Talk:Second-order cybernetics

Quality standard's
Took out so we don't have two quality standard's.

I added a bit about the origin of second-order cybernetics, and I cleaned up the page a bit, putting the external links into their own section. I plan to add more in the near future to this page. Clockwork 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Clockwork. Added the diagram- could be improved- and a few extras. Hope you like. Took out context warning- fixed now surely?--Nick Green 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good changes. I improved the image a bit and made it a PNG instead of a JPEG (PNGs are better for line drawings and the like).  I still plan to add more some day... Clockwork 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Page is currently quite poor... How do Wiener Bateson and Mead (three of the originators of cybernetics who were at the Macy conferences) become second order cyberneticists when they invented the discipline in the first place? By contrast Maturana Varela etc come along some 30/40 years later... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.8.48 (talk) 09:42, December 1, 2008

Gyroteleostasis is currently under the "See Also" section. What does that term actually mean? Most Google results are pages that are copies of this one or pseudoscientific websites that don't actually describe what the term means. 192.12.184.7 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * idk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.98.217 (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
As far as I can see, the term New cybernetics is just an alternative name for second-order cybernetics, based on the work of a single author. The earlier term is much better established. RichardVeryard (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree on a MERGE. Will do this soon. Long overdue. --—-— .: seth_Nimbosa :. (talk • contribs) 08:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * wait, on further review, i saw old large-scale deletes from the 2009 September 29 version of  New cybernetics  and another large-scale delete via redirect of 2010 February 25‎ version of another article  New Cybernetics (Gordon Pask)  i will need to evaluate these two articles first and proceed from there --—-— .: seth_Nimbosa :. (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

New structure?
This page is a mess at present. I think there should be sections on: - Mead's address to the ASC in 1967 and von Foerster's Cybernetics of Cybernetics publication. - The various self-refential systems of SOC (Autopoeisis, Eigenforms, Objects, Conversation Theory). - Relation to earlier cybernetics, and different views of this. - Pickering's critique of SOC as a form of linguistic turn. - Concerns with ethics, family therapy and design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.122.128 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Duplicated reference
References 2 and 8 appear to be to the same book. Would anyone care to fix this? --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To confuse the issue more, von Foerster also has a paper (not a book) on the subject, entitled Cybernetics of Cybernetics, accessible on the web at https://cepa.info/fulltexts/1707.pdf. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There are 3 separate publications with the same title. Mead (1968) is in a publication edited by Foerster. Foerster's (1974) book with students from the BCL, plus Foerster's 1979 paper. I have corrected one place where the wrong item is referenced. 2A00:23C7:60A9:5301:310A:9643:1BAF:7A2A (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)