Reading the Organizational Complex: Cybernetics, Space, Discourse by Reinhard Martin provides motivation to learn and explore for understanding. But as we all know everything comes with a cost, a cost of time, a cost of money, a cost of a lot of things. I think Martin makes the argument apparent in the following line “one can of coarse see how each kind of society corresponds to a particular kind of machine-“ and then he goes on to express the notions of sovereign societies which entail ideas of Fordism, disciplinary societies being defined and influenced through thermal dynamics and sensual energies, to cybernetics which evidently control environmental behavior. It’s a great responsibility to a sense, to handle such command or exploration, because there is no black and white in our human living culture. There is bad and there is good, it’s inevitable and so we must learn to be able to balance out the two but find ways to influence a better good. To find the grey area between the influence of living autonomies or subjects upon a behavioral atmosphere is a goal. As we become more advanced in technology, every moment we wake up to a new day, is an experiment in process, some of our minds are not programmed to believe so because we find ourselves tied into our own personal ordinary lives, which is perfectly fine. But there is some truth that we are under a systemic cloud and in fact our living behaviors influence the norms of tomorrow. This is where responsibility ties in, and Martin does a great job when defining that of influential societal typologies as a product of power and knowledge, even the smartest machine scraped and polished out of metal, could never think like that of a human mind that has read, explored, failed and explored over and over again. This is an important difference between the machine and the brain which overall satisfies our interest in human development rather than machine influence. 

      So now, we come into the debate of who has the authority to gain such access to a tech machine that influences data and responsive systems. This is a relevant question when we consider socio-economics, the existing racial / socio-political drama we engage with in the world every day and why, as a designer, I am interested in the understanding, progress and stimulation of such smart machine(s) in society. While Martin speaks of Michel Foucault and Gilles Deluez and other great minds who aspired to this enlightment, I was mostly intrigued and excited to read about Liss Werner’s interest in Influencing urbanism through Cybernetics. The city is the best experiment of social interaction and activity, to be able to influence networking systems to understand its needs and preferences of human physiology in the built environment is fascinating to engage with. As well as, to activate and stimulate its beneficial aspects such as cultural life, commerce and creativity. So, we must remember that the urban city is completely different from that of the agricultural city, from that of the industrial city, from that of the suburban city. Therefore, a simulation of programs and interactions become relative to understanding the possibilities of specific hyper-densities. Especially, in areas where there is a lack of a successful economy. Can artificial intelligence or cyberneticism create a system where the economy flourishes, such as a hyper-consumer state. Although, hyper-consumerism has been critiqued for its wasteful economy, it is still a worthy analysis to take notice of when we have struggling environments that lead to years of cultural and social/racial regression all around the world. These things become all interesting at the greater scale of urbanity. With that being said typologies in cyberneticism and architecture are exactly that what we create in the manipulation of form through synthesis or algorithm. It is not an interest in creating machine brains, but rather hypothetically taking an experience or environment to work as a stimulant for a successful output or answer.         

​

​