What's written on the poster

Norbert Wiener

Setting the stage for the buddying systems movement, in his seminal 1948 Cybernetics, Wiener observed that our communication or societal "feedback" is broken. And that we must restructure it, and other systems, by (as we may say this today) innovating systemically (applying systemic insights – how the structure of a system might drive its behavior).

Erich Jantsch

Having given the opening keynote at the inaugural meeting of The Club of Rome, in 1968, where it was understood that "the world problematique" must be understood and treated systemically, Erich Jantsch organized some of the leading systems scientists to draft an action plan – which he then developed further and submitted to the MIT for implementation.

Ronald Reagan

In 1980 Jantsch passed away, aged 51, without having achieved his goals, or even being accepted on a permanent post at the UC Berkeley where he was sporadically working. In that same year Ronald Reagan became the 40th U.S. President on the agenda “we can only trust the market” …

Norbert Wiener and cybernetics

Norbert Wiener was recognized as exceptionally gifted while he was still a child. He studied mathematics, zoology and philosophy, and finally got his doctorate in mathematical logic from Harvard, when he was only 17. Wiener went on to do seminal work in several distinct fields, one of which was cybernetics.

We'll now let you in on some observations from Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics, and specifically from its last chapter, "Information, Language and Society". If his technical language is unfamiliar, you may interpret the word "homeostasis" simply as the capability of the Modernity vehicle (or of any of our specific institutions or systems) to steer a viable course.

In connection with the effective amount of communal information, one of the most surprising facts (...) is its extreme lack of efficient homeostatic process. There is a belief, current in many countries, which has been elevated to the rank of an official article of faith in the United States, that free competition is itself a homeostatic process: that in a free market the individual selfishness of the bargainers, each seeking to sell as high and buy as low as possible, will result in the end in a stable dynamics of prices, and with redound to the greatest common good. This is associated with the very comforting view that the individual entrepreneur, in seeking to forward his own interest, is in some manner a public benefactor and thus has earned the great rewards with which society has showered him. Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory.

If "the invisible hand" is not to be relied on, then what might be the alternative?

Wiener's point is that suitable information must be our guide.

Or more concretely, that we must study how the structure of natural and human-made systems influences their behavior. That we must use the results of that study to develop and manage all our socio-technical systems – and in particular those core ones that determine the course of all other ones, such as our knowledge work and our governance.

In this way Wiener made a case for cybernetics as a new discipline, whose role is to provide the knowledge that is lacking. The complete title of his seminal book is "Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine".

The invisible hand cannot be trusted

To support the quoted point, that the invisible hand cannot be relied on, Wiener points to insights of another pair of giants, John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, reached through the study of the game theory, which they established together (Von Neumann's story is parallel to Wiener's; his many seminal achievements include the digital computer architecture that is still in use). Wiener also points out how those insights are confirmed in everyday experiences with economy and politics.

Our communication is broken

How can we continue to believe in "the invisible hand" in spite of such evidence?

Wiener echoes a core insight of another giant, Vannevar Bush, (whom we've mentioned on our front page and of whom we'll say more below) to conclude that our society's communication is broken – and he uses this conclusion as an additional strong reason for developing and using cybernetics.

To steer a sustainable coure, we must be able to update our institutions

We have shared Erich Jantsch's core ideas in Federation through Stories. We let the following excerpt from his last book, "The Self-Organizing Universe" (in which the emphasis is ours) serve as a concise summary – highlighting once again his conclusion we used here as the title, at the same time pointing to the importance he attributed to the question with which the excerpt begins.

And how is evolution to continue in the human world? Has it, as some hold, become caught in a net of coercifve factors in which it is ever more inextricably entangled with every motion? (...) I believe that the most important task today is the searrch for new degrees of freedom to facilitate the living out of evolutionary processes. It is of prime importance that the openness of the inner world for which no limitations are yet in sight, is matched by a similar openness of the outer world, and that it tries actively to establish the latter. I believe that the sociocultural man in "co-evolution with himself" basically has the possibility of creating the conditions for his further evolution—much as life on earth, since its first appeareance 4000 million years ago, has always created the conditions for its own evolution toward higher complexity.

How the invisible hand remained our guide

In 1980, when this book was published, and when Erich Jantsch passed away, Ronald Reagan became the 40th U.S. president. His message to the world – his winning agenda – was

In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.

By voting in this way, the American people didn't ignore only the core messages of Norbert Wiener and Erich Jantsch. Just after Wiener published his book, the research in game theory focusing on a phenomenon called "prisoner's dilemma" virtually exploded, resulting in several thousands of publications. The prisoner's dilemma models the real-life situations where collaboration leads to a better situation for everyone – and yet where the perfectly rational players will choose to dissent and compete. Isn't that our root issue in a nutshell?

The scientific production in cybernetics or the systems sciences grew even faster – and its results too were ignored.

"The invisible hand" as the evolutionary doctrine, and the corresponding way of evolving – where the market, or the money, decides – became our "evolutionary guidance"; and remained that until today.

There's no need for censorship

It was during Nickson's presidency, and well before the Web, that Italo Calvino pointed to the root of this problem in an interview. He pointed out that censorship is no longer needed, by comparing the New York times with Pravda, and observing that whatever was achieved by censorship in the latter, it was effectively implemented by overabundance of information in the former.

Recall Galilei in house prison. Could it indeed be the case that there's no longer need to confine giants to house arrest, or to forbid or burn their books?

In a society where the powerful media are used to only broadcast information, it's no longer the strength of the argument, but the campaign dollars and the "air time" they buy that decides what we the people are going to think and believe. And what direction our socio-cultural or socio-technological evolution will take.

We are not facing a problem but a paradox

As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved

We can already see the pattern we call Wiener's paradox.

We use it to point to a pervasive phenomenon – that academic results are created, and then ignored.

Wiener's just mentioned insight is an especially interesting instance of this pattern, because it was meant to point to that pattern itself – and to the way to overcome it, by taking systemic evolution in knowledge work, and beyond, into our own hands.

This instance is furthermore interesting to us because of the paradox that Norbert Wiener and the systems sciences created – by committing their insights to the same communication or feedback-and-control system that, as Wiener diagnosed, is broken: Wiener wrote a book; cybernetics, and the systems sciences, organised themselves as academic disciplines.

Reflection

The consequences of the paradox

You may reflect on your own – and we may also reflect together, in a conversation. In either case the purpose of these reflections is to connect the dots.

In knowledge federation we in particular want to connect the abstract with the concrete, the general direction-setting principle with the bothersome phenomena we experience daily.

So let's begin this reflection with Donald Trump – who has to many academic people become a symbol of dwindling standards in political discourse; and in political decision making; and of the academic cause losing its bearings in economic and political reality. Enough has been said about Trump in the media; and we won't even mention him further. We only point to him as a phenomenon, and invite you to see how the trend he may represent as an icon follows from the general insights we've been discussing.

Here's a good way to begin the ascent from where we at the moment to the bold generalization we made in the title: Recall the efforts on the part of The Club of Rome to draw attention to the key issue of growth, through The Limits to Growth study. Recall Engelbart's observation (made his second slide at Google) that our civilisation is lacking 'brakes'. Use this metaphor to reflect on the urgency of this matter... Then hear this video snippet where Ronald Reagan is saying, in a most seductive tone of voice,

We believe then, and now, there are no limits to growth, and human progress, when men and women are free to follow their dreams.

Think about what this means, more abstractly. Can you see parts of our collective mind trying with all their might to think thoughts of relevance and meaning – and being swamped by politically motivated sugary nonsense! How is this possible? Just compare the broadcasting power of Norbert Wiener or Erich Jantsch with the broadcasting power of the United States president, and the answer will be clear.

Consider, further, that our issue at hand is our "evolutionary guidance"; and whether academic ideas have impact or not; and whether information technology is helping us evolve toward "collective intelligence" or collective stupidity – and you'll have no difficulty understanding our motivation.