"). I think that's all there is to it. Except we can now talk about forces (carapaces around self-referential coherences, action etc) etc. Pask (1993 para 264 himself say "Conversation theory and Lp, even more so I.A.Theory, were put together with the intention of entire generality They are not intended as a universal theory, because of certain moral and aesthetic qualms". I think this may have be an attempt to get people away from sterile talk of subjective model building and start making clear sharp distinctions that could be applied to the bounds of autonomy- particularly in the Social Sciences. Pask's toolkit supported a post modern approach (hermeneutics and all) but I don't think there are many that understand this yet. Happy for you to make additions to the New Cybernetics article and, indeed, I will clarify what I have already written but I'm not clear your quotes are leading anywhere that "new" in Pask's sense. I'm not familiar with the work you cite, but 1. Harries-Jones uses new perhaps in the sense that there was more to SO than Wiener saw then gives an excellent description of why political beliefs survive. There's a place for that the second-order (C2) people will go along with that. 2. Darby too makes a good point. Amplifying noise may get us away from disorder if the "noise" signal is treated as a signal not just random junk (but it's not a good quote for making that point). 3.van de Vijve also makes some good points but they don't highlight the significant innovations by Pask's (1993,4,6) calls. I daresay he discussed this before with colleagues in Amsterdam but they don't run with the significant distinctions of force, finite productions and infinite processes. They may not have been so obvious at that time. I don't know enough about their work to say more. Why not post a query to CYBCOM and see what they say? No Dopps, the Carapace, CT and IA are a fairly comprehensive toolkit and the later axioms: similarities, differences, context, perspective, amity, faith, unity (not uniformity), evolution, observability, responsibility, agreement, agreement to disagree, permissive and imperative action should render some of this at least easily applicable. Without those elements it isn't "New" in the Paskian sense, to me at least.--Nick Green 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressed by the work you are putting in. I have emailed the Council re Cybsoc- I don't know one of the Fellows mentioned. Thanks for acting on Scriptnetics and Fibernetics maybe for the Uncylopedia but not us. Are ScoobyDuke or 128.135.57.4 and Steve@brunmedinc known before?--Nick Green 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Pask's New Cybernetics is all I know about. If others have used it in a different sense fine but we must make the distinctions clear. I'll keep an eye on the watch list more often. Didn't you do the work on the CybSoc? Anyway Pask (1993) was very critical of much work in ritual science, systems and cybernetics "I DO maintain, however, that "viable system" theory and "C.T.,Lp, and I.A." theory stand out, it is no accident that they do so because they are foundationally Cybernetic in type, as competent and very general if not universal theories, against a background of badly considered, pretentious and often meaningless general theories, greatly publicised and advertised by empty rhetoric." Don't look too hard for new material it may be superficial. Let's have criticism by all means, it's essential. Pask's New Cybernetics may be very important but it may be overlooked for many years yet. A rigorous coherence set theory with forces won't happen overnight. Still we can hope. He said "Indubitably, there is a scientific method and it is very elegant, employed with the proper type of evidence. But the elegant is defaced, becomes nauseating and ugly, if misused in order to ape, with gestures, grunts and grimaces the respectable character of otherwise untenable findings or displays." There's a new collection of papers due out next year. It may lead to some new work.--Nick Green 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:New Cybernetics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Cybernetics (Gordon Pask). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616064723/http://bioengineering.stanford.edu/faculty/boahen.html to http://bioengineering.stanford.edu/faculty/boahen.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)