The question of steersmanship illustrates the demand for both the capacity for symbolic representations and the capacity for organizational closure. (Time for Dialogue and Monological Implementation)
(1) In terms of the first position (A), concerned with symbolic representations, it would have to involve: the use of models in anticipation and planning, be it through "thought experiments" or simulations, and in search and screening, interpretation and evaluation, of information from environment and "invironment" (internal environment).
This works well as long as it is realized that the maps may be mistaken for the territory; that attempts are often made to adjust the territory to the Map, rather than vice versa, in a kind of process of "self-validation", and that it may exhibit shifts that are not recognized.
(2) In terms of the second position (B), concerned with the organizational closure of living organisms, the reply may be: steersmanship would have to involve operations internal to the system, which secure the presence of the participants in a self-creative organizational process, and form and maintain the organizational boundaries from within, according to principles of autonomy.
This is feasible when consciousness is not required in or by the system, and when the autonomy of the whole is the main concern. In both positions (A) and (B), there is a lack of awareness of mechanisms and conditions promoting a mono-perspective.
(3) In terms of the third position (D), my normative reply to the above question is: steersmanship presupposes the capacity to recognize Gestaltswitches (such as exhibited by scientific communities), and has to make room for the operation of both symbolic representation and organizational self-closure.
A climate for the dialogical crossing of perspectives indicated by the Delta modes should be provided, as a prerequisite for participation and conscious regulation, and it should be sensitive to boomerang effects. However, this would not work if there would be dialogical discourse all the time, or if one should always be aware of what one is doing. There is a time for dialogical evaluation and participation, and a time for monological Implementation—although expert systems should be implemented with the dialogical consideration in view.
As distinct from the objective pretensions of the first position, (A), and the inclusive subject-object concern of the second, (B), the predominant concern of the third position, (D), is with intersubjectivity as exhibited by cognitive and sociocultural systems: Such systems are rooted in both nature and culture, and allow for the emergence of consciousness, which requires the crossing of perspectives.
Thus, Plato's term kybernetikos may be applied to the ship and its crew, considered together as a sociocultural system. If such a system were incapable to resort to Alpha-conditions, it might never reach its destination and would turn into a flying Dutchman. If it were incapable of shifting into Beta-conditions however, it would turn into a crewless and mindless machine, rigidly and blindly adhering to a target-oriented course, with destruction in its wake. The Delta mode opens up for the shift between participatory networking and reasonable command, making it a meaningful and intersubjective concern.
~
BRÅTEN, Stein, 1984. The Third Position—beyond Artificial and Autopoietic Reduction. Kybernetes. 1 January 1984. Vol. 13, no. 3, p. 157–163. doi 
, page , page