Yveline Rey: Interview with Heinz von Foerster
Y. At the conclusion of your paper, On Constructing a Reality, which was published in Paul Watzlawick’s book The Invented Reality, you ask, “What are the consequences of all this in ethics and aesthetics?” You also wrote, “The ethical imperative: Act always so as to increase the number of Choices.” And, “The Aesthetical Imperative: If you desire to see, learn how to act.” Can you add something to the connections between ethics, aesthetics and change; which from my point of view, are the three basic coordinates in family therapy?
H. I like your three coordinates, because all three have a second-order flavor. And, of course, I am delighted that two of my imperatives correspond to two of your coordinates. However, I feel some uneasiness that your third coordinate “change” is not yet accompanied by an appropriate imperative. Let me remedy this situation at once by inventing an imperative for you; the therapeutic imperative: “If you want to be yourself, change!” Is this paradoxical? Of course! What else would you expect from change?
Y. You say with so much self assurance, “Paradoxical, of course!” How can you connect change with paradox?
H. Easily! You remember paradox? It yields one meaning when apprehended one way, and one meaning when apprehended the other. What do you do when I say “I am a liar,” do you believe me? If you do, then I must have spoken the truth; but if I had spoken the truth, I must have lied, etc., etc. What is the problem here? Lying? No, the problem is “I,” the shortest selfreferential loop. When speaking about oneself, using “I,” magic is performed. One creates oneself by creating oneself. “I” is the operator who is the result of the operation.
Y. This is all magic to me. Where does “change” come in?
H. The paradoxical nature of change is much richer than the orthodox “Paradox of the Liar” which switches from “true” to “false,” and from “false” to “true,” and so on and so forth in dynamic stability. The unorthodox nature of change arises when you apprehend “change” any way you wish to apprehend it, and it will yield something else, otherwise it wouldn’t be “change.” This is, I believe, its therapeutic force.
Y. But you said, “If you want to be yourself; change!” How can you be yourself and change?
H. I wanted to appeal to ancient wisdom. It is 2600 years old and comes from the I Ching. Under the 58th symbol “Fu,” or “The Turning Point,” it says, “The ultimate frame for change is the unchanging.” ⇒ Frame for Change
Y. (Smiling) This conversation with you, Heinz, has been a joyful and exciting day of learning. It seems to have mirrored the theme of our conference; ethics and family therapy. It feels as though I’ve discovered a new freedom within a precise and rigorous framework. This framework, clearly defined by the fundamental guidelines of therapeutic practice, encourages communication with another, thereby creating a new space. Does this not broaden our possibilities by redrawing the line of the horizon? If rigor were combined with creativity, the ethics of choice could also be the ethics of change! At least that is the very personal understanding which I have gained from our encounter. I now have an exquisite diffused feeling of a door which opens onto another door, which opens onto another door, which opens onto another door...
~
VON FOERSTER, Heinz, 2003. Ethics and Second-Order Cybernetics. In: VON FOERSTER, Heinz, Understanding Understanding. New York, NY: Springer New York. p. 287–304. [Accessed 21 July 2022]. ISBN 978-0-387-95392-2, p. 303–304.