SECOND-ORDER CYBERNETICS, SEMIOTICS AND THE ART
Niculae V. Mihaita
We take into consideration the concept of second order cybernetics and Pierce‘s approach of semiotics fundamentals. I am also an observer, experimenter and mental interpreter of metasigns given to the audience by Eugene Ionesco‘s absurd theatre. The interpreting of signs meaning is determinate by the context. From Semiotics ‗point of view, the objects I‘m studying (The Love Poem Lucifer or Evening Star, the short play Foursome and the most known, The Chairs) gives me a lot of information about differences or NOT between actors, positive and negative interactions and become knowledge when I see them as signs. Second order cybernetics brings to the semiotics the idea of closure of structural coupling, interpretation and language [Soren, Cybersemiotics, 2008].
Them, the objects chosen are, for EXPERIMENTER, the YOYO in figure 1, and signifies the OBJECT of recursion.
Boje [Boje, David, 2005] redefines antenarrative communication more holistically as an enactive phenomenon, and makes connections between varieties of disciplines in order to find out how antenarratives help us understand communication in the world. Instead of the finite event of producing an artifact, betting is a process and an end in itself, through which the practitioners might gain self-awareness.
By synthesizing enactive-thinking in virtual space and the practice of communicating we appeal for valuable insights into the creative mind, challenging scholars and practitioners alike.
Drawing contributions as above ideograms are useful for practicing cyberneticians, statisticians, researchers and academics, Informational Statistics applications [Mihaita, 2010] explores the ways in which liberal arts writers seek to involve, create and engage with new and diverse audiences from beginners encountering and participating in the work unexpectedly, to professionals from other disciplines and members of particular communities.
Taking into consideration the Second-order Cybernetics‘s paradigm, any playwriter or painter is an autopoietic system (auto=self, poietic = creation). He is an Observer of his environment, in my case study he could be Eugčne Ionesco and Samuel Beckett or Manet in real Crises situations.
As Experimenter he is writing short plays as Foursome or plays as Chairs or Waiting for Godot or paint many times the nearly the same Manet‘s Execution of Maximilian.
As Interpretants of the above works they give answers to questions and sometimes surprise with them. Could be something hidden behind what we see, hear or read? Could be some coding and quantitative methods and measurements reveal something new or an palimpsest as a negative reflection (Chairs versus Foursome) of Eugčne Ionesco‘s Absurd Theatre?