Tag: first order

First and Second-Order Epistemologies
Gregory Bateson (1991) famously said that we “cannot claim to have no epistemology. Those who so claim have nothing but a bad epistemology” (p. 178). Bateson is calling for self-reflection in our epistemology. He wants it to be recursive, so that in our production of knowledge we do not delude ourselves into thinking that the means of production is independent of what is produced. Bradford Keeney, cybernetic epistemologist, family therapist, modern day New Orleans-style shaman, and student of Gregory Bateson, notes that recursive epistemology has roots in second-order cybernetics and the recognition (1983) that “any distinction drawn is drawn by an observer. … An observer observes by drawing distinctions. … The starting point of epistemology is therefore an observer drawing distinctions in order to observe” (p. 24). This leads us to a fundamental recursion or non-linearity at the very start of any epistemological endeavor. While non-recursive epistemologies try to mitigate this kind of loopiness, cybernetic epistemology embraces it as the very heart of knowing, using it as a creative generator of change and transformation. Working with a non-lineal epistemology leads to a different kind of knowing, one which “emphasizes ecology, relationship, and whole systems. In contrast to lineal epistemology, it is attuned to interrelation, complexity, and context” (Keeney, 1983, p. 107).

The consequences of lacking a self-reflexive epistemology are dire, leading to real practical and ethical dilemmas. The structure of the sequence often goes something like this:
- Knowledge is produced on the basis of a non-reflexive epistemology (Bateson’s “bad” epistemology). Ex: You performed an act found to be illegal.
- The knowledge produced is thus assumed to be “objective” and “true” (i.e. independent of the means of its production; ignorant of its genesis). Ex: It doesn’t really matter why you did what you did, you are beholden to the law as written.
- This tends to have a psychologically limiting effect with respect to alternative knowledge and especially alternative modes of knowledge production. One’s viewpoint becomes ossified. Ex: The judicial system limits its treatment of you as a whole human being only to what is allowable within the strictures that the law defines. You become identified with your act.
- The unreflective assumption of the “truth” of the knowledge becomes justification for its projection, often forcefully, onto other people and processes in the environments surrounding the knower. A sense of conviction that the world is “like this” leads to inflexible protocols in our institutions and in our modes of interaction with others. In other words, outer processes are also ossified; they become sclerotic. Ex: Now, instead of being a whole human being who with a completely full and complex life that included the illegal act, your identity shifts to that of a criminal. Your identity shifts, and you are now identified with the label “criminal,” and the judicial system creates places called prisons designed largely to maintain this distinction of your new identity.
The unintended effects of this kind of lineal process knowledge production could fill multiple volumes, from the most subtle aspects of daily life to world-historical events. But recursive epistemology is not in opposition to lineal epistemology; it is rather meant to be a way of maintaining complexity and subtlety (and ideally, wisdom) by calibrating the linearity of standard epistemological practices through higher-order recursion.

Calibration and Self-Calibration.

But what does it mean to have a self-reflexive epistemology? The difference between the two types of epistemologies, non-self-relfexive and self-reflexive, can be described by the first and second order difference. A non-self-reflexive epistemology is a first-order epistemology, a process of creating knowledge that operates in a linear fashion. The knowledge it generates is not explicitly connected to the process of its generation, and thus does not act as a potential corrective to its mode of production. Epistemology is a tool for knowing; but with a non-self-reflexive epistemology, the tool’s operation does not change the tool, so that no matter what job it is called to do, it re-instances any new creations in the manner and style of its past processes—regardless of what might be new in the situation it encounters. The kind of newness that comes from a linear epistemology is (more…)
June 24, 2012
Form and content – two levels of change

Form and Content

Understanding change is a very difficult task. No aspect of our world, either experienced outwardly through our senses or inwardly through our feelings and thoughts, seems exempt from the paradoxical rule that the only constant is change. It is possible to examine the way change occurs at many levels. At the “lowest” level of examining change, we generally tend to focus on what can be called the “content.” The particular identified content (we’ll see in a minute why it is important to note that this content is “identified”) depends upon the arena in which the transformation is being studied. Generally, however, the content is the “thing” that is undergoing change, and is usually the overt focus of our attention. For example, in a chemical situation, the content would be the physical elements, such as hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis. In a therapeutic setting, the “thing” might be one’s thoughts and feelings (in psychology), one’s bones (in chiropractics), or a family system (in family therapy).

The content level is always present; it is always a part of the way that we encounter change. Yet in addition to looking at the content-level, we can also examine change in a different way: we can examine patterns of change. That is, we can place our attention on the way that changes in content unfold, and seek to identify similarities and differences in such patterns in order to get a deeper understanding of the “rules” that inform what happens at the content level. Paying attention to this level of change is paying attention to the process of change, rather than just its results.

This way of examining change takes place one level removed from the content level, and can thus be understood as a “higher” level. It is more abstract than the first, and because it provides the contextual rules that inform the unfolding of the processes as they appear at the content level, we can call this second level that of “Form”, or even better, “Forming”. This is spelled with a capital “F” to distinguish it from “form”, in the sense of a static outer shape or configuration. A given quadrilateral has a definite individual form, and there are an infinite number of quadrilaterals, such as the square and trapezoid. But every possible quadrilateral shares the same Form. This is the same relation between a set and an element in formal logic. The Form is a way of indicating (more…)

January 12, 2012
Cybernetics of problems and solutions – an exercise in thinking complexly

First-order Solution:

First Order Solution

The problem and the solution share an epistemological context, each helping drive the other.

Second ‘phase’ (to the right): In this context ‘more of the solution’ creates ‘more of the problem’ through a symmetrical relationship. The SAME problem is produced by the SAME solution. No real transformation is forthcoming from within the system, because it perpetuates itself from both sides.

Linear-Progressive Solution:

Linear-Progressive Solution

A solution to a problem is found that does not perpetuate the original problem, but this creates a new problem (or problems) of its own, likely at the same level (with the same form) as the original, although with different content or within a different arena (problem ‘leaking’).

Second ‘phase’ (to the right): This leads to a potential proliferation and regress of problems, because the epistemological context is never addressed at any level. DIFFERENT problems are produced by DIFFERENT solutions OF THE SAME ORDER. Transformation is possible but likely occurs with great difficulty and haphazardly, if at all.

Second-order Solution:

Second-Order Solution

The epistemological context of the first order is seen as problematic, becoming the basis for a second-order solution that relies upon different epistemological distinctions. It is “second-order” because it explicitly recognizes the cyclic recapitulation of the first-order problem-solution system’s epistemological distinctions, and chooses not to participate by making different distinctions. Thus the problem-solution system becomes a new problem that is of a directly higher order.

Second ‘phase’ (to the right): The solution to the original problem-solution system creates a new problem of a higher order (this would be the third-order problem), necessitating the uncovering of the epistemological limitations in the second-order problem-solution system (which now becomes the third-order problem). HIGHER-ORDER problems are created by HIGHER-ORDER solutions. Continuing in this way leads to higher-order levels of recursivity, but after only a few levels a practical limit is reached, and the system becomes to expansive and diffuse to affect transformation by itself.

Simple Multivariant Ecology of Solutions:

Multivariant Ecology of Solutions

In an example of a more realistic (and complex) setting, a problem may be addressed with a “problematic solution” while at the same time efforts are made to seek a solution of a lineal type, which may create its own problem while being taken at the object of a second-order solution.

Second ‘phase’ (to the right): The system of systems can evolve as a self-embedded ecology, where new opportunities for feedback become inevitable. The network continues to evolve, involve, devolve, and revolve, all at once.

Here’s a picture of them all together:

Orders of Solutions

October 26, 2009