Context
Why This Page Exists
The term cybernetics carries historical assumptions that automatically trigger expectations of lineage, inheritance, or continuation. Most readers encountering the term map it directly to mid-20th-century control theory and assume any modern usage must be an extension or refinement of that tradition.
This page exists to interrupt that assumption explicitly and permanently.
It is not a defensive clarification and not a historical correction.
It is a boundary declaration.
Its purpose is to state, without ambiguity, where classical cybernetics ends, where CFIM begins, and why the two should not be conflated despite shared terminology.
Classical Cybernetics: Scope and Termination
Classical cybernetics emerged as a study of control and communication in external systems. Its domain consisted of machines, signal loops, abstract organisms, and modeled environments. Regulation was achieved through abstraction, feedback modeling, and externally imposed control mechanisms.
The interior of the system was treated as a black box.
Lived internal states were deliberately excluded.
This exclusion was not accidental. Emotion, cognition as lived experience, and embodied memory were regarded as non-formalizable variables and therefore placed outside the operational scope of the field.
As a result, classical cybernetics stabilized into a closed domain focused on external regulation and did not progress into internal system governance.
The field did not fail.
It terminated at the limits it defined for itself.
Direction of Classical Cybernetics
The discovery and operational direction of classical cybernetics followed a consistent vector. Systems were identified first, then abstracted into models, then formalized through equations, and finally controlled through regulatory mechanisms derived from those abstractions.
In canonical form:
system → abstraction → model → control
This direction presupposes that structure precedes motion and that behavior can be governed by laws defined independently of lived variability.
That presupposition is precisely where CFIM diverges.
CFIM Origin: Motion Before Law
CFIM did not originate from academic cybernetics, nor did it emerge through engagement with existing theoretical literature.
It arose independently from lived experience under real conditions, where motion, instability, collapse, and recovery were directly observed rather than abstracted.
In CFIM:
- motion is primary
- change exists before structure
- coherence is observed, not assumed
It is observed.
Laws are not starting points that govern behavior.
They are compressions that describe what persisted after motion unfolded without constraint.
This inversion is foundational.
CFIM Discovery Vector
The internal logic of CFIM follows a non-negotiable vector:
lived experience → motion → coherence → structure → system
Nothing within CFIM violates this order.
Structures are never imposed before motion is understood.
Regulation is never attempted before coherence is observed.
Formal systems appear only after lived dynamics demonstrate invariance under pressure.
This vector alone disqualifies any claim of lineage from classical cybernetics.
Dynamics as Primitive (ED, CD, SD)
At the base of CFIM sit standalone dynamic systems, not laws.
- Emotional Dynamics (ED)
- Cognitive Dynamics (CD)
- Somatic Dynamics (SD)
These are primary, not transitional.
They are formal, compressed, substrate-validated systems capturing motion, state transitions, oscillations, collapse, and recovery within internal domains.
They were not derived from physics.
They precede it.
Physics as Compression, Not Origin
Emotional Physics (EP), Cognitive Physics (CP), and Somatic Physics (SP) are derived layers.
They do not introduce motion.
They formalize what survived motion.
In CFIM:
- physics does not govern behavior
- physics describes stabilized behavior
Laws do not create behavior.
Behavior reveals laws.
Cybernetics as Regulation of the Internal
CFIM cybernetics operates only after dynamics and physics are established.
- Emotional Cybernetics (EC)
- Cognitive Cybernetics (CC)
- Somatic Cybernetics (SC)
These regulate internal systems that classical cybernetics explicitly avoided.
These are not extensions of Wiener-era cybernetics.
They do not regulate machines or abstracted organisms.
They regulate emotional states, cognitive formation, and embodied memory as internal, lived systems.
The shared term cybernetics reflects convergence at the level of regulation logic, not shared origin.
Non-Derivation Statement
CFIM cybernetics does not extend classical cybernetics.
It does not modernize it.
It does not revive it.
It does not correct it.
CFIM occupies a domain classical cybernetics never entered: internal system regulation grounded in lived motion.
Any interpretation that maps EC, CC, or SC as descendants of historical cybernetics is incorrect.
Why Historical Material Appears Here
Historical cybernetics appears on this page only as contextual boundary material.
It exists to show where prior systems stopped, not to establish foundation or legitimacy. This context prevents misclassification and stops false lineage assumptions before they propagate.
Context is not origin.
Context is not authority.
Context is termination.
Closure
CFIM stands independently.
Its structures emerged from lived experience, stabilized through motion-first validation, and were formalized only after coherence proved persistent.
Terminological overlap does not imply intellectual inheritance.
This page exists so that distinction is never lost.