Semiotics (7): The 4 Loops of Self-Control

Participation with living Symbols through Inhibition

Self-control is a central concept in semiotics — and in life. It is related to the virtues of patience, moderation, and reasonableness. Therefore, it is something we ought to cultivate within ourselves, as without self-control, we cannot attain wisdom.

The science of self-control is Ethics, as “Ethics studies in the controllable phenomenon the act and process of controlling it.” Therefore, I would say that the growth of our self-control is, at the same time, our ethical growth. But how does self-control connect with logic and reasoning, that is, with Semiotics?

In the Peircean ordering of the Sciences, Ethics precedes Logic, because “Reasoning is self-controlled thought; and thus Logic is directly dependent upon Ethics, or the science of self-control, in general.”

In order to reason and act rationally, we must constrain ourselves and inhibit our immediate actions. Impulsive behavior is not intelligent. We cannot be guided solely by spontaneous desires and wants, as that would render us slaves to our impulses and strip away our own agency. Freedom, in the sense of being free from obligations and having the freedom to do whatever one wants, is not true freedom. Instead, it can be seen as a form of slavery to one's passions. This type of freedom is an illusion.

You see, we all have to serve somebody. This can be our passions, or it can be a greater ideal. Something admirable in itself to pursue, something to strive for, something that shapes, controls and guides our life—something truly beautiful.

Our freedom does not reside in our ability to do whatever we want. True freedom lies in our capacity to choose an ideal that will shape us into its likeness. We ultimately become the embodiment of what we pursue. Therefore, it is essential to choose your ideal wisely and with great care.

For this reason, Esthetics precedes Ethics. Esthetics studies “that which is admirable without an ulterior reason”. In other words, Esthetics poses the question: What renders things noble and admirable in themselves? This question is foundational, for without a higher ideal, our lives lose meaning, becoming episodic and chaotic as we pursue various objectives without a clear direction.

We thus need a higher purpose and ideal (Esthetics) that we strive towards through self-controlled action (Ethics) and reasoning (Logic). This is the Peircean threefold division of the Normative Sciences.

Now, turning to the diagram, and keeping the idea of self-control in mind, we can visualize four different loops of self-control. With each loop, the level of self-control increases as we inhibit our behavior to a greater extent.

First Loop - Immediate Action

With the Semiotic Mindset we adopt the metaphysical belief that the Universe has the nature of mind. Matter is just mind bound by habits. Now, immediately it is important to remember how this mind is not identical to our own. I am not claiming that the universe is conscious for example. (Nevertheless, we are conscious and part of the universe, so in that sense universe is at least partly conscious.)

Furthermore, with the Semiotic Mindset we regard everything as continuous. In other words there can’t be any ultimate dualistic opposites. So, if the Universe has the nature of mind, it is to a certain extent alive. The universe is not mindless dead matter, but perceiving living mind.

The point is this, every part of the universe is perceiving and acting. Mechanical action is not dead, it is just so thoroughly bounded by rigid habits that it seems dead to us. In reality everything that keeps its form in time and space is perceiving in some sense of the word. Of course it is not the same kind of perception that we have, as we are very developed organisms.

The first loop of : Perceiving → Acting

Let us take an example of an oil droplet in water. As we know, the oil droplet won’t dissolve into the water, as it is actively holding its shape. The droplet is adapting to its environment, which can be loosely understood as an inference process, where the droplet adjusts its shape, to match its perceptions of the water surface.

The droplet's perceptions are the physical “sensations” of its surroundings. Its actions are then adjustments to its environment based on its perceptions.

For example, if the droplet detects disturbances in the water surface or a change in temperature, it responds by adjusting its shape and position to minimize the impact of those external factors.

Self-control within this loop is quite limited, as the system primarily reacts to the forcefulness (2ndness) of the environment. The systems perceptions are immediately translated into action without forming an internal representation (sign) of the environment. In a sense, this loop exhibits a proto-semiotic nature (meaning the absence of fully developed 3rdness in the semiosis).

Second Loop - Intelligent Behavior

The second loop of: Perceiving → Experiencing → Executing → Acting

The second loop signifies the emergence of intelligent behavior. Within this loop the system is no longer confined to mere sensations and reactions to distinct stimuli. Instead, the system acquires the capacity to perceive signs, which mediate information and meaning.

Instantaneous reaction is inhibited, giving rise to a new level of semiosis. Perceptions transform into signs, and reactive actions evolve into executed actions. This marks a phenomenological step back from the immediate connection with the environment, to a somewhat detached experience of the world. We witness the birth of the inner world. Cognition emerges, along with inner models and representations.

In the diagram we move on the left side upwards to Experiencing, inhibiting immediate Action, and only then turning downwards to Execute our action.

Think about ants. An ant is not simply reacting to its environment, but interpreting signs. Actually it has very developed sense organs for detecting the concentration of sugar. For the ant, these kinds of perceptions become signs of sugar.

When an ant comes across a source of sugar, it inquires and evaluates it. With the help of the taste receptors, the ant determines the quality of the sugar source. Through assessing the intensity of these qualities, which is a qualitative (analogical) rather than a quantitative (digital) process, the ant infers the level of sweetness associated with the object in question. The ant engages in an abductive inference: "I perceive intense sweetness, therefore, it is likely to be sugar."

Based on that experience the ant executes certain actions. It takes some sugar with it and returns to the colony leaving behind a trail of chemical signals, called pheromones, which are signs communicating to the other ants that there is sugar. This, in turn, allows other ants to follow the trail and locate the sugar. Notice how the world of the ant is filled with signs.

However, the ant has no capability to do otherwise. It cannot decide to stay with the sugar and eat it itself. It has no choice but to lay a trail of pheromones and return to the nest. It must follow its orders diligently and precisely, but it has some self-control to choose the particular execution of the orders.

So, although the ants are not blindly reacting, like the oil droplet, they have no capacity to invent new ways of doing things. They have only one tactic in their playbook, one set of rules set in stone. They are not capable of forming novel habits or skills.

Third Loop - Developing Habits

The third loop of: Perceiving → Experiencing → Understanding → Instructing → Executing → Acting

The next logical progression involves acquiring the ability of developing practical habits. We are now delving into the realm of fundamental cultural forms.

Once again more inhibitory control is gained. Experience, here and now, becomes understanding of the underlying dynamics and patterns guiding the situation, which in turn instructs behavior. The habits embodied by the system become malleable. Tactics can be now changed based on the understanding of the guiding patterns.

In the diagram we climb the left side all the way up to Understanding — inhibiting Acting and Executing — and only then turn downwards to Instruct our behavior.

Take seagulls, for example. They showcase remarkable adaptability, as evidenced by their adjustment to urban environments. Just a few generations ago, they exclusively consumed wild fish from the sea, far from any human presence. Nowadays, their diet primarily consists of fries and hamburgers served on the street, next to a dumpster. Something clearly has changed.

This shows a capability of developing (and discarding) habits. The seagulls can comprehend the guiding patterns of their environment and let them instruct and modify their own behavioral habits.

Another example of this capability is the market vendors’ battle against the seagulls. The vendors have tried various ways to keep the seagulls away from the market place. For instance, they've employed decoys resembling eagles to frighten the seagulls away.

However, the seagulls learned surprisingly quickly that these were only decoys presenting no danger. There was thus a fast adaption and change of habit. Evolutionary a sight of eagle has been a clear sign for danger, but this deep habit was overrun, by developing a new habit of interpretation.

Contrast this with the ant. Regardless of the context, ants always behave the same. They retain their habits unaltered. If you transport ants from one place to another, they continue to play by the same rules. They still search for same food, signal with the same pheromones, and build similar nests. There is no active adaptation to the environment, nor a substantial capacity to comprehend it. Ants strictly adhere to their playbook, which permits just one tactic. Nonetheless, they possess the freedom to execute that tactic.

Fourth Loop - Discovering Meaning

The fourth loop of: Perceiving → Experiencing → Understanding → Sharing → Controlling → Instructing → Executing → Acting

If a seagull were to formulate a philosophical idea, it would lack the means to communicate it, as it cannot utilize the medium of symbolic language. This limitation is further evident in the inability of seagulls to deceive or mislead their fellow seagulls. They are incapable of crying out, “Hey, there's no food over here,” while secretly consuming the food.

As far as we know, humans are the only species capable of this level of meaning sharing. This gives us remarkable capabilities. We can store knowledge and meaning in symbolic form to be shared universally through all kinds of contexts and times.

In the diagram we climb all the way to the top to Sharing — inhibiting Acting, Executing and Instructing — and only then turn downwards to Controlling.

But in order to participate in sharing, there must be Control. If you want to communicate through language, you must adhere to the rules of grammar. You can't simply employ any words at will, as doing so would disrupt the Sharing phase, with the listener struggling to comprehend the unfamiliar sounds you produce.

This final level of self-control introduces the opportunity to communicate context-independent knowledge using symbols. Seasoned seagulls could warn novice seagulls in advance that the decoys are fake. However, since this isn't feasible, the new seagulls must acquire this understanding through experience—by directly interacting with the decoys.

While seagulls possess the capacity to alter their tactics when encountering specific obstacles during their actions, humans possess the ability to devise comprehensive strategies beforehand, prior to any actual interaction, through the manipulation of symbols.

However, symbols must be firmly rooted in practice. When a novel idea is introduced to a community, it must not only be shared but also actualized as a guiding force for actions; otherwise, the idea dies. A living idea guides and governs our action, as a living tendency. In the case of the diagram, the symbols of the Sharing phase must flow down all the way from Controlling to Action. This forms a feedback-cycle with the environment, as our action generates new perceptions, that then flow again to the top of the diagram and so forth.

For instance think about widely shared internet memes. They are alive and when embraced, they guide our action. If you truly believe that we live in the clown world, that shapes your whole perception in a deep way.

On the other hand there are ideas that won’t take up root. There are myriad of failed political slogans that nobody believes or embraces. They have thus no power to guide or control any behavior. They remain rootless and without an effect. The flow does not return to the bottom, resulting in a lack of action and thus causing the movement in the loop to cease. Peirce writes:

The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason.

Peirce speaks about this loop. It begins with Perception and ends with Action. And when the loop goes all the way up to the Sharing/Controlling-phase, we have purposive self-controlled action.

Summary

Let us return to the idea of ideals discussed in the beginning of this post.

The oil droplet is rigidly governed by Executing, Instructing, and Controlling (the right side of the diagram). It possesses scarcely any freedom to adapt or select its conduct in different situations. For the droplet everything is given.

On the other hand, the ant faces a different situation. While the tactics (Instructing) and strategies (Controlling) are given, the manner of Executing them remains open. The ant has the ability to decide where it places its foot, so to say.

The seagull has freedom to choose tactics (Instructing), at least to some extent, but the strategy (Controlling) is fixed. Here, by strategy, I refer to the ultimate ideals and purposes in life. Seagulls don't pause to ponder the meaning of life and existential anxiety is foreign to them. They are just seagulls, living their seagull life, without contemplating the direction they wish to steer their lives.

But we have angst. We have existential crises and feelings of meaninglessness. Why? Because we have the amazing ability to share and participate with the very symbols guiding our lives. For animals these symbols are given, whereas we are called to develop them ourselves.

What controls us? You might say religion, ideologies, “the man” or institutions. All of these have a symbolic nature. All of these are symbols that we have been involved in developing. In contrast to matter or animals, we have the ability to exercise the highest form of self-control by shaping the symbols that guide us. Or at least to choose with which symbols to participate with. Peirce writes:

A symbol is an embryonic reality endowed with power of growth into the very truth, the very entelechy of reality. This appears mystical and mysterious simply because we insist on remaining blind to what is plain, that there can be no reality which has not the life of a symbol.

Ultimately, as we recognize our capacity for self-control, we are confronted with the profound responsibility to shape our own lives. What is your ultimate purpose or ideal guiding your entire existence? What do you find so admirable in itself that you want to participate with it? What symbol is molding you into its image?

---

Thank you for reading this post. Your time is truly appreciated. If these musings resonated with you, I encourage you to share them with others.

Sincerely,
Markus