Announcing “Second Order Cybernetics”: My First Published Book

Last month, my first book was published. The book is a collection of essays that was written over the course of five years and covers ideas in second order cybernetics. The book is aptly titled – “Second Order Cybernetics”. The cover art is done by my lovely daughter, Audrey Jose. The book is published by Laksh Raghavan as part of Cyb3rSyn Labs Community offering. The hardcover of the book is available at this link. The hard cover copy is a beautifully typeset deluxe edition. I am thankful for my readers and Laksh for his trust in my ideas.

The venture by Laksh represents a great opportunity to mingle with people from different backgrounds to pursue cross-disciplinary learning in themes such as cybernetics, systems thinking, philosophy, and more. I am excited to be part of this intellectual community and ongoing dialogue.

The table of contents of the book is given below:

The Recursive Mirror: Why I Write

I write to make sense of the world and my place in it. Moreover, I write to find myself. Writing gathers my scattered thoughts, helping me wrestle with ideas and shape them into something coherent. It is a way to lay out the pieces of a puzzle, to see where they fit and where they do not. By externalizing my thoughts through writing, I can spot flaws in my thinking, correct errors, and refine my understanding.

I understand that my ideas might be fallible. Writing is a form of error correction, a way to surface hidden assumptions and test them. The act of translating thoughts into words forces me to confront contradictions and gaps in my reasoning. However, error correction does not end with me. By putting my ideas out into the world, I invite others to scrutinize them, to challenge and refine my thinking in ways I might not achieve alone.

Concepts, unlike physical objects, do not reveal their mismatches as easily. You know when an oversized peg will not fit into a hole, but conceptual contradictions and paradoxes linger in cognitive blind spots. Writing becomes a tool to illuminate those hidden contradictions, to test ideas and see if they truly hold. Each iteration of thought, refined through reflection and external feedback, sharpens understanding.

I strive to be able to find differences among apparently similar things and similarities among apparently different things. Writing is my way of exploring those connections, of noticing patterns that might otherwise stay buried. Maturana spoke of “aesthetic seduction“, the idea that we should not seek to convince others but to attract them to our way of seeing. I write not to persuade, but to offer my thoughts as an invitation. As informationally closed entities, readers must convince themselves; my role is simply to present the ideas in their most compelling form.

Baltasar Gracián wrote, “The best skill at cards is knowing when to discard.” [1]Writing teaches me this skill, knowing which ideas to keep and which to let go of. It clears the mental clutter, revealing what truly matters. Error correction itself is recursive, an ongoing cycle of questioning, refining, and discarding what no longer serves understanding.

Ultimately, I write first for myself. It is a way to think, to question, and to grow. And by putting my words out into the world, I open the door for unexpected connections, corrections, and conversations. Writing, then, becomes not just a means of expression but an evolving dialogue; with myself, with others, and with the ever-changing nature of truth. I write so that I can keep learning.

References:

[1] The Art of Worldly Wisdom: A Pocket Oracle. – Baltasar Gracián


Discover more from Harish's Notebook - My notes... Lean, Cybernetics, Quality & Data Science.

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “Announcing “Second Order Cybernetics”: My First Published Book

  1. Congratulations. I know from experience it’s quite some labour.

    Managed to order a copy.

    Like you, I’m writing for myself. I don’t know what I’m thinking, until I hear myself speak. Writing enables me to remember and to share.

    —–

    You wrote: “I strive to be able to find differences among apparently similar things and similarities among apparently different things.” That’s a paradox, an apparent contradiction. We’re all one. (I was amazed that in English one refers to one self by I).

    Like the Dutch mathematician Brouwer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._E._J._Brouwer used to say: “a thing is only equal to itself”. He said 1 = 1 and 2 = 2 and 1 and 1 +1, or 2 or 3, … depending on the operator “+”.

    —-

    I’ve been thinking last week about the distinction between a distinction and a difference. Making a distinction between distinction (information :-)) and difference. I dis(!)agreed with Bateson on this point. (Or perhaps he was only joking) I always added: “… and who started making a difference…”. (He did).

    Funny enough, the word difference has been derived (sic) from making (Latin “facere“) and di, for instance di-viding. The “di-” or “dis-” sound we often associate with /, dividing, including definition – a divide to end (finish) divisions – and decision – cutting in two. Some time ago, I even learned that the word “time” also has been derived from “di“. Time makes a difference between past and future. (And, interesting for a physicist, time divides ” ” (space) into space-with-objects. You cannot have space without time nor time without space.)

    We use the word “distinguish” as indicating a distinctions. From “deik-“, to show. One distinguishes.

    I think it’s in the way we use distinctions to make differences. I can distinguish female from male – most of the times. And then we tend to use it as a mark of difference. A distinguished woman differs from a man, and then we’re saying man is different from woman.

    Off course, we’re all different (“no, I’m not” “shh” shush”), which makes us all the same; if one discerns the paradox.

    There are also two ways to make a distinction: an analogue (less / more) one and a digital (yes/no). Distinguishing can be used in the first case, distinction in the latter. We can make a distinction into a difference: there can be only one winner. But we cannot make a difference into a distinction. because we already made the distinction.

    Basically, because currently computers only uses di(!)gital distinctions – either/or – digital distinctions dominate debates. While child can distinguish cats from dogs rapidly, can use language tacitly, AI has to be trained and trained again to notice the difference.

    Like

Leave a reply to Harish Cancel reply