WOSC 2020 on-line discussions day1 full
05:28:36
0 WOSC 2020 OnLine introduction Raul Espejo
18:00

0 WOSC 2020 OnLine introduction Raul Espejo

Important world institutions, such as the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are publicly recognizing the highly interconnected nature of our world and therefore the relevance of systemic thinking and cybernetics as leading knowledge foundations to deal with the complexity of economic, social and environmental issues. This recognition by major international agencies of the CyberSystemic nature of policy issues makes apparent that in the context of the World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics more than ever we need to debate and develop current ontological, epistemological and methodological approaches to understanding the future of humanity. WOSC is honored that the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) has agreed to be the venue for its 18th Congress (WOSC 2020). Consistent with its scope scientists of this Academy have made important contributions to key issues of human society over the past decades. They have contributed to problems of nuclear disarmament, space exploration, the fight against terrorism, self-organization for strategic projects and many more. More recently, they have been developing aspects of socio-humanitarian cybernetics and of self-developing reflexive-active environments. Indeed, the RAS is a most valuable setting to support further developments of these and other issues. Our aim in WOSC 2020 is to bring CyberSystemic scientists, and in particular younger researchers, together with politicians and practitioners to debate pressing economic, social and ecological problems of humanity, at all levels from local communities to global societies. For this purpose, we propose to focus the discussions on the following four themes: philosophical and methodological foundations for the development of the systems approach and cybernetics, the cybernetics of democracy, the cybernetics of hybrid reality, and governance in an increasingly interconnected, ecologically sensitive, world. Short summaries of these themes are introduced below.
0 Vladimir Lefebvre contributions by Vladimir Lepskiy
03:31
WOSC 2020 on-line discussions day1 full
05:28:36
1.1 and 1.5 Systemic approaches and cybernetics - bases of development Vladimir Lepskiy
05:05

1.1 and 1.5 Systemic approaches and cybernetics - bases of development Vladimir Lepskiy

Philosophical and methodological basis for the development of a systems approach and cybernetics. The evolution of cybernetics: first, second and third order cybernetics. Reflexivity in a systems approach and cybernetics. Cybernetics of hybrid reality environments (subject, digital, physical). Social responsibility and ethical regulators in the control of social systems. Modern ideas about the scientific cybernetic picture of the world. The specifics of the development of a systems approach and cybernetics in different civilizations, coordination and integration of international research based on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. In recent years, much attention has been paid to the development of socially-oriented types of cybernetics, the development of second-order cybernetics (S. Umpleby, V. Lepskiy, R. Vallée, S. Bozicnik & M. Mulej, T. Ivanuša and others). An urgent problem is the analysis of the foundations and models of different types of socially-oriented cybernetics. The focus of this section is third-order cybernetics developed in Russia. Third-order cybernetics (V. Lepskiy, 1998) is formed on the basis of post-non-classical scientific rationality. The logic of the formation of third-order cybernetics is based on the transition from first-order cybernetics - "observable systems", to second-order - "observing systems", to third-order cybernetics - "self-developing poly-subject (reflexive-active) environments". And also on the ascent from the paradigm "subject - object" to the paradigm "subject - subject" and then, in third-order cybernetics, to the paradigm of "subject - metasubject (self-developing poly-subject environment)". Third-order cybernetics has its own specifics and also defines a paradigm (framework construction) that includes first and second order cybernetic paradigms, similar to post-non-classical scientific rationality. On the basis of post-non-classical scientific rationality it became possible to integrate ideas and concepts of humanitarian studies: ideas about the noosphere (V. Vernadsky), the concept of society as a social system (N. Luhman), activity and subject-activity approaches (A. Leontiev, L. Vygotsky, S. Rubinshtein, et al.), contributions of Russian methodologists (G. Shchedrovitsky, et al.), interdisciplinary ideas of the formation of social cybernetics (S. Umpleby), sociohumanitarian analysis of the experience of developing automated systems (V. Lepskiy), and others.
WOSC 2020 on-line discussions day1 full
05:28:36
2.8 Citizenship and democracy Zoraida Mendiwelso Bendek and Matjaz Mulej
21:06

2.8 Citizenship and democracy Zoraida Mendiwelso Bendek and Matjaz Mulej

Cultures may perceive citizenship and social responsibility from different perspectives. The West often reduces democracy to voting in elections, whatever are the aspirants’ personal attributes. Hence, power-holders are allowed, and even authorized, to be one-sided rather than requisitely holistic; to feel independent rather than interdependent; to be more socially negligent than socially accountable. And this is one of the best model so far, but not good enough for humanity to come close to what L. v. Bertalanffy called 'being the citizens of the world rather than of a country’. We understand citizenship and social responsibility as an interactive process related to social meanings, where we recognize others and ourselves through permanent negotiations, as properties that emerge from the way humans relate to each other. We are inviting contribution to explore these attributes as emerging properties within human social interactions, beyond legal and political conditions. Contributions that include the value of knowledge focused on innovative social transformations toward a socially responsible community and society. We welcome different approaches to identify the ways to build up communities more systemically (i.e. requisitely holistic), hence with an interdisciplinary perspective. It includes the attitude “Thank you for not agreeing with me, your insight is completing up my knowledge and values” as a basis for an ethics of interdependence, leading to a more holistic social responsibility and citizenship as a way of making a society more socially responsible, both locally and globally. Perspectives from local contexts and knowledge include co-learning processes to promote equality, diversity, inclusion, cohesion and real participation towards building up sustainable communities beyond technological innovation processes focused on the wellbeing of the people, communities and society.
Managing the complexity of climate change
10:42

Managing the complexity of climate change

WOSC September 16-18 "Discussion Paper" for a World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics online event replacing the 18th WOSC Congress in Moscow deferred until 27-29 September 2021. Refer to https://www.wosc2020.org/ The presentation is a call for System Scientists to educate political leaders, bureaucrats, CEO’s and society that wicked complex problems like global warming, pollution, inequality or lack of bio-diversity and universal wellbeing cannot be reliably or comprehensively solved with markets or hierarchy not found in natural self-governing systems, but with "polycentric" networks of self-governing components that can introduce a requisite variety of matching complexity subjected to continuous challenge for adaption described as "Tensional Integrity" = "Tensegrity". Tensegrity seems to be what drives evolution of the universe and is described by biologists as the "architecture of life". Author: Shann Turnbull PhD, Principal: International Institute for Self-governance Email: sturnbull@alumni.harvard.edu, Cell: +61 (0) 418 222 378 Academic paper accepted for presentation in September 2020 at the Moscow 18th Congress as a contribution to Theme 1.4 : Philosophical and methodological foundations for the development of the systems approach and cybernetics (4) Organizational theory in a CyberSystemic World. Abstract The purpose of this paper is to apply existing knowledge to counter climate change. The contribution to knowledge is to ground institutional analysis, individual behaviour, political science, economics, management and the management of global sustainability in the practices and science of governance found in nature. This is achieved by using bytes as the unit of analysis to explain how nature governs complexity on a more reliable and comprehensive basis than achieved by humans. Tax incentives could encourage organisations to adopt elements of ecological governance found in nature and in social organisations identified by Ostrom and the author. Ecological governance can provide benefits for all stakeholders as desired by CEO’s of the US Business Round Table. Corporations then become a common good to allow them to promote global common goods like countering climate change, pollution and inequalities in power, wealth and income. Democracy is enriched bottom-up. Keywords: – Bytes, Climate change, Common good, Commons tragedies, Complexity, Ecological governance, Global warming, Governance science, Natural processes, Polycentric Republics, Requisite Variety, Tensegrity. Paper type – Academic Research Paper
2.6 Westphalian dilemma Raul Espejo
13:38
2.6 Operationally closed systems develop eigenbehaviour Clas-Otto Wene
19:33

2.6 Operationally closed systems develop eigenbehaviour Clas-Otto Wene

In globalization, the identity of the nation state is undergoing profound transformations; the problems it faces transcend its capabilities; the supranational domains of interest and responsibilities increase all the time. The UN calls for a "stronger and more coherent UN system, a global central bank, a global investment trust, a global environmental agency." The so-called "Compliance", as a growing commitment of the private sector, today includes money laundering, financing of terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, transnational bribery and non-compliance with environmental protection standards. In various ways, tacit and explicit, politicians and governments recognize major global challenges: international agreements, manifestos, instruments and declarations address the aforementioned threats and others, such as crimes against humanity and abuses of biotechnology. The term multilevel governance (local governments, states, nations, European Union) points to new organizational understandings. Today the average interval between shocks is shorter than the relaxation time to absorb them. Institutions were originally designed to accept a much longer interval between shocks. Today the environmental challenges are shaking us at an increasing rate. The old questions about "who is the public" and how to gather and interpret collective opinions pose new challenges. Top-down approaches through regulation appear to be ineffective, while the scientific community complains about the so-called "clumsy climate strategy" with its appeal to treat problems at the lowest possible level of decision-making, when the challenge is global The scientific community has resonated to climate change, but in spite of all “words, words, words” the whole society is not resonating. Maybe, for very good reasons, as demonstrated by the slow response of governments to people’s demands. In particular, significant parts of the scientific subsystem and the green part of the political system wants “full steam ahead”, but there may be a lot of winners and losers, so any policy for aspects such as climate change must incorporate equality and proportionality. Resonating the whole society may release gigantic amounts of uncontrolled and unchecked variety There may therefore be very good cybernetic reasons for wishing great transitions to be spear-headed by only a few resonating subsystems. Still to accomplish the transition both the political subsystem and the civil society must be on board. We may refer to this as the Westphalian Paradox, where nation states, as established in 1648 as part of the Peace of Westphalia, trump the societal global level all the time, increasingly endangering the future of society.
2.10 Innovation, change, creativity and organisation  Di Nauta, Lazazzara, Martinez
16:17

2.10 Innovation, change, creativity and organisation Di Nauta, Lazazzara, Martinez

Change can mean bartering, replacing, transforming, modifying, converting (in a transitive sense), becoming different, changing in appearance or behavior (in a reflexive sense). So, change is related with the concept of doing with something different from the moment in which the implementation has been properly decided, and represents a sign of variation, even if not necessarily of discontinuity. Generally, the concept of change can be linked to changing the characteristics of a system/organisation and/or the way of doing things. In an economics and business framework, the concept can be extended to the mean of updating, correcting, improving the status quo by adapting to the changing environment for any social organisation. Innovation is one of the possible paths according to which change can take form, and can be described as the possibility of concretizing the creativity through an original process, with the aim to guarantee the satisfaction of changing needs over time. Creativity can be described as the attitude of a system/organisation to evolution and, therefore, not only a specific cognitive capacity, but a real attitude to change the system by the system itself. As the change implies the ability to propose something new, updated, consistent with the evolving needs, then it can be understood as innovation, because it is connected to something that is perceived as different from the past, advanced in a certain sense, precisely innovative. This session aims at discussing the above concepts in the cybernetic and complex social systems framework, with a focus on the protean nature of systems with their emerging, unpredictable, dynamic, non-linear evolutionary paths. Actually, according to this perspective, change and innovation in social systems/organisations have been offered more insights also from literature about self-organisation, dissipative structures, coevolution, learning, crisis and catastrophes, highlighting the evolution of a social system in a Popperian logic.