Second order observation can be viewed as a first order observation of the observation itself. However, Second order observation is in a different domain than the first order observation.
The problem with 2nd order #cybernetics, as I see it, is that the process of "observing how an observer is doing the observing" presumes that another (external, 2nd-order) observer has more to say and a better understanding of the original observing process than the (1st-order) observed observer itself that is actually ***doing*** the observation.
It seems to me like the tacit re-introduction of #behaviorism and *control* vs. *controlled*.
In #Cybernetics as in physics, distinctions of order may be spurious, artifacts of a given form of analysis or relative to a chosen basis. It takes more work to discover invariant structures. And we have to consider the possibility of reciprocal reflection and mutually recursive observation.
Physics and other "exact" sciences are "easy" as they deal with #Structures and the invariant, universal and inexorable #NaturalLaws that make them #controllable by inputs from the outside.
#Systems are different. Their main purpose is to enforce their own local set of temporary and arbitrary system #Rules which are not applied from the outside, as Laws are, but are rather the emergent result of the system's organization, history, and operation.
I parse those terms a bit differently, viewing all sorts of systems within a triadic sign-relational framework. There we have (O) an object system, the focus of our attention in a given study, (S) a sign system, the formalizations and visualizations we use to describe and depict O, and (I) a system of interpretant signs, which may be (a) the same sign system S, (b) signs of a comparable character at the same level of being, or (c) signs of a radically distinct type.
Yes, another version of #CSPeirce's triad is #WRAshby's distinction between #Machine (object, observed phenomenon), #System (a finite set of variables and their relationships selected by the #Observer), and the #Model created by the observer to describe or/and #Control the machine.
However, I was speaking about the different phenomena (machines) and their *controllability*.
Mere #Physical (static or dynamic) #Structures driven by known (discoverable, invariant) #NaturalLaws as opposed to emergent #DynamicalSystems that are under the influence of arbitrary, local #Rules as explained by #HHPattee.
Had many discussions with Howard #Pattee 15 or 20 years ago on the old Organization, Complexity, Autonomy (OCA) List and later on the Peirce List, but almost always felt like we were talking past each other. This usually happens due to a disconnect between dyadic and triadic frames of reference, often stemming from a failure to appreciate the consequences of #TriadicRelationIrreducibility, a core concept in #Peirce's theories of signs and inquiry.
I only recently found out about him while reading *Behavior and Culture in One Dimension* by DP Waters which largely expands upon HH Pattee's work. I really enjoy Pattee's clear-cut writing style and he is also one of the few people I have a hard time finding any flaw in their line of reasoning. For example, his distinction between Laws vs Rules fits perfectly with my own effort of trying to explain to my engineering friends the difference between developing a Product (Structure) and a System as they would regularly confuse the two. 😀
I don't know about the *disconnect between dyadic and triadic frames of reference* as you put it, but here is a doodle I made a few months ago while reading Pattee and Waters that you may find interesting:
