Cybernetic Systems: Interaction Between Culture and Environment
by Giovanni J.R.C.
--Systems with multiple components often find ways to regulate itself when outside (and sometimes inside) variations occur. Often, the components have a varying degree of responses to the stimuli hence affecting the outcome of the regulatory reaction. According to Ross Ashby, the “Law of Requisite Variety” is a tool to measure the degree of regulation within a system depending on the number of outputs any of the systemic components release in response to different stimuli (Ashby, handout, #113). He illustrates this in his article entitled Self-Regulation and Requisite Variety as follows: Components R and D are systemic components. If R responds to every stimuli the same way every time while D has a variety of responses, the degree of regulation within the system in response to the stimuli is therefore dependent on component D and hence component R exerts minimal, if any, influence to the response at all.
--An example of such a relationship can be observed in the book More Tan A Living as researched by Michael D. Lieber. In this book, he illustrates the various responses the Polynesian Kapingamarangi took as a response to the different stimuli their environment emanated. Living in an atoll with less than a square mile of land and with a seemingly unceasing oceanic surroundings, the Kapingamarangi were forced to respond accordingly to their lands requirements. One such adaptation is in the way they made their tools. Due to the high salinity of the environment, the growth of foliage in the atoll was limited to plants capable of living in such conditions. With this, the people were able to make tools, seafaring crafts and other necessities (Lieber, #45). Fishing, their inevitable choice of subsistence method, was also quite challenging due to the parameters of the surrounding ocean. Different portions of the atoll yield different types of fish. In one portion, fishes can be caught using traps, hooks, lines and others, while elsewhere, outrigger canoes and more cooperative endeavors is needed in order to catch the fishes. Because of this, they systemically named the different parts of their atoll, partially describing the spots depending on what type of fish can be caught there. Hence, through this systemic response to the environment, they are able to triangulate locations for best fishing results (#49). Another form of adaptation the Kapingamarangi developed was in timing the tides. Due to various oceanic tides around the atoll, availability of fish differs markedly depending the time and season. Because of this, they developed an intrinsic timing mechanism taught every fisherman from childhood until adulthood. Through this, they can maximize the potential fishing yield although the environmental temperament may not always be agreeable (#51).
--The examples above shows the degree of success a component (the Kapingamarangi) of a system can have in response to another component’s outputs (their environment and its difficult parameters) as described by Ashby. This is due to the fact that they have a variety of responses to each stimuli hence increasing their chances for fishing success (as can be seen through their large appetites and stature)(#45).
--In systems that contain semi and completely sentient beings as components, a degree of learning is helpful (but not necessary) to properly respond and comprehend inputs and outputs. In the article by Gregory Bateson entitled The Logical Categories of Learning, he organizes different types of learning into various classifications depending on the degrees of changes on the entity as it acquires knowledge. His first category, which he assigns the nomenclature “Zero learning,” is a grouping that denotes no learning. This means that there was no change at all when responding to any type of stimulus. Hence, he adds that in this class, the entity can neither identify if he is neither wrong nor right (Bateson, handout, #292). His second learning category is called “Learning I.” Here he classifies learning through reinforcement, either by rewarding or punishment (ie. Pavlovian response). He, however, adds that this type of learning sometimes obscures the difference between the stimulus and the context of the stimulus. Hence, the response more often than not becomes directed to the context of the stimuli and not the stimuli itself. Another type of learning according to Bateson is “Learning II.” Compared to “Learning I” which in itself is just a response to stimuli by giving the learner a set of alternatives and rewarding it for choosing correctly, “Learning II,” on the other hand, is achieved when the learner discovers how to interpret the various stimuli and in addition understands how to create contingent alternatives. This means that the entity in some respects “learns how to learn.” “Learning III,” Bateson’s fourth category of learning, is perhaps, according to him, the most unattainable. He states that in attempting to describe “Learning III,” one is limited for such learning is beyond the grasp of language (#302). He states that some achieve such a state through religions such as Zen Buddhism, Occidental mysticism and many others. In his attempt to explain this category of learning, he states that if one reaches this plateau, he is then aware of his ability to learn how to learn how to learn (#304). He, however, adds that if one becomes aware of his capacity and limitations in achieving “Learning II” through “Learning III,” this might actually decrease one’s potential for learning.
--Learning as an adaptation for survival is one way to use the above categorizations. The Kapingamarangi in Dr. Lieber’s book shows such levels of categorized learning based on the context of their environment. Both Lieber and Bateson, recognizes the fact that learning is in actuality hierarchical in nature and is therefore separated by its degrees of difficulties. It is, however, interesting to note that according to Lieber, human social systems is based primarily on its most volatile component (Lieber, #191). Thus, learning within the human social system depends on what the context of the stimuli is about. In the Kapingamarangi’s case, the most dangerous variable in their system is their gods. These gods, when appeased, give them bountiful maritime harvests, while when angered, they wreak havoc and mischief within the community. Because of this, it can be clearly observed that the seemingly illogical actions of the Kapinga is actually sensible given the context of their moves (ie. leaving the waters when something out of the norm is present). In comparison, Bateson categorizes learning as an ascending change much like Newton’s “Law of Motion” and is based on the acquisition of logical premises. Hence, in retrospect, both Lieber and Bateson, distinguish learning and context in hierarchical order although in reversing ends of the spectrum.
WORKS CITED:
Ashby, W.R. Self-Regulation and Requisite Variety. (Handout).
Bateson, Gregory. The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication. (Handout).
Berrien, F. Kenneth. The Need for General Systems Theory. (Handout).
Lieber, Michael D. More Than A Living. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
