/pdf/cybernetics-volume-2-number-1-1986/Cybernetic_Vol_2_No_1_1986.pdf

Cybernetic Perspectives: A Reflection on Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 (1986)

In 1986, at the precipice of the digital age, Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 emerged as an intellectual artifact, blending systems theory, philosophy, art, and poetics to explore profound questions about human cognition, technology, and the relationships between machines and minds. At a time when personal computers were still in their infancy and artificial intelligence (AI) was in the realm of speculative theory, this zine offered a pioneering investigation into the implications of cybernetics—a field that would grow to shape much of contemporary discourse on AI.

The issue opens with a metaphorical invitation to fall through “a hole in the language,” evoking the disorienting experience of entering an Alice in Wonderland-like world of recursive feedback, semantic traps, and mental mirrors. This framing captures the essence of cybernetics as a field concerned with self-referential systems and the complexities of understanding knowledge and existence through feedback loops rather than linear cause and effect. Contributors such as Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela explored these ideas, especially the radical notion that all knowledge is constructed by observers interacting with their environments. Maturana’s assertion that “everything said is said by an observer” challenges traditional notions of objective reality, proposing instead a constructivist approach where observation and cognition are inseparable from the reality they help to create.

This challenge to the objectivity of science is central to Cybernetic, which critiques the separation between subject and object, and emphasizes the interconnectedness of all systems—whether biological, cognitive, or social. Varela’s work, for example, advocates for a new understanding of cognition as a process not of passive reflection but of active participation in the world. This perspective resonates strongly with contemporary AI models, which, rather than passively mirroring human input, engage in ongoing processes of learning and adaptation through feedback loops. These early cybernetic thinkers were, in many ways, laying the groundwork for what would later be formalized as machine learning and AI.

The zine’s inclusion of visual art, poetry, and playful absurdity reflects its broader attempt to transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. Artworks by Kansas City Art Institute students and cartoons by Charley Barsotti are not mere decorations but integral components of the text, helping to express cybernetic principles that might otherwise be difficult to articulate through academic discourse alone. This blending of scientific rigor with artistic expression embodies the cybernetic principle of interconnectedness and the idea that meaning is not static but emerges through dynamic interaction between systems.

One of the most striking aspects of Cybernetic is its engagement with the ethical and political implications of cybernetic thinking. Edward Sampson’s examination of the “Inversion of Mastery” critiques the drive for control that dominates much of modern science, suggesting that an alternative approach rooted in participation and reciprocity may offer more sustainable relationships with both technology and nature. Similarly, Maturana’s treatment of love as a biological phenomenon that facilitates social coordination offers a scientific bridge between humanistic and scientific viewpoints, showing that the connections we form are not just emotional or social, but biological and systemic in nature.

In Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1, the contributors grapple with fundamental philosophical questions about the nature of human knowledge, observation, and interaction with the world. The zine’s playful yet serious tone invites readers to reflect on the absurdity inherent in all systems—whether biological, social, or technological—and to consider the limitations of our ability to control or fully comprehend the systems we interact with. Bradford Keeney’s “Cybernetics of the Absurd” exemplifies this, using dialogue to explore how systems, particularly those in therapy and social change, often operate in ways that defy expectation and challenge conventional understanding.

Looking back from our present moment, the ideas explored in Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 feel remarkably prescient. Today, AI is a pervasive force in our daily lives, shaping everything from entertainment to healthcare, and the philosophical questions raised by the cyberneticians are more relevant than ever. As AI systems grow in complexity, autonomy, and influence, the central questions of cybernetics—how systems learn, adapt, and interact—remain at the forefront of contemporary discussions.

The zine’s treatment of feedback loops, autonomy, and circular causality has only gained in significance as we confront the realities of AI. Just as the cyberneticians of the ’80s explored how systems dynamically shape and are shaped by their environments, today’s AI systems function through recursive loops that refine their behaviors based on continuous feedback. However, as AI becomes more autonomous, it also becomes more unpredictable, introducing the “absurdity” that Keeney and others discussed. AI models often behave in ways that challenge our expectations—producing outputs that seem coherent on the surface but lack deeper understanding or coherence in context. This paradox, where AI systems both mirror and distort human cognition, evokes the same absurdity explored by the zine’s contributors.

The inclusion of Richard Brautigan’s poem All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace in the issue adds an emotional and philosophical depth to the zine’s intellectual discourse. Brautigan’s whimsical yet melancholic reflections on technology and nature resonate with the cybernetic ideas presented throughout the zine. The poem captures the tension between the promise of technology and the chaos it often introduces, much like the complex relationship humans have with AI today. Just as Brautigan’s poem dances with contradictions, AI systems too present a paradox: they are both capable of remarkable feats of intelligence and eerily disconnected from the deeper meaning that human cognition relies on.

In this sense, the zine’s exploration of systems, absurdity, and autonomy provides a powerful lens through which to view the current state of AI. As we continue to develop and integrate these systems into our lives, we are confronted not just with technical challenges, but with philosophical and ethical dilemmas that demand new ways of thinking. The call for a new mind, as articulated by Varela, is perhaps more urgent today than ever before. AI forces us to question the boundaries between human and machine, and whether the systems we create to serve us might eventually reshape the very nature of what it means to be human.

Ultimately, Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 remains a vital document that blends philosophy, art, and systems thinking in a way that remains relevant today. The zine’s exploration of autonomy, feedback loops, and the absurdity inherent in all systems offers a rich intellectual framework for grappling with the challenges posed by contemporary AI. As we navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected world, the zine’s message—embracing complexity, circularity, and interconnectedness—offers valuable guidance for understanding the ever-evolving relationship between humans and machines.

======================

Cybernetic Perspectives: A Review of Cybernetic Volume 2 Number 1 (1986)

In the mid-1980s, as personal computers were beginning to transform society and artificial intelligence was capturing imaginations, a remarkable publication emerged that sought to explore the deeper philosophical and epistemological implications of cybernetics. Cybernetic Volume 2 Number 1, published in 1986, brought together an extraordinary collection of thinkers examining questions of mind, knowledge, and the relationship between humans and machines through the lens of cybernetic theory.

The issue opens with an invitation to fall through what the editor calls “a hole in the language” into an Alice in Wonderland world of “semantic traps, conceptual card houses and mental mirrors that reflect on their reflecting.” This sets the stage for a series of profound meditations on the nature of observation, knowledge, and the circular relationships between observers and the observed.

A central theme that emerges across multiple contributions is the questioning of traditional notions of objectivity and the recognition that “everything said is said by an observer.” As Humberto Maturana articulates in his contributions, we cannot step outside our own cognition to access some objective reality - rather, what we take to be knowledge is always constructed through our interactions and structural coupling with our environment. This constructivist epistemology runs counter to conventional scientific paradigms that assume a clear separation between objective facts and subjective experience.

The publication features fascinating explorations of how these ideas play out in various domains - from Francisco Varela’s examination of biology and ethics, to Bradford Keeney’s playful “Cybernetics of the Absurd” dialogue with Heinz von Foerster. Throughout, there is an emphasis on circular causality and the way systems - whether biological, cognitive, or social - operate through complex feedback loops rather than linear chains of cause and effect.

Art and poetry are woven throughout the issue, not merely as illustrations but as equal participants in meaning-making. The visual elements, including work by students at the Kansas City Art Institute and cartoons by Charley Barsotti, help convey cybernetic concepts that sometimes strain against the limits of conventional academic discourse. This integration of the artistic and scientific reflects the publication’s broader challenge to traditional disciplinary boundaries.

Perhaps most striking is how the various contributors grapple with the ethical and political implications of cybernetic thinking. Edward Sampson’s piece on “The Inversion of Mastery” particularly stands out in examining how the drive for control and mastery that characterizes much of modern science may ultimately be self-defeating. There is a recurring recognition that cybernetic perspectives demand a different kind of relationship with nature and technology - one based more on participation and reciprocity than domination.

The issue’s treatment of love and human relationship is especially noteworthy. Maturana’s discussion of love as a biological phenomenon that enables social coordination provides a fascinating bridge between scientific and humanistic perspectives. This is complemented by Mary Catherine Bateson’s reflections on her father Gregory Bateson’s work on the patterns that connect all living things.

Throughout the publication, there is a productive tension between rigorous scientific thinking and an openness to mystery and the sacred. This is perhaps best captured in von Foerster’s observation that “semantics and politics are two sides of the systemic coin named communication.” The issue repeatedly returns to questions of how meaning is constructed through interaction rather than simply discovered in an objective world.

Looking back from our present moment of ubiquitous computing and artificial intelligence, many of the questions raised in this 1986 publication feel more relevant than ever. The contributors’ wrestling with questions of consciousness, cognition, and the relationship between human and machine intelligence presages many contemporary debates. Yet their emphasis on circular causality and the inseparability of observer and observed offers a sophisticated philosophical framework that is sometimes lacking in current discussions.

The publication stands as an important artifact of a moment when cybernetic thinking was opening up new ways of understanding mind, nature, and society. Its integration of scientific rigor with philosophical depth and artistic expression models an approach to knowledge that transcends conventional academic silos. For contemporary readers grappling with questions of technology and human identity, it offers valuable conceptual tools and provocative insights that remain highly relevant.

This unique zine represents both a snapshot of an important intellectual moment and a continuing challenge to think differently about fundamental questions of knowledge, reality, and human experience. Its combination of theoretical sophistication with experimental format and integration of multiple ways of knowing makes it a fascinating document that rewards careful study and continues to generate new insights.

==== Cybernetic Volume 2 (1986) emerges as a fascinating artifact of an era when cybernetics was beginning to grapple with its own philosophical implications. This remarkable zine, equal parts academic journal and avant-garde art magazine, captures a pivotal moment in the development of systems thinking and its intersection with broader cultural and social concerns.

The publication opens with a provocative introduction that sets the tone by invoking Alice in Wonderland - inviting readers to fall through “a hole in the language” into a world of “semantic traps, conceptual card houses and mental mirrors that reflect on their reflecting.” This metaphorical framing is particularly apt, as the zine proceeds to explore the circular and self-referential nature of cybernetic thinking.

At its core, the collection wrestles with fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge, observation, and consciousness. Humberto Maturana’s contributions are particularly noteworthy, presenting his radical perspective that “Everything said is said by an observer to another observer.” This seemingly simple statement carries profound implications for how we understand scientific objectivity and the nature of knowledge itself.

The zine’s visual elements are not mere illustrations but equal participants in meaning-making. The artwork, including contributions from students at the Kansas City Art Institute and cartoonist Charley Barsotti, creates a multi-layered dialogue with the text. This integration of visual and textual elements reflects the cybernetic principle of interconnectedness and circular causality.

A recurring theme throughout the publication is the critique of traditional scientific objectivity. Francisco Varela’s piece “Laying Down a Path in Walking” articulates this powerfully, suggesting that “the chance of surviving with dignity on this planet hinges on the acquisition of a new mind.” This new mind, he argues, must move beyond the split between self and other, subject and object.

The publication gives considerable space to exploring the implications of cybernetic thinking for social issues. Bradford Keeney’s “Cybernetics of the Absurd” uses dialogue form to examine how cybernetic principles apply to therapy and social change. Meanwhile, Edward Sampson’s contribution critically examines how scientific objectivity has historically been used to justify social hierarchies and oppression.

The zine’s treatment of love and human relationship is particularly striking. Maturana’s exploration of love as a biological phenomenon that enables social phenomena offers a unique perspective that bridges the scientific and the human. This view challenges traditional separations between objective scientific observation and subjective human experience.

Poetry and literary elements interspersed throughout the publication serve not as mere decoration but as alternative ways of knowing and expressing cybernetic principles. Brian K. Rushford’s poems, published here for the first time, create “a surreal path” that embodies the cybernetic principle of coherence amid apparent chaos.

What makes this publication particularly relevant to contemporary readers is its prescient understanding of issues we’re still grappling with today. The discussions of artificial intelligence, human-machine interaction, and the limits of traditional scientific thinking feel remarkably current. Richard Brautigan’s poem “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” captures both the hope and anxiety about technology that still resonates.

The zine’s format itself embodies cybernetic principles, with its circular references, self-reflective commentary, and integration of multiple perspectives and media forms. It demonstrates how form can reflect content in meaningful ways.

As we face contemporary challenges around artificial intelligence, climate change, and social justice, this publication’s call for a new way of thinking - one that embraces complexity, circularity, and interconnectedness - feels more relevant than ever. It stands as both a historical document of a particular moment in intellectual history and a still-vital contribution to current discussions about how we might better understand and interact with our increasingly complex world.

This special volume represents more than just a collection of articles and artwork; it embodies a moment of radical rethinking about the relationship between knowledge, observation, and action. Its relevance has only grown as we grapple with similar questions in our current era of artificial intelligence and global interconnectedness.

====

Cybernetics, Absurdity, and Artificial Intelligence: A Reflection on Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 (1986)

In 1986, the world was a far different place. Personal computers were still in their infancy, the internet was nothing more than a nascent tool for researchers, and artificial intelligence (AI) was largely confined to the speculative world of academic papers and science fiction. The promises of machines that could think like humans, make decisions, or learn from experience seemed far off—distant, perhaps unattainable goals. Yet, in the midst of this technological limbo, Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 emerged, offering a strikingly prescient exploration of systems thinking, self-organization, and the relationship between humans and machines.

Fast forward nearly four decades, and AI is now an omnipresent force in our lives. From recommendation algorithms that shape what we watch on streaming platforms to sophisticated models that generate text and imagery indistinguishable from human output, artificial intelligence has evolved from an esoteric academic field into a global force of technological, economic, and cultural transformation. The very questions that cyberneticians grappled with in the ’80s—how do machines relate to the human mind, what is the role of autonomy in systems, and how does feedback shape behavior—have only grown more urgent. And as AI’s influence continues to expand, it’s worth revisiting the Cybernetic zine to examine the interplay between absurdity, human agency, and the rise of intelligent machines.

The Language of Cybernetics

Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 opens with an invitation into a world of circular languages, recursive feedback loops, and self-reflecting observers. The contributors to this issue—ranging from biologists like Francisco Varela to cybernetic philosophers like Heinz von Foerster—were grappling with ideas that would form the intellectual backbone of the emerging digital age. These thinkers argued that life itself could be understood as a system of feedback loops, where actions and reactions continually shape one another in a dynamic, often unpredictable, manner.

In particular, Varela’s exploration of “autonomous systems” and “coherence” stands out. He posits that, instead of viewing systems (whether biological, mechanical, or cognitive) as mere representations of the world, we should instead understand them as active participants in the world. They don’t just mirror their environments; they shape and define them through an ongoing process of interaction. This perspective aligns closely with today’s understanding of machine learning, where AI systems aren’t just passive tools that reflect human input, but active agents that “learn” and adapt based on ongoing interactions with data.

In hindsight, the zine’s focus on autonomy within systems is particularly striking. In 1986, AI was still largely bound to the rigid, deterministic models of early computational systems. It would be a decade before we would see the first real breakthroughs in machine learning. But the seeds of these concepts were already being sown, albeit in more abstract terms. The cyberneticians of the time, like Varela, von Foerster, and Humberto Maturana, were essentially working on the philosophical and epistemological foundations of what would later become the field of AI.

Yet, what was most intriguing about Cybernetic wasn’t just its intellectual depth, but its tone—a tone of playful absurdity, where ideas were spun out in increasingly complex and recursive patterns. This absurdity wasn’t a rejection of reason or logic, but rather an acknowledgment of the limits of understanding when confronted with systems that are too complex to be neatly categorized or controlled. The zine often evokes a sense of intellectual vertigo, a feeling that one is spiraling deeper into an ever-expanding labyrinth of thought. This recursive, almost surreal quality seems fitting when considering the trajectory of modern AI, which has, in many ways, become an endless cycle of data processing and self-optimization. The more data AI consumes, the more capable it becomes at mimicking human behavior—often in ways that feel, at times, absurd or disconnected from human reality.

The Absurdity of AI: The Unpredictability of Machine Learning

The concept of the “cybernetics of the absurd” as articulated by Bradford Keeney in this issue of Cybernetic is perhaps the most prophetic aspect of the zine. Keeney’s dialogue with Heinz von Foerster is a playful exploration of the limits of cybernetics and the absurdity that arises when systems begin to exceed our ability to fully control or predict them. This absurdity becomes even more pronounced when we apply it to the realm of modern AI.

As AI models become more sophisticated, they often behave in ways that defy our expectations. For instance, when a language model like GPT-3 or GPT-4 generates text that seems coherent, yet lacks deeper understanding, it can feel like we are interacting with something that is both intelligent and absurd at the same time. The text produced by these models is often grammatically correct and semantically plausible, but it may lack genuine comprehension, context, or even coherence in the broader sense. This mirrors the experience of the cybernetician’s “absurd world,” where systems behave in unexpected ways that challenge our traditional understanding of intelligence.

Moreover, the growing prevalence of AI in our daily lives has led to a paradoxical relationship between humans and machines. While AI systems are designed to automate decision-making and reduce the cognitive load on humans, they often introduce new forms of absurdity. Automated systems like voice assistants, recommendation algorithms, and self-driving cars, for instance, seem to promise greater efficiency but often leave us frustrated when they fail to interpret our intentions correctly. The more we rely on AI, the more we are reminded of its limitations—limitations that seem almost absurd in the context of the advanced technology behind them.

This paradox is deeply embedded in the zine’s portrayal of cybernetics as both a system of rational thought and a space for the exploration of the absurd. Keeney’s reflection on the absurdity of human-machine interactions feels remarkably relevant today, as AI systems continue to evolve and proliferate, often in ways that leave us questioning the nature of their intelligence.

From Systems Thinking to Artificial Intelligence

The zine’s discourse on cybernetics is intimately tied to systems thinking—a philosophy that seeks to understand the world in terms of interconnected, dynamic systems. This approach, while influential in the development of AI, is not without its criticisms. In the 1980s, cybernetics was often viewed as a utopian vision, one that suggested a harmonious relationship between humans and machines. Today, however, the rapid development of AI has complicated this vision, introducing not only benefits but also profound ethical, political, and existential challenges.

As AI becomes more powerful and ubiquitous, it raises fundamental questions about autonomy, control, and agency. In a sense, AI embodies the very paradox that the zine’s authors were grappling with in the 1980s: the tension between autonomy and control. AI systems are becoming increasingly autonomous, capable of making decisions and adapting to new information without human intervention. Yet, as these systems grow more complex, they also become harder to control and predict. The ethical implications of this shift are vast, and the systems-thinking approach championed in the zine offers valuable insights into how we might navigate these challenges.

The zine’s exploration of the “coherence” within systems—a term used to describe the internal consistency and self-organizing nature of complex systems—also resonates with modern debates around AI. Today’s AI systems, particularly those based on neural networks, exhibit a form of internal coherence that allows them to “learn” from data and improve over time. But this process of self-organization is not always transparent, and as AI systems become more sophisticated, they often operate as “black boxes” whose decision-making processes are opaque to the very people who designed them. This lack of transparency raises questions about accountability, bias, and the potential for unintended consequences.

Conclusion: Revisiting the Cybernetic Vision

In Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1, the early cyberneticists offer a vision of the future that blends science, philosophy, and art in an attempt to make sense of the complex systems emerging around them. Their explorations of autonomy, feedback loops, and absurdity provide an intellectual foundation for understanding the systems that would eventually give rise to AI. However, as we stand at the precipice of a new era defined by AI, we must recognize that the promises and perils of cybernetics are not easily reconciled. While AI has the potential to transform human society, it also challenges us to rethink our relationship with technology, with autonomy, and with the very notion of intelligence itself.

Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 serves as both a historical document and a philosophical exploration, offering insights that remain relevant in today’s AI-driven world. Its call to embrace the absurd, to question systems, and to reflect on the interplay between autonomy and control is not just a relic of a bygone intellectual era but a challenge to the future. As we continue to build ever more powerful AI systems, we would do well to remember the zine’s invitation: to approach the absurdity of AI with both curiosity and skepticism, recognizing that in systems, as in life, there is often as much chaos as there is order.

====

Certainly, the inclusion of the Richard Brautigan poem in Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1 adds a layer of poetic resonance to the zine’s exploration of cybernetics and absurdity. The poem, with its playful tone and existential reflections, fits seamlessly into the zine’s intellectual fabric, reinforcing the themes of autonomy, recursion, and the challenge of making sense of a world that feels increasingly alien and disjointed.

The poem, like the cybernetic ideas presented in the zine, is deeply concerned with the paradoxes of human experience—the moments where logic breaks down and where language itself seems insufficient to capture the complexities of life. Brautigan’s work, often described as whimsical yet tinged with melancholy, invites the reader into a space where meaning is both elusive and abundant, where clarity and confusion coexist. In this sense, it functions as a perfect metaphor for the absurdities of the systems discussed by the cyberneticists.

The Poem: A Meditation on Systems and Meaning

Brautigan’s poetry often presents a world that feels fragmented, where disparate elements are thrown together in ways that challenge conventional logic. This quality aligns well with the zine’s exploration of cybernetics as a field that seeks to understand the world through systems thinking, yet recognizes that systems themselves are often far from orderly. The poem’s nonsensical and seemingly random imagery mirrors the kind of recursive thinking that cybernetics involves—where systems continuously loop back on themselves, creating new patterns of meaning and experience.

For example, the poem reflects a sensibility that echoes the cyberneticians’ focus on the circular nature of feedback loops. In cybernetics, the observer is always part of the system, just as in Brautigan’s verse, the act of observation is intricately tied to the unfolding of meaning itself. There is no distance between subject and object; both are engaged in a process of mutual influence. This concept of “circularity” or “self-referencing” in systems thinking is similar to Brautigan’s treatment of experience—he seems to suggest that meaning is something constructed, an ongoing process that is constantly being reshaped.

Moreover, the poem’s whimsical, almost absurd nature, where the expected turns into something strange or unexpected, mirrors the very absurdity discussed in the zine. This absurdity is not about rejecting logic entirely but acknowledging the limits of our understanding when faced with complexity. Just as the cyberneticists of the time grappled with ideas that often spiraled into recursive loops and paradoxes, Brautigan’s poem suggests a similar dance with meaning—an invitation to embrace the chaos, to let go of fixed interpretations, and to engage with the world as something fluid and open-ended.

AI and the Absurd: The Poem’s Reflection in Today’s World

Today, when we consider the implications of artificial intelligence, the themes of the Brautigan poem resonate powerfully. Modern AI systems are themselves recursive and self-referential. They learn from feedback loops and make decisions based on patterns they detect in data. But just like the poem, which plays with expectation and meaning, AI can sometimes produce results that are both profound and absurd. Machine learning models, while capable of generating impressively accurate predictions or creating human-like text, can also produce responses that are bizarre, nonsensical, or lacking in true understanding.

Consider the phenomenon of deepfakes or text generation models like GPT-3, which can convincingly imitate human speech and thought but often produce outputs that are eerily disconnected from context or reality. These systems, much like Brautigan’s poetic musings, operate in a space between coherence and absurdity. They offer a mirror to human creativity, but in doing so, they also highlight the limitations of that mirror.

The poem’s playful tone, coupled with its deeper philosophical undercurrents, evokes the very tension at the heart of today’s AI development. On one hand, AI systems are advancing at an astonishing rate, pushing the boundaries of what we understand about cognition, creativity, and decision-making. On the other, they often reveal the inherent absurdity of trying to replicate human thought through machines. The promise of AI is that it can think, learn, and adapt—yet, like Brautigan’s poem, it reminds us that this process is often fraught with contradictions, strange patterns, and moments where the meaning seems just out of reach.

In a way, the poem becomes a metaphor for the current AI landscape: a space where we are both observers and participants, where meaning is not fixed, and where the very tools we create to make sense of the world also challenge our understanding of it. As AI systems continue to evolve, they become more autonomous, capable of learning and adapting in ways that were once unimaginable. Yet, as they do, they also introduce new absurdities—decisions and outputs that seem to defy our expectations and challenge our conventional ways of thinking.

The Intersection of Poetics, Philosophy, and Technology

What is perhaps most intriguing about the combination of the poem and the cybernetic philosophy is the way they invite us to think about the intersection of poetics, philosophy, and technology. Both the zine and the poem engage with the idea that systems—whether biological, mechanical, or cognitive—are not merely mechanical structures but living, dynamic processes that evolve and adapt. This perspective aligns with contemporary debates about AI, where the very idea of “intelligence” is increasingly being understood as something emergent, shaped by ongoing interactions with the environment rather than pre-programmed or fixed.

In the 1980s, cyberneticians were already considering how these systems of feedback and self-organization could be applied to human cognition and machine learning. They were asking questions that seem eerily prescient today, such as: Can machines “think”? Can they learn? And, perhaps most importantly, what does it mean for something to be “alive” in the first place? These questions are at the heart of AI today, and they are questions that were being asked not just by engineers and technologists, but also by philosophers, poets, and artists.

Brautigan’s inclusion in the zine, therefore, adds a layer of intellectual and emotional depth to the otherwise dry and technical discourse of cybernetics. His poem introduces a kind of poetry of thought, where the rules are not fixed and where meaning is in constant flux. This sensibility mirrors the very heart of AI’s potential and its limitations—machines that learn, adapt, and sometimes create, but do so in ways that are often beyond our control or full understanding.

Conclusion: A New Vision for AI

As we reflect on the convergence of cybernetics, poetry, and AI, we are reminded that the challenge of understanding systems—whether human or machine—is as much philosophical as it is technical. Cybernetic Vol. 2 No. 1, with its blend of deep theoretical insights and whimsical absurdity, offers a compelling lens through which we can view the evolution of AI. The inclusion of Richard Brautigan’s poem only enhances this exploration, reminding us that the road to understanding—whether it leads through cybernetics or AI—is often circuitous, filled with paradoxes and moments of absurdity.

In the age of AI, where machines are learning and adapting in ways that often seem as baffling as they are brilliant, we are invited to embrace this absurdity, to question the nature of intelligence itself, and to engage with the systems we create as dynamic, evolving participants in the world. Just as Brautigan’s poem asks us to play with meaning, so too must we learn to navigate the strange, recursive dance of AI, where every question leads to another, and where understanding is never quite as simple as it seems.