Ben-Eli M. U. & Probst G. J. B. (1986) The way you look determines what you see or self-organization in management and society. In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and Systems ’86. Reidel, Dordrecht: 277–284. https://cepa.info/6243
Ben-Eli M. U. & Probst G. J. B.
(
1986)
The way you look determines what you see or self-organization in management and society.
In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and Systems ’86. Reidel, Dordrecht: 277–284.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/6243
The concept of self-organization is reviewed and its implications are explored in relation to management processes and social systems. A world view is taken, emphasizing a descriptive distinction of levels associated with the physical, biological, social, and mental. Self-organization principles, it is argued, are operative in all levels of such a stratified scheme, but they are manifest in different mechanisms and different embodiments. \\Management, planning, design, and other “intervention” type of activities are among the processes through which self-organization is manifest in the social domain. Ultimately they have to do with maintaining, enriching, and amplifying the potential variety of the systems concerned. The operationally critical question involved, it is suggested, is not whether management activities are “man-made” or “natural,” spontaneous” or “planned,” but rather, whether they enhance or supress the potential variety of a system under consideration.
Carvallo M. E. (1986) Natural systems according to modern systems science: Three dualities. In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and systems ’86. Reidel, Dordrecht: 47–54. https://cepa.info/6241
Carvallo M. E.
(
1986)
Natural systems according to modern systems science: Three dualities.
In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and systems ’86. Reidel, Dordrecht: 47–54.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/6241
The aim of the paper is: a) to gain some knowledge of the so-called ‘natural systems’ as interpreted or defined by modern systems scientists; b) to discuss these descriptions and definitions from the viewpoint of modern philosophy of science. In the course of both a) and b) the interwovenness of the classes of natural systems and the controversial issues connected therewith (a.o. their interwovenness with the artificial systems) will be touched upon.
Forsythe K. (1986) Cathedrals in the mind: The architecture of metaphor in understanding learning. In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and Systems ‘86: Proceedings of the Eighth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. D. Reidel, Dordrecht: 285–292. https://cepa.info/8176
Forsythe K.
(
1986)
Cathedrals in the mind: The architecture of metaphor in understanding learning.
In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and Systems ‘86: Proceedings of the Eighth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. D. Reidel, Dordrecht: 285–292.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/8176
The pervasiveness of metaphor in our conceptual system suggests a central and basic role in the underlying architecture of thought. Metaphor represents the ability to understand one thing in terms of another as we ascribe an understood pattern to an unknown phenomena and perceive their structural integrity within the environment of our experience. We can then begin to perceive the environment of learning as one in which analogical thinking serves as architecture, analytical thinking serves as engineering and the imagination ensures that the interactions which create life and meaning are always being realized anew. The implications for this approach to applied epistemology provides insight into the design and development of learning systems that support the creative nature of learning.
Kampis G. (1986) Biological information as a system description. In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and Systems ’86. Reidel, Dordrecht: 39–46. https://cepa.info/6242
Kampis G.
(
1986)
Biological information as a system description.
In: Trappl R. (ed.) Cybernetics and Systems ’86. Reidel, Dordrecht: 39–46.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/6242
Excerpt: Information is not only a quantity, but is in a more intricate relationship to the system. I concentrate now on this relation, examining “What information?” instead of “How much information?” This is meaningful only if we want to get a proper description of the system. When speaking of information, I think of this description now.