Upshot: Ranulph Glanville’s musings about cybernetics are statements of wonder as much as careful reconstructions of the core ideas of cybernetics. In Vol. III of his Black Boox all 39 of them are collected, which appeared between 1994 and 2009 in the Journal, Cybernetics and Human Knowing. If Heinz von Foerster said that the ideas of second-order cybernetics are nowadays to be found just about everywhere in everyday life, Glanville is not that sure about this.

The paper is a reading of Martin Heidegger’s Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Even) by means of Ranulph Glanville’s notions of black box, cybernetic control and objects as well as by George Spencer-Brown’s notion of form and Fritz Heider’s notion of medium. In fact, as Heidegger was among those who emphasized systems thinking as the epitome of modern thinking, did in his lecture on Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom a most thorough reading of this thinking, and considered cybernetics the very fulfilment of modern science it is interesting to know whether second-order cybernetics, as it was not known to Heidegger and as it delves into an understanding of inevitable complexity and foundational ignorance, falls within that verdict mere modernity or goes beyond it. If modern science in its rational understanding considers its subjects to be objects sitting still while being observed, then indeed second-order cybernetics is different. It looks into the observer’s interactions with black boxes, radically uncertain of where to expect operations of a self, but certain that we cannot restrict it to human consciousness.

Context: For many people, religion and/or spiritual experiences are an important part of their daily lives - shaping their thinking and actions. Studying these experiences relies on qualitative religious studies (RS) research that engages respondents on a deeply personal level. Problem: Researchers are unable to provide an apolitical, value-free approach to research. There lacks a rigorous methodological approach to qualitative RS research that addresses this epistemological obstacle. This is particularly relevant when studying a cohort with radically different beliefs from the researcher. Method: Researcher coupling is presented as a topic that defines the researcher and her participants as a systemic entity. By demonstrating how the researcher’s worldview is tied to her research, an argument for personalised and relational observer-dependent research is presented. Five reflexive questions are proposed as a starting point for personalised research to demonstrate the relational and intersubjective nature of this activity. Results: By linking the researcher to her research and changing the goal of research from independent and objective research to one that is relational and contextual, the scholar can report on her research in an ethical and socially just manner by linking her worldview to her research. Implications: The traditional research activity is redefined as one that should embrace the scholar’s worldview instead of attempting to hide it. The scientific ideals of independence and objectivity are replaced by interdependence and hence a proposal is made for personalised research that embraces the intersubjective nature of this activity. This proposal is meant to alleviate some of the epistemological weaknesses in RS. This paradigm shift promotes rigour as a qualifier for methodology including changes to how research is categorised. Constructivist content: Margaret Mead’s ideas of observer dependence in anthropological research and how the observer constructs her research findings are discussed. The circularity that exists in this relational context is analysed according to Bradford Keeney’s ideas on recursion and resultant future behavioural correction. Ranulph Glanville’s ideas of intersubjectivity and his concept of “in the between” are used as a foundation for the researcher-participant relationship. Ross Ashby’s notion of experimenter coupling is used as a basis for researcher coupling.

Key words: Epistemology, ethics, personalised and relational research, religious studies, rigour, research methodology, worldview.

The present issue is a memorial issue for Francisco Varela both as a scholar and as a colleague. Varela passed away in his home in Paris on May 28 2001. He was part of the editorial board of this journal and thus in this memorial issue we would like to look into his heritage. Most of the papers we present have authors that have known and worked with Varela in some period of their and his life: Ranulph Glanville, Louis Kauffman, Andreas Weber. Weber makes the case that Varela’s thinking can provide a foundation for biosemiotics and as such it provides a further foundation for the cybersemiotic project. Most interesting and promising is his comparison with Varela’s concept of the organism and Bruno Latour’s concept of quasi-objects. The other articles all have some relationship to Varela’s elaboration on the work of Spencer-Brown. Using the metaphor of the Uroboros, Marks-Tarlow, Robertson, and Combs explore the notion of re-entry in Varela’s ‘A Calculus for Self-Reference ’ and his contribution to a theory of consciousness. In their articles, Glanville and Kauffman reflect upon their experience working with Varela on joint papers.

Working for decades as both theorist and teacher, Ranulph Glanville came to believe that cybernetics and design are two sides of the same coin. Working as both practitioners and teachers, the authors present their understanding of Glanville and the relationships between cybernetics and design. We believe cybernetics offers a foundation for 21st-century design practice. We offer this rationale: – If design, then systems: Due in part to the rise of computing technology and its role in human communications, the domain of design has expanded from giving form to creating systems that support human interactions, thus, systems literacy becomes a necessary foundation for design. – If systems, then cybernetics: Interaction involves goals, feedback, and learning, the science of which is cybernetics. – If cybernetics, then second-order cybernetics: Framing wicked problems requires explicit values and viewpoints, accompanied by the responsibility to justify them with explicit arguments, thus incorporating subjectivity and the epistemology of second-order cybernetics. – If second-order cybernetics, then conversation: Design grounded in argumentation requires conversation so that participants may understand, agree, and collaborate on effective action. Second-order cybernetics frames design as conversation for learning together, and order design creates possibilities for others to have conversations, to learn, and to act.

Key words: conversation, cybernetics, design knowledge, design methods, design rationale, design, systems, ethics, language, models, second-order cybernetics

Editorial remarks: This is Ranulph Glanville’s last column for CHK. He passed away in the middle of our usual dialogue and negotiations about length and content. He was in and out of hospital while this conversation was going on. Suddenly he did not reply and Aartje Hulstein told me he had died peacefuly. But even in hospital they had talked about his answers to my questions. We knew time was short as we worked along, but had no idea that it was so short. He died as he lived, working and producing in high spirit. Thus, only the first of his column’s two planed halves were finished. And even that was not quite finished. But Aartje Hulstein, Albert Müller and Bernard Scott helped to fill in the holes, mostly references and the like. So, here it is ‘with a little help from his friends. ’ It is only the first chapter of the two planned, he never had time to work on the second chapter, after which he planned to retire from writing the column. Retire he did, in his own definite way. Thus both life and column was cut short. His contribution to CHK was unique and it and he will be deeply missed. We will be publishing a Festschrift issue in his honor soon. S. B.

This paper discusses the close relationships between design, second order cybernetics and radical constructivism that Ranulph Glanville has identified in his writings over the past decade. In linking these three fields, Glanville has established an overarching picture that shows how action, ethics and epistemology are related in a mutually complementing manner. While Glanville does not explicitly link all three fields in one dedicated paper, he elucidates one of these relationships each in three of his writings. In ‘Radical Constructivism = Second-order Cybernetics’ (2012) Glanville asserts that second-order cybernetics and radical constructivism are ‘opposite sides of the same coin. ’ Glanville lists seven core concepts of radical constructivism as stated by Ernst von Glasersfeld, and relates them to second-order cybernetic concepts. ‘Construction and Design’ (2006) shows how design is a necessarily constructivist activity-both in terms of the design of concepts and the design of objects and processes. In ‘Try Again. Fail Again. Fail Better: The Cybernetics in Design and the Design in Cybernetics’ (2007), Glanville presents second-order cybernetics as a theory for design, and characterizes design as cybernetics in practice. Drawing primarily upon these three papers, I construct a condensed version of Glanville’s big picture. The value of the connections made lies in showing the role of each field in relation to the others, which both informs and affects each of the three fields thus connected.

Key words: Ranulph Glanville, design, radical constructivism, second-order cybernetics

It is not unusual to associate the rise of Radical Constructivism and Second Order Cybernetics. For example Ranulph Glanville equalized the two terms in his formula “Radical constructivism = Second order cybernetics.” The works of Jean Piaget were absorbed by three (co)founding fathers of Radical Constructivism, namely Ernst von Glasersfeld, Heinz von Foerster and Ranulph Glanville and gained massive influence since the early seventies. While von Glasersfeld coined the term Radical Constructivism, von Foerster and Glanville spelled out many of its implications. Von Foerster quotes Piaget since 1973/74 in his discussions concerning cognition and the construction of reality. Also in the work of von Glasersfeld Piaget took a key role. Piaget’s work stands at the very beginning of his Radical Constructivism. Also Glanville’s dissertation, which was concerned with the concept of ‘object’ took many hints from Piaget’s works on the constancy of objects.

Key words: Radical Constructivism, Cybernetics, Jean Piaget, Heinz von Foerster, Ernst von Glasersfeld, Ranulph Glanville.

The first part presents Heinz von Foerster directly, with four largely inaccessible or unpublished texts, mostly from the 1960s. The second part offers thirteen re-inventions of Heinz von Foerster by friends and colleagues, including Ranulph Glanville, Humberto R. Maturana, Siegfried J. Schmidt, Bernard Scott, and several significant others. Together, both parts underline the high relevance of Heinz von Foerster’s work to contemporary contexts and its wide scope, which was genuinely transdisciplinary at a time when the term “transdisciplinarity” was almost unknown.

Excerpt: Dieser Artikel setzt seine zwei Schwerpunkte auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der Kybernetik zweiter Ordnung in den späten 1960er und 1970er Jahren sowie auf deren gegenwärtige Konturen und Entwicklungspotentiale. Im Zentrum des Artikels stehen die beiden Thesen, dass – als erste These – die Kybernetik zweiter Ordnung zwar seit den frühen 1970er Jahren als Schlagwort von etwas grundsätzlich Neuem und Anderem zirkulierte, dass sie aber nur in Form einzelner disparater Bausteine in unterschiedlichen Publikationen primär von Heinz von Foerster, aber auch von Gordon Pask, Ranulph Glanville und anderen entwickelt wurde. Zugespitzt formuliert, wurde die Kybernetik zweiter Ordnung nie in ausführlicher und homogener Form präsentiert und in passende Forschungskontexte überführt. Deswegen muss – als zweite These – eine solche Kybernetik zweiter Ordnung gegenwärtig erst von ihren Bausteinen her rekonstruiert, neu aufgebaut und als eigensinniges Element im breiteren konstruktivistischen Kontext formiert und entfaltet werden.