Kitobni o'qish: «Рефлексивные процессы и управление. Сборник материалов XI Международного симпозиума 16-17 октября 2017 г., Москва»
Предисловие редактора
Россия пытается встать на путь выхода из глубокого кризиса, охватившего политическую, экономическую, социальную и духовную жизнь страны. Сложность проблемы определяется многочисленными факторами, среди которых важную роль играет кризис проблематики социального проектирования и управления. Прежде всего, это связано:
– с резким возрастанием динамичности социальных процессов;
– высоким темпом обновления знаний, который влечет быструю сменяемость социальных структур и институтов, воплощающих это знание, а также типов и способов коммуникаций;
– со снижением роли нормативного подхода, когда фактически нормой становится выход за пределы нормы;
– с «размыванием» устоявшихся традиций;
– с неадекватностью традиционных рыночных регуляторов, механизмов монетаризации, широкого использования манипулятивных технологий;
– с резким возрастанием сложности процессов личностной идентичности субъектов принятия управленческих решений.
Анализ не совсем удачных попыток перевести страну на курс развития позволяет утверждать, что главная проблема связана с бессубъектностью российского развития. С явной незаинтересованностью коррумпированных чиновников и олигархов в изменениях сложившейся очень удобной для них ситуации. Как следствие не удается сформировать пространство доверия в треугольнике «государство – общество – бизнес» столь необходимое для интенсивного развития.
В фокус внимания данного симпозиума была поставлена организация гармоничного развития субъектов в саморазвивающихся рефлексивно- активных средах. В них создаются условия для преодоления эгоизма, отказа от принципа максимизации прибыли, переходу к доминированию прямой демократии, к решению проблемы сложности за счет механизмов саморегулирования, к сборке субъектов развития. Важно отметить, что управление и развитие обеспечивается на основе гармонии иерархических, сетевых и средовых моделей.
Ориентация на саморазвивающиеся рефлексивно-активные среды позволила сформулировать проблему становления кибернетики третьего порядка, что обеспечивает приоритет российской науки в управленческой тематике.
В. Е. Лепский
Философско-методологические основания развития проблематики управления и кибернетики (роль и место рефлексивных процессов и технологий)
Vladimir Lepskiy (Institute of Philosophy Russian Academy of Sciences)
Third-order cybernetics
Abstract. To prove the connection between the evolution of cybernetics and the development of scientific rationality (classical, non- classical, post-non-classical) and to prove the relevance of the formation of post-non-classical cybernetics for self-developing reflexive-active environment (the third-order cybernetics).
Keywords: Cybernetics, third-order Cybernetics, Philosophy, Methodology, classical, non-classical, post-non-classical Rationality, self-developing reflexive-active Environments
Introduction
In recent decades Russian philosophy of science has recognized three stages in the development of science (classical, non-classical, and post-non-classical), which were proposed by V. S. Stepin (Stepin, 2005). If we ignore these changes, we risk losing sight of basic shifts in the scientific fields of control and in the evolution of cybernetics. Post-non-classical scientific rationality integrates all three types of scientific rationality.
The analysis of evolution of cybernetics and the evolution of scientific rationality make possible the hypothesis of their correlation. First-order cybernetics "cybernetics of observed systems" (Norbert Wiener) developed in classical scientific rationality. Second-order cybernetics "cybernetics of observing systems" (Foerster, 1974) developed in a non-classical scientific rationality. Post-non-classical scientific rationality can become a basis for formation of a post-non-classical "cybernetics of self developing" reflexive-active environments‖ which can be considered as the third-order of cybernetics.
Configurator of the philosophical and methodological cybernetics analysis
For analyzing the evolution of cybernetics we use the idea of the system configurator offered by V. A. Lefebvre (Lefebvre, 1967). The idea is that the researcher selects the most significant points of view on the object of research. The object is projected on several screens. The screens are connected with each other. The researcher can correlate various points of view on an object.
We will define structuring positions of the configurator in the context of the traditional points of view of scientific analysis:
– philosophical level (science philosophy – basic types of scientific rationality);
– methodological level (basic paradigms and objects of a research, methodology of scientific approach);
– theoretical level (the basic providing areas of knowledge);
– methodical level (basic methods, models, technologies).
The configurator for the analysis of the evolution of cybernetics is presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1. The generalized results of the philosophical and methodological analysis of the evolution of cybernetics (philosophical, methodological and theoretical levels).
Table 2. The generalized results of the philosophical and methodological analysis of the evolution of cybernetics (methodical level)
The post-non-classical scientific rationality integrates both classical, and non-classical rationality. As a result cybernetics must be considered as an uniform area of knowledge. In post-non-classical representation of cybernetics all levels are integrated into general cybernetics of the first, second and third order. This process is achieved through the system of ontologies, which establishes self-developing reflexive-active environments.
In the last decades the Russian interdisciplinary scientific society has shown considerable interest in the philosophical bases of cybernetics development (Novikov, 2016). In 2017 the WOSC initiative was essential in the process of bringing the worldwide scientific community together for joint discussions.
Post-non-classical scientific rationality: third-order cybernetics
Post-non-classical scientific rationality broadens the field of reflexion on scientific activity. It takes into consideration the correlation of the acquired knowledge about an object not only with the features of means and operations but also with valuable and target structures. At the same time the connection of inner-scientific goals with extra-scientific ones, social values and aims is explicated. Moreover, the problem of their correlation with the comprehension of valuable and target orientations of the scientific activities subject is also solved.
In the context of this rationality basic scientific approaches to cybernetics and control have to be focused on harmony causal (cause and effect) and teleologic (target determination) approaches.
In post-non-classical scientific rationality there is a transformation of philosophical constructivism. It becomes "softer". The emphasis is on communicative processes of the subjects forming reality, on the influence of these processes on restrictions of their freedom (Lektorski, 2001). Freedom is thought of not as control, but as establishment of an equal partnership with what is out of the person: with natural processes, with other persons, with the values of other cultures, with social processes. Such an approach assumes non-reduced variety, pluralism of different positions and points of view, cultural systems engaging with each other in dialogue and changing as a result of interaction. This new understanding of the person and the natural relation is the basis if not the ideal anthropocentrism, but the idea of joint evolution.
Self-developing systems are in the center of attention of post-non-classical scientific rationality (Stepin, 2003).The paradigm "subject – self-developing reflexive-active system (environment)" (Lepskiy, 2010) becomes a key paradigm of control and cybernetics. It is important to note that the environment is considered to be the meta-subject. As a result the paradigm can be presented as "subject – meta-subject".
A self-developing reflexive-active environment is a metasubject, which possesses invariant similar to the properties of subjects: purposefulness (activity), reflexivity, communicativeness, sociality, ability to develop, etc. Such an environment has integrity that essentially distinguishes it from networks. This is an interaction of active elements, organized in a special way. Active elements can be created on the basis of natural intelligence (the personality, group, etc.), on the basis of artificial intelligence (agents) and also on the basis of integration of natural and artificial intelligence.
The organization of interaction of active elements among themselves and with the environment in general is defined by the system of values, principles, ontologies (maintenance, support, development, designing, providing innovations), criteria (efficiency, safety, development, satisfaction) and also by the specialized subject-focused information platform (Lepskiy, 2010; 2015).
The idea of self-developing reflexive-active environments was created under the influence of the following inter-disciplinary ideas and concepts. Philosophy, sociology and psychology have given us the ideas of post-non-classical scientific rationality, which integrates concepts of various scientific schools (Stepin, 2005), ideas of noosphere (Vernadsky, 2007), the concept of the society as a social system (Luhmann, 1982), principles of the Russian psychology (Leontiev, 1978; Vygotsky, 1981; Rubinshteyn, 1997), studies of the Russian methodologists (Shchedrovitsky, 2002) and etc.
Cybernetics has given us an idea of second-order cybernetics by Heinz von Foerster (Foerster, 1974), Stafford Beer‘s models (Beer, 1981), W. R. Ashby principle of complexity in control (Ashby, 1956), the reflexive models of Vladimir Lefebvre (Lefebvre, 1967, 1982), a synthesis of representations of cybernetics and its development by Stuart Umpleby (Umpleby, 2014), ideas of Valentin Turchin about metasystem transition and concepts of the future of cybernetics (Turchin, 1977), etc.
The model of organization of self-developing reflexive-active environments, described in this abstract, will allow us to solve a number of current scientific and practical problems (Lepskiy, 1998, 2010; 2015). It will:
– support of processes of identification of the society (project identification gets the leading role);
– assemble of the subjects of development into metasubjects, help to consolidate state, business and society actors on the basis of shared interests, stimulate and support development of the civil society;
– improve mechanisms of democracy on the basis of convergence of direct and representative democracy;
– overcome market egoism through transition to a harmony of subjects of development;
– create opportunities for all subjects in the field of social activity and mobility;
– stimulate and support the formation process of a new type of elite – an elite of development, and create necessary provisions to include it into the processes of strategic control;
– help to design complexity problem solution in the processes of social systems control (Eshbi principle);
– create development conditions of new socially oriented economic mechanisms of development;
– create effective mechanisms of innovative development;
– decrease social tension, prevent conflicts, increase security with technologies of the operated chaos, "orange revolutions" and other destructive influences;
– initiate transition processes from technogenic to a socio-humanistic civilization, etc.
This paradigm can be applied for the organization of active knowledge, for reflexive mechanisms of management of complexity, etc.
Formation of this paradigm is inseparably linked with formation of the subject focused approach (Lepskiy, 1998).
The necessity of complex use of natural-science and humanitarian fields of knowledge generates high methodological complexity. The solution of this problem is possible upon transition from an interdisciplinary to a transdisciplinary approach. An exit out of limits of separate disciplines and the conceptual directions with involvement of external experts is necessary.
Now formation of scientifically ensuring control and the use of cybernetics in the context of post-non-classical rationality has begun (Lepskiy, 2015). In our opinion, an issue of formation of post-non-classical third-order cybernetics is realized. Thus, the main thesis would be from “observed systems” to "observing systems" and to "self-developing reflexive-active environments". From the paradigm "subject – object" to the paradigm "subject – subject" and further to the paradigm "subject – metasubject".
Transition in control to the paradigm "subject – metasubject" led to formation of new types of control. Control through self-developing environments becomes dominating. Control of "the soft force", control of chaos, control of complexity, control via "mechanisms of functioning of the environment", control "via mechanisms of assembly of subjects" and many other types of control.
Conclusions
The philosophical and methodological analysis of cybernetics evolution proved its connection with the development of scientific rationality (classical, non-classical, post-non-classical). The classical scientific rationality is similar first-order cybernetics. The non-classical scientific rationality is connected with the second-order cybernetics. The cybernetics of self-developing reflexive-active environments (third-order cybernetics) corresponds to the post-non-classical scientific rationality.
The analysis of cybernetics evolution in the context of development of scientific rationality allows us to define specific traits of the second and third order cybernetics: basic philosophical approaches, basic paradigms, basic objects of control, the dominating types of activity, basic scientific approaches, basic areas of knowledge, basic types of control, basic models, basic mechanisms and technologies, basic ideas of knowledge, the dominating ethical regulators.
In post-non-classical representation cybernetics of the first, second and third order are integrated as a unity, as a uniform area of knowledge. This is achieved through the system of ontologies of the organization of self-developing reflexive-active environments.
It is important to note in this article, that the self-developing reflexive-active environment is influenced by cross-disciplinary ideas and concepts of philosophy, methodology, sociology, psychology, cybernetics, etc. Self-developing reflexive-active environment is a metasubject, which possesses invariant similar properties of subjects: purposefulness (activity), reflexivity, communicativeness, sociality, ability to develop, etc. Such environment has integrity that essentially distinguishes it from networks. This is an interaction of active elements, organized in a special way. Active elements can be created on the basis of natural intelligence (the personality, group, etc.), on the basis of artificial intelligence (agents) and also on the basis of integration of natural and artificial intelligence. The organization of interaction of active elements among themselves and with the environment in general is defined by the system of values, principles, ontologies, criteria and also by the specialized subject focused information platform (Lepskiy, 2010; 2015).
References
1. Ashby, W. R. (1956): An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, London.
2. Beer, S.(1981), Brain of the Firm; Second Edition (much extended), John Wiley, London and New York.
3. Foerster, Heinz von (1974), Cybernetics of Cybernetics, Urbana Illinois, University of Illinois.
4. Lefebvre, V.A. (1982), Algebra of Conscience. Dordrecht, Holland, Reidel.
5. Lefebvre, V.A. (1967), The conflict structures, Vysshaya shkola, Moscow (in Russian).
6. Lektorski,V.A. (2001), Epistemology classical and nonclassical, "Editorial" Publishing House, Moscow (in Russian).
7. Leontiev, A. N. (1978), Activity, consciousness, and personality, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA.
8. Lepskiy, V. (2015), Evolution of concepts about control (methodological and philosophical analysis, "Kogito Center" Publishing House, Moscow (in Russian)
9. Lepskiy, V. (2010), Reflexive and Active Environments of Innovative Development, "Kogito-Center" Publishing House, Moscow (in Russian).
10. Lepskiy, V. (1998), The Concept of Subject-oriented Computerization of Control Activity, Institute of Psychology RAS, Moscow (in Russian).
11. Luhmann Niklas (1982), "The World Society as a Social System". International Journal of General Systems, vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 131–138.
12. Novikov D. A. (2016), Cybernetics: from Past to Future. – Heidelberg: Springer.
13. Rubinshteyn, Sergei L. (1997), The selected philosophical-psychological works, Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).
14. Shchedrovitsky G. P. (2002) "Reflexion and Relevant Problems", Reflexive processes and control, vol.1, № 1, pp.41–45.
15. Stepin, V.S. (2003), "Self-developing systems and post-non-classical rationality", Voprosy Filosofii, No. 8, pp.5-17 (in Russian).
16. Stepin, V. (2005) Theoretical Knowledge. Springer Verlag GMBH.
17. Turchin, V.F. (1977), The Phenomenon of Science: A Cybernetic Approach to Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York.
18. Umpleby, Stuart A. (2014), "Second order science: logic, strategies, methods", Constructivist Foundations. Vol. 10 No. l,pp. 16–23.
19. Vernadsky V. I. (2007) Geochemistry and the Biosphere, Essays by Vladimir I. First English Translation from the 1967 Russian Edition of Selected Works, Santa Fe, NM: Synergetic Press.
20. Vygotsky L. (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions, The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. J. Wertsch (Ed.).Armonk, NY: Sharpe, pp. 144–181.
21. Wiener, Norbert (1948), Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Cambridge, Mass., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Stuart A. Umpleby (George Washington University, Washington)
Third order cybernetics as the evolution of society
Expanded Abstract. When the International Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences met in Chengdu, China, in 2015, the theme of the conference was Systemic Solutions for Systemic Problems. It seemed to me that problems could arise on several conceptual levels. Examples of problems at the first level would be finding better ways to build roads and buildings and increasing production and improving trade. At a second level there may be problems with the theories we use to solve problems, for example if we do not have a theory or understanding of a new disease. A third level of problems lies in philosophy, for example if we do not have an adequate epistemology to guide our work with social systems, where people both observe and act, thereby experiencing and creating uncertainty. Those reflections led me to think that there is a fourth level, namely the historical experiences of societies that shape the theories and philosophies that have been invented to guide our problem solving activities. But I did not feel that I knew enough about Chinese history, culture, and philosophy to speculate on differences between East and West.
Soon thereafter Vladimir Lepskiy said that he and his colleagues in Russia were developing third order cybernetics (Lepskiy 2010, 2015a, 2015b). We quickly agreed to organize a panel of scholars from Russia and the West (the U.S. and Western Europe) to discuss these ideas. We met in January 2017 in Rome at a conference of the World Organization for Systems and Cybernetics. As I read the abstracts and papers prepared by Russian scholars, I realized that this was another example of history influencing science and philosophy in addition to science and philosophy influencing history.
The Russian scholars were saying that post non-classical cybernetics, the third stage in the development of cybernetics, would be more humanistic than previous conceptions of cybernetics. These descriptions made me think of the work of Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, a literature from the seventeenth century which had contributed greatly to the development of democratic ideas in the west. However, the Russians were citing more recent Russian scholars. So, I wondered whether the Russians were reinventing ideas developed earlier in other countries or were they developing important new ideas?
I interpret Lepskiy‘s topic as another version of the question, How do historical experiences in a society shape the development of its science and philosophy? This paper will focus on how societies evolve and restructure themselves by identifying problems and then designing laws and institutions and procedures to solve those problems.
Second order cybernetics, as developed in the US, focused initially on the biology of cognition. For a long time there had been a consensus among scientists that the observer should be eliminated from scientific consideration in an effort to be unbiased and objective. However, a few scientists felt that the observer could not be eliminated from science, since scientific theories are created by observers and are interpreted by other observers. To claim that the observer could and should be removed from discussion was a way of neglecting or overlooking the purposes that scientists are pursuing when they do research.
A second interpretation of second order cybernetics was that including the observer in science would involve social concerns, since these exist in the minds of observers. At the time a third order cybernetics was thought not to be necessary, since reflection would be sufficient to encompass both the biology of cognition and the influence of society on the development of science. However, third order cybernetics could be interpreted to mean a concern with the evolution of society, with the interaction between ideas and society and with the invention and dissemination of ideas which, if they became widespread, might aid the development of society (Umpleby 1999, 2002). This presentation will consider this interpretation of third order cybernetics by looking at the evolution of society as a series of problem-solving experiments.
The book by Acemoglu and Robinson (2012), Why Nations Fail, suggested that there are two processes in creating a successful nation. The first process requires creating a centralized authority that has the ability to combine resources and use them for the purposes of the society. The second process is the development of institutions and social arrangements that guide the use of resources for the development of society as a whole, not just for the benefit of elites. To illustrate the importance of institutions compared with culture, climate or geography Acemoglu and Robinson cite many examples. Nogales, Arizona, in the U.S. and Nogales, Mexico, are just across the border from each other. The populations are very similar in language and religion. But the residents in Arizona have higher average incomes and quality of life than residents in Mexico because the institutions (schools, police and courts) work better in Arizona than in Mexico. Other examples of institutional differences being more important than culture and geography are East and West Germany and North and South Korea. The authors note that countries can change their economic trajectories by changing their institutions, as has happened in China and Russia in recent decades.
The book Social Inventions by Stuart Conger (1974) offers a list of past social inventions which illustrate the long history of innovations in countries around the world. A social invention is a new law, organization or procedure that changes the ways people relate to themselves or to each other, either individually or collectively. Conger‘s book lists innovations in the areas of education, social services, economics, government, psychology, law, and voluntary organizations. Donald Campbell (1969) spent his career describing how to design social experiments to test the effectiveness of government programs. The more recent work on quality improvement methods is another way of improving institutions in both business and government(Walton 1986).
Presently there is growing interest in systems science in "translating" knowledge so that it is easier for practitioners to use it. The intent is to minimize jargon and maximize the utility of knowledge. Applied knowledge is very important, particularly for transdisciplinary fields. However, if we devote too much attention to translation or technology transfer or applications, we may miss some opportunities. Understanding systems theories developed in other societies requires understanding the problems that people in those societies are trying to solve. Theories are answers to questions. One cannot fully understand a theory until one first understands the question that gave rise to the theory (Umpleby 1999).
In universities around the world people use essentially the same theories and methods in the physical sciences. In legal systems there has been convergence between North America and Europe due to the recent growth of the European Union and the desire to facilitate trade by adopting similar rules and procedures. In biology there are some differences in how medicine and agriculture are practiced. In social, political and economic systems there is great variety and much to learn from other societies.
Do societies develop similar ideas eventually as they encounter situations requiring those ideas? Or do they develop different solutions to similar problems? Or are they trying to develop in different directions? If the latter, what explains the difference? Since scholars now interact globally rather than nationally, we have new opportunities to learn from each other. If societies can preserve and enhance their traditions, while learning from other societies, we should experience a remarkable flowering of human society. My particular interest is in methods of governance which enable societies to be secure, stable and innovative.
Our thinking about how to improve our societies has changed from revolution or reform to evaluating government programs with controlled experiments (Campbell 1969), to expanding our conception of science (Umpleby 2017), to noting the importance of institutions and engaging in multi-country studies (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012) and the deliberate design of experiments (Dunn 1998).
References
1. Acemoglu, Daron & James A. Robinson. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Random House, 2012.
2. Campbell, Donald T. (1969). "Reforms as Experiments." American Psychologist, 24 (4), pp. 409–429.
3. Conger, D. Stuart. (1974). Social Inventions. Prince Albert, Canada: Saskatchewan Newstart, 1974.
4. Dunn, William N. (1998). The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell. Transaction Publishers, 232 pages.
5. Lepskiy, V. (2010), Reflexive and Active Environments of Innovative Development, "Kogito-Center" Publishing House, Moscow (in Russian). http://www.reflexion.ru/Library/Lepsky 2010a.pdf
6. Lepskiy, V. (2015a), Evolution of concepts about control (methodological and philosophical analysis, "Kogito Center" Publishing House, Moscow (in Russian). http://www.reflexion.ru/Library/Lepskiy2015.pdf
7. Lepskiy, V.E. (2015b). "Economic cybernetics of self-developing environments (third-order cybernetics)", Management sciences. No. 4, pp. 22–33 (in Russian). http://www.old.fa.ru/dep/upravnauki/Documents/%D0%A3%D0%9D4 2015. pdf
8. Umpleby, Stuart & Eric Dent. (1999). "The Origins and Purposes of Several Traditions in Systems Theory and Cybernetics."Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 30:79-103.
9. Umpleby, Stuart. (2002). "The Design of Intellectual Movements." Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Shanghai, China, 2002.
10. Umpleby, Stuart. (2017). "How Science is Changing." Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 24(2), pp. 89–91.
11. Walton, Mary. (1986). The Deming Management Method. New York: Perigee.
