From Cybernetics to Neo-Cybernetics: Exploring v0.5 of the Manifesto
Delving deep into the realms of systems, communication, and governance, piecing together the intricate mosaic of neo-cybernetics.
Dear readers, explorers and system thinkers,
We are approaching the release of version 0.5 of the Neo-Cybernetics manifesto.
As mentioned in the document itself, the manifesto is not something that is set in stone.
We, as modern cyberneticians, fully embrace the idea of continuous change in understanding of reality.
Thus this document will change and evolve, therefore we will see various iterative versions.
The manifesto serves as a comprehensive introduction to the field of neo-cybernetics and our nascent community of researchers, practitioners and brilliant thinkers.
This version will include various improvements to the Characteristics and Challenges sections, aiming to make them clearer; and will also introduce ‘Teleology’ as part of the key concepts section.
However, the most crucial change of version 0.5 will involve the attempt of formalizing the definition of neo-cybernetics into a clear and cohesive one.
In this article I will deconstruct the following definition that I am planning to add to this new iteration of the manifesto:
Neo-cybernetics is the science of communication and governance in networks and complex adaptive systems.
This definition comes from the study of the history of first and second order cybernetics, personal experiences in interaction design and complex systems architecture, coupled with a passion for wicked problems and the history of humankind.
However, despite my best efforts, I am more than aware that the above definition may carry biases or limitations.
Due to this, I invite you to actively participate by sharing your thoughts, feedback, and suggestions about our proposed definition.
Your feedback ensures that the definition truly represents the community that we are building.
Now, let’s go through the definition to understand the terms involved.
Note 16/10/2023: After hearing some feedback from a few readers, the definition now also includes ‘Interaction’ in addition to communication. This is because certain complex adaptive systems, such as ecosystems, economies, and social networks, involve not only communication but also various forms of interaction among their constituent elements. Interaction encompasses a broader range of activities, that not only include information but also exchange of resources, and energy. Spelling out the broader concept of interaction allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how the components of systems function and evolve over time.
Science
Neo-cybernetics is the science of…
Why use the term “science”?
This is possibly the most debatable aspect of the definition, given the history of traditional cybernetics.
In its original inception, cybernetics did not take off as a standalone science.
Instead, over the final decades of the 20th century, it ended up fragmenting, leading to a plethora of fields and subdomains.
Norbert Wiener himself used the terms “field” or “discipline” in his book ‘Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine’:
After much consideration, we have come to the conclusion that all the existing terminology has too heavy a bias to one side or another to serve the future development of the field as well as it should; and as happens so often to scientists, we have been forced to coin at least one artificial neo-Greek expression to fill the gap. We have decided to call the entire field of control and communication theory, whether in the machine or in the animal, by the name Cybernetics, which we form from the Greek κυβερνήτης or steersman.
- Wiener N., (1948), Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine’, page 11.
Today, while cybernetics intersects with fields like systems engineering, control theory, and even finds its place in science fiction, it hasn’t attained the esteemed prominence or recognition as standalone sciences like Physics or Mathematics.
The ambition, though, is to revive cybernetics, casting it not merely as an intersectional field but as a real scientific paradigm.
Neo-cybernetics looks to integrate various disciplines, combining the rigor of hard sciences with insights from softer ones, without sidelining crucial philosophical and ethical considerations. This isn’t about trying to place cybernetics above other sciences but to see it as a supportive framework.
In practical terms, think of neo-cybernetics as a connective tissue, linking different scientific domains, helping them communicate, and providing a clearer understanding of systems, the constructs that underlie all other fields.
The aim is simple: to foster interdisciplinary collaboration, further our collective knowledge and create a bright future.
In doing so, we hope to offer tools and perspectives that might be useful across various fields, benefiting both today’s researchers and future generations.
Communication
…of communication and governance…
Communication isn’t just about words, symbols and the relationship with meaning.
At its core, communication involves the flow, distribution, or sharing of matter, energy, or information, varying as per context.
Think of cities where traffic lights, pedestrians, and public transportation systems seamlessly communicate to maintain a dynamic flow. Consider the intricate web of machines in a factory, constantly exchanging data to optimize production. Or even ecosystems where plants and animals communicate through a myriad of signals for coexistence.
The term “communication” derives from Latin “communicare”, which means “to share”.
In neo-cybernetics, it encapsulates the essence of complex exchanges happening in our intricate systems that connect, share and exchange resources.
Negating or suppressing communication flows means obstructing the natural harmony and balance within systems. Just as an orchestra requires each instrument to communicate its unique sound for a harmonious performance, systems, subsystems, and nodes need open channels of communication to function optimally.
Without communication, systems can become disjointed and dysfunctional. Information silos may form, leading to inefficiencies, redundancies, entropy and even system-wide failures.
Such limitations not only prevent systems from adapting to new challenges but can also make them vulnerable to external disruptions.
Governance instead of Control
…and governance in…
One might ask, why “governance” and not “control” as the original definition of cybernetics?
The answer lies in understanding the nuanced differences between these two concepts.
The essence of the word ‘control’ finds its technical manifestation in control theory, a discipline bridging control engineering and applied mathematics, which delves into the regulation of dynamical systems in engineered processes and machines. However, ‘control’, with its semantic roots enveloping notions of ‘command’ and ‘domination’, suggests an assertive, direct influence over a system, predominantly from a top-down stance.
In contrast, ‘governance’ implies a more holistic perspective. The semantic field around this word hints to a collaborative and distributed approach, one rooted in guidance, management, coordination, and consensus.
In its healthiest form, governance is not about unilateral decision-making; it’s about establishing a dialogue. It sets the objectives, lays down the parameters, offers oversight, and crucially, evolves based on feedback.
While control might resort to coercive measures, governance leans into mutually agreed-upon norms, rules, and incentives, crafted in unison by system components or network nodes.
Such a paradigm shift in thinking allows neo-cybernetics to engage with systems featuring agents that collaborate, aligning their actions and strategies to achieve shared objectives. Agents that can be either natural, synthetic or both.
This perspective celebrates collective intelligence, expanding the reach to cover the study of systems where components and nodes may have agency and a voice in shaping their interactions and outcomes. This is one of the characteristics of the ‘neo-’ part of neo-cybernetics.
By emphasizing governance, we’re not just updating the scope of cybernetics. We are also reconnecting with its origins, cleansing it from any militaristic or domineering connotations that might have been infused in the 20th century.
In its purest form, the word κυβερνήτης (kubernḗtēs) from which “cybernetics” is derived, translates to “govern” and “steer”.
The novel generation of cyberneticians, inspired by this foundational essence, would then embrace a holistic view, fostering healthy communication and governance and shaping systems that are resilient, adaptive, and in harmony with the broader environment.
Like a modern captain, steadfast at a ship’s helm, in harmony with the sea’s whispers and the crew’s wisdom, they chart a course.
Not a navigator, but a guardian.
Not a despot but a guide.
In calm, they harness the wind’s grace; in storms, they embrace the challenge, guiding with unwavering dedication.
Their essence isn’t in control but in governance, ensuring the ship dances with the sea’s rhythm, safeguarding both vessel and soul.
In essence, neo-cybernetics, with its focus on governance, is both a nod to the past and a vision for the future. It captures the spirit of steering systems collaboratively, ensuring they thrive, adapt, and resonate in an ever-evolving world.
Networks
…in networks…
Then we come to networks, the underpinning structures of our global society.
In an age heralded by vision of Society 5.0, where we converge towards a super-smart society, networks have never been more pivotal.
They are the arteries and veins through which information, matter, and energy pulse, bringing life to our systems.
The term “network” can be traced back to its Old English roots, where “net” referred to a meshed fabric or structure. This ancient imagery, which once might have symbolized the tangible connections between objects or people in close physical proximity, has undergone a metamorphic transformation in our age.
In today’s digital era, our networks defy the constraints of physical space.
Data packets move around our planet at almost the speed of light, crossing continents faster than a heartbeat.
And with advancements in technology, the chains of time shackle us no more.
Every byte of information can be stored, recalled, re-lived, and shared, making our networks not just pathways in space, but also corridors through time.
As we peer into the horizon, the potential of networks in neo-cybernetics expands even further.
Imagine a future where networks aren’t limited to just information highways.
Envision a world where we possess networks of matter, where 3D printing on-demand becomes commonplace, or where energy is harnessed and transmitted wirelessly over vast distances, obliterating our current dependencies.
Such a vision, though ambitious, is not beyond our reach.
In the realm of neo-cybernetics, networks serve as evidence of our ability to connect, share, adapt, and evolve, echoing the intricate patterns and possibilities of the universe itself.
Complex Adaptive Systems
…and complex adaptive systems.
Complex adaptive systems emerge from interconnections and feedback loops constantly responding to and influencing their environment.
These systems continuously stand at the crossroads of order and chaos, demonstrating emergent properties that aren’t found in their individual components.
Think of ecosystems, where a multitude of species coexist, compete, and collaborate, giving rise to balanced biomes. Consider economies, where countless transactions and decisions, both small and grand, culminate in market trends and fiscal policies. Or reflect upon human societies, where beliefs, cultures, technologies, and histories intertwine to form civilizations.
A salient feature of these systems is their capacity for autopoiesis, a term introduced by biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. It describes systems capable of self-reproduction and self-maintenance.
Cells, for instance, maintain their identity within a constant metabolic turnover, and societies retain their core values and structures even as generations come and go.
Diving further, within the realm of these systems, you’ll find fractals in coastlines and river networks, power laws in city sizes and wealth distributions, and strange attractors in weather systems and stock markets.
These aren’t mere mathematical constructs, but rather profound signatures of complexity.
In neo-cybernetics, acknowledging and embracing this complexity is paramount.
It’s not about predicting the unpredictable, but about understanding patterns, discerning underlying structures, and crafting strategies that resonate with the ever-evolving nature of time.
By doing so, we don’t just observe or intervene, but we harmonize, becoming co-authors in the grand narrative of interconnectedness.
Closing Thoughts and Call to Action
At the heart of neo-cybernetics lies both legacy and holistic evolution.
Built on foundational pillars laid by past visionaries, our emerging movement invites each of us — scholar, enthusiast, skeptic — to participate and shape its trajectory.
As we release Version 0.5 of our manifesto, remember: it’s a living document, reflecting the ever evolving nature of the systems we study.
The challenges of today’s world demand adaptive, systemic, and inclusive solutions. Neo-cybernetics offers a path, but it requires collective intelligence and collaboration.
Join us. Engage, debate, contribute.
Let’s not just observe history but actively create it, steering our interconnected world towards a brighter future.
The neo-cybernetic era welcomes your voice.
Footnotes
Ahelero, Shohin; Huang, Huiyue; Xu, Xun; & Zhong, Ray. (2022). Towards sustainability and resilience with Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0. Frontiers in Manufacturing Technology.
Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. John Wiley and Sons.
Dorogovtsev SN, Mendes JR (2003). Evolution of Networks: from biological networks to the Internet and WWW. Oxford University Press.
Narvaez Rojas, C.; Alomia Peñafiel, G.A.; Loaiza Buitrago, D.F.; Tavera Romero, C.A. (2021) Society 5.0: A Japanese Concept for a Superintelligent Society. Sustainability.
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme [1995. Social Systems. Stanford. Stanford University Press]. Frankfurt an Main: Suhrkamp.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Pearce, W.B. (1989). Communication and the human condition. SIU Press.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT press.
If you enjoyed this article and want to read more on compex systems at the intersection of the natural and artificial worlds, subscribe to our Medium Publication.
To dive deeper into the foundations of the discipline, I invite you to explore the latest version of the Neo-Cybernetics Manifesto.
We also have a Github repository where we will be sharing open source documentation, research papers and frameworks.
Feel free to share this and our future articles with friends and colleagues who may be interested in our topics.
Together, let’s lay the foundations of neo-cybernetics and and set forth on a path that redefines how we perceive, design, and steer our collective destiny.
Be a part of this journey, for in understanding, unity, and progress we propel humanity forward.
