Sociociberculture and noosphere
21
Feb
I was surprised by a site of researchers’ networks (one of these researcher.something)
that was a sociociberculture researcher , and I found an article about the relation between author-reference and Sociociberculture Felix Geyer (presented as honorary chairman of SocioCiberculture Society), I remembered the discussions of Norbert Wiener and his cybernetic systems, in the neopositivism of the Vienna circle and almost gave up on going forward, but then realized that there is a key to the discussion of technology today .
One of the definitions of self-reference (many “social” systems seem to imitate cybernetic systems) given by Geyer is interesting: “The usual examples of self-referential behavior in social science consist of self-fullfiling and self-defeating prophecies”, and this definitely made me interested in the subject.
The author accredited to the subject, establishes a relation between self-reference, alienation and growth of corporate complexity (name of the second topic of his article), where he states: “” Just like many other phenomena that form part of the individual’s continuous interaction loop with the environment, eg perception, self-reference is ultimately action-oriented, “and I have already understood the relation to Luhman’s systems theory, the question of alienation (or to me consciousness), and especially the relationship with constructivism.
The author penetrates this societal complexity through the theories of “unparalleled interpersonal interaction approaching what Buber (1970) called the” I-Tou relationship “or what Maslow (1962) called “B(eing)” as opposed to “From (efficiency need) – cognition,” or what Berne (1964) defined as an “unplayed” interaction.
The logic of self-reference explains the author functions as the Spiral of Reciprocal Perspectives ( (Laing et al, 1966): “I think you think I think …”, etc. This can also be highly engaging but usually in a more antagonistic and alienated way, such as the well-known demonstration of the prisoner’s dilema”, I translated (in portuguese) from the original I think as I search (not I think), for disagreeing with the Cartesian cogito.
The author also focuses, among others, on the fundamental thesis of Luhmann’s systemic theory: “the perceived increase of environmental complexity can only be reduced and made manageable by an increase in internal complexity, which is the result of a chain of self-referential processes “, This is the core of this theory of systems, but Geyer informs that this is only possible by increasing environmental complexity.It is in this line that Geyer uses Ashby’s Law of Requirements Variety (1952, 1956) where greater environmental (objective) complexity means that each constructs its environment with more objects, more attributes and especially more interactions between them.
The sociociberculture, which initially seems to be just another system with explanations of the current culture of object relations, seems to penetrate even in the near future of the Internet of Things (IoT), where the objects themselves interact with each other, from the environmental to the individual plane.
GEYER, F. The march of self-reference, 3rd International Conference on Sociocybernetics, Leon, Mexico, June 25-29, 2001.
