Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/0368-492X.htm
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
283
Gerhard Fink
IACCM, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
Purpose Anticipating behaviour and responding to the needs of complexity and the problematic issues
that they can generate requires modelling to facilitate analysis and diagnosis. Using arguments of
anticipation as an imperative for inquiry, the purpose of this paper is to introduce generic modelling
for living systems theory, and assigns the number of generic constructs to orders of simplex modelling.
An nth simplex order rests in an nth order simplex cybernetic space. A general modelling theory of higher
orders of simplexity is given, where each higher order responds to every generic construct involved,
the properties of which determining the rules of the complex system being that is represented.
Higher orders of simplexity also explain greater degrees of complexity relatively simply, and give rise to
the development of new paradigms that are better able to explain perceived complex phenomena.
Design/methodology/approach This is part 1 of three linked papers. Using principles that arise
from Schwarzs living systems set within a framework provided by cultural agency theory, and with
a rationale provided by Rosens and Dubois concepts of anticipation, the papers develops a general
modelling theory of simplex orders. It shows that with the development of new higher orders,
paradigm shifts can occur that become responsible for new ways of seeing and resolving stubborn
problematic issues. The paper is composed of two parts. Part 1 establishes the fundamentals for
a theory of modelling associated with cybernetic orders. Using this, part 2 establishes the principles of
cybernetic orders using simplex modelling. This will include a general theory of generic modelling.
Part 3 extends this, developing a fourth order simplex model, and exploring the potential for higher
orders using recursive techniques through cultural agency theory.
Findings Cultural agency theory can be used to generate higher simplex through principles of
recursion, and hence to create a potential for the generation of families of new paradigms. The idea
of conceptual emergence is also tied to the rise of new paradigms.
Research limitations/implications The use of higher order simplex models to represent complex
situations provides the ability to condense explanation concerning the development of particular
system behaviours, and hence simplify the way in which the authors analyse, diagnose and anticipate
behaviour in complex situations. Illustration is also given showing how the theory can explain the
emergence of new paradigms.
Practical implications Cultural agency can be used to structure problem issues that may
otherwise be problematic, within both a top-down and bottom up approach. It may also be used to
assist in establishing behavioural anticipation given an appropriate modelling approach. It may also be
used to improve and compress explanation of complex situations.
Originality/value A new theory of simplex orders arises from the new concept of generic
modelling, illustrating cybernetic order. This permits the possibility of improved analysis and
diagnosis of problematic situations belonging to complex situations through the use of higher order
simplex models, and facilitates improvement in behavioural anticipation.
Keywords Behaviour, Adaptation, Emergence, Complexity, Systems theory, Cybernetics
Paper type Research paper
The authors thank Jose Manuel Perez Rios for his constructive comments on an early version of
this paper.
Kybernetes
Vol. 44 No. 2, 2015
pp. 283-298
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0368-492X
DOI 10.1108/K-11-2014-0255
K
44,2
284
Introduction
Ever since Beer (1980) and Luhmann (1995), it has been useful to see societies as complex
living systems. However, it is now almost a common adage that society (and hence the
social situations encountered there-in) is becoming more complex. An explanation comes
from Ionescu (1975) who tells us that societies have become centrifugal, creating more
complexity and intensity, as they have become politically centripetal thereby facilitating
unrepresentative corporate decision making as they accumulate of political power.
Complexity and modelling
So what is a complex system? A dictionary definition is: the state or quality of being
intricate or complicated, but this does not really illuminate anything. A clearer definition
comes from the systems community where complexity represents something that has
many parts that interact with each other in multiple ways. Yolles (1999) has elaborated on
this by defining five dimensions of complexity: computational complexity, having a large
number of interactive parts or variables; technical (or cybernetic) complexity, having
a tangle of control processes that are difficult to discern because they are numerous and
highly interactive, and thus when there is limited future predictability; organisational
complexity, having a tangle of rules that guide interactions between a set of identifiable
parts of a situation, or specification of the attributes that it has; personal complexity, having
different and conflicting subjective views of a situation; and emotional complexity
having a tangle of emotional vectors are projected into a situation by its participants
seen as emotional involvement.
The complexity of a social situation is dependent upon the paradigm from which it
is seen. Paradigms have three attributes (Morgan, 1980) that allow this to happen:
(1) Constructs, which give a complete view of reality or way of seeing.
(2) Social organisation, which creates new schools of thought; these are accompanied
by the development of particular language, providing a guide to paradigm
distinction.
(3) Concrete tools and texts are used for processes of scientific puzzle solving.
The constructs of (1) are usually symbolically woven into a figurative pattern that is
a meaningful (semantic) theory. Without (2) there is no paradigm, and new paradigms
arise when at least (1) and (2), or (2) and (3), are satisfied. Complexity in the cybernetics
paradigm highlights the concept, for instance, of relativity, where different individuals
and groups play different games, have different goals, and live in different conceptual
worlds (Geyer and van der Zouwen, 1991). This relativity construct has the collective
support of the cybernetics community (the social organisation). It has developed tools
and texts to enable individuals or groups to be related in their ways of thinking, and
compared in their key beliefs, assumptions or values (Umpleby, 1997).
To better understand complex social situations, they need to be modelled. We take
a (formal) model to be a representation of a semantic theory with a formal system.
This is different from a schema, which has no underlying theory and no formal system,
but is simply a set of ideas that may eventually develop into a theory. Formality occurs
through language that enables a set of explicit statements (propositions and their
corollaries) to be made that enable everything that might be expressed about the beliefs
and other attributes within a given paradigm to be expressed in a self-consistent way.
A formal system uses language that includes terms able to create meaningful
explanations, and formulates a set of propositions as a relationship between a set of
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
285
K
44,2
286
system is a bounded construct because of its paradigmatic nature. Here then, propositions
about the language itself cannot be expressed in the language itself. Consequently,
another language that offers another frame of reference is required that is over and
beyond the language being used at the time. The demand then, is that a new frame
of reference is required that can encompasses the systemic frame of reference. This new
frame of reference belongs to the systems metasystem. Due to the close connection
between language and modelling, system models need to be viewed from higher order
frames of reference for validation. Practically, Beer adopted a modelling approach in
which the system and metasystem is considered pairwise in a dyadic interaction, this
throughout the whole system hierarchy. Interestingly, if one were to extend the modelling
approach beyond the pairwise interactive dyad to include higher order metasystems, then
to preserve Beers resolution to the paradox, the metasystem-system relationship should
itself be seen as a coupled formal system with a meta-metasystem. An iterative argument
for this leads to the accumulation of higher order metasystems. This is an imperative for
the general theory of cybernetic orders that we shall pursue in this paper.
Returning to complexity, Ashby (1956) argued that in complex situations systems
are more usefully explored through their overall patterns of behaviour. Such patterns
may change indeterminably. A modelling approach that can both deal with increasing
complexity and enable patterns of behaviour to be anticipated would help resolve
connected problems. This is one of the interests of this paper.
In dealing with increasing social system complexity there is a need to model situations
as simply and effectively as possible. According to Cohen and Stewart (1995, p. 232),
complex situations become simpler with emergence that can collapse chaos and bring
order to a system that seems to be in random fluctuation. This is a fundamental
proposition of systems theory, and a property of the whole (rather than its contained
parts). Cohen and Stewart (1995, pp. 411-419) also refer to simplex situations that have
been exposed to some form of emergence. Modelling complexity provides improved
modelling through simplexity, which Cohen and Stewart note may be recognised to have
occurred when a set of rules can be identified that can explain a situation through large
scale simplicities that have developed. Effectively, simplexity refers to the dialectics
between simplicity and complexity.
We distinguish simplex models from others by introducing the ideas of modelling
substructure and superstructure. Simplex models have a fundamental substructure onto
which superstructure is erected. It is the superstructure that is responsible for generating
model complexity and epistemic content. We now proposed that there are orders of simplex
model. Like squeezing a lemon to get its juice, higher simplex orders conceptually
compress complex situations more densely while extracting more meaning from them.
This occurs through the use of higher order conceptual constructs that improve the
comprehension, diagnosis and resolution of stubborn problematic issues. For Maturana
and Varela (1979), higher order explanations are justified through meaningful theory
extensions which contribute to the understanding of complex situations by expanding
contexts, thereby reducing the assumption of all things being equal. It can also improve
context dependent anticipation. An example of a simplex variable is autopoiesis (Maturana,
1970a, b; Mingers, 1995), providing a new way of seeing social systems (Beer, 1980).
Living systems and anticipation
In developing the theoretical discourse of this paper, we use Schwarzs (1994) theory of
living systems (also see: Yolles, 2006). This sits on the foundational work of Miller
(1978) which reduces the complexity of the structure and organisation of living
systems. Miller offered seven ontologically distinct levels of living systems that
range in complexity from the lower levels of cell, organ, and organism, to higher levels
of group, organisations, societies, and supranational systems. In exploring this he
provides a common framework for analysing the nature, condition, structure and process
of systems at various levels of complexity. This ability to compress complexity through
the development of new terminology was important to living systems theory, and
provided a theoretical basis that has since been used in social cybernetic paradigms.
Social living social systems have pathologies that affect their viability and their
capacity to anticipate their future behaviour. Anticipation is important to living
systems since it enables them to adapt to future conditions (Collier, 2006). Thus for
instance pathologies have been responsible for the development of the 2007/2008
western economic crisis which shook western socio-economic viability, where analysis
has revealed conflicts of interest in regulatory bodies, inadequate control processes
(e.g. the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself), no control of
financial excesses, and ultimately the use of the wrong models to guide control
processes (Levin and Coburn, 2011). This especially includes a lack of understanding
of the complex dynamics of microscopic processes from which macroscopic processes
arise [] (Yolles and Fink, 2013, p. 4). So, anticipating the future is pathology
dependent, but it also requires a good model of a situation that is structure
determined (Schwarz, 2001; Yolles and Dubois, 2001). Embedding anticipation into
a good model has consequences for Weinbergs view of completeness, allowing one to
require a strong structure that allows useful anticipation under complexity. So how is
such a structure created?
Rosen (1985) adopted the term anticipatory (living) system to indicate that an
anticipatory model enables what we shall call dynamic projections for potential
behaviour. For Dubois (2000) this constitutes model-based weak anticipation, rather
than system-based strong anticipation. Weak anticipation occurs through some
cognitive/mental model which may influence the systems structure. Strong
anticipation occurs through the structure itself which ultimately influences its
patterns of behaviour and its viability. In Table I we indicate distinctions between
weak and strong anticipation (Yolles, 2006).
As will be shown in due course, it is possible to represent both weak and strong
anticipation together using a simplex model. This is part of a general systems model
which consists of a set of components (like subsystems and processes) to represent
a complex whole, working together for some purpose(s). Some of these components
will be generic: conceptual constructs that provide perspective, and represent an
entire systemic function (i.e. actions as sets of behavioural processes, or activities,
Anticipation
type
Weak
Strong
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
287
Explanation
Based on a model of the system and produces theoretical prediction based on
structural properties. As illustration, strategic management involves weak
anticipation because it is model-based and involves an interpretation of the
environment that occurs from an examination of behavioural perturbations
Connected to operative management, and influenced by strategic management
Operative management involves strong anticipation that conditions
(facilitates and constrains) the way that the organisation responds to
environmental perturbations of its behaviour
Table I.
Distinction between
weak and strong
anticipation in
self-organising
social systems
K
44,2
288
or purposes). The systems model will ultimately have a generic structure composed of
generic constructs and non-generic positioned residues. A simplex model forms its
generic substructure, while other components form its superstructure. One of the
purposes of this paper is to present a family of simplex models which reflect different
orders of complexity, characterising properties of the cybernetic space to which they
belong. The superstructure added to any simplex model is determined by particular
contextual modelling interests, and adds epistemic content.
Simplex modelling and orders of cybernetics
An order of simplex model sits in a cybernetic space of the same order. The cybernetic
space maintains generic rules that facilitate model building, and in the case of simplex
modelling, through the use of generic constructs. These have a capacity in a given
model to compress complexity by more effectively explaining attributes of complex
situations. There is a relationship between cybernetic order and generic construct
order, which this paper will explore in terms of simplex modelling.
Low orders of simplex modelling will be seen to be related to Piagets (1950/1972)
concepts of learning set within a living system context. One aspect of this for
Von Glasersfeld (1983) is instrumental learning, which may be explained as follows.
A system is instrumental when it strategically manifests its goals or aims operatively.
It learns instrumentally when strategic models that facilitate behaviour are modified
by experience, where antecedents and consequences are related. This is distinct from
cognitive learning where knowledge is developed through experience and accumulated
or adjusted.
Learning requires anticipation (Von Glasersfeld, 2003, p. 7). This is elaborated on by
Dubois (1998), who links anticipation with control in modelling and simulation.
He identifies incursive control which results in system stabilisation. He also identifies
hyperincursive control, which is concerned with managing multiple possible scenario
outcomes. Boxer and Cohen (2000) explain that Dubois work in anticipative systems can
be formalised as second-order metatheories (formal descriptions of systemic generic
structures). This lies, they say citing Dubois (1995), at the basis of a third order cybernetics.
Structure of the paper
This paper has three parts. In it we take a generic modelling perspective to describe
simplex orders of modelling substructure that characterise the cybernetic space
in which it sits. Overall we shall explain that: first order cybernetics is concerned with
inter/action and self-organisation. Second order cybernetics is concerned with instrumental
generic inter/action in a social living system, permitting self-production, adaptation, and
self-organisation. Third order cybernetics is concerned with cognitive generic inter/action
in a social living system, additionally permitting self-creation and novel adaptation.
These and higher order cybernetic spaces will in due course be explored.
Using a modelling process that originates with Yolles (2006) and sits on the dynamic
complex systems platform of Schwarz (1994), we shall:
(1) consider the nature of generic structuring;
(2) recognise that generic construct properties are responsible for what Cohen and
Stewart refers to as the rules of simplexity; and
(3) define orders of simplexity where higher orders are reflective of higher
degrees of complexity.
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
289
K
44,2
290
refers to rank in a hierarchy the meaning which can change with context.
Operating in the supersystem, the construct may be explained as a semantic
manifold that acts as a channel between at least two ontologically coupled
independent domains with systemic states. While the invariant generic construct
manifests epistemic content dynamically between the domains, its nature is not
subject to epistemic variation. Examples are autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela,
1979; Mingers, 1995) and autogenesis (Csnyi and Kampis, 1985), which are
constructs that can each, respectively, be seen as a network of first and second
order processes that manifest meaning across the independent domains.
While contextual frames of reference may change for invariant generic constructs,
the nature of their relative manifesting functions do not.
(2) Variant generic constructs are an interconnected ontological assembly of state
systems in which meaning can vary as its epistemic properties change with
context, thus making them semantically susceptible to recursive processes.
In other words, variant generic constructs have the capacity to change because
they are state systems with context sensitive epistemic content.
We can now offer a proposition: a simplex order is a system substructure defined by the
given number of invariant generic constructs, with variant generic construct that act as
the invariant construct complement. One could not exist meaningfully without the other.
There are always the same numbers of invariant generic constructs (if one includes
feedback as a collective entity) as there are variant generic constructs.
We have referred to recursion above. This constitutes a modelling procedure that
can be repeated indefinitely. Glanville (2002, p. 25) defines it as a backward movement
or return: e.g. a process by which the response to a statement raises that statement
again. It relates to all things that are applied to themselves, including the cybernetics
of cybernetics. It has also been defined by Yolles (1999) as the application of a whole
concept or set of actions that occur at one systemic level of consideration to a lower
logical systemic level of systemic consideration. It may also be argued in the following
way. If action as a functional operator is applied to some object/subject at one focus in
a system hierarchy, then applying the same action to an object/subject at a lower
focus constitutes recursion. However, any epistemic content that is part of those actions
likely changes with context during the transformation from one focus to the other.
So, recursion is facilitated through the capacity of variant context-sensitive generic
constructs to change.
Beer (1959) adopts a proposition of viability important to recursion in viable systems:
that every viable system contains and is contained in a viable system. Thus, consider an
autonomous organisation with departments and divisions. This would enable Beer to
say that each department is autonomous and interactive in its division, as is each division
in the organisation. It should be noted that the use of the word autonomy here may be
replaced by more or less autonomous since the nature of autonomy is a subjectively
assessed relative concept (Beer, 1979, p. 119; Schwarz, 2001). To illustrate recursion
under this proposition, Beer (1979) models an organisation using his Viable System Model.
Thus, to investigate a change in the department of an organisation such that its
viability is preserved, he might define two levels of recursion within the organisations
system hierarchy. This enables the autonomous organisation to be evaluated for
viability through its autonomous division, this through its autonomous department
of interest. The division is thus seen as an autonomous subset of an autonomous
organisation, as is the department of the division.
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
291
K
44,2
292
This interaction constitutes a social process. Seeing cognitive learning this way arises
from the work of Vygotsky (1962), who stresses the role of social interaction in the
development of cognition and the construction of meaning. Von Glasersfeld (1995, p. 141)
used the social aspects of Vygotskys theories on learning with selections of Piagets.
One can accommodate the distinctions between Vygotskys and Piagets paradigms by
recognising the apparent conflict of whether knowledge creation is an individual or
social construct. This conflict can be subdued by recognising that knowledge creation
arises instrumentally in the first instance, from a strategic thought processes that has
been exposed to an operative environment. It occurs with conceptual emergence that
results from a cognitive dissonance arising from a conflict between information about
what known and what is perceived. This emergent virtual knowledge, as we shall call it,
is coded information that can instrumentally contribute to behaviour. Virtual knowledge
is idiosyncratic and precurrent to cultural sediments of knowledge. In Piagets model,
processes of knowledge self-creation occur as sediments of idiosyncratic knowledge,
but there is no direct developmental normative process for this. An indirect process
occurs through operative interactions that can make knowledge sediments normative
through experience. In Vygotskys model, social validation of virtual knowledge
defines knowledge, filters idiosyncrasy and generates normativity. The distinction
between Piagets and Vygotskys approaches therefore seems to lie in whether
knowledge creation is deemed to be the result of an idiosyncratic or a normative
processes of sedimentation. In Piagets model, knowledge self-creation is possible, but
in Vygotskys it is not an immediate facility since knowledge is social rather than
individual. Idiosyncratic virtual knowledge may contribute to adaptation, but it will not
necessarily improve viability. Social filtering of virtual knowledge creates normative
knowledge, which can then contribute to both social adaptation and viability. In such
situations, adaptation may be seen socially as novel, implying that the recognition of
novelty is ultimately a social phenomenon.
Thus, it is not only knowledge, but also virtual knowledge that influences behaviour.
When new socially filtered knowledge is embraced, the knower has identified with it, and
this requires self-reference. This circuital explanation to knowledge creation couples
Vygotsky and Piaget by explaining the creation of knowledge in a more indirect way.
In radical constructivism knowledge self-creation should therefore be seen as a social
filtering process that is dependent on instrumental virtual knowledge. Without other
explanations, social filtering may be inferred to be a first order cybernetic processes of
systemic interaction through processes of communication (for instance as discussed by
Von Glasersfeld, 1995, 2003). However, as we shall see in due course, there is potentially
more to this as one moves to fourth order cybernetic modelling that ensures that one
recognises the social role in creating self-identity.
The distinction between Von Glasersfelds and Piagets conceptual interests is that
the former was more concerned with adaptation, and the latter learning. In radical
constructivism, knowledge self-creation is not strictly speaking a requirement, though
virtual knowledge creation would appear to be. This is because the self-creation
process is not a requirement for adaptation, even though knowledge self-creation is in
principle admitted if socially filtered. This is in contrast to constructivism, where
knowledge construction/creation is an important component of learning and the
creation of novelty. It requires knowing about the contingencies that constrain and
channel knowledge interconnections as this occurs.
In P2, relativism is an epistemic position that clarifies the scope and limitations
of knowledge, and this can be explored in terms of observers and the observed.
For Glanville (2002) there is a need to include the observer in the creation of an
understanding of the dynamics of a set of interactive objects, and the circular
relationship between the observed and observer. The observer also has a perspective
that biases what is observed. Objectivity is therefore ameliorated. Glanville (2004,
p. 1384) assigns this to second order cybernetics, and tells us that the distinction
between the first- and second-order cybernetics depends [] on a change in attitude
to the observer who, in second-order cybernetics, is understood to be both within the
system being described and affected by it. Second order cybernetics is thus seen as
dealing with observing systems and their subjectivity. System subjectivity, for Bruiger
(1998), represents in the system itself statements about itself. These subjectivities may
result in different representation of the objective real world, or a recognition that the real
world is constructed by observers.
Glanville (2004, p. 1380) asserts that the radical constructivism of Von Glasersfeld
(1987) questions what there is to observe, and if it has not been observed by a given
observer situation undecidability results. Undecidability is discussed by Boxer and
Cohen (2000, p. 21) in terms of adaptability, where an agent is capable of successfully
adapting to its environment by tracing out trajectories through a space of agent
theories via successive elaborations of its articulations. A theory of an agent may
therefore be formulated (by an observer of it) as a formal representation of its
articulations that constitute a formal theory. A formal theory would have to include
formal models of the (observed) models of the world of the agent and of their
trajectories, and should be able to account for three kinds of error in these models.
In reference to Boxer and Cohen (2000), these errors include:
We have noted that the distinction between radical constructivism and constructivism
is that the former does not explicitly require self-reference, while the latter does. This is
because constructivism relates to the maintenance of identity (Boudourides, 2003), and
hence external reference is also an attribute (Luhmann and Fuchs, 1994). If self-reference is
not an explicit part of the radical constructivist modelling process, then self-reference and
external reference cannot be formally distinguished. However, a model may have inferred
self-reference attributes when it may become associated with informal model qualities.
This distinction between the formal and informal only becomes interesting when radical
constructivism is deemed to involve (socially filtered) knowledge creation.
Glanville is interested in self-reference as part of a whole assembly, but it has not
been said whether this might just be an implied attribute. Where it is not a formal
attribute of a model taking an explicit part of the modelling process, models are not
constructivist. Where radical constructivism is deemed to only embrace instrumental
learning, the radical constructivist label may be seen as a misnomer, making it now
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
293
K
44,2
294
perhaps even closer to post-positivism. In the same way that Spering (2001) sees
that communication events are an implied part of a cultural framework, we argue that
self-reference can be an informally inferred attribute associated with a living system
that conditions modelling. The distinction between formal and informal inclusion
is important since it determines whether knowledge self-creation is an explicit part of
the modelling process, or just implied. We shall accept here that radical constructivism
informally embraces knowledge creation, arising as a consequence of first order
cybernetic social communication that occurs internally to a plural social system.
Von Glaserfsfeld provides no explanation of how the process of social filtering
creates normative knowledge in radical constructivism. To understand this, we need to
return to the principles of learning as represented by Piaget (1950/1972), in many
respects similar to the simpler approach by Agryris (1976) who proposed the idea of
single and double loop learning. Agryris identification of two loop learning levels
places a cybernetic stress towards learning, different from Von Glasersfelds interest in
adaptation. Learning may be seen as a system control process that conditions the
system for improved adaptation and viability. This leads us to consider three questions
which this research may be able to respond to:
While Agtryris has talked of two levels of learning loop, how many levels of
learning loops actually exist, and if so what do higher order loops mean for
cybernetic modelling?
What is the role of the learning loop, in particular as a control and discovery
process for cybernetic modelling, and how does it enhance our understanding of
reality?
How can one select starting points for multiple learning loops?
Conclusion
This paper begins by discussing social complexity and the need to model it simply.
It argues that complexity is dependent on the paradigm that views it, leading to an
identification of the characteristics of complexity. The nature of the paradigm was also
considered, and that it can be associated with the idea of conceptual emergence, when
new paradigms may rise. This should, it was argued, enables us to formulate a general
theory of generic modelling, set within the framework of orders of simplex modelling,
which has its seat in the work of Dubois (1998) on incursive and hypericursive
anticipatory systems.
How models respond to complexity was discussed, arguing that a good model
is more capable of representing a complex situation. The nature of a good model is
discussed, and one of its attributes, validity is shown to be a problematic concept
because of Gdels Incompleteness Theory. This results in paradox when exploring
validity unless the situation identified in a system is associated with a metasystem that
observes, controls and communicates with it.
So, modelling complex systems ideally requires a distinction between the system
and the controlling metasystem. But this is not enough to model social complexity.
Rather, there is a need to simplify complexity. To do this leads to a discussion of
simplexity, the nature of which is to represent a dialectic between simplicity and
complexity. This idea, taken from Cohen and Stewart and linked with cybernetic
orders, leads to the concept of orders of simplexity that emerge from complexity.
The requirement, then, was to determine what the structure of orders of a simplex
model might formulation of simplex orders might be. This is resolved by looking at the
needs of anticipation as discussed by Rosen, and then by Dubois, and recognising that
anticipating behaviour in living systems is structure dependent. The way in which
this recognition contributes to the development of the theory in this paper is to take
it that orders of cybernetics provide a propositional environment for the creation of
anticipatory models that is, models of a system the structures of which broadly
determine their patterns of behaviour. Until now the discussion of cybernetic orders in
the literature has been an arbitrary process.
Linking simplex modelling to cybernetic order results in the idea of simplex order.
A simplex order constitutes the substructure of a model that resides in an order of
cybernetics space with cybernetic rules that are determined by that space. The simplex
substructure is determined from the paradigm within which it is composed, typically
using axiomatic propositions that do need to be shown to be true. Any additional
modelling attributes constitute its superstructure that creates epistemic content for the
simplex substructure, though these typically might require some form of validation.
Building on from this, simplex models were described as generic models, and the nature
of generic variables was explained.
Finally, the philosophical underpinnings associated with cybernetic/simplex orders
was considered, distinguishing between positivism, post-positivism, radical
constructivism and constructivism. It was explained that first order cybernetics is
positivism, second order cybernetics is radical constructivist, but with the caveat that
learning is instrumental. Third order cybernetics is seen as constructivist.
In the next part 2 of this paper we will set up three cybernetic orders of simplex
model, and then formulate a general theory of simplex orders. Following this in part 3
of the paper we shall illustrate a fourth order cybernetics, and discuss how recursive
modelling can generate higher orders.
References
Argyris, C. (1976), Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making,
Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 363-375.
Ashby, W.R. (1956), An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall, London.
Ashby, W.R. (1968), Principles of self organising systems, in Buckley, W. (Ed.), Modern Systems
Approach for the Behavioural Scientist, Adline Pub. Co., Chicago, IL, pp. 108-118.
Beer, S. (1959), Cybernetics and Management, English Universities Press, Beer.
Beer, S. (1979), The Heart of the Enterprise, Wiley, Chichester.
Beer, S. (1980), Autopoiesis: the organization of the living, in Maturana, H. and Varela, F.J. (Eds),
preface to, Autopoiesis and Cognition, Boston Philosophy of Science Series, Springer,
Heidelberg, Boston, Vol. 40, pp. 63-72, available at: www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/,jwjhix/Beer.html
Boot, R. and Hodgson, V. (1987) Open learning: meaning and experience, in Hodgson, V., Mann, S.
and Snell, R. (Eds), Beyond Distance Teaching Towards Open Learning, Open University
Press, Milton Keynes, pp. 5-15.
Boudourides, M.A. (2003), Constructivism, education, science, and technology, Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 5-20.
Boxer, P. and Kenny, V. (1990), The economy of discourses: a third order cybernetics?, Human
Systems Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 205-224.
Boxer, P.J. and Cohen, B. (2000), Doing time: the emergence of irreversibility, Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 901 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
295
K
44,2
Bruiger, D.J. (1998), In the rise and fall of reality: deliberations on the mind-body problem,
available at: http://bruiger.leftfieldpress.com/doc_html/9.html (accessed October 2014).
Cohen, J. and Stewart, I. (1995), The Collapse of Chaos, Viking, Penguin Books, London.
Collier, J. (2006), Conditions for fully autonomous anticipation, Computing Anticipatory Systems,
CASYS'05(AIP Conference Proceedings), Vol. 839, pp. 282-289, available at: www.
academia.edu/download/30868284/collier-Corrected-April-8-2006.pdf (accessed June 2014).
296
Mingers, J. (1995), Self-Producing Systems, Plenum Press, New York, NY and London.
Morgan, G. (1980), Paradigms metaphors, and puzzle solving, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1-18.
Murzi, J. and Shapiro, L. (2014), Validity and truth-preservation, in Achourioti, T., Fujimoto, F.,
Galinon, H. and Martinez-Fernandez, J. (Eds), Unifying the Philosophy of Truth, Springer,
Dordrecht.
Myers, M.D. (1999), Qualitative research in information systems, available at: www.auckland.
ac.nz /msis/isworld/index.html (accessed 2001).
Osborne, J.F. (1996), Beyond constructivism, Science Education, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 53-82.
Piaget, J. (1950/1972), The Psychology of Intelligence, Harcourt and Brace, New York, NY
(Republished in 1972Littlefield Adams, Totowa, NJ).
Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1973), Memory and Intelligence, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Pockock, D. (1999), Therapist reflection: loose ends, Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 21, pp. 187-194.
Rosen, R. (1985), Anticipatory Systems, Pergamon Press, New-York, NY.
Schwarz, E. (1994), A metamodel to interpret the emergence, evolution and functioning of viable
natural systems, in Trappl, R. (Ed.), presented at the European Meeting on Cybernetics
and Systems Research, Vienna, April, Cybernetics and Systems 94, World Scientific,
Singapore, pp. 1579-1586.
Schwarz, E. (2001), Anticipating systems: an application to the possible futures of contemporary
society, invited paper at CAYS2001, Fifth International Conference on Computing
Anticipatory Systems, Liege, August 13-1.
Spering, M. (2001), Current Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research Topics, Applications,
and Perspectives, Institute of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg.
Taber, K.S. (2006), Beyond constructivism: the progressive research programme into learning
science, Studies in Science Education, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 125-184.
Taschdjian, E. (1978), The third cybernetics and temporal logic, Kybernetes, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 177-183.
Tuncer, C.A.N. (2009), Learning and teaching languages online: a constructivist approach,
Novitas-Royal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-74.
Tural, M. (2006), An approach to integrate lighting concepts into interior design studios:
a constructivist educational framework, doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Art, Design, and
Architecture, Bilkent University, Bilkent/Ankara.
Umpleby, S.A. (1997), Cybernetics of conceptual systems, Cybernetics & Systems, Vol. 28 No. 8,
pp. 635-651.
Van de Vijver, G. (1999), Psychic closure: a prerequisite for the recognition of the sign-function?,
Semiotica, Vol. 127 Nos 1-4, pp. 613-6.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1983), Learning as constructive activity, in Bergeron, J.C. and
Herscovics, N. (Eds), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the North American
Group of Psy-chology in Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, Montreal, pp. 41-101.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987), The Construction of Knowledge, InterSystems Publications, Salinas, CA.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995), Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. Studies in
Mathematics Education Series, Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc., Bristol, PA.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2003), The constructivist view of communication, presentation by Josef
Mitterer on behalf of von Glasersfeld at the Memorial Meeting for Heinz von Foerster,
Vienna, November, available at www2.evg-archive.net/wp-content/uploads/TheConstructivist-View-of-Communication.pdf (accessed November 2014).
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962), Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Generic
modelling and
paradigm
shifts: part 1
297
K
44,2
298
Weinberg, G.M. (1975), An Introduction to General Systems Thinking, Wiley, New York, NY.
Whitehead, A.N. and Russell, B. (1910), Principia Mathematica, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Yolles, M.I. (1999), Management Systems: A Viable Approach, Financial Times Pitman, London.
Yolles, M.I. (2006), Organizations As Complex Systems: An Introduction to Knowledge Cybernetics,
Information Age Publishing Inc., Greenwich, CT.
Yolles, M.I. and Dubois, D. (2001), Anticipatory viable systems, International Journal of
Computing Anticipatory Systems, Vol. 9, pp. 3-20, available at: www.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/
CHAOS/IJCAS/IJCAS_9_MY_DD.pdf
Yolles, M.I. and Fink, G. (2011), Agencies, normative personalities, and the viable systems
model, Journal Organisational Transformation and Social Change, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 83-116.
Yolles, M.I. and Fink, G. (2013), Exploring the common roots of culture, politics and economics,
keynote address given by Yolles at the International Symposium the Economic Crisis: Time
for a Paradigm Shift Towards a Systems Approach, January 24-25, Universitat de
Valncia, Facultat dEconomia, Valencia.
Zeigler, B.P. (1984), Multifacetted Modelling and Discrete Event Simulation, Academic Press,
London.
Further reading
Agryris, C. (1982), The executive mind and double-loop learning, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 5-22.
Beer, S. (1971), Joint plenary session ORS and TIMS: questions of metric, Operational
Research Quarterly, pp. 133-144.
Beer, S. (1984), The viable system model: its provenance, development, methodology and
pathology, Journal of the Operational Research Society, pp. 7-25.
Beer, S. (1994), Decision and Control: The Meaning of Operational Research and Management
Cybernetics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Dubois, D. (2003), Mathematical foundations of discrete and functional systems with strong and
weak anticipations, in Butz, M.V., Sigaud, O. and Grard, P. (Eds), Anticipatory Behavior in
Adaptive Learning Systems, Foundations, Theories, and Systems (Vol. 2684), SpringerVerlag, New York, NY pp. 110-132.
Fink, G., Dauber, D. and Yolles, M.I. (2012), Understanding organisational culture as a trait
theory, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 199-220.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989), Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching, Synthese,
Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 121-140.
Williams, B. and Imam, I. (2006), Systems concepts in evaluation: an expert anthology,
American Evaluation Association, available at: http://preval.org/files/Kellogg%20enfoque
%20sistematico%20en%20evaluacion.pdf (accessed 2008).
Corresponding author
Dr Maurice Yolles can be contacted at: prof.m.yolles@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com