Ouroboros

The Snake was eating its own Tail

Oct 22, 2025

“First-order cybernetics is the science of observed systems; Second-order cybernetics is the science of observing systems”…
— Heinz von Foerster

Marxism, Progressivism and Dialectical Materialism

“Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends on what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality”…
— David Bohm

What is meant by the term Ouroboros and the image that depicts the “snake eating its own tail”?

“Dialectical Materialism is a way of understanding reality; whether thoughts, emotions, or the material world. Simply stated, this methodology is the combination of Dialectics and Materialism. The materialist dialectic is the theoretical foundation of Marxism (while being communist is the practice of Marxism)”…
— Encyclopedia of Marxism

[LINK] - Marxists.Org

In other words, the distinction between:

a closed system (i.e. an Ouroboros - OODA Loop - Cartesian Mechanical Machine - a Computer) grounded in a Primacy of Human Consciousness (e.g. res Cogitans and Cartesianism), Primacy of Man (e.g. Theology of Marxism), Saussurean Dyadic Semiotics (Ferdinand de Saussure - Signifier & Signified) and Dialectical Materialism that combined Hegel’s Idealism with Marx’s Materialism;

in contrast with

an open system (refer to Charles Sanders Peirce, 1892 Essay - The Law of the Mind [LINK]) grounded in three modes of Being (Peirce), three forms of Reason (Abduction (Peirce), Induction (Bacon), Deduction (Aristotle)) with boundary constraints imposed through three categories of thought (Ontological (Aristotle), Epistemological (Kant), Phenomenological (Peirce)) all anchored in a relational understanding of Being (i.e. this Being (Dasein) to Being (Sein) (Heidegger) and an intentional consciousness (Husserl). An openness that reflects the possibility (i.e. the emergence) of the disclosure of new relationships of meaning (Peirce) through Human Being in the World and via Abductive Reasoning (Peirce), the Semiotic Triadic (Peirce) and Pragmatic Maxim (Peirce).

[LINK]

If, as outlined in The Hinge Factor - From Descartes to Nietzsche [LINK], the arrival of Modernity represented a Hard-Fork [LINK] for Western Civilisation Intellectual Thought as:

The Intellectual Triadic Scaffolding of Western Civilisation [LINK] was increasingly being abandoned and deconstructed [LINK]; and

replaced by:

The Primacy of Human Consciousness (res Cogitans) emanating from Descartes’ Philosophy [LINK];
The Primacy of Man (a Theology of Marxism [LINK]) emanating from Nietzsche and Marx [LINK];
A Philosophy of Mechanisation [LINK] emanating from Descartes, where literally the World, Human Mind and Human Body were viewed as Cartesian Mechanical Machines from the Industrial Age. [LINK] The endemic embracement of Instrumental Reasoning [LINK];
The Inversion of Reality [LINK], where the Map becomes a Territory [LINK], Signs without Substance [LINK] are deployed, Geometries of Unknowing are rapidly adopted [LINK], and Reality becomes a Social Construct [LINK]; and
The embracement of Dialectical Materialism as the modus operandi for Social, Cultural, Political, Economic and Scientific Transformation [LINK]. It was a framework that aligned closely with Darwinism and Evolutionary Biology, where Hegel’s Absolute Idealism or Marx’s Historical Materialism could be achieved through a reflexive process that combined Idealism (Conscious Man - Hegel (Idealism)) with Materialism (Social Man - Marx (Materialism)). The interplay of our beliefs (idealism) and perceptions (materialism) shapes what we believe to be true, self-contained within Descartes’ res cogitans ( conscious self). A Cartesian closed and separated mind ( i.e. Cartesian Dualism) that can be contrasted with Peirce’s open and relational mind, to a Being grounded in the semiotic triadic (Peirce), pragmatic maxim (Peirce) and moderate realism ( Duns Scotus).

It is what 20th-century Swiss Philosopher and Linguist Jean Gebser would call a Mental Structure form of Consciousness [LINK].

It is what 20th-century German Philosopher Martin Heidegger would call Vorhandenheit (Present-at-Hand) [LINK].

A secondary mode of Being that Heidegger believed was behind an emerging crisis and mathematisation of Modern Science [LINK] [LINK] and an increasing critique of the abstract form of rationalism [LINK] embraced by Modernism.

Note: The above acute observations from Freeman Dyson highlights the complete metaphysical confusion in Modern Science that ignores three modes of being (Peirce), three forms of consciousness (Peirce), three forms of reason (Peirce, Bacon, Aristotle), three categories of thought (Peirce, Kant, Aristotle), etc.

An Artificial World based on understanding Reality via Semiotic Signs and Abstract Mental Representations - a Reality of the Phenomena (self-as-object) [LINK].

How was the Snake eating its Tail?

If:

Reality was a Marxist Social Construct [LINK] (i.e. in contrast to what Charles Sanders Peirce defined as an understanding of Reality grounded in Realism ( i.e. a Duns Scotus form of Moderate Realism that ties together the conscious self and being) a word invented in the thirteenth century to signify having properties (i.e. characters sufficing to identify their subject) and possessing these whether they be anywise attributed to it by any single man or group of men, or not);
Man creates and shapes Reality (e.g. Marx’s Historical Materialism [LINK]) - a Primacy of Man;
Reality was grounded in the Conscious Self-Ego of Man ( e.g. res Cogitans, Cartesianism, Idealism) [LINK];
The primary form of Reason was grounded in abstract Aristotelian Logic [LINK] and Cartesianism [LINK] (i.e. in contrast to a Triadic of Reason grounded in three modes of Being (Peirce), three forms of Reason (Abduction (Peirce), Induction (Bacon), Deduction (Aristotle)) with boundary constraints imposed through three categories of thought ( Ontological (Aristotle), Epistemological (Kant), Phenomenological (Peirce)); and
The ideological progressive process of Dialectical Materialism that combines Idealism (Hegel) with Materialism (Marx) is the methodology by which we take things to be true [LINK] - a dyadic saussurean interplay between our beliefs and perception (i.e. a perception (Signified) of a semiotic sign (Signifier) [LINK] - note in contrast with Peirce’s Triadic Semiotics ),

then

How could Progressivism and Marxism [LINK] be akin to a Snake eating its Tail?

European Logician, mathematician, and philosopher Kurt Gödel [LINK] had already demonstrated the Limits of Logic [LINK] based on his incompleteness theorem [LINK], yet it was the same Aristotelian Logic [LINK] - Primacy of Human Consciousness (i.e. Logic - Study of Thought) - that formed the basis for Modernity’s desire for certainty (e.g. logical & scientific positivism) [LINK].

A form of reasoning and understanding that 20th-century Austrian-American scientist and mathematician Heinz von Foerster [LINK], in one of his last interviews [LINK], highlights how such an approach (i.e. grounded in Aristotelian Logic, Dyadic Saussurean Semiotics (Signifier and Signified) and more & more Abstraction) does not necessarily have to have any relationship to Reality (i.e. in contrast with Peirce’s Triadic Semiotics and Pragmatic Maxim).

An excerpt follows:

“And if you ask me: “My dear Heinz von Foerster, what is meta-physicist?”, I would say the following:
There are questions among those we ask about the world that it is possible to answer: “Heinz von Foerster, how old are you?”Well, you can look that up in a catalog: Born in 1911, that means he is 90.
Or you can ask questions which cannot be answered, like for example: “Heinz von Foerster, tell me, what was the origin of the universe?” Well, then I could give you one of 35 different theories...
…there are so many different hypotheses because the question cannot be answered…
… How can we let a world-wide networked system of machines grow more or less into infinity, if it based on theories that apparently have holes or are only “good stories”.
I mean such shaky foundations?
Isn’t that dangerous?
Well in this world-wide functioning system of machines all theories are correct...
And of course that’s what people want.
And why are they correct?
Because they can be deduced from other theories and “stories”
But what will it lead to?
How does it go on?
It goes on deducing indefinitely.
But there have to be limits somewhere?
No, not at all, thats the good thing about it. You can go on forever.
In logic…
Yes, precisely…
But in reality?
Where is reality?
Can you show it to me?”…
- Excerpt, Interview with Heinz von Foerster

[LINK] - Heinz von Foerster: Where is Reality? Can you show it to me?

Not only were Modernity and Post-Modernity inverting the nature of Reality [LINK], but this inversion could also be decoupled from Reality by embracing more & more Aristotelian logical abstraction [LINK] and Dyadic Saussurean Semiotics (i.e. Signifier & Signified) [LINK].

“[Man] is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life…
That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see…
Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction”…
— Ayn Rand

Could the embracement of Cartesianism, Marxism and Progressivism [LINK] enable Man to Socially Construct Reality [LINK] or was the snake literally eating its own tail?

“Hegel thought he was defending the Spirit, but caught himself in the most infinite errors ever seen, and incalculably harmed the cause of the Spirit” …
– Giuseppe Capograssi

Modern Man in an OODA Loop ( an infinite error) of his own creation and ego.

Failing to recognise the relational nature (i.e. Peirce Semiotic Triadic & Pragmatic Maxim) of Objective Reality (i.e. Peirce - Realism grounded in this being’s (Dasein) relationship to (being) ( Heidegger) ), independent of the Conscious Self-Ego (Primacy of Human Consciousness) and a Primacy of Man [LINK].

“But by “semiosis” I mean, on the contrary, an action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs”…
– Charles Sanders Peirce

What are the consequences of embracing such an Ouroboros [LINK] and Progressive Ideology [LINK] grounded in the Primacy of Human Consciousness (e.g. Cartesianism, Saussurean Dyadic Semiotics) and Primacy of Man (e.g. Theology of Marxism)?

“Having a coherent ideology is an under-appreciated way of avoiding or managing a busy, unpredictable political environment. Indeed, it may be that Blue Labour gets so much attention in part because some of the people involved speak in very ideological ways: they talk about conservatism, liberalism, socialism and capitalism. Social democrats should be encouraged to do this, too. To be ideological is not to be dogmatic. It is to talk about your understanding of the world and why you think it makes sense. And it is something Keir Starmer should do more of”…
— The Fabian Society: Hearts and Minds : A renewed confidence in its liberal social democratic roots can help Labour shape the narrative

[LINK]

**** Note - Is understanding the World about narratives and ideology, or is it about understanding the nature of Reality? American Political Philosopher Leo Strauss wrote in the 1960s about the Three Waves of Modernity which was a critique of the various political structures of modernity.

Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas can have catastrophic consequences [LINK].

“The world that is being created by the accumulation of technical means is an artificial world and hence radically different from the natural world.

It destroys, eliminates, or subordinates the natural world, and does not allow this world to restore itself or even to enter into a symbiotic relation with it. The two worlds obey different imperatives, different directives, and different laws which have nothing in common.
Just as hydroelectric installations take waterfalls and lead them into conduits, so the technical milieu absorbs the natural. We are rapidly approaching the time when there will be no longer any natural environment at all. When we succeed in producing artificial aurorae boreales, night will disappear and perpetual day will reign over the planet” …
— Jacques Ellul, The Technology Society

Was Reality about to strike back and had we increasingly confused the Picture for the Pipe [LINK]?