Dear Dr. Grover, Very interesting and relevant question! Actually, I am not aware of any accepted formal definition. That explains why I tried to give a tentative identification of the essence of third level cybernetic systems in one of my recent articles. That is, from a cybernetic point of view, every system reduces the entropy by creating some form of spatiotemporal and cognitive order. In the case of first-level cybernetic systems, the triplet of computing-communication-control is the means of it, while in the case of second-level cybernetic systems it is triggered by the triplet of integrating-learning-adaptation. I think, in the case of third order cybernetic systems the order is addressed by the holism-emergence-evolution triplet. Kind regards, Imre Horvath

Dear Dr. Imre Horwath

Thank you for responding, whatever you have tried, it suits to my own line of thinking in this regard. Let other people also have their views for final understanding and conclusion about the concept.

Dear Vijay this is is an interesting topic and please find the attachment of paper on third order cybernetics that may help u in understanding more about it.

Now  the subject-less theories of society that can’t explain how individuals reproduce social structures and how the sociality is reproduced by them have been considered in third order cybernetic approach. 

Dear Colleagues, Mancilla, R.G. also ideated fourth order cybernetics as the realm of self-observing and reflective systems, and proposed psycho-structural cybernetics as a model of it. My observation is that the higher level interpretations of cybernetics originate in the field of social systems. Socio-cybernetics is typically interpreted as the application of systems science, including cybernetics epistemologies, methodologies, principles, practices, and conducts, in the domains of problems in sociology and other social sciences. However, I wonder: should not we make a distinction between techno-cybernetics and socio-cybernetics, and techno-socio-cybernetics? The local-processes, meta-processes, and the macro-processes (as well as the actors and contexts) are different, aren't they? How can we interpret third and fourth order cybernetics in the field of complex technical or complex pseudo-technical systems?

cybernetics means  reconceptualization of many concepts which are routinely accepted without challenge.cybernetician has to account her own activity then cybernetics become second order cybernetics

third order cybernetics means whole system may redirect itself where observer and the system evolve together

So, do they form an ecosystem?

What does observer mean in the context of complex technical systems?