Search results

This paper aims to offer an integration of Vladimir Lepskiy’s third-order cybernetics and Raul Espejo’s Viplan methodology. Key ideas are mechanisms for social responsibility and a methodology to improve them through self-developing reflexive-active environments.

The authors propose a methodology based on modern philosophy of science, which sets the foundation of ontological cybernetics, constructed by subjects with different epistemological stances. This methodology includes considerations for social values, worldview principles, multiple viewpoints and subject-oriented information and communication platforms.

Current negative trends in socio-economic and environmental developments are associated with weaker social responsibilities of those holding power in society. To increase their social responsibility, the authors argue it is necessary for them to have more effective governance and development mechanisms. The proposed methodology ensures more effective interactions of stakeholders toward creating, regulating and implementing societal problem-solving.

This paper offers an initial theoretical conceptualization and illustration of social responsibility, which would benefit from further conceptual developments and practical applications.

The methodology helps increasing the level of social responsibility of all participants in control and development processes in social systems. The proposed approach allows ensuring the inclusion of stakeholders in societal problem solving through participatory methods and democratic approaches.

The conceptual and methodological ideas of this paper are based on the authors’ original research. The methodology and model of ontological cybernetics proposed in this paper are based on organizational cybernetics and modern views of philosophy of science. The methodology and model include basic ontological values and principles.

The aim of this paper is to elaborate the connection between the evolution of cybernetics and the development of scientific rationality (classical, non-classical, post-non-classical) and to emphasize the relevance of the formation of post-non-classical cybernetics for self-developing reflexive-active environment (the third-order cybernetics).

This paper includes interdisciplinary analysis of the evolution of cybernetics and possible directions of its development.

A connection between the types of scientific rationality (classical, non-classical and post-non-classical) and the stages of the development cybernetics is presented. Classical rationality is first-order cybernetics dealing with observed systems (an external observer). Non-classical rationality is second-order cybernetics dealing with observing systems (built-in observer). Post-non-classical rationality is third-order cybernetics dealing with the self-developing reflexive-active environment (distributed observer).

This is an initial theoretical conceptualization, which needs a broader assessment and case studies.

This proposed direction for the analysis of cybernetics opens new approaches to social control on the basis of the subject-focused models and integration of traditional cybernetic tools.

Third-order cybernetics will promote the development of civil society. Direct democracy receives new tools for development.

The value of this research is in the interdisciplinary analysis of the cybernetics evolution and in new possible directions for its development.

This study aims to explain and illustrate the character of Russian systems thinking and to show how it is different and similar to traditions in the West. This study’s second aim is to describe the contributions of some Russian scientists to developing systems thinking and the theory of evolution. This study introduces the predecessors of Charles Darwin in Russia, both supporters and critics of his ideas, as well as scientists who have made similar contributions to the development of systems thinking, particularly Vladimir Vernadsky and Alexander Bogdanov.

Philosophical and theoretical comparisons. In the Russian intellectual tradition, the terms “Russia” and the “West” are likely codes for signifying fundamental philosophical questions about the universality of thinking and culture. The term “West” means universal, rational truth without taking into consideration any differences in life and cultural practice. The term “Russia” means impossibility of such a universal truth and a necessity to look for solutions on the level of life, not only on the level of rational thinking.

Paying attention to differences in approaches to systems and cybernetics and the theory of evolution will enrich the further development of systems sciences in Russia and the West. The paper examines the philosophical underpinnings of science rather than just testing or extending an existing theory. The result is better mutual understanding among scientists with different backgrounds.

This study suggests new avenues for research and expands the range of conceptual possibilities. It improves mutual understanding among scholars and countries. Also, it adds to the topics discussed within the field of systems and cybernetics and the theory of evolution.