Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
first device ever to do this [develop a new sense], and no-one has ever men-
tioned another in my hearing” (S. Beer 2001, 555).
The Epistemology of Cybernetic research
a cyberNetic hyPothesis is somethiNg which the . . . cyberNeticiaNs
dig from the outlaNdish soil of their orgaNic assemblages.
Gordon Pask,
“orgaNic coNtrol aNd the cyberNetic method”
(1958, 171)
but, more imPortaNt thaN this is the questioN of whether, iN some
seNse, the Network is like my image of myself beiNg a maNager (this
Part of the iNterview is difficult, for there is No verbal commuNi-
catioN . . . ). oN this test, i shall accePt the Network if aNd oNly
if it sometimes laughs outright.
Gordon Pask,
An APProACh To CyBErnETICS
(1961, 113)
Throughout this topic I have discussed the performative epistemology that I
associate with cybernetics, the idea that representational knowledge is geared
into performance, a detour away from and back to performance. It might be
useful to come at this topic from a different angle here, via Pask's own episte-
mological reflections on his work with chemical computers, where he articu-
lated a distinctive understanding of the “cybernetic method.” Pask concluded
his essay “Organic Control and the Cybernetic Method” (1958) by discussing
cybernetics as a distinctive form of
practice
. He first defines a generic figure of
an “observer” as “any person or appropriate mechanism which achieves a well
defined relationship with reference to an observed assemblage” (Pask 1958,
172).
25
He then makes a distinction between what I call two “stances” that the
observer can take up with respect to the object of inquiry (172-73):
Any observer is limited by a finite rate at which he or it may make decisions.
Since the limit exists we shall distinguish a
scientific observer
who minimises in-
teraction with an observed assemblage and a
participant observer
who, in general,
tries to maximise his interaction with an assemblage. If observers were omni-
scient there would be no distinction. A scientific observer decides whether or
not the evidence of an observation leads him to accept each of a finite set of hy-
potheses, and may, as a result, determine his next observation. Since he is mini-
mally associated with the assemblage he may determine his next observation
