°°°°~x§x-<@>
Introduction
Scybernethics and Varela’s “cybernetic dialectic” (Bitbol 2021) both address conceptual dualities, but they do so with different emphases and methodologies. Scybernethics, developed by Christophe Rigon, is an approach that emphasizes a practical, embodied, and self-transformative method of inquiry, while Varela’s cybernetic dialectic, particularly as expressed in “Not one, not two,” (Varela 1976) is more focused on overcoming dualities through a shift in the logical framework itself. Both approaches involve a move beyond traditional binary logic.
N.B.: It is interesting to note that while the scybernethics framework was elaborated under the general influence of Varela’s enactive paradigm, this particular aspect was developed totally independently (Rigon didn’t knew Varela’s text at the time), giving rise to an interesting convergent distinction of the two approaches.
Here’s a comparison of the key aspects:
Scybernethics Dialectics
- Conceptual Dipoles: Scybernethics uses “conceptual dipoles” (also called dualities, dichotomies, or dialectical opposites) as a central tool for inquiry. These are pairs of terms that are complementary or in opposition, such as form/process, inside/outside, and explanation/understanding. The approach emphasizes working with the tension between these polarities.
- Emphasis on the “Weaker” Side: Scybernethics emphasizes focusing on the “weaker” side of a conceptual dipole, which is often the more elusive or difficult-to-formalize aspect. By prioritizing the “weaker parent,” a deeper understanding of the overall concept is achieved.
- Dia-Logic: Scybernethics employs a “dia-logic” approach, which is a way of thinking that goes beyond binary logic. It involves a circulation between first-person (1P) and third-person (3P) perspectives. This circulation aims for a balance or “homeostatic balancing of proportionality”.
- Second-Order Logic²: Scybernethics utilizes “second-order logic²,” which is not merely the concept of a concept but also includes the conceptualization itself and the concept of the conceptualizer. This involves a self-referential element, recognizing that the observer is part of the system being observed.
- Quasi-Bidimensionality: The concept of “quasi-bidimensionality” refers to the idea that concepts can be understood as having two dimensions, one of which is classical and metric while the other is understood through self-referentiality or enacted distributed coherence.
- Processual DimenTion: Scybernethics introduces the notion of the “processual dimenTion,” which highlights the dynamic and incalculable aspect of reality that cannot be fully captured by static forms. It is the “lived time experience” and is related to the phenomenological experience of an internal gesture.
- Suspension of Judgment: A key step in the Scybernethics methodology is the temporary suspension of judgment, which allows for a deeper understanding and avoids premature conclusions.
- Ambijective Gesture: This is a key element of the Scybernethic approach, defined as a lived first-person experiential cycling gesture between first (phenomenological) and third person (intersubjective/objective) perspectives, to achieve a co-determination of the (meta)epistemological point of view and the experience of body homeostatic meaning-making.
- Iterative Process: Scybernethics emphasizes an iterative approach, meaning that it involves a cyclical process of exploration and refinement. This is in contrast with linear thinking, and influenced by computer science and PDP simulations.
- “Not four, not three”: This motto is related to the quasi-bidimensionality, expressing that when a formal distinction is made, the relation between the polarities need to be refined through experience.
Varela’s Cybernetic Dialectic
- “Not one, not two”: This is Varela’s famous phrase that encapsulates his approach to overcoming dualities. It suggests moving beyond the limitations of binary thinking (either/or) and towards a more inclusive perspective, by considering that the “it” (the form) and “the process leading to it” are not two separate things.
- Star-Statements: Varela used “star-statements” to indicate how to go from a duality to a trinity. These are conceptual tools to reframe the dualistic framework.
- Rejection of Standard Positions: Varela’s approach rejects physicalist monism and property dualism, instead, focusing on a dynamical and participatory view of consciousness and body.
- Emphasis on Dynamics: Varela’s approach highlights the dynamic interplay between mind and body, which are seen as complementary levels of organization within a unique dynamics. The mind is considered a “conversational pattern” emerging from bodily processors.
- Focus on Logical Framework: Varela’s cybernetic dialectic aims to change the very logical framework from which dualities are derived. This involves a shift in how we conceptualize the relationship between mind and body, and also what mind is.
Similarities
- Moving Beyond Dualism: Both approaches seek to move beyond traditional dualistic thinking. They emphasize that seemingly opposite concepts are not necessarily separate, but rather are interconnected or complementary.
- Emphasis on Process: Both approaches place a strong emphasis on process rather than static forms or objects.
- Importance of Experience: Both methodologies value experience in their approaches. Scybernethics directly uses the first person experience as a way to cycle between the subjective and objective poles of knowledge.
- Influence of Cybernetics: Both are influenced by cybernetics and second-order cybernetics.
Differences
- Methodological vs. Conceptual: Scybernethics is presented as more of a methodology, a practical way of exploring and understanding the world through conceptual dipoles and a dia-logical, iterative process. Varela’s “cybernetic dialectic” is more of a conceptual framework for reframing the way dualities are understood.
- Self-Transformation: Scybernethics explicitly aims at the active transformation of the observer-actor, while Varela’s approach is more focused on the shift in understanding itself. Scybernethic(s) is the “enaction of the enactor”.
- Emphasis on First-Person Experience: Scybernethics places a greater emphasis on first-person experience and the “ambijective gesture”, while Varela’s approach, while acknowledging the importance of experience, is more focused on conceptual and logical shifts.
- Formalization: Scybernethics uses dia-grams to formalize and spatialize conceptual dipoles, using a “quasi-bidimensional” approach. Varela’s approach doesn’t involve such visual tools for formalization, instead, its emphasis is on the logic.
- Use of Computer Simulations: Scybernethics uses computer simulations as a tool to explore cognitive processes, seeing them as extensions of the self. This is not a prominent feature of Varela’s dialectic, which relies more on conceptual re-framing.
- Second-order Logic: Scybernethics explicitly defines and uses a “second-order logic²” which includes the concept of the conceptualizer, while Varela’s “not one, not two” can be seen as a starting point for the deconstruction of the first order dualism, but it does not includes the self-referential aspect.
Comparison Table
Aspect | Scybernethics | Varela’s Cybernetic Dialectic |
---|---|---|
Core Concept | Works with “conceptual dipoles” through practical, embodied inquiry | “Not one, not two” approach to overcome dualities through logical framework shifts |
Methodology | Practical and experiential; uses dia-logic approach with first-person/third-person perspective cycling | Conceptual and logical; uses “star-statements” to transform dualities into trinities |
Primary Focus | Self-transformation and practical inquiry through embodied experience | Theoretical reframing of logical frameworks |
Key Tools | – Conceptual dipoles – Quasi-bidimensional diagrams – Computer simulations – Ambijective gesture | – Star-statements – Logical reframing – Dynamic participatory view |
Treatment of Experience | Central to methodology; emphasizes first-person experience and cycling between subjective/objective | Acknowledged but secondary to logical framework shifts |
Logic Approach | Second-order logic² including the conceptualizer | Focus on overcoming first-order dualism |
Formalization Method | Uses dia-grams and quasi-bidimensional approach | Primarily conceptual without specific visual tools |
Role of Observer | Explicitly includes observer as part of the system; emphasizes self-referentiality | Acknowledges observer but focuses more on framework transformation |
Process View | Iterative and cyclical process emphasizing refinement | Dynamic interplay between complementary levels |
Distinctive Feature | “Not four, not three” motto emphasizing experiential refinement | “Not one, not two” motto emphasizing logical transformation |
Summary
In summary, while both Scybernethics and Varela’s “cybernetic dialectic” share a common goal of moving beyond traditional dualistic thinking, Scybernethics is a more practically oriented, embodied, iterative, and self-transformative methodology, whereas Varela’s approach, particularly his “Not one, not two” concept, focuses more on the logical and conceptual reframing of the dualities. Scybernethics, while using Varela’s general ideas as a foundation, has developed them in an “idiosyncratic” way based on lived experience, including tools such as conceptual dipoles and quasi-bidimensional diagrams, leading to his second-order logic².

°°°°~x§x-<@>
References
Bitbol Michel (2021). The Tangled Dialectic of Body and Consciousness: A Metaphysical Counterpart of
Radical Neurophenomenology. Constructivist foundations, 16, pp.141-151. hal-03469727
Varela F. J. (1976). Not one, not two. CoEvolution Quarterly 12: 62–67. https://cepa.info/2055