See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346657557

SOCIALISM AND CYBERNETIC

Preprint · December 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 70

1 author:

Leonardo Lavanderos
SINTESYS
49 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SUBSOLE SUBTERRA: APPLYING RELATIONAL VIABILITY MODEL IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHUQUICAMATA MINE. CHILE. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leonardo Lavanderos on 06 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Kybernetes

From Cybersin to Cybernet. Considerations for a

cybernetics design thinking in the socialism of the XXI
century

Journal: Kybernetes

Manuscript ID K-11-2020-0809

Manuscript Type: Conceptual Paper

Keywords: Viable Systems, Social Cybernetics, Complexity

Ky
be
rn
et
es
Page 1 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3
4
From Cybersin to Cybernet. Considerations for a cybernetics design thinking in the
5 socialism of the XXI century
6
7
8
9 Introduction
10
11 It can hardly be ignored that we are witnessing a turning point in contemporary history where the paradigms that had governed
12 the life of the world are now rapidly being exhausted. We have a virtuous articulation between manufacturing and the made
13 mind, conceived as a unit that operates through information, science, and technology as the main engines of production.
14
15 Given these conditions, the current model of the economy is generating a company with different characteristics from the one
16 we knew. The capital of the industrial age found a way to break the relationship between value and human labor, thus allowing
17 the value to be in the object, the machine, and transforming it into an investment of assets. While skilled workers were and still
18 are considered an accounting liability, which opens the space for so-called "scientific management". This same phenomenon
19 is moving today, where Artificial Intelligence (AI) is replacing the role of the machine. AI, even with all its limitations, tends
20 to replace not only routine and low-skilled workers, but also professionals. This digital form of Taylorism generates the
21 alienation of the professional through the impossibility of understanding the production process, thus managing to preserve the
22 hierarchical and siloed structure. Thus, regardless of the degree of specialization of the professional, he/she becomes
Ky
23 replaceable at any time when technology provides a lower-cost solution. Capitalism does not forgive.
24
25 In the face of this type of change, it is essential to create tools and concepts that can directly combat the new forms of
26 exploitation and destruction of human life. In this sense, it is cybernetics that is called upon to manage this exploit. Given its
be

27 transdisciplinary nature and its history associated with revolutionary changes such as the Viable System Model applied in
28 Salvador Allende's government, I do not doubt that both in terms of concepts and design, its role today is strategic to confront
29 this new form of capitalism. However, given my experience in recent years concerning the form of organization and the changes
rn

30 that have been generated, it is necessary to redesign the bases of Beer's model given that there are limitations that do not allow
31 for pragmatism in the decision-making process. As Eden Medina (Medina 2013) points out "Beer recognized that his cybernetic
32 toolbox could create a computer system capable of increasing capitalist wealth or imposing fascist control. In Beer's view,
et

33 cybernetics made Marxism more efficient through its ability to regulate social, political, and economic structures. Marxism, in
34 turn, gave cybernetics a purpose to regulate social action". About these statements is that it is imperative to break with its
es

35 duality, to transit to a viable society, which is not part of the discourse of capitalism, it does not allow instrumental disquisitions.
36 We urgently need relational epistemological bases as a way of explaining the changes that have occurred in recent decades,
37 most of them with a detrimental effect on human structures, particularly in those organizations that tend to succumb to the
38 generation of wealth, every time they have to take possession of something as particular as knowledge. I affirm that the
39 widespread disease of Capitalism in 21st-century organizations is the schizodemia already enunciated by Heinz von Foerster,
40 (von Foerster, 1991) The ability to change to a socialist society means abandoning hierarchies (as already obsolete and
41 inaccurate forms in the field of operations), and their replacement by flexible forms such as heterarchies. When it comes to
42
improving processes, heterarchies are, in my perspective, the right kind of organizational structure. However, for these
43
structures to be carried out, it is necessary to clear the basis of the socialist system based on the relational system of the Oikos,
44
(Aristoteles, Pol. I,2). It is not the case in this work to develop the whole socialist conception from relational epistemology,
45
however, I will lay the foundations of what it is about.
46
47
48
The foundations of socialism are and will always be relational. The viable relational system
49
50 Socialism in the 21st century presupposes a democratic background: this is the construction of a participatory or direct
51 democracy that leaves traditional representative democracy behind. In this sense, the path to socialism defended by Allende's
52 government was to configure a management system that favored participation in the chain of command.
53
54 This implied changing the design of the traditional bureaucracy's processes so that they were executed in such a way as to make
55 the system of relational networks viable; the objective was to transform the organizations through transversal strategies to
56 reduce the hierarchical structure and the production of waste without destroying the organization. What I want to emphasize is
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 2 of 17

1
2
3 that today, under the current conditions of the destruction of the quality of life of millions of people, there is only room for a
4 socialist construction of the way of life, fundamentally because the human being only expresses himself in co-autonomy and
5 the development of cooperative relationships which are expressed and reproduced in a heterarchical way.
6
7 However, in the current neoliberal model, the networks that are presented with an innovative proposal are configured and their
8 patterns generally respond to the so-called defenses that are conservative and struggle not to lose the status quo that gives them
9 meaning, even if this meaning is misleading. They tend to be networks that function in rationalist, empirical or Cartesian terms.
10 They are networks that cannot tolerate uncertainty in its multiple expressions. They cannot generally suspend judgment so that
11 they cannot do without the peace of mind and protection that "rationality and objectivity" give them. What they seek is quickly
12 the reassuring field of "concrete" facts in the belief that these exist. Anchored in conservative constructions, they do not in any
13 way tolerate new proposals for change, even if they are made by one of the network's components.
14
15 Just as "the map is confused with the territory" (Korzybski,1931) it is recurrent that the "procedure is confused with the process",
16 this is so because the procedure is no more than the recipe or digital format of the process. Just because you have the recipe for
17 the cake you cannot be sure you will get the cake. Therefore, we will define the process as a meta-path, a connection that
18 organizes the connections within a system of relationships for which it makes sense, therefore, it is not possible to conceive it
19 independently of the culture or relational network that performs it. On this basis, the schizodemic condition would be in the
20 relational configuration specifically in the relationships that generate the loss of coherence and consistency. To preserve this
21 condition, the neoliberal model destroyed the political conception of the relationship (Oikos), that is, the bases of belonging
22 and agency in the organizational structures. An organization is a semiotic fluid from the political vision to the management to
achieve the strategic objective. If we visualize this fluid complex, we can locate those bridges that stop or slow down its
Ky
23
24 dynamics. In other words, those relationships that prioritize other types of flows to the detriment of the political configuration.
25 We have called these bridges that slow down singularities. The latter determine the loss of value which is visible in the field of
26 sustainability. A typical example is the non-selective reduction of personnel when "the market" suffers variations.
be

27
28 We can then, at this point, justify new concepts that allow us to subsume the structural changes in relationships to constitute
29 types and styles of management according to the socialism of the 21st century. We have chosen Stafford Beer and his
rn

30 cybernetics of organizations as a starting point; the basis for this choice is that the author is a pioneer in the analysis of the
31 application of organizational cybernetics in a project of 21st-century socialism.
32
et

33 Original ideas: distinctions based on Beer

34
es

35 Stafford Beer was born in 1926 in London. After his initial studies in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology at the Whitgift
36 School and the University of London (University College), he spent a year as a military psychologist in an experimental unit
37 of 180 young soldiers, beginning in the fall of 1947 until 1948. All these men were illiterate, and all had been qualified by a
38 psychiatrist as psychopathological. However, if they lacked the classic anticipated skills such as writing a letter home, or
39 reading a newspaper, they possessed other skills that implied discussions, calculations, and precisions that were not necessarily
40 explicit. As Beer tells the story, they had their notion of discipline and other values that allowed them to see themselves as a
41 unit with identity. Taking this into account, Beer makes the following hypothesis: “Invariance would exist in the behavior of
42 individuals, ‘normal’ or not, that could spread to the group, reaching even the highest levels within the unit to which they
43 belong”. In other words, there should be rules or codes within a network that generates identity and allow self-organization.
44
45 Beer took 30 years to satisfy the question of how these units maintain themselves or how they manage to exist independently
46 if their exterior is changing. This he called its viability and called his explanatory model as the Viable Systems Model (VSM).
47 The concept of systemic viability has been widely used as a conceptual tool for understanding organizations, their redesign,
48 and support for change management. The VSM is perhaps one of the most insightful and powerful currently available for the
49 study of the structure of organizations. As Espejo observes (Espejo, 1989), it focuses on the resources and relationships needed
50 to support the viability of an organization rather than on the formal structure of the organization, providing a way to overcome
51 the traditional overemphasis on hierarchical relationships. Its underlying assumption is that viable organizations arise when
52 people find successful strategies for working together, to the extent they can develop and maintain a group identity, despite
53 environmental disturbances.
54
55 If we follow Beer and Espejo we find that the emphasis is in a double ontology, the being of the organization, and the being of
56 the environment. Faced with this, self-organization is a function of the preservation of the identity of the group. Otherwise, an
57
58
59
60
Page 3 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3 external observer ought to distinguish two units, one of which has an ordering process that allows the observer to remove it
4 from its surroundings or environment, an ordering process that also allows it to be classified as different, an identity process.
5 Given their training, Beer must necessarily make explicit the criteria on which to build identity and, as a basis for conservation,
6 maintain the status of invariants. We will discuss this in the following paragraphs.
7
8 Beer’s Invariances
9
10 As noted by Beer (1985): “The invariances that I had finally unearthed were stated; and the central principle of recursion (that
11 every viable system contains and is contained in a viable system) stood duty as the explanation of all the observational evidence
12
that had begun to accumulate from the military experience onward”. If we pause a moment on this, we could assert that what
13
Beer designates as viable are configurations within a continuum that has the status of being stored, it implies for practical
14
purposes that no matter where you cut, the condition for viability will be there and will be reproduced at all levels of the
15
organization. But how do we
16
17 know? The possibility is to generate a second ontology, an “environment” against which the organization will have to adapt.
18 This necessarily leads us to unveil the communication mechanisms that facilitate this ability to adapt, beginning with their
19 learning processes. That is, the participation of the same configurations will be observable at any level of organization: these
20 settings that speak of complexity can be viewed as cohesive and coordinated autonomous networks. Coordination and cohesion
21 are processes that need a happy ending, one which can be achieved by control, monitoring, and adaptation processes.
22
Ky
23 Complexity Appears
24
25 Let us move forward a little more. Reading Raúl Espejo (1989), we find categorical statements like “We are surrounded by a
26
be

complexity much greater than we can confront with answers one to one”. So necessarily, under this paradigm, we can say that
27
organizations have less complexity than their environment, “there is a natural imbalance (inherent) that needs to be recognized
28
and addressed through the leveraging of various strategies that the organization employs to carry this complexity within its
29
rn

range of response”. Therefore, to address this complexity implies somehow to “measure it”, since by stating that it is much
30
greater, we are somehow circumventing quantity. In this sense, Beer moves to Ashby’s idea of variety, specifically the law that
31
32 predicts that “Only variety can absorb variety” (Ashby 1957), Thus, the VSM can enter under complex operating as an
et

33 autonomous unit. In summary, the three cornerstones of VSM are located on dissociation viable unit and environment,
34 recursiveness, and complexity.
es

35 Previously, we mention that Beer was a precursor for the idea that relationships can be found in variety since, necessarily and
36 explicitly, the measurement takes place according to the observer and his relationship with what is observed. Nonetheless,
37
Beer’s starting point ‒that is, his disassociation from the base viable unity-environment‒ distances him from the relational to
38
remain subsumed in the paradigm of the object and its lineal simplicity. For this reason, we need to break the Cartesian dualism,
39
object/environment. To achieve these, we will review three fundamental concepts around a viable unit and the consequences
40
they have when it comes to assessing organizations from a relational perspective.
41
42 Previously we mentioned that for us Beer was a precursor, a para-relational, that is, in Beer, we find the idea of relationship
43 fundamentally in the conception of variety, since to "measure" it necessarily and explicitly, it is done according to the observer
44 and his relationship with what is observed (Beer, 1985). Nevertheless, Beer moves away from the relational when he dissociates
45 the unity from its environment, breaking the complexity of the system. This operation can be graphed in the following way:
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 4 of 17

1
2
3
4
5 FIGURE N° 1 Conception of the organization based on an outside world or environment. This implies that the greatest
6 complexity is outside the organization.
7
This separation necessarily implies giving the exterior (environment) a greater complexity than the organization
8
(administration-operation), which generates viability that is necessarily determined by the handling, or management, of the
9
material energy resource, neglecting the area of relations. Every time we generate this distinction (environment and
10
11 organization) we will be talking about the environment and not about surroundings (Malpartida 1991), the latter cannot be
12 separated as something external to the organization since it has the property of being formative and relational, which makes it
13 inseparable from each other, both constitute a relationship and as such cannot be approached as parts of it. When talking about
14 the environment, we cannot establish the relationship since every explanation is in the units that are at stake, i.e. organization
15 and environment, which breaks the relationship as a condition. One result of this dissociation is that the emerging properties
16 are obliterated, which has the consequence of increasing the variety of processes that do not generate value, the loss of
17 connectivity between administration-operation units, and finally the increase in the variability of the processes that generate
18 value. It is here where self-organization loses its meaning, since if it is not part of a relational process, i.e. it does not cooperate,
19 communicational closure optimizes the short value chains over the general process, directly impacting on expenditure since it
20 will be necessary to increase control over each self-organized unit. In practice, the Beer Model leads us to the following (Figure
21 2):
22
Ky
23
24
25
26
be

27
28
29
rn

30
31
32
et

33
34
es

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
FIGURE N° 2 Viable System Model. The Beer Model.
50
51 The VMS scheme necessarily leads us to a first-rate cybernetic conception, where both operation and administration succumb
52 to the need for certainty that the environment radiates, it is the external that ultimately determines, which is reflected in the
53 following statement "we must adapt". Thus, adaptation is necessary, in this conception, a result and not a condition that
54 generates various types of organizational pathologies. A group of these are the so-called structural pathologies that deal with
55 the complexity of the environment by creating sub-organizations, which increases the levels of hierarchy. This increase causes
56
57
58
59
60
Page 5 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3 the second group of pathologies that impact coordination and control, given that they reduce the flow of transversal information,
4 generating a loss in the quality of communications and, therefore, a loss of value in the productive chain. These are pathologies
5 related to the functions and connections between the operational and administrative spheres. The latter operates by increasing
6 the variety required unconsciously as if they were acting independently of the operational sphere.
7
8 An example of this is the creation of the environmental managers that operate as a new control mechanism in addition to those
9 that already exist. In this way, the production processes must respond to a series of control protocols that recharge them with
10 unnecessary variety, and therefore, with variability in their results. Let me return to Espejo and analyze the following statement
11 by Espejo and Gill (Espejo & Gill, 1997), “The idea of complexity is fundamental to cybernetic thinking. Put simply, we are
12 all surrounded by a far greater complexity than we can deal with by a one-to-one response. We cannot possibly ‘see’ all the
13 varied intricacies that others ‘see’, of our situation, but can only hope that by correctly recognizing salient features and patterns
14 (often through instinct), we can respond adequately to remain ‘in balance’ with those in our everyday surroundings”. This
15 statement suggests that complexity is ultimately outside and is not part of the relationship that I establish in the distinction
16 process. In other words, I broke the initial relationship and distributed the property of complexity asymmetrically between
17 external “all surrounded” and internal “we can deal”, claiming that greater complexity is outside.
18
19 Another assertion similar to the previous statement reads: “Similarly, organizations have far less inner complexity than their
20 environments: there is to a natural imbalance that needs to be recognized and addressed through various leverage strategies that
21 the organization employs to bring this complexity within its response range”. In this case, the meaning and direction of the
22 property of complexity become viable if we accept, regardless of anything else, the condition of “natural imbalance”. But what
Ky
23 lies behind the use of these concepts? Generally, scientists seldom explain from where they are speaking, that is, they do not
24 make explicit their beliefs and epistemological anchors, to understand what the basis is for affirming something.
25
26 In the case of the previous example, and within the field of the Cognitive Sciences, only a conception of representation allows
be

27 us to affirm the natural imbalance, specifically the symbolic school, it supposes an external reality that is "captured" and
28 reproduced symbolically "organizations have far less inner complexity than their environments".
29
rn

30 Viability, then, is treated as a response to the environment based on the capacity to process symbols that represent
31 environmental reality and that can be manipulated based on rules (Varela 1991, 1999), which allows adaptation and survival
32 to the environment as a result.
et

33
If the design proposal is based on a condition of duality, viability is conceived as a (successful) response to external signals. In
34
this way, measures, evaluations, and practices will be oriented to search, correct, and change properties (if necessary)
es

35
distributed asymmetrically in objects to achieve the desired successful adaptation response. As an example, the classic market
36
surveys or the questions about the processes that define production within the organization are examples of these searches for
37
certainty. Consequently, improvement or change actions will prioritize action schemes associated with competencies and
38
39 processes, confusing the interactions between people and their relationships. The variability of the processes will be reduced
40 and controlled by achieving commitments (action plans) between people, to eliminate a series of wastes that are part of the
41 processes and that finally generate expenses. However, if the commitment is not a condition of the relational form of the system,
42 the network initially constrained will emerge from its relational history, closing the constraints to return to culturally determined
43 states.
44
Contrary to the above, if we consider viability as a condition of the organization, then it emerges from the unit-entorno
45
relationship. Therefore, when we talk about a unit-entorno, we are talking about a relational unit in which the entorno only has
46
meaning for it, (Malpartida & Lavanderos,2000, Malpartida, A. R. 1991).
47
48 This situation is not necessarily true for the words 'en' and 'environment'. Based on the above, viability as a condition would be
49 distributed in the network of relationships generated by the organization, so the design should focus on understanding, as a
50 fundamental basis, the configurations of relationships that allow viability. In this way, there would no longer be an inside and
51 an outside, but a complex network of relationships that is reproduced based on its culture. Understanding the latter as the
52 process of producing codes for an agency and belonging to the relational system. The conceptual framework that allows us to
53 explain this type of process has been called Viable Relational Systems, which we will explain below.
54
55 The concept of relational viability
56
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 6 of 17

1
2
3 Although we agree with part of Beer's definition, from the perspective of relational theory a viable system is one that "resolves
4 its organizational conservation through a strategy of structural change",(Malpartida y Lavanderos, 2000). We will understand
5 as an organization that set of relationships that make up its identity, which implies its conservative condition. What can vary is
6 the structure if it supports or allows the organization to be carried out as a process. Under the previous points, we will define
7 the Viable Relational System (VRS) as a configuration of networks of relationships that have achieved a coherent link between
8 its relational configuration (Relational-ability) and its material energy system (Sustainability), so that it does not put the
9
relationships that generate its organization at risk. The Relational-ability or relational quality is evaluated based on the
10
coherence of the command and the congruence or capacity of exchange within and between networks. Sustainability is
11
evaluated based on the set of breaks or gaps determined in the energy-material processes that define production. In other words,
12
the management of a VRS translates into coupling processes, either by design or redesign, with the possibilities of reconfiguring
13
the network of relationships in a way that decreases No Required Variety (NRV),(Lavanderos et al. 2019.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Ky
23
24
25
26
be

27
28
29
rn

30
31
32
et

33
34
es

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 7 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Ky
23
24
25
26
be

27
28
29
rn

30
31
FIGURE N°3 below shows the conceptual basis for Viable Relational Systems (VRS).
32
et

33
34
es

35 An organization is viable in a relationship if its relationships make it viable. This statement is fundamental in establishing the
36 form that constitutes organized relationality. Under this vision every process is productive, it is not possible to separate them
37 into primary and supporting ones. The organization's identity is not the result of what it produces, be it this product or service,
38 but the strategy to produce it. From this perspective, an organization can be explained as a semiotic flow, which, like the
39 irrigation channels, must be organized in such a way as to obtain the greatest effective extension and the best quality of meaning.
40 Therefore, the 21st-century organization must say goodbye to the Taylorian model if it wants to incorporate the cognitive
41 domain as a value.
42
43 We need to build a structure that allows us reliability, availability, feasibility, traceability, and decisional speed.
44
We will start by defining its contour or frontier based on changes in the flow. This leads us to use the processes of exchange or
45
value change with other semiotic fluid systems. The border of our organization is defined by the semiosis of the value of
46
change, which subsumes the semiosis of all relational processes that are not produced for this objective, be it in content and
47
48 meaning.
49 Thus understood, the VRS is defined as a holonetwork, which is co-formed from the coupling between the units of the fields
50 of sustainability and sustainability. Unlike Beer's viable systems, here a co-autonomy is produced, therefore, coordination is
51 not a function of correcting the variety generated in the autonomic dynamics, but a catalytic process of selecting alternatives.
52
53 The viable relational model is based on a heterarchical structure as a condition, which is organized into four processes: cohesion,
54 coordination, communication, and management. Heterarchy is a system in which the members do not think about deciding on
55 each other, but rather about interacting. This form of participation can generate multiple ideas, advice, and help so that a whole
56 group functions correctly. You have more freedom of action. Heterarchies are networks, often hierarchical, interconnected and
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 8 of 17

1
2
3 overlapping with individual components that simultaneously belong and act in multiple networks, and with a dynamic of the
4 whole system that governs and emerges precisely from this whole set of interactions.
5
6 From the above, we can define the organization of an organization as a political-technical system that designs and propagates
7 the political-technical configuration of management. When we refer to the configuration we are giving an account of the form
8 that results from relating the criteria that build the organizational (political) fabric, the type of relationship that allows this
9 construction (economic), the coherence and congruence of the (social) fabric concerning the political configuration and its
10 erotic base (ontology, epistemology, and methodology).
11
12 In short, an organization is made up of:
13
POLITICAL or VIABILIZING SYSTEM: It configures and communicates the sense of management and organization of that
14
sense.
15
16 RELATIONAL-ABILITY OR RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM: Corrects the loss of quality of the political configuration by the
17 variety of incongruence and coherence and propagates the sense of management.
18
19 SUSTAINABILITY SYSTEM: Enables energy-material resources so that the management sense achieves the viability
20 objectives.
21
22 The viable relational system (VRS)
Ky
23
24 Every company, from a systemic relational vision, implies conceiving it as a system of network relationships that are structured
25 based on business processes around the production of products or services. The basic relational unit is constituted of the
26
be

relationship between a network and the associated production process, which is expressed in the form of decision making. In
27 this way, a network legitimates a way of doing concerning a process, which allows access to its variety or number of steps or
28 distinguished states, its variability or gap between the observed and expected results, and the diversity or relational structures
29 established to carry out the process. In the face of this, we can dispense with what we call "the external", and so, as the
rn

30 following figure shows (Figure N°4), to achieve coherence between operation and management we need to fix the relationships
31 between the knowledge network (management) and the processes (operation) which are achieved through the art or culture of
32
et

making the network for these processes.

33
34
es

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 FIGURE N° 4 Construction of the concept of a network by eliminating the external source or environment and making
54 explicit the cultural relationship (decision-making) between the cognitive network and the processes.
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 9 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3 VRS is designed based on 3 elements that are generally not thought of these are the processes, the network that carries them
4 out, and the culture or the way they do it.
5
6 A second moment is how these 3 elements are related, which leads us to the definition of VRS, for this, we have used the
7 following concepts:
8
9 Variety: Number of states or distinctions declared to carry out a process
10 Variability: the observed gap between expected and observed
11
12 Connective Diversity: Quality in communication with other areas of management that are not directly involved in the process.
13
14 According to this, the VRS model is determined as follows (Fig. 5)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Ky
23
24
25
26
be

27
28
29
rn

30
31
32
et

33 FIGURE N°5 Viable relational systemic model; agents, decisions, and processes connected by connective diversity, variety,
34 and variability
es

35
Formally we would obtain a model like the following (Fig. N°6):
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54 FIGURE N°6 Viable relational systemic model; Network, Culture, Processes.
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 10 of 17

1
2
3 The VRS has the condition to replicate itself, according to the strategic objective of the organization, to build subsystems of
4 networks that contribute to the organization from its operation-process.
5
6 The VRS system proposes that to reduce the variability of the processes involved in its management, the decision-making
7 model of the knowledge network must be made explicit to explain the behavior of the variables that account for the quality of
8 the output. This allows not only the control of processes but also the transparency of results for all the actors involved in the
9 value chain.
10
11 The VRS allows for the integration of the entire scientific-technical area based on the co-control of variety and variability.
12 Likewise, the connective quality or diversity allows establishing the degree of collaboration with other areas to control the
13 variety of the process that generates value. For example, if a production unit needs support from the administrative areas, this
14 support can be of low reciprocity, reducing the value of the production process.
15
In summary, the systemic relational integration allows the control of variety, variability, and connective quality as a link
16
17 between each production agent, which allows an effective organization. The same applies to the areas of intelligence (former
18 support areas), coordination, and technical policy (Figures N° 7).
19
20
21
22
Ky
23
24
25
26
be

27
28
29
rn

30
31
32
et

33
34
es

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
FIGURE N°7. Structure of the CYBERNET
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 Cohesion, Communication, Conduction, and Coordination Model (CO4)
51
52 From the foregoing, it follows that the cohesion, communication, conduction, and coordination (CO4) model, as a
53 transdisciplinary structure, implies the creation and approach of a new relationship that needs and deserves, the creation of a
54 new conceptual framework that transcends the focuses and frameworks capitalism economy. The CO4 criteria are defined as
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 11 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3 Cohesion: We will define cohesion for a relational unit as the systemic expression of its co-autonomy independent of the
4 observation scale.
5
6 Conduction: We will define conduction as the type of structure that organizes the connective flow for the generation of
7 information. This structure ranges from a hierarchical configuration to a hierarchical type.
8
9 Communication: This is the possibility of legibility within a common or shared field of differences that determines an action
10 within a process.
11
Coordination: We will define coordination for the metaprocess of regulation that emerges from the cooperation of
12
complementary and cooperative networks. For a relational unit, the processes that constitute it as such are related through the
13
regulation of differences that are diminished or amplified according to the requisite variety.
14
15
The concept of non-requisite variety
16
17
A key concept in cybernetics has been variety, understood as the number of possible states of a system. The law of requisite
18
variety of Ashby (Ashby, 1957), states that only variety can absorb variety; however, the above statement is only valid when
19
20 formulated in the field of interactions, but it cannot be sustained when dealing with relationship, such as the case of the
21 organism–entorno (Malpartida & Lavanderos, 2000, Malpartida, 1991) Thus, it is important to establish the difference between
22 the interaction and the relationship. The following example allows us to imagine the distinction of our proposal. For example,
in a diagnostic process, what one observes are action schemes through the doctor-patient semiosis. However, one does not have
Ky
23
24 access to the relationship that both establish. This means that what we can observe and denote are action schemes and not the
25 relationships that support those actions. Logically these actions arise from the distinctions which, in the relationship, feed the
26 decision-making of each. The actions put in the dialogue, in the course of auscultating, in the taking of samples, etc. can vary
be

27 from attraction to repulsion; the content and meaning that sustain these actions, however, are not accessible to the observer.
28 Therefore, what we can put forward are various systematics and classifications of everything we might call behavior. If we
29 follow the above arguments, the variety of a relational system cannot be reduced to many states (actions), given that, if this
rn

30 were the case, we would ignore all the complexity of the relationship of the actors involved and in turn of our relationship as
31 observers also, in other words, we would be cheating. The difference that arises between what is manifest, the scheme of action
32 and its support, is the cognitive relationship; this is fundamental and allows us to establish the difference between the concept
et

33 of autopoiesis which acknowledges that one of the key roles for the development of a living system is its operational autonomy
34 according to the organism’s internal program (Rosen, 1991, 2013) and ecopoiesis (Lavanderos and Massey, 2015; Lavanderos
es

35 and Malpartida, 2005; Malpartida and Lavanderos, 2000; Maturana and Varela, 1992; Varela et al., 1991). The first notion
36 constitutes an important vision but one that is finally reductive, as to be coherent, it must operate in the molecular sphere, that
37 is, in the field of interactions, of causation, of the manifest, where an autonomous system that supports itself (as it is autopoietic)
38 generates development paths and a coherent organization, which allows us to describe it as an agent. But the relationship
39 between agency and cognition, within the framework of autonomy, remains precarious (Vallverdú et al., 2018). In summary,
40 basic self-maintenance metabolism networks, capable of certain forms of adaptive responses, do not exhibit the skills necessary
41 for the appearance of minimal cognition. The second notion, unlike the first, operates in the field of relationships, links, of what
42 is underlying. Autopoiesis closes to produce closure, divides the internal from the external. In ecopoiesis, this is not necessary
43 because the network of relationships operates by preserving those relationships that reproduce their organization spontaneously.
44 In other words, what we have defined as relational viability occurs to differentiate it, in Beer’s (1979, 1985). In this sense, the
45
experience of chronic pain, as an emergent ecopoetic complex phenomenon, in its cognitive condition requires that part of the
46
regulatory subsystems be independent of nerve transmission processes, leading to a complex form of afferent and efferent
47
neuronal relationships that are achieved by coupling the subject-environment relationship, responding as a cohesive network
48
evaluating and modulating the experience accordingly. Relational viability operates from the strategy of fit between the
49
relational level and that of energy-material resources (Lavanderos and Massey, 2015). In that same line, the structural loss in a
50
51 living unit depends on the introduction of “non-requisite variety,” which is from those relationships that generate dissociation
52 and loss of complexity, which breaks coordination and communication generating a loss of organization. In this way, we could
53 define NRV as follows: “for a relational system, all forms of the generation of non-requisite variety are produced by destroying
54 requisite variety”.
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 12 of 17

1
2
3
4
The origin of the non-requisite variety
5
Conceptually NRV speaks of the relationship with the “cumulative distribution” of differences between the calculated or
6
theoretical flows, considered from the systemic point of view for an organization to function vs the factual flows or those which
7
8 take place. As such, this cumulative distribution allows us to evaluate the strength and direction of all systemic deviations that
9 are actively distorting and structurally weakening the organization. So, NRV has its origin in redundancies, disconnections,
10 inconsistencies, deficiencies in planning, in non-budgeted issues, supervening situations, and improvisations that significantly
11 affect not only the diagnosis but the availability of resources, especially the use of time and the pace of operations and, of
12 course, rigidity not allowing the adoption of other recursive, analytical and integrated forms (Lavanderos et al., 2019). The
13 systemic support where this phenomenon is detected is a “holo-net”. This construct is based on three formal integrated networks
14 (cognitive style, semiotic distance, and interactivity), where each occupies a level and interconnects in an integrated way. Such
15 provision engenders a “spontaneous topology” calculating all the relationships among the elements involved in the relational
16 structure (relational viability). This allows us to determine the level of NRV and obtain the systemic concepts to interpret the
17 levels of viability and complexity that arises from the coupling of the three networks. Viability integrates the knowledge
18 network that preserves the rules of art for organizational functioning, preserving its existence and provides the necessary
19 elements of judgment to the decision-making model, from which processes are structured on the one hand and, on the other,
20 this same knowledge network provides information to maintain control over the unit of connective diversity and, at the same
21 time, allows us to observe the variety necessary so that both the decision-making model and the processes can generate the
22 variability that gives sustainability and viability to this relational structure.
Ky
23
24 Non-requisite variety in socialism.
25
26
be

NRV is the product of those relationships that generate dissociation, loss of complexity, and consequently of organization,
27 putting at risk the relational viability of the living unit. NRV can be described through the changes that are introduced from the
28 cellular structural level to the social support network. By operating on this basis, the cellular structures in the Capitalism
29 organization generate a high degree of NRV which is expressed in the high variability of production results which are the
rn

30 product of an unnecessary control that only comes to heighten the uncertainty of the dissociation valor-human work. Located
31 within the semiotic field in the valor-human work relationship, the connective diversity, which is what allows the exchange of
32
et

the requisite variety among worker, is weakened or destroyed in efficiency when the hierarchy doesn’t allow total system
33 complexity view privileging the imaginaries of the idea of interdependency, that is, in a multidisciplinary way, that is to say,
34 non-relational. From a systemic vision, summative properties of the elements of the system would be introduced, which spoil
es

35
the emergence of the constitutive properties of the worker-surroundings relationship and, therefore, of decision-making as a
36
result of the political diagnosis. In other words, the multidisciplinary approach would be introducing NRV into the political
37
analysis process and, consequently, in political decisions. From a systemic vision, summative properties of the elements of the
38
system would be introduced, which spoil the emergence of the constitutive properties of the worker-surroundings relationship
39
and, therefore, of decision-making as a result of the limited political diagnosis. In other words, the multidisciplinary approach
40
41 would be introducing NRV into the political analysis process and, consequently, in political decisions. To the extent that this
42 variety is less than that required the levels of uncertainty, as occur in heterarchical structure (socialism), the production of
43 NRV decreases to the same extent, significantly improving the political vision and in consequence the decision-making but, to
44 the extent that this variety is greater than that required by the level of uncertainty, the level of inefficiency increases because
45 of the lack of coordination that occurs within the worker network. The success of the socialist structure depends fundamentally
46 on the coherence between what is described, the associated explanation, and the legitimacy of the tautology within the relational
47 network. The description of actions does not support any logic, it is, as Bateson (1980) points out, a series of facts but how they
48 interconnect we do not know. For this reason, the explanation will not provide any information other than that already
49 incorporated into the description. Thus, tautology or the connective form applied to the description allows the connection of
50 the actions that generate meaning to the series of facts contained in the description of a certain area. Thus, when we refer to the
51 legitimacy of tautology, what we are saying is that for a network of relations a discourse from neoliberal relations does not
52 necessarily reproduce the observations of the workers who generated them. The greater the tautological legitimacy, the greater
53 the coherence in the social process, which will result in a highly cohesive, coordinated, decentralized relational network with
54 great power in the design of a socialist policy. The above can be exemplified in the following way: it is not enough that the
55 process of political analysis generates the orientation of actions with high explanatory value, the result of applied tautology,
56 but it must also be legitimized by the affections or trust of those who experience it. The underlying hypothesis is that: [...] the
57
58
59
60
Page 13 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3 disconnection generated by the story or multidisciplinary map of Neoliberalism would generate different degrees of NRVs,
4 which are expressed in redundancy, either through lack or excess of connectivity between the factors that generate the political
5 base of the network of workers. When we refer to neoliberalism we do so generically, it responds to a subsidy state structure
6 and can be expressed with a wide variety. For example, in Chile, we could talk about a Neoboss model given the conservative
7 and hierarchical culture, compared to the Neoliberal model of South Korea.
8
9 Going back to redundancy, in its minimum and maximum degrees, would generate a high variability in the political strategy,
10 which would make it not only inefficient for the worker or professional but also the use of the resources used in the value
11 production network. What enters as a foundation for all this reasoning is that if we only have access to the value map and
12 configure a political reality (which we call external), it is only because of and from our cognitive impediments formed in the
13 neoliberal society. This level reveals the cognitive style from which we can elucidate the algorithms that establish a certain
14 sequence or order of knowledge (Bateson, 1980). In other words, by making explicit the tautologies of the worker or
15 professional on the value map, we can deform the semiotic field and control the NRV generated by the incoherence generated
16 by neoliberalism. If we think about it from a controlled system, in cybernetics we must generate variety in such a way that its
17 design allows for regulation and feedback that achieves the minimum variety required. This means understanding that the
18 correspondence between the variety generated and the minimum required does not have to be exact, necessary, or feasible, but
19 rather that a variety of minimum complexity is required for the regulation of a system. Variety exchanges between actors must
20
be regulated and correspond to a diversity consistent with the system, so variety mitigation must be intelligently designed. On
21
the other hand, even considering only actions, and to finish presenting our proposal with an image regarding socialist cybernetic
22
thinking, we say that "we are interested not only in the fish we catch but also in those we have stopped catching". How do we
Ky
23
map all these restrictions that we overlook? - How many fish do we stop fishing? - This is the NRV that we need to decrease
24
in the process of cybernetic construction of socialism. It takes into account the networks of people that make up the system, the
25
26 communications structure that supports their work, the tasks they carry out, the inputs necessary for such purposes, how all the
be

27 tasks to be developed are planned and all the processes to be executed on a common culture-nature objective. The formal
28 representation of all this corresponds to the idea of a rhizome (Deleuze and Guattari, 1980).
29
rn

30
31 Developing models in the clandestinely of the neoliberal model
32
et

33 All the above ideas were developed from 1995 to the present day. We knew that the relational concept added to the cybernetic
34
ideas would not be received by the academia and even less by the Chilean private sector. The latter only measures gains in the
es

35
short term through methods and techniques that do not generate risk. For the same reason, venturing to develop research projects
36
in a reactionary and mercantilist academy in addition to a private area with risk aversion was not an easy task. Our first
37
experiments were developed in Chile when the Rector of the Universidad Técnica Metropolitana commissioned a consultancy
38
to maintain power for 8 more years. On that occasion, the method of cognitive strategies emerged that allowed the discovery
39
40 of informal networks and the degree of alignment of the command network. Knowing that the Cybersin project had achieved
41 results, concerning communication and coordination we started to develop the Cybernet understanding that the basis was the
42 heterarchy structures and the associated second-order narrative. This led us to apply the first developments in the first
43 government of Evo Morales where the ministries of Public Works and Justice were evaluated, this allowed us to polish the
44 conceptual development of what we call Relational Feasibility as opposed to Beer. As a final test, we used the cognitive models
45 in the management of the Lloyd airline strike applying them to the decision-making of the unions. At the beginning of the 21st
46 century, disguised as a consultancy, we achieved the design of the CYBERNET in the mining organization. The important and
47 transcendent thing was that the results were parallel, on one hand, we improved productivity and on the other, we achieved a
48 cybernetic model of networks without the need to apply for scientific funding. As the song says, "you make your way as you
49 go", in those years’ engineers, mathematicians, doctors, biologists, musicians, archaeologists, and architects, among others,
50 joined in. The relational model, as well as its cybernetics, generated a systemic vision that demolished the specificities
51 achieving a cohesive network both in the way of thinking and in the action. If we could summarize this history we could say
52 that we learned to survive the loneliness of neoliberalism and the destruction of the knowledge of the dictatorship by
53 emphasizing the cooperation that is only possible in a cybernetic of relational viability.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 14 of 17

1
2
3
4
The Cyber-Politics of Ecopoiesis
5
If we understand that Ideology, as a relational process, generates the guidelines of territoriality for a given network within a
6
semiotic field, then what we are facing today as a crisis is nothing more than an accommodation of the guidelines of agency
7
8 (making your own) and belonging of the neoliberal configuration. From a vision of systemic relational viability, the neoliberal
9 strategy focuses on the management of sustainability over relational-ability (Lavanderos et al 2019). In other words, the
10 property over the material energy resource is privileged, to the detriment of the relations that produce the transformation of this
11 resource into value. To stabilize the inequalities produced by this type of process, an imaginary has been invented which
12 achieves a pseudo-participation of the value produced, so that the system of relations is not expressed in power. This imaginary
13 is consumption, which allows the relational system to access objects whose symbolic value is nothing more than the satisfaction
14 of desire. This form of control is supported by education, which is directed towards the idea of certainty, that is, to extol the
15 sovereignty of the fetish. For the same reason, the academy and its "products" are stabilized by rivalry since they must access
16 resources to produce more of the same. It is a market of research where do not carry any sense of epistemological change. If
17 we make an analogy with the production chain, we could say that the production of knowledge accentuates the silos between
18 the different areas of knowledge to the detriment of a political vision of the country, squandering the co-creation of a common
19 project of systemic identity.
20
21 The fundamental mistake, which is nevertheless a triumph for the neo-liberal model, is to bet that the development of
22 technologies, especially Artificial Intelligence, will provide us with solutions that will improve not only our lifestyle but also
its quality. This fallacy implies leaving in the hands of a reductionist and linear science the possibilities of change in the system
Ky
23
24 of relationships. For the same reason, the meaning of Science today, independent of its epistemology, is reduced to its
25 technology, if not incompatible with the neoliberal imaginary. The above is corroborated within the Academy through his
26 actions where the narcissism and selfishness of the academician prevent him from the transversality of which he preaches so
be

27 much. Therefore, the possibility of transdisciplinary does not exist, since the model of neoliberal relations needs cognitive
28 rivalry to maintain power, and systemic thinking has no place in this outline. For the above, a sample button; artifacts such as
29 climate change, immigration, destruction of natural resources does not go beyond pompous bluffs that obscure the fundamental
rn

30 problem, systemic relational viability. The systemic vision has been contained, given its political potential and its relational
31 basis of reciprocity and cooperation is transformed into a potential danger of thought for the current State. Any concept that
32 produces relationality beyond its own space of creation must be neutralized so that when observing the curricula of the
et

33 university postgraduate courses the lack of epistemological bases and systemic conceptions are a fact.
34
es

35 Recovering power and relational knowledge today implies saying goodbye to the industry as a concept, understanding that in
36 this capitalism what is transferred is knowledge, if this is only for the transformation of productive processes then the new
37 networks (classes) are no more than co-proletarians. The worst thing is that their cognitive capital, which is part of their base
38 of dignity as a relational being, is destroyed in an imaginary market. Political practice and education are therefore urgently
39 needed in the generation of this new power so that the networks reverse the process of accumulation. If knowledge is not
40 political-technical, then universities have no meaning for the creation and reproduction of identity networks, in other words,
41 there is no country, only transmittable imaginaries.
42
43 If we are not able to understand that transdisciplinary is an ethical and aesthetic obligation to survive neocolonial globalization,
44 then we will see an industrial revolution where, in a very wrong way, we will be fighting against linear and reductionist
45 machines, but faster than their creators.
46
We understand that the generation of a model or explanation parting from the generation of such a tool is not the production of
47
the “as is,” the unit of reference that we need to model, but what we produce is an “as if” of the unit of reference that we attempt
48
to address. The epistemological distinction between the reference unit and the model must be clear, as, for us, the model is
49
neither a reference unit nor is it a simplification.
50
51 It is a construction in which concepts abound that allow us a construction in a contemporary sense; it should be noted that our
52 reformulation of the reference unit is as if it were the reference unit, as concepts, meanings and a whole conceptual framework
53 are added to the distinctions we draw on the reference unit. At this point, it should be clear what experience means (phenomenal
54 level) and its reformulation (plot-level), which is why the model is neither the experience nor does it replace it. Inscribed in
55 the plane of the reformulation of the facts, in the space of human communication and especially in the semiotic field of the
56
57
58
59
60
Page 15 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3 relational paradigm, any construction is necessarily a co-construction; so an autopoiesis, to be such, must necessarily be
4 inscribed in an ecopoiesis. Autonomy is co-autonomy in the context of the meaning and surroundings in which it is carried out.
5 Here a solipsist autonomy is not possible. For this reason and to not continue mentioning the concept of autonomous as co-
6 autonomous or generating abusive neologisms, let us understand in the semiotic field, that we are addressing that the fact of
7 indicating a process as autonomous always implies a co-autonomy. In this sense, the original idea of “auto” (autonomy) does
8 not acquire meaning within this paradigm and we will always understand that any “auto” to be such as at least “co-auto,” in its
9
circumstance or surroundings (Oikos). Therefore, autonomy alone does not acquire meaning, in its original reductive and
10
simplistic sense.
11
12 In the context of a relational system, we will understand by centralization the difference in connectivity that occurs in the
13 network structures, and that this is so because, within these, more distinctions occur and therefore more information is
14 generated, which allows us to understand that in that sector, relevant decisions are made. Thus, we can generate distinctions
15 with subsystems that concentrate a greater number of connections, which does not lead to the concentration of flows that can
16 be distributed or regulated, among other actions, by these structures. These types of actions aid in helping to infer ways of
17 moving within the kind of configuration (hierarchical or heterarchical). Centrism and centralities should not necessarily be
18 understood as centric, but they can sometimes be understood as polycentric (Morin, 1980). In this sense, everything alive from
19 ecosystems to cellular tissues can be polycentric, polycentric centric, and even polycentric acentric in certain circumstances;
20
characteristics of very high levels of the organization as they can be nurtured by polycentric acentric feedback to produce
21
centrism or return to the polycentric function, in perhaps an analog to what we call heterarchy in human organizations.
22
Ky
23
CONCLUSION
24
25
From its origins, cybernetics has based its desire on the concept of transverse nature, today transdisciplinary. As a result, the
26
be

cybernetics of the 21st century should be defined as the science that studies the viability of the culture-nature relationship.
27
28
29 Within its history, the breaking point is unquestionably Stafford Beer and the VMS applied in Salvador Allende's government.
rn

30 Chile's historical conditions and context undoubtedly allowed a series of conceptual emergencies that were not necessarily
31 developed after the
32 1973 coup d'état.
et

33
34 As we pointed out, the deviations of cybernetic Cognobourgeoisie is not having evolved Beer's model towards a socialist
political vision since they confused and maintained the fetish of the commodity in dissociated proposals such as Ecology,
es

35
which leaves out the social as a relationship, and Economics, which leaves out nature as a relationship. Both allow the
36
chrematistic to impose itself, transforming the world into a super-commodity and now promoting knowledge as a commodity
37
of exchange through Artificial Intelligence.
38
39 The political error of Beer's design, as he claims, could serve both a socialist vision and a fascist command. This tells us that
40 the tool depends on the hand of the administrator. This statement shows the epistemological blindness in the relational-ability
41 and sustainability relationship. If the model is heterarchical and based on relational-ability then the fascist command is
42 unworkable.
43
44 On the other hand, the biological reductionism of autopoiesis and epistemological positions concerning the observer, confused,
45 in the fields of culture-nature systems, Co-Autonomy with Self-Organization. On the other hand, the biological reductionism
46 of autopoiesis and the epistemological positions relative to the observer, confuse, in the fields of culture-nature systems, Co-
47 Autonomy with Self-Organization. Strictly speaking, it is the Oikopoiesis that produces what Aristoteles defines as Polis.
48
49 However, what allows the entry of neoliberalism and the subsidy state is macroeconomics from establishing isomorphisms in
50 a mathematical system aiming at conceptual homologation. As is the case with information, entropy, and growth.
51
52 The VMS must obligatorily migrate to a Relational Viable system, whose bases are the relations of cooperation and reciprocity
53 based on heterarchical structures for limited or scarce material energy resources. This is the basis of the socialist design which
54 forces the economy to reduce the production of Non-Required Variety. In conclusion, socialism is a prolonged stage of changes
55 and transformations in which, through struggle, the transformation of hierarchical to heterarchical structures and the use of
56 new tools, such as cybernetics, the separation of the value-human-work relationship is made impossible, and currently the
57
58
59
60
 Kybernetes Page 16 of 17

1
2
3 value-knowledge relationship is the basis of the essence of the capitalist mode of production, placing the culture-nature
4 relationship as the basis of the viability of human society.
5
6
7 REFERENCES
8
9 Aristoteles. 2015. 130 pp. Editorial, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
10 Ashby, WR. 1957. “An Introduction to Cybernetics.” http://dspace.utalca.cl/handle/1950/6344 (February 25, 2019).
11
12 Bateson, G. (1980). Mind and nature-A necessary unity. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
13
14 Beer, S. (1979). The heart of enterprise. London: John Wiley.
15 Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system for organizations. Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons.
16
17 Espejo, R. (1989). The viable systems model. In R. Espejo & R. Harnden (Eds.), Interpretations and applications of Stafford
18 Beer’s VSM (pp. 77–100). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
19
20 Espejo, R., & Gill, A. (1997). The viable system model as a framework for understanding organizations. Retrieved from
21 http://www.phrontis.com/syncho/V1.pdf
22
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1980), Rizoma. Mil Mesetas, Minuit, Paris.
Ky
23
24 Korzybski. A.(1931), A Non-Aristotelian System and its Necessity for Rigour in Mathematics and Physics. American
25 Mathematical Society, New Orleans, Louisiana.
26
be

27 Lavanderos, L., & Malpartida, A. (2005). Teoría relacional de la comunicación como proceso eco-semio-autopoiético.
28 Complexus, 1(2), 45–86. Retrieved from http://www.sintesys.cl/complexus/revista2/articulos2/complexus2.pdf
29
rn

30 Lavanderos, L. and Massey, K. (2015), From Manufacture to Mindfacture: A Relational Viable Systems Theory, IGI Global,
31 Hershey, PA, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-7369-4, pp. 1-308.
32
et

Lavanderos, L., Araya, A. and Malpartida, A. (2019), “Viability, sustainability, and non-requisite variety”, The Journal of
33 Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics (JSCI), Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 83-96.
34
es

35 Malpartida, A., & Lavanderos, L. (2000). Ecosystem and ecotomo: A nature or society- nature relationship? Acta Biotheoretica,
36 48(2), 85–94. DOI:10.1023/A:1002778625641 PMID:10963090
37
38 Malpartida, A. R. (1991). La noción de entorno en etología (una discusión etimo- epistemológica). Ecognición, 2(1), 39–46.
39
Medina, Eden. 2013. Revolucionarios cibernéticos: tecnología y política en el Chile de Salvador Allende. Santiago de Chile:
40
LOM Ediciones, 356 pp.
41
42 Morin, E. (1980), El Método II. La Vida de la Vida, Seuil, Paris.
43
44 Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1984). El árbol del conocimiento: Las bases biológicas del entendimiento humano. Santiago, Chile:
45 Editorial Universitaria.
46
Rosen, R. (1991), Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, Columbia University
47
48 Press.
49 Rosen, R. (2013), Optimality Principles in Biology, Springer
50
51 Vallverdú, J.O., Castroa, O., Maynec, R., Talanov, M., Levin, M., Baluška, F. and Adamatzky, A. (2018), “Slime mold: the
52 fundamental mechanisms of biological cognition”, Biosystems, Vol. 165, pp. 57-70.
53
54 Varela, F. (1999), “The specious present: a neurophenomenology of time consciousness”, in Petitot, J., Varela, F.J., Pachoud,
55 B. and Roy, J.-M. (Eds), Writing Science. Naturalizing Phenomenology: Issues in Contemporary Phenomenology and
56 Cognitive Science, Stanford University Press, pp. 266-314.
57
58
59
60
Page 17 of 17 Kybernetes

1
2
3 Varela, F., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. (1991), The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience, MIT Press.
4
5 Von Foerster. H. (1991), Las Semillas de la Cibernética. 224 pp. Editorial Gedisa.España.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Ky
23
24
25
26
be

27
28
29
rn

30
31
32
et

33
34
es

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

View publication stats