This is available as part of a book offering that is free for community members of Cyb3rSynLabs. Please check here (https://www.cyb3rsynlabs.com/c/books/) for Second Order Cybernetics Essays for Silicon Valley. The e-book version is available here (https://www.cyb3rsyn.com/products/soc-book)
Stay safe and always keep on learning… In case you missed it, my last post was Maturana’s Aesthetic Seduction:
Discover more from Harish's Notebook - My notes... Lean, Cybernetics, Quality & Data Science.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Harish's Notebook - My notes... Lean, Cybernetics, Quality & Data Science. 
Reblogged this on facilitation guru and commented:
Enjoy
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Systems Community of Inquiry.
LikeLike
I recommend Von Foersters ethical imperative while “choosing” always induces paradox. Choosing means making a distinction (left – right; good – bad; forwards – backwards, …), which cannot be avoided. And – as Spencer-Brown showed – making a distinction leads to paradox. In fact, paradox “created” us and this universe. I suspect that there exists a connection with the second law of thermodynamics: the continuous production of what we’re calling entropy. I’ll attend to this later.
I my book – The Invented Reality – Von Foerster writes, just before his ethical imperative: “reality = community”, the relationship between Thou and I (capitals by Von Foerster). Most people read = as “is equal to”, but I’ve learned always to specify the operation. One and one can make one (as in adding two clouds), make two, as in a pair, or make three, as in pair of female and male animals. It took me some time to realize that although reality (=) makes community, community makes reality in another way. Because belonging to a community implies making a choice. This relation is not equal and cannot be inverted: community is not equal to reality.
I had to look it up: the word choice has been derived from “to taste, to try”: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=choice . The word avoid, has been derived from out-of (e or ex) emptiness (void). This universe a-voids a void. Like human beings seem to create meaning to avoid “emptiness”.
Reality realizes itself. It seems like she has dictated to Lewis Carroll: “Be what you would seem to be, or if you’d like it put more simply: Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland). Reality “seems to be”. She (as she “begets” herself) cannot be otherwise.
One can (and one does) imagine reality to be “otherwise”. This is how, for every-one, reality seems to be constructed and “surreal”. Because one distinguishes one-self from other. I propose to make a distinction between universe – reality realizing reality (herself, perhaps even Universe) – and youniverse – your invented (constructed, imagined, realized, …) reality.
One can pretend one doesn’t know about one’s constructed reality (“what do you fear most? “Choices, dear chap, choices”) , but the world – to paraphrase Jung – will tell you in the end. I suppose the very idea of meaningfulness entails being held responsible for one’s choices. And as universe isn’t interested in one’s own responsibilities – she has a world to take care of – we usually postpone this final judgement indefinitely to “after life”.
A paradox of choice consists of one’s inability to not “not choose”, because not choosing implies a choice too. And one’s seemingly inability to make choices “unchosen”. So again, this universe couldn’t be otherwise. This world is both the best and worst outcome of “choices”. (I must say, that I’ve always, as long as I can remember, thought this. Spinoza came to the same conclusion.). One can only choose to change one’s opinion about one’s choices.
Making a distinction between ethical (“good”) and unethical (“bad”) choices can only be said using language. I suppose an animal with a brain predicting the future, will distinguish between good and bad, learned to (fore)see through acting.
Without language, one cannot explain one’s choices. Human beings produce languages from a cultural domain and – here comes the trick – one reflects good/bad choices always on being a good member of one’s community and “it’s greater good”. So in choosing one’s language one also “chooses” one’s community. When one disagrees with the choices made by one’s community, one has trouble voicing these. On the penality of being excluded.
And on voicing another choice, one will say “I didn’t have another choice”, not because one didn’t have one (or perhaps, rather “saw” one) but because of one’s longing (need. requirement, ….) to belong.
LikeLike