Semiotics (4): Two Flows of Semiosis
The cosmic interplay between novelty and order.
You walk lazily towards the cash register, feeling exhausted after a long day. You'd love to just go home and lay on the couch, but you need to buy something to eat. As you put your groceries on the conveyor belt, you are completely absent-minded. The environment feels dull and muted, and nothing catches your attention. You're functioning on "autopilot" - this is the Downward-flow of Semiosis.
When it's time to pay, you realize your wallet is missing. A feeling of stress rushes through you and you start to panic. There is quick transition, and suddenly the environment bursts into life. Multiple things become salient, there are rapid shifts back and forth in focus: the back pocket, the bag, the breast pocket, the ground, the shopping cart. Everything is swiftly fluctuating, and you are actively trying to inquire. This is the Upward-flow of Semiosis.
Diagram Evolves
In the previous post, we discussed the Doubt-Belief cycle, which describes how an unexpected surprise can challenge our beliefs and result in a state of doubt. This doubt prompts the state of inquiry, where we actively seek to discover an explanation that accounts for the surprise. We do this by formulating a hypothesis, much like in the scientific method.
In these situations, we notice two distinct modes or directions of thought: the inquisitive and exploratory state of inquiry, which flows upward, and the habitual and exploitative state of belief, which flows downward. These two modes of thought are referred to as the Two Flows of Semiosis. As we will see in a moment, we move either up or down in the diagram.
To be more precise, we are dealing with ampliative (synthetic) judgments and deductive (analytic) judgments. The former involves a bottom-up process of discovering and synthesizing new information, while the latter involves a top-down process of applying previously acquired information. According to Vinicius Romanini:
Semiosis can operate both ways: bottom-up and top-down. When it operates downwards, we see the habits of higher phases governing the ones in the lower phases (...) . This harmonic behavior will only break when a sufficiently intense stimulus coming from the bottom disturbs the coherence among the phases, producing a collapse into an objective and well-defined state [i.e. phase]. When semiosis operates upwards, perceptive information is introduced, synthesizing new habits. The top-down process might be called semiotic computation. The ampliative bottom-up describes ampliative judgements found only in intelligent systems.
How this connects to phases? Well, each phase of semiosis includes these two flows of thought: the ampliative upward-flow and the deductive downward-flow. Slowly, the diagram becomes more detailed:
When we apply this to all four phases of semiosis, we get the following diagram:
Both of the two flows of semiosis are divided into four parts according to the Four Phases. On the left side the names are familiar, but on the right side we have new concepts. However, in this post, we will focus only on the two main flows: the ampliative upward-flow on the left side and the deductive downward-flow on the right side. In the next post, we will take a closer look at how these flows are divided based on the Four Phases.
Musement
This marks the first significant development in the diagram, but there will be many more “evolutionary steps” to come. My intention is to move gradually towards the full logic of 66 signs, one step at the time. Therefore, this is just the beginning of a journey. As we continue to explore and uncover the intricacies of Semiosis, we are rewarded with a greater understanding of the world around us.
This diagram is one of my favorites. It strikes a very nice balance between simplicity and complexity. It can be easily memorized and drawn, but it allows for surprisingly many diagrammatic musements.
Musement means playful thought. This fantastic word captures something fundamental about the Semiotic Mindset. You see, we can't be too serious because it would hamper creativity. Instead, we should be playful, cherish our curiosity, and keep an open and hopeful mind.
The world is bursting with possibilities. But in order to discover novel possibilities, find new solutions to problems, or create something unforeseen, we have to give ourselves up to musement. Peirce instructs us as follows:
Enter your skiff of Musement, push off into the lake of thought, and leave the breath of heaven to swell your sail. With your eyes open, awake to what is about or within you, and open conversation with yourself; for such is all meditation. It is, however, not a conversation in words alone, but is illustrated, like a lecture, with diagrams and with experiments.
Diagrams are incredibly useful tools for musement. I believe that musement can be thought of as a dialogue with diagrams. This is particularly evident in geometrical proofs, such as the two different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem shown below:
In a similar vein, we can engage in musement with diagrams that depict the logical structure of semiosis. We can twist them, flip them, break them down, and so on. In this process of musement, we play with the diagrams and may discover new logical relations "hidden" within them. It's worth remembering that these diagrams depict the structure of reality, which is truly remarkable.
As the diagram becomes more developed, the possibilities for musement will grow exponentially in the future. However, even the current diagram offers already great opportunities for musement.
But let us now return to the two flows of semiosis, which is the subject of this post. We start by exploring their logical meaning, which is always a good place to start as semiotics is a logic. Then we look at them through a more metaphysical lens in the context of systems theory.
Ampliative/Deductive - Learn and Apply
As we have learned, abductive reasoning is very central to semiotics. Semiotics is a logic that can explain how new information arises. It is the theory of how theories are developed. New information is synthetized in the ampliative upward-flow, where abductions and inductions grow our knowledge. In more practical terms we are inquiring and exploring the world.
Example: The parking lot in front of a shop is empty, so you infer (abductively) that the shop is closed. This is new information.
But semiotics also includes the more familiar deductive reasoning, which is what most people understand by the word “logic”. In deductive reasoning we set out from pre-acquired premises deducing conclusions. This is the downward-flow. In deductive reasoning no new knowledge is discovered. In more practical terms we are applying pre-learned patterns on the world.
Example: You have been driving for a while, but you don’t remember anything that happened during that time, as you’ve been deductively applying patterns like:
Red light means stopping.
That light is red.
I have to stop.
In summary, we either synthesize and discover new information or we apply information that we have already learned. Obviously, both of these are very important. Without ampliative reasoning, we would not learn, and without deductive reasoning we would not be able to function. And again, in reality, these processes are entangled so that their separation is possible only logically.
The Danger of Self-Deception
By recognizing these two flows we gain deep insight into our thinking. You see most of the time we are unknowingly running “scripts”. Our beliefs are almost like computer programs designed to take care of our reoccurring every day tasks. It is important to be aware of this deductive flow in our thinking, because otherwise we become susceptible to self-deception.
It is surprising how easily we can slip into a robotic state, running scripts that limit our ability to learn and adapt. This insight gave rise to the NPC-meme, which refers to non-player characters in video games. NPCs are programmed to follow predetermined scripts, making them very predictable. They only use deductive reasoning and are therefore devoid of any learning capabilities. In the context of the diagram, NPCs only have the downward flow, as no new information can rise up to inform their symbolic script. They are forced to stick to their script, even if it means constantly bumping against a wall.
Nevertheless, NPCs are highly logical, but only in the narrow sense of the word. Their deductions are always on point and without error, but we instinctively know that logic is much more than just deductive reasoning. Logical thinking must include the capability to learn from experience, which means both abductive and inductive reasoning. Therefore, we wouldn't consider a person who keeps bumping into a wall as logical.
To truly be considered logical, one must be able to learn from experiences and adapt to changing circumstances. In other words, the two flows must be in balance, complementing each other.
Nevertheless, we all run a script of some sort. This can be seen for instance as confirmation bias affecting us all. Confirmation bias is the tendency to consider only information that confirms our existing beliefs and to disregard information that challenges them.
In other words, we are controlling the upward flow of discovering new information, in order to protect the downward flow, where our (symbolic) beliefs control and guide our action. We have to admit, it is laborious when our beliefs are challenged and criticized. And how relaxing it is, when we hear our beliefs being reinforced and endorsed. It is all too tempting to just turn away from things that challenge our beliefs.
I want to clarify that I do not dismiss the importance of deductive reasoning; in fact, it is absolutely crucial. However, my point is that excessive reliance on deductive reasoning can easily lead to self-deception. Furthermore, the upward flow alone isn’t sufficient. We cannot simply be exploring all the time without connecting our information with the world. We must strike a balance, which is nicely exemplified with the well-known trade-off between exploration and exploitation.
Exploration and Exploitation
The captain is navigating his ship through unknown waters. He has a decision to make. Either to sail through a long, but known and well established route (exploitation) or to try to find a new shorter route (exploration).
Exploitation would be the safer option, but it would cost more money, as the route is long. On the other hand with exploration you could potentially discover better routes and safe tons of money in the long run. However, exploration comes with its risks. Maybe the ship encounters uncharted obstacles. Maybe there is no new path to be found.
The trade-off between exploration and exploitation often arises in decision-making scenarios. We must make a choice between exploiting known options for immediate rewards versus exploring unknown options in the hopes of discovering potentially better options for future use.
Exploitation is the utilization of already learned and embodied habits in some situation. It is the downward-flow of semiosis. These exploitative decisions are often considered reliable because they are based on past experiences. Exploitation is very effective in situations where the environment remains stable.
On the other hand, exploration involves taking risks and trying out something new. It requires the gathering of novel information and learning about the environment. It is the upward-flow of semiosis. Exploration is beneficial in situations where the environment is dynamic.
There is a trade-off between exploration and exploitation, which arises from allocation of resources. Emphasizing one strategy often comes at the expense of the other. For instance, spending too much time and effort on exploration reduces the immediate gains from exploitation, while focusing too much on exploitation results in missed opportunities and stagnation in the long run. The point is to strike the right balance, which we try to do everyday.
Let us now turn our attention to a more metaphysical view of this interplay between the two flows of semiosis.
Novelty/Order - Renew, But Keep it Together
The two flows can also be conceptualized more metaphysically as novelty and order. Together they form one of the central tensions in living systems and in all of reality. Simply put, the tension is this: You must to renew, but keep it together.
Novelty refers to the introduction of new, original, or unconventional elements, possibilities and ideas, which are discovered through exploration and experimentation. Novelty manifests as new technologies, new perspectives, or new ways of doing things.
Order, on the other hand, refers to the presence of structure, predictability, and stability in a system. It involves established patterns, routines, and rules that govern the behavior and functioning of a system. Order manifests as established norms, procedures, and hierarchies.
The main risk with novelty is that too much of it too fast is disruptive. It breaks our habits and can put us in the state of paralysis and confusion. Systems become fragmented and disjointed, with no clear direction or structure.
On the other hand, the problem with too much order is excessive rigidness that results in the incapability to adapt to new situations. Systems that are overly bound by established norms or structures become biased, inflexible and stagnant.
Novelty disrupts existing order, while order suppresses novelty.
The two flows are always active and we live in the midst of them. However, there are many examples of systems that are biased either towards the flow of novelty or the flow of order.
For instance, an artist is very much biasing the flow of novelty. This helps in the ability to perceive the world with “the eye of a poet”, it fosters inspiration, discovery, freshness of thought, creativity, and artistic vulnerability.
On the other hand, the lack of order often leads into a bohemian and chaotic lifestyle, devoid of routines or predictability, which is wearing. This is the famous curse of artists. For the same reason genius minds, who are highly receptive for novelty and discovery, often find it difficult to conform to the societal norms.
On the other side of the spectrum is, for instance, a totalitarian state. The state wants to limit the amount of novelty flowing into the system. This is done through censorship, extortion, and violence. The governing habits and beliefs must stay unchanged and in total control. Everything must be predictable, and therefore strict rules and norms govern every social situation.
This results in extreme rigidness, which is the reason why totalitarian states ultimately always fail. The environment inevitably changes, but totalitarian states are unable to adapt. When the novelty reaches a critical threshold, i.e. when the friction between the system and its environment becomes too much to bear, the habits governing the system break down.
The process of change is often chaotic, as the governing habits are shattered and novelty rushes into society like a tsunami. It takes time for new habits to form and for the dust to settle. During this transitional period, things are uncertain and people feel disoriented as they try to adjust to the new reality.
You thus see how the interplay between novelty and order has significant implications for the dynamics and sustainability of systems.
Summary
Of course, we have just scratched the surface on all of this. There is much more to unpack, and a multitude of connections waiting to be made. In fact, you may discover some of these connections yourself! I encourage you to play with the diagram and see where your musings take you. If you stumble upon any interesting ideas or insights, or find connections to other topics, please share them with us by leaving a comment below.
Thank you for reading this post. If you found it valuable, please consider sharing it with your friends. Let's continue the exploration of the fascinating world of semiotics.
Sincerely,
Markus
This reminds me of the duality of structure and communitas