|Abstract||When I was a boy, I was friendly with a lad who lived a few doors away. We used to take bicycle rides together and have gunfights on the waste land and light fires and play scratch cricket. Our ways parted as our interests evolved in different directions. There were no hard feelings and, indeed, much residual good will. Roger (this is not his true name, which I shall withhold for the sake of his family) did not share any of my own developing intellectual interests and I felt none of his love for sailing. I was surprised, therefore, when one evening my mother came across an interview with Roger in the Liverpool Echo in which he declared that his real passion was `cybernetics'. I felt that I had misjudged him and wondered whether, after all, we did have more in common than I had thought. The next time I ran into Roger, I asked him about his interest in cybernetics; more particularly, I asked him what `cybernetics' was. My ignorance was genuine, rather than assumed. To our embarrassment, we both discovered that Roger, too, was ignorant about the nature of cybernetics. For him, it was just a word. It had something to do with science and technology and the future and seemed rather glamorous and was much talked-about then. It was clearly just the thing to impress the readers of a provincial newspaper. I didn't pursue the matter and we saw little of each other subsequently. The last I heard of him, he was doing well as an estate agent. Poor Roger could not have expected that his comments about `cybernetics' would have been taken up (`interrogated', `problematised') by a reader of the Liverpool Echo. This was hard luck. Even more unjustly, he was not awarded a tenure-track post in humanities on the strength of his allusion to cybernetics, or a Chair in the Systems of Thought at the University of Paris.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Alan Haworth (1999). Only One Cheer for Sokal and Bricmont: Or, Scientism is No Response to Relativism. Res Publica 5 (1):1-20.
Jean-Philippe Bouilloud (2003). The Reception of the Sokal Affair in France—"Pomo" Hunting or Intellectual Mccarthyism?: A Propos of Impostures Intellectuelles by A. Sokal and J. Bricmont. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (1):122-137.
W. Ross Ashby (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York, J. Wiley.
Alan D. Sokal & J. Bricmont (1999). Book Review: Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Literature 23 (1).
R. Trappl (ed.) (2006). Cybernetics and Systems 2006 (Vol. 2, Pp. 649-653). Proceedings of the 18th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.
Glenn Negley (1951). Cybernetics and Theories of Mind. Journal of Philosophy 48 (September):574-82.
Rainer Reisenzein (2006). Emotions as Metarepresentational States of Mind. In R. Trappl (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems 2006 (Vol. 2, pp. 649-653). Proceedings of the 18th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.
Jiří Zeman (1988). Theory of Reflection and Cybernetics: The Concepts of Reflection and Information and Their Significance for Materialist Monism. Elsevier.
Norbert Wiener (1961). Cybernetics. New York, M.I.T. Press.
Werner S. Nicklis (1972). Cybernetics and Sociology. On the Applicability and Application Hitherto of Cybernetics in Sociology. Philosophy and History 5 (2):151-152.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads7 ( #142,233 of 722,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?