Cybernetics and Cybersecurity

Cybernetics tends to be as diverse as the spectrum of artefacts, entities and systems to which it intelligibly or contextually applies.

If applied to cybersecurity, must cybernetics necessarily internally model and assume at least the level of variety (as complexity, combinatorial entropy) that its object of study asserts? In this case, does cybernetics then acquire both the intractable vulnerabilities and the endlessly recursive self-organisational, transformational metamorphosis of indefinitely-extensible logic that is technology’s natural inheritance? How, in essence, can we ever hope to comprehensively and unambiguously model (such) a system without the model eventually becoming, Borges’ map-like, that system? Is the referential bootstrap of paradoxical logical self-containment actually the lowest common denominator between the model and the modelled, the signifier and the signified?

If both sides of this equivocation and equation are profoundly interdependent – effectively containing each other – in what ways do they exist in gestalt as a unified system? How to generate closure and an ontological skeleton key purposed to solve the unsolvable question assurance, certainty and logical closure by not solving it? How, in short, to dissolve the organisational silo by not dissolving it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.