Written in 1982 for a closed meeting of scholars, provides an insight into the thinking of the time and in particular to the contributions of the author to systems and cybernetics. Illustrates the challenge of technology to humankind and sees the coming of a second Tower of Babel which is as counter‐productive as the first. Believed it was necessary to consider practical strategies for change. Looks at the concept of human identity, considering “Oneself: a systems viewpoint”, “A Tripartite selfhood” and “The community consequence”. Provides a schematic framework for the discussion of the social cybernetics of the human condition. Considers a basic stance, and the application of rules detected by cybernetic scholarship. Outlines strategies for inducing change and examines new dimensions for planning. Emphasizes the importance of regarding planning as a matter of obtaining recognition of the frameworks that have been introduced and then facilitating choice.
Article navigation
1 October 1996
Conceptual Paper|
October 01 1996
Man in a garrulous silence
Stafford Beer
Stafford Beer
President, World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics (WOSC)
Search for other works by this author on:
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Online ISSN: 1758-7883
Print ISSN: 0368-492X
© MCB UP Limited
1996
Kybernetes (1996) 25 (7-8): 14–31.
Citation
Beer S (1996), "Man in a garrulous silence". Kybernetes, Vol. 25 No. 7-8 pp. 14–31, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/03684929610149620
Download citation file:
New and popular articles
Suggested Reading
System theory and the roots of democracy
Kybernetes (June,1996)
Cybernetics and Social Science: Theories and Research in Sociocybernetics
Kybernetes (June,1991)
Pockets of irrationality in an increasingly rational world: An effort to simplify unmanageable environmental over‐complexity?
Kybernetes (December,2001)
Jerry Wiesner, Scientist, Statesman, Humanist: Memories and Memoirs
Kybernetes (March,2006)
Interdependence of systems theories – potential innovation supporting innovation
Kybernetes (August,2006)
Related Chapters
Why the Biomedical Research Ethics Model Is Inappropriate for Social Sciences: A Response to ‘Responsible to Whom? Obligations to Participants and Society in Social Science Research’ by Matt Sleat
Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences
About ‘Othering’ Ourselves in a System with Discrepant Values: The Research Ethics Review Process Today
Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences
Towards Common Principles for Social Science Research Ethics: A Discussion Document for the Academy of Social Sciences
Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences
Recommended for you
These recommendations are informed by your reading behaviors and indicated interests.
