0

I've been reading about Cybernetics, specifically the ideas of Stafford Beer and Luhmann.

Beer states in what he calls "the principle of Cybernetic Isomorphism" that autopoietic systems are made up of parts which are themselves autopoietic systems. They are nested within each other.

Luhmann states that no super-system made of autopoietic systems is possible, because their operational closure precludes it.

So my question is this, can autopoietic systems be made up of other autopoietic systems or not? Is there a consensus in cybernetics on this matter, or is it an open question?

Also, I can find citations for these two writers if that would be helpful.

SelfProduce
  • 1
  • 2
  • Strictly, if the system makes its parts, its SUB-systems cannot make its SUB-parts (either it is the system that makes them or either we tell it how to divide in parts). Maturana et.al. are criticized mainly due to such subjectivities. To follow Maturana and his school of thought, one must accept that things exhibit human features, and that the limits of a system (the frontier between what "is aotopoietically produced", and what is not) are absolute (they exist without need of humans), not subjective (they exist as assessed by human reason). An idea that is mostly unacceptable in philosophy. – RodolfoAP Jan 10 '22 at 07:44
  • 1
    Is "Mcluhmann" supposed to merge Luhmann and McLuhan? Speaking of Luhmann, he struggles to reconcile his trend to consider social systems as autopoietic with lack of autonomy in subsystems of autopoietic systems. His idea to distinguish different types of autonomy (e.g. normative and cognitive), and modify the definition of autopoietic subsystem accordingly, is not entirely satisfactory, see e.g. [Jacobson, Autopoietic Law, pp. 1649-51](https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3397&context=mlr), but the moral is that to nest one has to relax the definition somehow. – Conifold Jan 10 '22 at 07:56
  • @RodolfoAP I haven't yet had the opportunity to read primary source on the originator of the concept, Maturana. Most of my secondary reading is by people who agree with him. Could you point me towards some kind of review of critical responses to Maturana? I would appreciate it. Also I'm curious: what do you mean by "human features"? – SelfProduce Jan 10 '22 at 16:58
  • @RodolpoAP If I understand correctly, it would seem that the difference between a single Autopoietic system and a non-autopoietic super-system made of autopoietic subsystems would would be entirely subjective. Ie: dependent on how an observer "carves it up" so to speak. – SelfProduce Jan 10 '22 at 17:14
  • @Conifold Fixed. Memory is a funny thing. Thanks for the resource! A couple of takeaways that jumped out at me. A) The distinction between normative and cognitive autonomy seems artificial, B) real world systems are not normatively autonomous after all, and C) as mentioned in one of my other comments: any autopoietic system that can be analyzed into subsystems ceases to be autopoietic. So, insisting on self-producing systems with strict operational closure seems untenable. What about "fuzzy" self-producing systems? Are there other thinkers working in this area? Would that be Deleuzian? – SelfProduce Jan 10 '22 at 18:13

0 Answers0