It may turn out that the cybernetics of cybernetics requires us to radically rethink the meaning of goal and purpose so that systems become ineffable.
Found on an old notepad: "cybernetics is dialectics for engineers." Not exactly true, but about 75% of the way there.— ⌜ktb⌟ (@kevinbaker) July 7, 2021
and while all this sounds very late Wittgensteinian (and it is!) Sellars also brings to bear the new science of self-organizing, self-governing complex systems: cybernetics.— Norbert Wiener Kreis (@carl_b_sachs) May 25, 2021
Even cybernetics, the interdisciplinary study of communication and control, is the subject of conflicting interpretations. It is well documented that some of the top scientific minds of the postwar era were drawn to the field and its promise of universality, and that cybernetic ideas on feedback, control, systems analysis, and information transmission shaped work in a number of fields. For example, cybernetic thinking influenced the trajectory of operations research, computer engineering, control engineering, complex systems, psychology, and neuroscience. Yet few scientists today identify themselves as cyberneticians first and foremost. ...Popular misunderstandings of cybenetics have led members of the scientific community to view the term with disdain, and cybernetics is not part of the lexicon used by government funding agencies. Even in the 1950s, arguably the heyday of the field, members of the scientific community viewed it as shallow because of its interdisciplinary reach, criticized it for lacking quantitative rigor, and claimed its methodology consisted of little more than making analogies. It did not help that in the popular imagination cybernetics was often linked to science fiction or fads such as Dianetics, the theory on the relationship of mind and body developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1950.