Why Cybernetics? Why Love?

Cyberneticians are an eclectic group, connected by their affinity for a way of seeing and knowing that is unfamiliar to most people—namely, one based on “the circularity of observing and communicating” (Von Foerster, 2003b, p. 289). For those unversed in cybernetics, the term itself can seem cryptic. The range of definitions—most rather enigmatic—probably contributes to the obscurity of cybernetics today. At the same time, the definitions can be part of the allure of cybernetics. For example, Klaus Krippendorff (2008) proposed this enticing definition of cybernetics: “an inter-disciplinary discourse that brings forth radically reflexive realities” (p. 183). Thomas Rid (2016) commented that “the word [cybernetics] refuses to be either noun or prefix. Its meaning is equally evasive, hazy and uncertain,” and yet, “whatever it is, it is always stirring, it is always about the future, and it always has been” (p. xi). One way to learn more about how stirring cybernetics is, and how it might relate to the future, is through life stories of cyberneticians. I have invited these authors to share their story regarding cybernetics so we might learn how they discovered cybernetics, how that discovery has influenced their work and lives, and what excites them about cybernetics. From these authors, we gain a greater sense of the richness and versatility of cybernetics as an approach to transdisciplinary inquiry. I believe “inquiring minds” is a trait that connects cyberneticians. Ranulph Glanville (2013) implied this when ruminating on the differences between cybernetics and systems thinkers: “Cybernetics seems to be more general, more philosophical, and more abstract than systems theory, which seems full of subdivisions, more pragmatic and more ‘real world.’ Perhaps cyberneticians are fascinated by questions whereas systemists like answers” (p. 47). An extreme example of cyberneticians’ high valuing of questions is found in Paul Pangaro’s (2016) recent discussion of his “deep interest in creating a better-question engine” (p. 17) that could generate questions and then rank them for presentation to humans who would ultimately do the question selecting. For the love of good questions! Indeed, the personal narratives of these authors show an appreciation for interesting questions and transdisciplinary inquiry.