International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

1) A physical and observable entity endowed (by the observer!) with specifiable morphological and functional properties.

2) "A set of forces, with finite values, coordinated by a regulation system, in such a way as to produce stable and observable qualities, when left to itself in its natural surroundings" (C.P. BRUTER, 1973, p.33).

According to J.J. GIBSON we distinguish between objects as they lend us, or not some specific capabilities of action (affordances) (1986, p.133).

H.von FOERSTER sustains that "objects are representations of relations", an opinion that he even extends to "events" (1982, p.265).

Thus, the notion of object hovers at the confines of reality and subjectivity (individual or collective).

According to the given definitions, the object is not very different from the system (in its most general sense).

J.L.LE MOIGNE resumes as follows some of C.P. BRUTER's comments: "Within the fields of forces that occupy the environment (surroundings), the instantaneous equilibrium of these forces which create the observable object results from and is maintained by the object itself, which escapes somehow from its "parents" and develops its own identifiable project of existence" (1990a, p.151).

This concept is very close to LAVILLE's (1950), who however expresses it in a less tautological manner. LAVILLE shows moreover how "antagonistic fields of forces" give rise to the forms of the "objects".

This is also perceived by G. KLIR who states: "… the object, which is the subject of our interest, is never completely isolated from its environment" (1965, p.31).

J.von UEXKÜLL gave this lapidary definition, which confirms however that any object is an observed one: "An object is what moves together" (Quoted by K. LORENZ, 1962, p.47). We should maybe correct this statement as follows: "An object is what we perceive as moving together". In A.L. GOUDSMIT words it is the result of: "multiple recursive coordinated actions. We will, thus, regard objects as elements of consensual domains in that they consist of intricately stabilized patterns of interactions" (1989, p.175).

G.P. SHCHEDROVITZKY distinguishes however between the "object and the "thing known", in these terms: "The object exists independently of knowledge. The thing known, on the contrary, is formulated by knowledge itself" (1966, p.32). There is a danger of semantic confusion: We should better consider the "object" as the result of our observation of "that thing there outside" (As proposed by A. KORZYBSKI – 1933 – 1950).

In the art photographer W. BULLOCK words (quoted by E. JANTSCH, 1975, p.90): "An object is actually a visual or mental concept. It has no independent physical existence. Only events exist". This view is very close to KORZYBSKI's ones.

H.von FOERSTER made the same point in his paper "Objects: Tokens for Eigen behaviors "(1976)

→ "Organization,(the nine levels of)" (of objects or systems).