` I started looking for some sources on New Cybernetics, and these are the first I found -     * Peter Harries-Jones (1988), ``The Self-Organizing Polity: An Epistemological Analysis of Political Life by Laurent Dobuzinskis`` in: Canadian Journal of Political Science (Revue canadienne de science politique), Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 431-433.  The new cybernetics is a study of self-organizing systems, which looks beyond the issues of the ``first cybernetics`` - the politics and sciences of control - to the autonomy and self-organization capabilities of complex systems.   Unlike its predecessor, the new cybernetics concerns itself with the interaction of autonomous political actors and subgroups and the practical can reflexive consciousness of the subject who produce and reproduce the structure of political community. A dominant consideration is that of recursiveness, or self-reference of political action both with regards to the expression of political conciousness and with the ways in which systems build upon themselves.   * Tom Darby (1982), The Feast: Meditations on Politics and Time on p. 220 states:  ... the so-called ``new cybernetics`` ... attempts to move away from the cybernetics of Wiener. Whereas the old cybernetics is still tied to the image of the machine (i.e., physics), the new adheres to the image of organism (biology). The main task of the new cybernetics is to overcome entropy through using ``noise`` as positive feedback.  * Gertrudis van de Vijver (1994), New Perspectives on Cybernetics: Self-Organization, Autonomy and Connectionism on p.97:  With Pask, we agree that the old cybernetics, the new cybernetics and, we like to add, the (old and new) cognitive paradigms are not that revolutionary different from each other. And as is mostly the case, the so-called new paradigms are in a sense ``older`` that the ``old`` paradigms. The so-called ``old`` paradigms were in most cases strategically succesful specializations in a general framework. Their sucess was based on a strong but useful simplification of the issues. The ``new`` paradigms are further specializations in the earlier one, or (as is mostly the case) a strategic retreat which boradens the specialized approach and is a return to the orginal, broader inspiration and outlook. This is what happens, we believe, with the new cybernetics, the post-cybernetics, as well as with the new cognitive approach...  Now if I would make an article with just these three sources it would look like this:   New cybernetics is a study of self-organizing systems. It looks beyond the issues of the ``first``, ``old`` of ``original`` cybernetics and their politics and sciences of control, to the autonomy and self-organization capabilities of complex systems. Peter Harries-Jones (1988), ``The Self-Organizing Polity: An Epistemological Analysis of Political Life by Laurent Dobuzinskis`` in: Canadian Journal of Political Science (Revue canadienne de science politique), Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 431-433.  === Overview === The so-called ``new cybernetics`` is an attempts to move away from the cybernetics of Norbert Wiener. Whereas the old cybernetics is still tied to the image of the machine and physics, the new adheres to the image of organism and biology. The main task of the new cybernetics is to overcome entropy through using ``noise`` as positive feedback. Tom Darby (1982), The Feast: Meditations on Politics and Time, p.220.   Unlike its predecessor, the new cybernetics concerns itself with the interaction of autonomous political actors and subgroups and the practical can reflexive consciousness of the subject who produce and reproduce the structure of political community. A dominant consideration is that of recursiveness, or self-reference of political action both with regards to the expression of political conciousness and with the ways in which systems build upon themselves.  === Old and New Cybernetics === Gordon Pask and others have stated, that the old cybernetics, the new cybernetics and, we like to add, the (old and new) cognitive paradigms are not that revolutionary different from each other. And as is mostly the case, the so-called new paradigms are in a sense ``older`` that the ``old`` paradigms. The so-called ``old`` paradigms were in most cases strategically succesful specializations in a general framework. Their sucess was based on a strong but useful simplification of the issues. The ``new`` paradigms are further specializations in the earlier one, or (as is mostly the case) a strategic retreat which boradens the specialized approach and is a return to the org