0744 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (volume 45(3/4), 2017, pages 263-283) by Mihhail Lotman in the Department of Semiotics at Tartu University, Estonia. The full title is “History as Geography: In Search for Russian Identity”. This particular volume is dedicated to semiotics and history.
0745 The year is 2026. Hundreds of thousands of young men from the currently sovereign states of Ukraine and Russia are now buried in the geography of their sovereign states. The war is senseless to anyone who is not moving money or armaments. A theoretically defensive NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) covets a vulnerable ember of the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Or is this a proxy war between the USDB (Unsuspecting Subjects Dominated by Bigilibs) and the CCP (Communist Chinese Party)?
Bigilib?
Big-government (il)liberal.
0746 Is Estonia’s geography its history?
Surely, the way the map of sovereign territories alters over the past few centuries is a sign of historical turmoil.
But, do not expect the corporate media to broadcast any information that does not comport with the interests of their clients.
You know, the ones moving money and armaments.
History appears to be irrelevant. Geography and client interests are all that matter.
The form is war.
0747 And, the most important territory to be occupied seems to be what people say.
Corporate broadcasters talk about territory. Territory establishes that we all agree upon the ideology. If we speak the same rhetoric about geography in a time of war, then we must all think the same. How obvious is that?
The hylomorphe, where what I say (as form) is substantiated by what I think (as matter), turns out to be very useful for empirio-normative domination. See Razie Mah’s three part e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0748 So, what are the interests of the citizen?
Who is the citizen?
The citizen is the subject (the empowerer) and the object (the um… “subject”) of sovereign power.
The truth serves the interests of the citizen.
0749 If truth serves the interests of the citizen, then what serves the interests of the unelected bureaucrats?
Oh, it must be the will of the citizen.
0750 Is the citizen reasonable3a,when allowing experts to decide which tidbits of what I say2afshall be ascribed to um… the citizen’s will1a?
Here is the category-based nested form.
If perplexed, consult Razie Mah’s e-books, A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
0751 I ask, “What is the author, Mihhail Lotman, searching for?”
Intellect3a conveys identity. There are two types of identity. One is potentiated by truth1a. The other is potentiated by my will1a.
Notice, that the term, “identity”, which labels myintellect3a based of the potentials of truth or my will1a, cannot be pictured or pointed to. Like all normal contexts and potentials, identity is crucial for understanding. But, what is understanding?Understanding comes when an actuality2 is placed into its proper normal context3 and potential1.
0752 Identity3a is a style of understanding. Is3a it not?
After all, it3a changes with potential1a. Does it3a not?
One cannot picture or point to identity3a.
If one searches for it3a, it3a will always prove elusive, because it3a contextualizes3 and potentiates1what I think2am and what I say2af.
0827 The next section of the essay is titled, “Russian space”.
Consider the contrasts (B) to Russian identity3a (A) that have appeared in this examination.
Each of these dyads embody an Aristotelian thing. We encounter things. Things are composed of matter and form. Things can serve as matter for other things. Things can serve as form for other things.
0828 Perhaps, it is no surprise that geography is a thing that serves as matter, allowing me to form the way that I orient myself in Russian space. At the same time, geography is implicated in what I say, especially when I say, “Moscow is first of all, a tsardom, not a city, and that tsardom is oriented to Constantinople, that is Byzantium.” Geography, as a matter of cognition, substantiates “Russian space”, in the form of historic belongings.
No wonder the author describes Russian geography as a mystical historiosophy.
0829 Nothing is quite fixed, because directions are confounded with historical processes and so are… um… borders. Russia, is a form, with an expanse without borders as originating matter. Yet, Russia, as a form, is regarded as a nation.
Here is the geography of Russia, writ-large.
0830 The original thing is Russian space. An expanse without borders [substantiates] Russian space.
From page 274 to 279, the author dwells on the way that Russia, as a civilization, wrestles with Russia, as a nation.
The reason is clear. The Russian space, as form, entangles (through alliances and conflicts) the matter of borders.
Confoundings are dangerous.
0831 In the author’s historical telling, in its infancy, Russian civilization does not so much worry or fixate on borders. East and West offer principles that can be adopted or rejected. The West is logical, blabbering and deceitful. The East is none of these, because the East does not speak, and that can be sort of scary.
0832 The author does not detect a resolution of the entanglement in favor of the Western formulation of nations with borders. And yet, a particular closure is anticipated.
0833 Here is a picture.
0834 What is the promise?
Russia will join the West.
0835 What is the problem?
A nation-child is born at the same time as the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s. This child of the British Empirereaches adolescence. This adolescent breaks free. One orbit of Pluto later, the adult-nation is now a cacophonous grasping, manipulative and technologically savvy minion of oligarchs. The financial manipulators demand total submission as the price of being rewarded as promised. The USCB is now the Union of Socialist-Capitalist Bigilibs.
Please, conform to our empirio-normative domination.
AI guides iron hands within velvet gloves.
0836 So, now Russia, acting as a nation with borders is entangled in another matter, the need to become a nation without borders2a, through alliances, rather than through lines on a map.
0837 Yes, something is different.
The Russians are now a people.
And, the people advocate for Eurasian convergence (D).
See Comments onAlexander Dugin’s Book (2012) The Fourth Political Theory, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0838 Accordingly, Lotman’s typology of relations of cultural betweenness, depicted in the purely relational structure of the Greimas square, conjures an opportunity.
0839 Take a look at D in the last two figures and wonder, “What type of matter is thus entangled?”
0840 My thanks to the author, Mihhail Lotman, for publishing this article, whose full title is “History as geography: In search of Russian identity”.
0953 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (volume 45(3/4), 2017, pages 317-334) by Peeter Torop in the Department of Semiotics at Tartu University, Estonia. This particular volume is dedicated to semiotics and history.
0002 Amazingly, this article has no subtitle.
Perhaps, I may add one: An Inquiry into the Chronotope.
0954 At first, I thought that the word, “chronotope”, coined by Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975 AD), was “chronotrope”, where “trope” is a label for a rhetorical trick that belies the complexity of things. Tropes change over time.
0955 For example, the Latin trope, “ens reale“, has been translated as “being that is real”, as well as “mind-independent being”. Add time, and the parole of the chronotrope stays the same, but the matter, the langue, shifts. “Ens reale” migrates from what the scholastics pursue in their philosophical discourses to what?… a being that is mind-independent? Does mind independence (as matter) somehow substantiate a form (that is the elusive goal of philosophical inquiry)?
0956 If I use Aristotle’s hylomorphe as an exemplar of Peirce’s secondness, I can diagram the following “chronotrope”.
0957 Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, the real elements are matter and form. The contiguity, placed in brackets for proper notation, is [substance] or [substantiates]. Either noun or verb is appropriate, because the contiguity can be construed as either.
0958 Does Aristotle’s hylomorphe transmogrify, over time, into mind-independence as a real element and the term, “ens reale” as another real element?
Perhaps, mind-independence could work as matter that substantiates ens reale as form.
Or, maybe, mind-independence could associate to langue and ens reale could go with parole.
0959 I suppose that tropes can shift (in time) in awkward ways.
0960 That leaves me with Bakhtin’s term, “chronotope”.
In chemistry, the nucleus of an element contains protons and neutrons. The word, “element”, precisely labels a fixed number of protons in its nucleus. The number of neutrons may vary, resulting in different atomic masses for two different isotopes of the same element. The word, “isotope” labels a fixed number of protons (characterizing the element) and neutrons (contributing to the isotopic mass). Some isotopes have too few or too many neutrons, making the nucleus unstable and subject to radioactive decay.
0961 Here is a picture.
0962 By analogy, a “chronotope” is the same element, but its placement in time may vary.
Is that correct?
0963 Is time neutronic?
Maybe the analogy of radioactive decay can introduce time into the elemental thing by producing a confounding, in the following manner.
Yes, a confounding labels one form associated with two matters,one originating and one entangled.
0964 The problem is that radioactive decay as matter cannot resolve into a substantiation of the element as form, since it changes the elemental form by altering the miox of neutrons and protons in the atom.
Well, certainly the elemental thing, {protons and neutrons as matter [substantiate] a radioactive isotope}, is subject to decay. But, does decay itself constitute an entangled matter, especially when the occasion of radioactive decay changes the original element into another element plus a radioactive emission?
0965 In other words, if radioactive decay occupies the slot for entangled matter, then the original elemental thingchanges form upon resolution of the confounding.
1088 The final section, on cultural semiotics as semiotics of cultural history offers the trope… er… slogan… saying, “Culture is memory.”
On the fundament, the literary text2bf offers something to remember, if for no other reason than it is encoded as a text. Texts may survive to be available to the future. Parole2af is often not so lucky.
Time is cruel
So many texts have been lost. Precious few oral traditions remain intact.
The issue is twofold. The text or the oral tradition needs to survive. Also, a code for translation must be retained… or… recoverable.
This is one of the problems with the writing of ancient Mesopotamia, where there are few texts that have more than one script in a single document.
1089 Lotman spends many hours reflecting on text and code.
Some of his reflections end up in his book, Universe of the Mind.
1090 The author presents a table on Lotman and Uspenskij’s views of the temporal aspect of chronotopical analysis.
1091 Of course, the above table does not correspond to Torop’s original table2bf (fundament and derivative, Figure 1).
Perhaps, this table further develops and refines Bakhtin’s semiological structuralist model2c (Figure 2).
However, it is hard not to imagine that the above figure translates into an interscope.
1092 Say what?
1093 The Tartu-Moscow School expresses two interscopes, the fundament culminates in the semiological structuralist model2c and the derivative rises to a yet-to-be-determined perspective-level actuality2c.
1094 Bakhtin’s notes and scribbles express two interscopes as well. These two interscopes constitute two adjacent tiers within a model more expansive than the semiological2a structuralist2b model2c. The construction of Torop’s article intimates that this expanse is well worth investigating.
1095 The way that Lotman’s thing includes time shows how Torop’s tables2af entangle a language2am of presence1b(as well as meaning1a). Lotman recognizes2bmtime2af as a formal requirement of the chronotope2am and forces Torop to construct his own table (Figure 4 on page 330) as a way to situate2bf that entanglement2a.
1096 Here is a juxtaposition of the virtual nested form inthe category of secondness for the derivative interscope and Torop’s reconstruction of Lotman’s approach.
1097 A virtual nested form proceeds down a column in a three-level interscope.
Here are the columns in the realm of actuality2.
1098 In the general form of the derivative interscope, a perspective-level actuality2c (to be determined) brings the situation-level actuality of {cognition2bm [substantiates] social interaction2bf} into relation with the possibility of {a literary text2af [entangling] a language2am of meaning1a, presence1b and message1c}.
1099 For Torop’s table addressing Lotman (Figure 4), the perspective-level actuality2c of {semiotic arrangements2cm[substantiate] human conditions2cf} virtually brings the situation-level actuality of {Lotman’s recognition of time2bm[substantiates] Lotman’s thing with respect to time (as a three-level table)2bf} into relation with the content-level possibility that {Torop’s tables as text2af [entangle] the chronotope’s formal requirements2am of the normal context of the Tartu-Moscow School3a}.
1100 Oh yeah, that makes sense.
Cultural history manifests in the framework of the semiotics of the text, where the text is a representation of culture.
Bakhtin’s culture, that is.
Lotman’s culture, too.
1101 If Bakhtin’s insights are formalized as text by Torop’s tables, then Torop’s tables constitute a semiological structuralist model2c of Bakhtin’s insights2af and support the entanglement of a language2am that sounds very much like any language of interpretation.
What is the meaning1a, presence1b and message1c of the chronotope?
Lotman’s thing focuses on time and produces a variation of the fundament interscope.
Torop’s table of Lotman’s consideration of time produces a categorical stairway to a perspective-level actuality2c in the derivative interscope.
1102 Once again, what is Lotman’s thing?
Oh, yes, it is the archaeological recovery of an insight that is present… at least in potential… since the very origins of Slavic civilization.
In the beginning is the Word, and the Word as matter substantiates the human condition as form.
1103 Here is a picture.
Such is the resolution, of the confounding where history substantiates culture and culture entangles semiotics.
1104 My thanks to Peeter Torop, for putting pen to paper and for building the tables that demonstrate the fecundity and the surprising beauty of the first iteration of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics. May a second iteration follow.
0377 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (volume 45(3/4), 2017, pages 404-448) by two well-regarded semioticians. The full title is “Boris Uspenskij on history, linguistics and semiotics”. Kalevi Kull conducts the interviews. Ekaterina Velmezova performs translation.
The article consists of two sit-downs. The first takes place at the end of a eighth session of the Tartu Summer School of Semiotics, in August 25, 2011. The topic of the Summer School was Semiotic Modelling. The second takes place at Uspenskij’s home in Rome on May 27, 2012. The questions are based on his book, Ego Loquens: Language and the Communicative Space (2007).
0378 This examination seeks to appreciate how one of the leading figures of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, which flourished from the 1960s to the 1980s, weaves Saussure’s definition of spoken language as two arbitrarily related systems of differences, into a science-friendly inquiry into the literature of the Slavic civilization.
0379 Two arbitrarily related system of differences?
Parole (speech talk) also corresponds to the written word as well as symbolic artifacts. Parole can be observed and measured.
Langue (the machinations that automatically decode and encode speech talk) cannot be directly observed in the same way as parole. Yet, langue is there. It must be. Otherwise there is no way that someone can think before speaking, should that person choose to do so.
0380 Parole and langue are two contiguous real elements. The continuity, if placed in brackets is [arbitrarily related].
This configuration satisfies the definition of Peirce’s category of secondness, where one real element [is contiguous with] another real element. For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, the two real elements are matter and form. I label the contiguity, [substance] or [substantiates], but it also could be [entangles]. Substance is typical. Entanglement is tricky.
0381 Here is a picture of the comparison between Aristotle’s hylomorphe and Saussure’s definition of language.
0382 Saussure’s definition of language appears to be scientific, because there is no substance. That is, there is no metaphysical reason for why what we think comes to be associated to what we say. So, the arbitrary relation is simply a conditioned response. A conditioned response conforms to truncated material and efficient causalities.
Another term for “conditioned response”?
How about “code” and “decode”?
0383 Okay, if that is the case, then what?
What if what we think (langue) is like matter? What if what we say (parole) is like form?
Then, the contiguity, [arbitrary relation], seems to say that we can attach any word to any thought, without structure. So, something structural would need to situate the content of a spoken word, even if that structure is a habit or a convention. Once that happens, then the hylomorphe, {langue as matter [substantiates] parole as form}2a, occupies the actuality2a on the content-level of a two-level interscope. Language2bm is the situation-level matter that induces a constellation of the content-level hylomorphe.
0384 Okay, if language2b is (by Saussure’s definition) the dyad, {langue2am [arbitrary relation] parole2af}, then how can language2b situate itself2a?
This can only happen if language2b is already participating as a situation-level category-based nested form involved in the production of statements2b.
0385 Here is a picture.
0386 It is as if the content-level actuality2a is immediately situated by a demand to substantiate a statement, as if language2b is matter and a statement2b is form.
0387 But, obviously, there is more.
The content-level actuality2a is accompanied by a normal context3a and potential1a.
So is the situation level actuality2b.
0388 For the content level, the normal context of Saussure’s semiology3a brings the dyadic actuality of {langue as matter [substantiates] parole as form}2a into relation with the potential of ‘a signified and its signifier’1a.
0389 For the situation level, the normal context of a linguistic structure (or genre or system)3b brings the dyadic actuality of {language as matter [substantiates] statements as form}2b into relation with the potential of ‘the laws of the system’1b.
0642 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (volume 45(3/4), 2017, pages 230-248) by Boris Uspenskij (1937-present), one of the members of the first ascent of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, in the 1960s through the 1980s. The full title is “Semiotics and culture: The perception of time as a semiotic problem”. The paper was originally presented as a lecture held in Madrid in 2010. Plus, the paper is based on a two-part article published under the title “History and Semiotics (the perception of time as a semiotic problem)” in 1988 and 1989.
0643 The first ascent of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics builds a fundament of semiology3a, structuralism3b and disciplinary languages3c that retain formal and final causations along with material and efficient causalities (called “exact methods3c“). The result is an actuality2c, a semiological structural model2c (SVi), that stands for a dyadic actuality2a where {the literary text2af (SOi) [entangles] a language2am of meaning, presence and message1a}.
0644 Here is a diagram of the fundament interscope.
0645 Exact methods3c?
Think of it3c as flying a probe2bm into a cloud of phenomena1c that cannot fully objectify the noumenon of a literary text2bf. This scholarly data-collector2bm extracts observations and measurements1c that will be evaluated (using exact methods) on the basis of signification3a(1a) and structure3b(1b).
0646 Semiological structural model2c?
According to the empirio-schematic judgment, a disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings a mechanical or mathematical model (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).
A parallel construction follows.
A disciplinary language of exact methods3c (relation, thirdness) brings a semiological structuralist model2c (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena1c within a literary text2bf (what is,firstness).
0647 Phenomena1c?
Phenomena are observable and measurable facets of a noumenon, a thing itself.
According to Kant’s slogan, a phrase that Kant may have never uttered but which is attributed to him in the same way that the entire Pentateuch is attributed to Moses, a noumenon cannot be fully objectified as its phenomena. A thing itself cannot be reduced to its observable and measurable facets.
0648 Language2bm?
Language2bm is the situation-level matter (as opposed to form) constituted by Saussure’s definition of language2aentering into a structure (or system)3b, such as a mother tongue3b, a genre3b, a style3b, an artistic community3b, a tradition3b, and other civilizational beings3b.
0649 Clearly, the semiological3a structuralist3b model2c aims to capture an Aristotelian expression of how language as matter2bm substantiates a literary text as form2bf.
Without the literary text2bf,a semiological structural model2c cannot coalesce because there is nothing to delimit free-floating, unanchored language from the phenomena that an inquirer is interested in. It is like matter without a form to substantiate. It’s useless.
0650 So, in the fundament interscope, language as matter2bm gives substance to the literary text as form2bf.
At the same time, the literary text as form2bf allows the entire situation-level hylomorphe2b to take a shapewhere language2bm may be regarded as phenomena.
0651 Say what?
Language2bm substantiates the literary form2bf and, at the same time, may be regarded as phenomena of the literary form2bf.
It2bm is substantiating matter2bm(esse_ce) because it virtually situates the content-level actuality2a, {langue2am[substantiates] parole2af}.
It2bm is regarded as literary phenomena by the perspective-level potential1c.
0652 The substantiated form2bf(essence) is like a noumenon and its2bf substantiating matter2bm (esse_ce) serves as its2bf observable and measurable facets (that is, its phenomena).
0732 The article concludes after the third asterisk (3).
Discussion shifts from the topic of the future to the metaphor of space.
0733 Historical consciousness discusses the future as the place that we are going.
Cosmological consciousness portrays the future as a place that we have been before.
0734 Both ways, the message1c is that the future will be a continuation of past and present.
But, what if we lived in a Lebenswelt where our hand-talk could not picture and point to these explicit abstractions?
What if we could manual-brachial gesture an arcfrom the location of the sun (or moon) towards its point of rising (past) or setting (future)?
Would these hand-talkwords testify to an implicit abstraction?
0735 What if we could not explicitly state that the normal context of space-time3c brings the dyadic actuality of {continuity in time as matter2cm [substantiates] our current Lebenswelt as form2cf} into the relation with the potential of ‘a message concerning the continuity of past, present and future’1c?
0736 Here is a picture of the interscope with that perspective-level nested form.
0737 Space is an excellent metaphor fortime.
We move through time, just as we move in space.
0738 Our motion in space is continuous, so time must be continuous as well.
Well, it must be continuous if space and motion and time are metaphors for one another.
But, one wonders.
0739 Does the perspective-level hylomorphe, {continuity in time2cm [substantiates] our current Lebenswelt2cf} apply to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Does the derivative interscope explicitly manifest in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
0740 Can one express the explicit abstractions of history, cosmology, consciousness, continuity, and space-time in hand-talk?
What is there to image or point to?
0741 It makes me wonder. Are the foundations for these explicit abstractions somehow, built into the human thing… er… being?
Matter and form?
After all, “ego loquens” means “I speak”.
But, what if our kind evolves in the milieu of hand talk?
0742 My two conclusions are obvious and open-ended.
First, Uspenskij’s work may be diagrammed using the fundament (loquens) and derivative (ego) interscopes.
Second, time is not the only semiotic problem.
0743 My thanks to Boris Uspenskij for publishing this brief, yet engaging article.
0001 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (44(3) (2016) pages 368-401) by two professors, Igor Pilshchikov and Mikhail Trunin, hailing from Tallinn University in Estonia. The title is “The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics”. The subtitle is “A transnational perspective”.
0002 The abstract promises to situate the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics of the 1960s through 1980s. The article delivers more than promised.
How so?
0003 The authors sketch dynamic developments among intellectual circles within the (now former) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
0004 The term, “transnational”, indicates that there are nations within the former Soviet Union.
During this period in history, the governments of Estonia and Russia (along with Czechoslovakia and Poland) owe fealty to an empire with the title, “Socialist”, in its name.
So, “transnational” tells me that the article looks back from the present, into a past era, with the intent of portraying ‘something’ historical, without acknowledging that the “Union” and the “Socialist” descriptors no longer apply (at least, not in the way that they once did).
0005 “Transnational” applies to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, 1918-1989) as well as the upcoming… um… Eurasian convergence?
Here is a picture with three city-sites. Tartu and Moscow belong to the title. Tallinn is the location where the authors write their article. The blue is the Baltic Sea.
0006 “Transnational” steps over the boundaries depicted in black in the above figure.
Never mind the fact that the above territories reside behind, what American pundits once called, “the Iron Curtain”.
0007 Perhaps, one must appreciate an ambiguity to the term, “transnational”, given that there is another transit. This transit is in time. Or, even better, this transit is across a boundary between battles among Enlightenment gods.
Consider where the time period of 1960s to 1980s resides in the following timeline of Western civilization in the twentieth century.
Also consider the year when the article under examination is published.
Notice the boundary.
0008 The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiology constellates within one battle, as a transnational collaboration.
The TMS is remembered during another battle, which is not resolved, and so cannot be objectified as “historical”. I suppose that it can be objectified as “cultural”. Better yet, “theodramatic”.
Already, there is more to this article than meets the eye.
0348 In section eight (8), the authors discuss the third post-Soviet approach, that of Juri Lotman.
The title of Lotman’s 1990 book is The Universe of Mind.
The title is somewhat funny, since the mind associates to the normal context and a universe resides in the corresponding potential.
0349 How so?
The “universe” is not the closed totality of material arrangements.
The “universe” is the open totality of semiotic arrangements.
0350 Open to what?
Messages.
Another term for “the universe of messages1” is “the semiosphere1“.
0351 On the content level, the normal context of a TMS positivist intellect3a brings the actuality of the dyad2a, {literary text2af [entangles] language2af}, into relation with the potential of ‘(positivist) meaning’1a.
On the situation level, cultural studies3b brings the dyad2b, {cognition2bm [substantiates] social interaction2bf}, into relation with the potential of ‘(civilizational) presence’1b.
On the perspective level, mind theory3c brings the dyad2c, {semiotic arrangements2cm [substantiate] human conditions2cf}, into relation with the potential of ‘the semiosphere’1c.
0352 Lotman’s derivative interscope stands right in line with Charles Peirce’s theory of evolutionary love.
The Universe of Possibility defines the category of firstness. Firstness contains a universe of messages.
The Universe of Actualities includes semiotic arrangements and belongs to the category of secondness.
The Universe of Mind3c brings the Universe of Actualities2c into relation with the potential of the Universe of Messages1c.
0353 Mind theory3c brings the dyadic actuality of {semiotic arrangements [substantiating] human conditions}2c into relation with the ‘semiosphere’1c.
Marxist theory3c brings the dyadic actuality of {material arrangements [substantiating] human conditions}2c into relation with the potential of ‘something to do with message’1c.
0354 Surely, Juri Lotman, as an old man, does not suspect that his mind theory3c stands as an alternative to Marxist theory3c.
Marxist theory3c contextualizes the message of Soviet communism1c.
The Universe of Mind3c contextualizes the semiosphere1c.
Welcome to the Fourth Age of Understanding.
0355 The concept of the semiosphere1c is an organic development of Juri Lotman and his collaborators of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics.
This explains why I claim, in point 0008, that there is more to this article than meets the eye.
This examination adds value to the authors’ article, in ways hitherto unimagined.
0356 In the following figure, the virtual nested form in the category of secondness is highlighted.
0357 The perspective-level dyad, {semiotic arrangements [substantiate] human conditions}2c virtually brings the situation-level dyad, {cognition [substantiates] cultural interaction}2b, into relation with the potential of the content-level dyad, {literary text [entangles] an aesthetic and positivist language}2a.
0358 Likewise, in the virtual nested form in the category of thirdness, mind theory3c brings cultural studies3b into relation with the possibility of the TMS positivist intellect3a.
0359 Finally, in the virtual nested form in the category of firstness, the semiosphere1c, the universe of messages1c, brings civilizational presence1b into relation with positivist meaning1a.
0360 The authors briefly discuss Lotman’s later books, which are translated into English long after his death. The authors note that these books treat issues that are rarely associated with the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, even when they place its collegial collaborations in perspective.
0361 Nonetheless, some scholars wag an accusatory finger and assert, “He turned into a post-structuralist.”
0362 “Post-structuralist”?
Technical terms are so important, especially when they mean ‘something’ that common folk don’t think they mean.
There is a gap, which cannot be crossed, especially by those subject to empirio-normative domination.
Well, at least, that is what the experts on television tell me.
“Post-structuralist” is a derogatory label.
Only experts know what the label means.
0363 The authors offer a quick summary of the questions that Lotman raises in these last works. First (1), can inquirers devise a common approach to natural, social and spiritual phenomena? Second (2), how is a mind theory3c paradigmgoing to handle evolutionary (think, Lebenswelt that we evolved in) and explosive (think, our current Lebenswelt) cultural transitions. Third (3), does artistic labor serve as a workshop that builds semiotic arrangements (as matter) into the human condition (as form)?
0364 Surely, these are appropriate questions.
And, not surprisingly, the pen of Razie Mah offers literary texts that touch upon these questions. They are (1) How to Define the Word “Religion”, (2) The Human Niche and (3) An Archaeology of the Fall.
0365 The authors conclude that a global history of semiotics will tell Lotman’s tale, as well as the complicated intriguescultivating semiotic awareness beneath the watchful eyes of Soviet Socialist ideologues.
But, as far as this examiner is concerned, these modern histories may also be viewed through a lens that focuses on an illumination that harkens back to the beginning.
A light dwells deep within Slavic civilization.
0366 I wonder. Is there is an unconceived reason for why the Virgin Mary appears in Portugal, in a town bearing the name of Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Mohammed and Khadija, and calls for the Catholic Church to consecrate her Immaculate Heart to Russia?
The visions happen in 1917, right before the Russian Revolution.
0367 In 2022, a Latin-tradition-despising pope, along with his reform-fixated Vatican-Two-promoting bishops, do precisely that. They consecrate the Immaculate Heart of Mary to Russia on March 25, 2022, at the same time when Russian (no longer Soviet!) troops enter into Ukraine. They invade in order to stop… what? Everybody in Russia apparently knows. Does anyone know in the Collective West?
0368 Perhaps not.
Is there a gap, which cannot be crossed?
Will a curtain of propaganda become transparent?
Or what?
0369 There is one more juxtaposition to make.
0370 The lower line should look familiar.
The triadic normal context of Lotman’s mind theory3a (now transcending Marxist theory3c) brings the dyadic actuality of {semiotic arrangements [substantiate] our current Lebenswelt}2a into relation with the monadic ‘semiosphere’1a,where the “semiosphere” is the potential of ‘the universe of messages’1a.
0371 The upper line is introduced in points 0355 though 0371 in Razie Mah’s e-book, Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) (part 1, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
The triadic normal context of God’s Self-Actualization3c brings the dyadic actuality of {the Person who Speaks [utters] the Person who is the Word}2c into relation with the ‘Oneness of God’2c, where the “Oneness of God” is the monadic potential1c underlying God’s Self-Actualization3c.
0372 What does this juxtaposition inspire me to imagine?
Does it seem that the Speaker2c occupies the space for semiotic arrangement2cm?
Does it seem that Word2c, who creates the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (see Genesis 1-2.3) as well as our current Lebenswelt (see Genesis 2.4-10), occupies the space for the human condition2cf?
0373 Does it seem that God’s Self-Actualization3c encompasses a theoretical Universe of Mind3c?
Does it seem that the Oneness of God1c manifests the omnipresence and the omniscience of a universe of messages1c?
0374 It almost makes me wonder whether there is a post-post-truth condition.
0375 There is a story. It goes like this.
After the famous Russian philosopher, Marxist academic and scholar to be reckoned with, Juri Lotman, dies, he finds himself in a waiting room, in what looks to be an old Basilica. After a few minutes, the wooden door creaks open and he is greeted by St. Methodius, himself.
Lotman, confident of his own genius even in death, says, “Methodius, what can you tell me that I don’t already know?”
Methodius grins and says, “You’ve been working for us all along.”
0376 I thank the authors for this essay, published a decade ago, and fresh enough to support the fermentation of this examination.
0001 The book before me is a paperback, published in 2024 by Bloomsbury Academia (London, Dublin, New York) with the subtitle: How to Be a Real Materialist. The author, Slavoj Zizek, is one of the most entertaining intellectuals on the circuit for the contemporary left.
The inner panel of the cover claims that this book is Zizek’s most extensive treatment of theology and religion to date.
This is enough to inspire me to test out Zizek’s analytic expertise.
Surely, Zizek offers food for thought.
0002 In order to pluck the… um… fruit from Zizek’s tree of knowledge, one should proceed to the final chapter, titled, “Conclusion: The Need for Psychoanalysis” (pages 235-266). I know that that sounds like cheating, but a more extensive examination of the remainder of the book is promised.
0003 What does the label “Christian atheism” imply?
First, when the Son dies on the cross, the Father dies as well.
If I frame the relation of Father [and] Son as a hylomorphe, a dyad consisting of two contiguous real elements, the two real elements are Father and Son and the contiguity, placed in brackets for proper notation, should be something like [begets]. Here is the resulting hylomorphic structure.
0004 This actuality… er… hylomorphe… is typical for Peirce’s category of secondness. Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements, as discussed in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
Secondness is the dyadic realm of actuality. Secondness prescinds from firstness, the monadic realm of possibility. Thirdness, the triadic realm of normal contexts, signs, mediations, judgments and so on, channels this precission. Thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness. Such is the nature of the category-based nested form.
0005 So what happens when the Father, the thesis of the Old Testament, begets His Son, Jesus, his antithesis in the New Testament? Well, the good book tells the stories. Jesus ends up dying on a cross after crying out, “Father, why have you abandoned me?”
Surely, this is a psychic trauma that Lacanian psychoanalysis might be interested in. But above, there is only the divine actuality2. Actuality2 is encountered, it is not understood. In order to understand an encountered actuality2, one needs to figure out a normal context3 and potential1. The category-based nested form has all the ingredients for understanding (that is, all three categories get labeled and constitute a single triadic relation).
0006 Zizek says that, when the Son dies, so does the Father.
Here is a picture of this actuality2, along with my guesses concerning the normal context3 and potential1.
0007 The normal context of the Holy Spirit3 brings the dyadic actuality of {the Father [dies with His] Son}2 into relation with the monadic possibility of ‘divine oneness’1, that some Christians want to call “Love”. But, Muslims seem to call, “Allah”.
Even though Zizek is well-trained in Lacan’s psychoanalysis, he is also versed in Hegel’s philosophy and Marx’s materialism. So, he notes that after Jesus dies… and the Father dies too… Christ becomes the Holy Spirit, as a new emancipatory collective (page 242). Well, he calls the Holy Spirit, “the Holy Ghost”, so it makes sense that Jesus would be the Ghost instead of His Father, if that helps.
0008 So who or what is this emancipatory collective?
Uh oh, is it the so-called “bride of Christ”?
0009 The actuality of Father [begets] Son2 associates to an encounter in the Real.
How real?
0010 On one hand, Protestants make the point that the Old and the New Testaments are more real than the Catholic church. But, there is a distinction between an encounter (actuality2) and understanding (a complete category-based nested form). Surely, the Old and New Testaments witness encounters. I wonder whether the Protestants can pass to understanding. There are questions about the words. What do the words in the text signify?
Zizek takes the words literally when he says that Jesus, the Christ, becomes the Holy Ghost. But, there is a lacunae, because the Holy Spirit3 is the one who speaks from the cloud above the soon-to-be severed head of John the Baptist. There, in the Jordan River, the king of kings is baptized. The Holy Spirit3 is already present as a purely relational being, the normal context for the actuality of {Father [and] Son}2.
0011 The Catholic church, on the other hand, codifies one particular encounter, the Eucharistic sacrament (otherwise called “the Mass”). Yes, Catholics can join in the potential of divine oneness1through this sacrament2, which celebrates the simultaneous death of the Son and Father.
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” applies to the Father as well as all humanity. Just as elites of Roman Guard and Second Temple are monsters for murdering Christ under the pretext of their laws, the Father is a monster for offering his own Son as a sacrifice. During the Mass, we humans remind ourselves of our own culpabilities and the Father, too, reminds Himself of His own, by transubstantiating the consecrated bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Yes, the Father brings Jesus back to life, at the Resurrection and the consecration.
0012 The Mass is far more twisted than most theologians will admit. But, a Lacanian can concede the deal. The Father allows us into mystical union through the Son while saying, “If you eat of my monstrosity, I will accept your monstrosities.”
Of course, some qualifications apply.
That is what the sacrament of confession is for.
Here is a picture for the emancipated collective that associates to the Holy Ghost.
The triadic normal context of the church, as the Bride of Christ3, brings the dyadic actuality of {Jesus’ last supper [re-enacted in] the Mass}2 into relation with the potential of ‘my (human) mystical union with God’1. The sacraments are mediators between human and divine.
0013 Well, this is not precisely what Zizek has in mind.
Zizek mentions the Holy Ghost in light of Freud’s death drive. Freud uses the term, “death drive”, to label repetition disorders that basically say, “I am still alive.” Or maybe, “If I keep doing this, I will not die.”
It’s like the fellow who loves fishing, encounters a massive illness that almost kills him, then returns to fishing. I am still alive. The death drive creatively sublimates the trauma. Fishing becomes an obsession. Fishing borders on the sublime. The fish that struggles against the line is a symbol. The life that the fish fights for is imaginary, because all of us are mortal. But, one never knows until death arrives. The death drive continues to repeat until we have reached the destination.
0014 So, what precisely does Zizek have in mind?
Well, I suppose that Zizek wants to capitalize on the idea of the Holy Spirit as an “emancipated collective” for his socialist theory. Does Zizek buy into the hocus-pocus of the Catholic church as the Bride of Christ3? Or, does he want to make Christ2, who belongs to the category of secondness, into a figure3, belonging to the category of thirdness, that operates on the potential of ‘truth’1?
0015 Zizek’s configuration is corroborated at the very end of the chapter (page 265) when he comments on a 1918 poem, titled “Twelve”, by Aleksandr Blok. At the end of this poem, an apparition of Jesus walks before a team of twelve Red Guards, patrolling the snow-filled streets of revolutionary Petrograd. Christ is not a leader2 (in the realm of actuality2), Christ3 is a shadow who contextualizes the actuality of a group of comrades2 who, in turn, both emerge from (and situate) their Cause1 (the potential of truth1).
So, I wonder, what type of king is this?
Does the kingdom of God dwell among us in such a strange and mysterious manner?
