Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: Building upon Richards’s notions of “design by constraint” and the usefulness of assigning collaborative tasks to conference participants, this commentary suggests a basic application of Pask’s conversation theory as a potential aide to fruitful knowledge construction in a conference setting.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to introduce the cybernetics community at large to the remarkably prescient work of nineteenth century theatrical pioneer Konstantin Stanislavski whose revolutionary System of Acting has, thus far, been largely overlooked in cybernetic literature and to suggest potential paths of future research in this vein. Design/methodology/approach – Close reading, analysis, and comparison of key excerpts from Stanislavski’s corpus, the writings of later proponents of his System, the literature of early cybernetics, and contemporary scholarship in cognitive science. Also, description of current and potential future applications of the theories presented. Findings: Stanislavski’s success in formulating an approach to acting capable of generating performances of previously unrealized naturalness and believability lay in his utilization of heuristics later to be taken up, under different nomenclature, by the field of cybernetics and substantiated by contemporary cognitive science. A conscious interdisciplinary research effort to explore these linkages promises benefits for both fields. Practical implications: Cyberneticians in various sub-disciplines may be inspired to view the theatre rehearsal hall as a potential site of interdisciplinary research projects; particularly in the fields of the behavioral and social sciences. Originality/value – This paper is the first to synthesize existing and original cybernetic analyses of the Stanislavski System with contemporary developments in cognitive science in a manner specifically geared toward the cybernetic community. The current and potential future research projects described are unique.

Key words: creativity, consciousness, behaviour, cognition, cybernetics, feedback.

Upshot: Operational concepts underpinning a proposed cybersemiotic theatrical laboratory are further refined while questions regarding its experimental orientation remain.

Open peer commentary on the article “Design Research as a Variety of Second-Order Cybernetic Practice” by Ben Sweeting. Upshot: This commentary adds environmental architect Lawrence Halprin to Sweeting’s list of examples of design research as second-order cybernetic practice.

Context: The thoroughly second-order cybernetic underpinnings of naturalist theatre have gone almost entirely unremarked in the literature of both theatre studies and cybernetics itself. As a result, rich opportunities for the two fields to draw mutual benefit and break new ground through both theoretical and empirical investigations of these underpinnings have, thus far, gone untapped. Problem: The field of cybernetics continues to remain academically marginalized for, among other things, its alleged lack of experimental rigor. At the same time, the field of theatre studies finds itself at an impasse between post-structuralist semioticians and embodied cognitivists regarding key onto-epistemological issues. A program of research framing and utilizing naturalist theatre as a second-order cybernetic/cybersemiotic laboratory holds much promise in addressing both matters and lending credence to Ross Ashby’s assertion that “the discovery that two fields are related leads to each branch helping in the development of the other.” Method: After establishing the nature of the onto-epistemological deadlock within theatre studies, this article examines the application of cybernetic heuristics within naturalistic theatre, leading to a second-order cybernetic analysis of its processes of production and reception and the outline of an experimental program for exploring these processes further. Results: Foundations for a model of naturalist theatre as a cybersemiotic laboratory grounded in a novel operationalization of Gordon Pask’s conversation theory. Implications: The proposed laboratory could result in the generation of quantitative and qualitative research pertaining to several dimensions of second-order cybernetics; particularly cybersemiotics, which, as a result, may end up better positioned to help dissolve onto-epistemological deadlocks between constructivists and realists of all stripes across the academy and beyond. Constructivist content: I argue that an analysis of naturalistic theatre’s processes of meaning-making filtered through the constructivist ontological agnosticism of second-order cybernetics offers a productive middle way forward for those on both sides of the social constructivist/embodied cognitive realist divide, within and beyond theatre studies. The article draws upon the works of Gregory Bateson, Søren Brier, Ranulph Glanville, Heinz von Foerster, and Niklas Luhmann.

Key words: Naturalism, eigenbehaviours, conversation theory, entailment structures.

Context: Despite the best efforts of postmodern, social constructivist scholars to discredit the notion that “realistic” works of theatre and film could contain genuine onto-epistemic goods, many lay observers (i.e., audiences) continue to describe individual performances and productions as more or less “truthful” than one another. Recently, some performance scholars have pushed back against the postmodern position and turned to contemporary cognitive science to undergird their insistence that the embodied nature of reception and perception does, in fact, allow audiences of such works to access “truths” within them. The literature of cybernetics (first- or second-order) has been almost entirely absent from the debate. Problem: While the hardcore scepticism of social constructivism may be unsatisfactory in fully accounting for the enduring power and appeal of dramatic art, a retreat to epistemic certainty in the name of cognitive science would be equally unwise. This article proposes the notion of “eigenbehavior” as a conceptual bridge that might facilitate the synthesis of the most useful insights from both perspectives and open up new avenues of study and research. Method: The article uses synthetic argumentation to propose a theory of eigenform within the context of theatrical performance. Results: Emerging from this argumentation is a conception of eigenform that is novel in its emphasis on the distinction between its bio-structured and socio-structured features. Implications: The insights in this article will be of value to scholars and practitioners of the dramatic arts and can be productively extended into cognate domains across the humanities. Constructivist content: The article draws on the works of constructivists such as von Glasersfeld, von Foerster, Maturana, Varela, and Luhmann and is grounded in such constructivist perspectives as cybersemiotics, theory of autopoiesis, and systems theory. Key Words: Social systems, semiotics, language, acting, culture, ethics.

Upshot: Two main critiques of the target article have surfaced fairly consistently across the five commentaries: (1) It does not go far enough in its critique of naturalism’s reification of a supposedly universal subjectivity; (2) The proposed bio-social spectrum of eigenforms lacks coherence due to its mixing of logical types. The first critique is refuted, primarily, by revealing the quasi “straw man” nature of an argument resting too heavily on “mainstream” instances of naturalist performance while the second is embraced and the alternative metaphor of domains within a “bio-cultural matrix” is offered as a corrective. In conclusion, a model of naturalistic theatrical practice is described that might productively respond to issues raised across the commentaries by oscillating between domains.

This paper makes the case for, and calls for participants in, an interdisciplinary research program exploring the development of theatrical methods of social system modeling. It combines argumentation that synthesizes concepts from the theatre and the system sciences with results from a pilot application of some of the modeling methods discussed. Theatrical methods of modeling facilitate surprising insights regarding the impacts of emotion and other non-trivial factors on system behaviour that are difficult to address in purely computational and diagrammatic forms of modeling. While a theoretical relationship between systems approaches and the theatrical techniques discussed has been articulated elsewhere, this paper is the first to propose a more fulsome exploration of the potentialities of this relationship for systems praxis.

Key words: augusto Boal, theatre of the oppressed, theatre for living, systems theory, cybernetics, Konstantin Stanislavski, soft systems methodology, system dynamics, critical systems heuristics, enactive management.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to suggest a more central role for reflexive artistic practices in a clarified research agenda for second-order cybernetics (SOC). This is offered as a way to assist the field in the further development of its theoretical/methodological “core” and, subsequently, enhance its impact on the world. Design/methodology/approach – The argument begins by reviewing Karl Müller’s account of the failure of SOC to emerge as a mainstream endeavor. Then, Müller’s account is recontextualized within recent developments in SOC that are traced through the Design Cybernetics movement inspired by Ranulph Glanville. This alternate narrative frames a supposedly moribund period as a phase of continuing refinement of the field’s focus upon its “proper object of study,” namely, the observer’s mentation of/about their mentation. The implications of this renewed focus are then positioned within Larry Richard’s vision of the cybernetician, not as “scientist” per se but rather as a “craftsperson in and with time” capable of productively varying the dynamics of their daily interactions. Having centered widespread capacity building for this “craft” as a proposed research agenda for a new phase of SOC, the paper concludes by pointing to the unique and necessary role to be played by the arts in this endeavor. Personal reflections upon the author’s own artistic and theoretical activities are included throughout. Findings: The development and application of artistic methods for the enhancement of individual capacity for second-order observation is consistent with the purpose of SOC, namely, “to explain the observer to himself.” Therefore, it is in the field’s interest to more fulsomely embrace non-scientific, arts-based forms of research. Research limitations/implications – In a truly reflexive/recursive fashion, the very idea that first-person, arts-based narratives are seen, from a mainstream scientific point of view, as an insufficiently rigorous form of research is, itself, a research limitation. This highlights, perhaps ironically, the need for cybernetics to continue to pursue its own independent definitions and standards of research beyond the boundaries of mainstream science rather than limiting its own modes of inquiry in the name of “scientific legitimacy.” Practical implications: A general uptake of the view presented here would expand the horizon of what might be considered legitimate, rigorous and valuable research in the field. Social implications – The view presented here implies that many valuable contributions that SOC can make to society take place beyond the constraints of academic publication and within the realm of personal growth and social development. Originality/value – The very clearly defined and “refocused” vision of SOC in this paper can be of substantial utility in developing a more robust, distinctive and concrete research agenda across this field.

Key words: Art, research, second-order cybernetics, reflexivity, observer, eigenforms.

Open peer commentary on the article “Construction of Irreality: An Enactive-Constructivist Stance on Counterfactuals” by Andrey S. Druzhinin. Abstract: Druzhinin’s insistence that the behaviour portrayed in fictional films can be considered a “reliable source of evidence for […] experiential analysis” of the cognitive use of counterfactuals is progressive and highly laudable. However, there remain outstanding dots, of a cybernetic nature, to be connected in his argument. Once connected, they contradict his self-imposed limitations on the possible nature of experimentation.