1058 Now, about that rumor about AI discovering glyphic writing while examining fossilized dinosaur nests which were dated to 65Myr (millions of years ago), right before the asteroid impact that ended the Epoch of Weird Multicellular Animals (600-65Myr).

1059 The university involved in the incident apologized.

Apparently, over the Easter holidays, the Anthropology Department wheeled the new AI computer in use by the Archaeology Department, which had been examining photos of fossilized dinosaur nests for patterns, to take a look very early pre-cuneiform tablets.  They trained the AI to recognize cuneiform, but when they applied the program to the early tablets, the AI said that this pattern showed that an egg lies here and that pattern is a dinosaur footprint, and so on.

Frustrated, the anthropology team returned the AI computer to the archaeologists, who were surprised when the AI started reporting, around Pentecost, that the nesting material contained intentionally written glyphs that could be interpreted.

1060 It is like the Greimas square.  Train a student on the Greimas square, then every spoken word becomes a focus for the technique.  It is quite remarkable.

I suppose that applies to myself, because it seems that all I see is the TMS fundament and derivative interscopes in every semiotic paper that I examine.

1061 So, maybe I should take a step back and draw a line between the virtual nested form in secondness for the fundament interscope and Torop’s table describing Bakhtin’s chronotopical system (Figure 2).

1062 Uh-oh.

Once I do this, I gestalt the following.

If “gestalt” is a verb, that is.

Reality expands into Peirce’s category of thirdness.

Time and space spins into Peirce’s secondness.

And, phonics associates to Peirce’s firstness.

1063 Surely, this diagram looks like it matches a comparison of the fundament and Torop’s Figure 2.

However, the levels look more and more suspicious.

Do they contain category-based nested forms?

1064 Consider the perspective or “reality” level.

Does a normal context of metaphysical reality_3c bring the actuality of psychological reality_2c into relation with the potential of ‘topographic reality’_1c?

Surely, that looks well… may I use the word, “unrealistic”?

1065 So, what if I switch reality to correspond to three nested normal contexts?

Here is a picture.

1066 Now, that looks more realistic.

Overall, the normal context of reality₃ brings the actuality of space and time₂ into relation with the potential of ‘tone’₁.

For three levels, reality₃ is a normal context operating on the possibility of ‘tone’₁, where ‘tone’ is most clearly expressed in terms of music-related explicit abstractions.  The label corresponding to ‘tone’₁ changes from content, to situation and on to perspective.

1067 Yes, that seems more reasonable.

Here is the resulting interscope.

1068 On the content level, the normal context of topographic reality_3a brings the actuality of concrete (or specific) time and space_2a into relation with the potential of ‘homophony’_1a.  Homophony is like a melody.

On the situation level, the normal context of psychological reality_3b brings the actuality of subjective time and space_2binto relation with the potential of ‘polyphony’_1b.  Polyphony is like harmony and dissonance.  A melody is situated by harmony and dissonance.

On the perspective level, the normal context of metaphysical reality_3c brings the actuality of mythological time and imaginary space_2c into relation with the potential of ‘heterophony’_1c.  Heterophony is like the visual appearance and acoustic character of the venue in which a musical or dance performance occurs.

1069 Now I ask, “Does the above figure look like a semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c?”

1070 Torop continues to recount the lessons that come from Bakhtin’s notes.

The next section is titled, “Semiotics of culture and chronotopicality”.

Not only does a chronotopical analysis distinguish three levels in every text, but, for literature, the three levels display narratives and performances.

Is this where semiotics enters into the picture?

1071 The author offers another table correlating levels of the text and the sphere of semiotization.

Here is a picture.

1072 The same principles apply as before.

Chronoscopy goes with Peirce’s category of thirdness.

Narrative and performance associates to secondness.

The world belongs to firstness.

1073 Similar to before, the above figure looks like a semiological_3a model_2c.

On the content level, a topographical homophonic normal context_3a brings the actuality of story and events_2a into relation with the potential of ‘an intertextual storyworld’_1a.

On the situation level, a psychological polyphonic normal context_3b brings the actualities of narration and performance_2b into relation with the potential of ‘a multimodal, innerworld with self and others’_1b.

On the perspective level, a metaphysical heterophonic normal context_3c brings the actualities of verbal and pictorial descriptions_2c into relation with the potential of ‘cohesive principles establishing a conceptual world’_1c.

1074 Now I ask, “Do these arguments add up to a semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c?”

1075 By the time that the author finishes this section, he has intimated that Bakhtin’s article and scribbles on the chronotope offers a semiological structuralist model composed of interscopes, rather than category-based nested forms.

Here are the virtual nested forms in the category of thirdness for each interscope.

1076 The author moves on to the topic of “cultural semiotics as semiotics of cultural history”.

I love topics like this.

They almost make my wordplay appear reasonable.

1077 According to Lotman, each generation has a language to describe yesterday.

1078 What does this imply?

Torop has a positivist language_2af, historically developed within the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics (on its preparation for a second iteration, this examiner hopes), for translating the somewhat disordered clues left by Bakhtin into a text, consisting of tables.  Each of these tables correspond to an interscope (Peircean constructions, which the author does not have at the time, but are implicit to the tables, themselves).

There are two tables. 

The one dealing with narrative and performance associates to the semiological level of the fundament interscope.

The one dealing with space and time associates to the structural level of the fundament interscope.

These tables correspond to the literary text_2bf as form for the fundament interscope.

1079 In Torop’s language, langue as matter_2am consists in what Bakhtin is thinking, and wondering about, in regards to the way that literature works.  This matter_2am sort of emerges from a signfied_1a in the normal context of Saussure’s semiology_3a.   Parole as form_2af consists in the article that Bakhtin writes and the pages of notes that survive concerning the nature of the “chronotope”.  Indeed, the spoken word, “chronotope_2af” situates the signifier_1a that Bakhtin imagines and Torop uses to tag the article and the pages of notes.

Bakhtin’s works correspond to langue_2am and parole_2af in the fundament interscope.

1080 These associations allow me to apply the fundament interscope, as a semiological structuralist model_2c, to Torop’s tables_2bf.

1081 To me, this application is appealing.

1082 I now move on to the rest of Lotman’s observation.

Each generation, in principle, does not have a language to describe tomorrow.

1083 How does this apply?

In 2017, Torop does not have Peirce’s construction of the interscope.

The basics are presented by Razie Mah’s e-books, A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

1084 Despite this lack, Torop successfully communicates that Bakhtin’s parole_2af of the “chronotope” serves as the language_2bm that substantiates two tables_2bf.  The universality of the “chronotope”_2af and the intelligibility of Torop’s two tables_2bf are weighed when one regards them as contributing to a semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c.

1085 Here is corresponding interscope.

1086 The above interscope may be compared to the interscopes postulated by this examiner as characteristic of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics.

1087 But there is more.

0390 Here is a picture of the resulting two-level interscope.

0391 The article begins with a pithy introduction.  Boris Anreevich Uspenskij (1937-present) is a linguist and semiotician from Moscow, one of the leading figures in the Tartu School of Semiotics, and a protege of Juri Lotman.  He is one of the founders of the above nested form, which I label “semiological_3a structuralism_3b“.  But, he has never encountered the diagrammatic formulations portrayed above.

0392 Each row constitutes a category-based nested form where:

Actuality₂ emerges from potential₁.

Actuality₂ situates potential₁.

Normal context₃ contextualizes actuality₂.

Normal context₃ brings actuality₂ into relation with potential₁.

The subscripts, “1, 2, 3”, correspond to Peirce’s categories directly.  The subscripts “a, b, c” correspond to the levels of content, situation and perspective.  The three levels constitute a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms.  The relational structure is called an “interscope”.  The above interscope has only two levels, typical for sensible construction.

0393 All this is discussed in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0394 The two-level interscope associates to sensible construction.

So, I ask, “Where in these interviews does the idea of sensible (as opposed to social) construction manifest?”

0395 On page 408, in a question on deixis and language, Uspenskij notes that both parapsychological relations (between mother and infant) and imitation (an innate tendency) play roles in language acquisition.  Mother-infant interactions exhibit the character of signifier (the gestures, facial expressions and sounds) as well as signified (perhaps expressed as a theory of mind).  It is as if each signifier poses the challenge, “Guess what I am thinking.”

However, not only are mother and infant good at guessing, and psychologically supported by their mutual reinforcement, they display an actuality_2a, {langue as matter [substantiates] parole as form}_2a, that manifests systemic laws.  Each mother tongue is a structure_3b operating on the potential of ‘lawful correspondences’_1b.  Years later, when the child goes to school and learns to write, the content-level actuality_2a will be situated by a similar appearing dyad, {language as matter [substantiates] literary text as form}_2b.

0396 Of course, Uspenskij does not say this directly.

I only suggest that what he does say comports with semiological_3a structuralism_3b as portrayed in the Peirce-inspired diagram above.

0397 On page 409, the discussion turns to one of Uspenskij’s unanticipated discoveries: the first Russian grammar book written in Russian.  At the time, there are Russian grammar books in German, French and other languages. This is the first written in Russian.

Uspenskij tells the story of how his interest in iconic Byzantine painting led to the unexpected treasure.  He originally wanted to appreciate the actuality of Russian iconic painting_2b within a formalized artistic system_3b, with its own laws_1b and its own way of communicating_2a.

0398 Indeed, his original inquiry follows the contours of semiological_2a structuralism_2b.

0399 Of course, the associations may not be as straightforward as that.

0400 But it is a good starting point.

On the content level, the normal context of symbol-rich artistic expression_3a brings the dyadic actuality of {human ideation_2am [substantiates] visual signifiers_2af}_2a into relation with the potential of ‘a signified (the saint) and a signifier (the icon of the saint)’_1a.

On the situation level, the normal context of the Orthodox tradition_3b brings the dyadic actuality of {the icon of the saint (which is also the signifier_1a)_2bm [substantiating] a painting as an artistic production_2bf}_2b into relation with the potential ‘laws of the artistic style of the sacred icon’_1b.

0401 The young Uspenskij formulates a hypothesis.

Byzantine religious icons are meant to be viewed in flickering candlelight.

The rich-unreflective clothes, the serious face staring back at the viewer, and the gold inlay of the background catching the import of every flicker of the flames belong to the laws of the artistic style_1b.  The candlelight assists in drawing the viewer into the visual elements_2bm… the visual matter_2bm… until suddenly… what?

402 The saint in the figure speaks to me.

How weird is that?

403 Eighty years after Uspenskij proposes that Russian icons are designed to be viewed in flickering candlelight, Razie Mah reviews two books in September and October 2025: Looking at Steven Mithen’s Book (2024) The Language Puzzleand Looking at Julian Jaynes’s Book (1976) The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. These reviews are combined in the e-book, Synaesthesia and the Bicameral Mind in Human Evolution (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  This e-book justifies Uspenskij’s hypothesis as a characteristic of human practices long before the start of civilization.

404 Here is a picture.

0405 In this case, the structuralist system_2b is a neural adaptation_3b that facilitates the addition of vocal utterances to hand-talk word-gestures under less than ideal visual conditions, such as before a campfire at night.  As it turns out, this neural adaptation_3b also engages a previously established adaptation called the interventional sign-relation (not pictured).  If Julian Jaynes is correct, then this system undergirds what he calls “the bicameral mind”.