09/18/26

Looking at Jess Beck, et al.’s Article (2026) “Changing the Landscape of Archaeological Publishing” (Part 11 of 20)

0129 Here an introduction to a few of the questions that I am wondering about.

0130 These questions must be regarded in light of Beck et al.’s brief history of academic journals.  Their story starts with the establishment of state-supported institutions of higher education around the time of the Civil War in America and after the revolutions of 1848 in Europe.

0130 In America, the federal government establishes land-grant universities through legislation in 1862 and 1890.

In Europe, France, under the Emperor, Napoleon III, starts a war with Prussia in 1870.  In 1871, France is defeated after a Prussian siege of Paris.  During the siege, the so-called “Paris commune” springs to life, extolling a communist manifesto by an intellectual in Britain, Karl Marx, who (up to this point in history) was regarded a fringe.  Marx returns the favor by giving a rousing speech, titled “Civil War in France”.

French citizens blame the results of the war on the superior public universities in Germany.

0131 Before this moment, journals are private affairs aiming to inform practitioners of the latest investigations and results.  Journals image problems, methods, data, and results.

After this moment, journals start to serve as indexes of academic accomplishment.

0132 In 2026 AD, Beck et al. notify the readers of Current Anthropology that this civilizational cycle is coming to a close.

0133 The time difference between 2026 and, say, 1862 is 164 years.  If the archaeologist uses the periodicity of the outer planets as celestial clocks, which outer planet matches this timeframe?

0134 Obviously, it is the periodicity of Neptune.

Since Neptune is discovered by astronomers in 1846, astrologers of a modern bent have been hard at work combing though various histories in order to see whether social events show a spiraling periodicity with a 165 year cycle.  The zodiac is already divided into 12 slots, so a pattern of social events that occurs when Neptune passes through one house should repeat when Neptune returns to the same house.

Does that sound like an anthropological hypothesis?

0135 As it turns out, Beck et al.’s brief history of journal publishing fits a 165-year spiral with remarkable precision.

Neptune enters the constellation of Aries in 2026, matching the terminus of a social movement that began the last time when Neptune was in Aries, between 1861 and 1875.

Here is a picture.

0136 The social movement that comes together to declare that higher education is a “public good” in the 1860s currently falls apart on the contradictory nature of what is called, “tenure”.  Near the start of the cycle, tenure is formalized by a union of professors.  At the top of the cycle, tenure has an impeccable reputation.  Then, more are more academics discover that tenure is a substance that can be gamed, resulting in the same societal crisis as the one portrayed in the Eridu Genesis.  In the end, corruption from above overwhelms competition from below.  The game is rigged.

0137 Here is a reminder.

0138 The label given to Neptune serves as a site for astrologers (and anthropologists) to regard our current Lebenswelt as a developing spiral.  The Neptune spiral is about sea changes in society.  An idea rises as an island of certainty within a sea of uncertainty.  Then, it sinks from the weight of its own internal contradictions.The professionalization of the sciences is not the only spiral associated with Neptune in Aries.  The emergence and submergence of other conceptual apparatuses may be worthy of consideration.  I will present one shortly. 

09/17/26

Looking at Dr. D. Basak’s Book (2025) “Sumerian Mythology…”  (Part 12 of 20)

0139 Okay, make that now.

What other conceptual apparatus congeals when Neptune is in Aries and then blobs out in the same zodiac sign, one orbit of Neptune later?

0140 Here is a picture of Marx’s thing.

0141 Marx’s thing is not a mathematical or mechanical model.  It is a variation of Aristotle’s hylomorphe, which is an exemplar of Peirce’s category of secondness.  Secondness is the realm of actuality.  The realm of actuality is subject to the logics of contradiction and non-contradiction.  The realm of actuality is what science is all about.

Remember that the mechanical philosophers are writing in Europe around 1600s, near a peak of Neptune’s cycle that passes through Aries in 1533-1548 and then in 1697-1706.  This Neptunian cycle concerns literalism.  Literal references [substantiate] spoken words.  I call this hylomorphe, “Martin Luther’s thing”.

0142 A sea change starts with the Reformation (1533-1548) proclaiming that literal interpretation of the Bible (translated into the person’s vernacular) is to be preferred to the Catholic’s literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical approaches.

The sea change overflows the dikes by the time Neptune enters Aries again.  Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) publishes Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (1697) with copious and often secret messaging footnotes.  John Harris (1667-1719) publishes Lexicon Technicum, the first with all the accoutrements of a modern encyclopedia.  The modern dictionary is a tribute to Luther’s thing.  If literalism is real, then aren’t dictionaries necessary?

What is more literal than a dictionary?

At the height of this sea change, mechanical philosophers (around 1600) design the empirio-schematic judgment.  This judgment is a triadic relation.  A literalist disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).  Dictionaries and encyclopedia are demanded by disciplinary languages.

0143 Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) is the precursor to what comes together during the next Neptune in Aries (1697-1706).  If literalism is real, if literal references [substantiate] our spoken words, then we can be rational in ways that people have never really been rational before.  Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) proposes a systematic rationalism, which rises to the formulation of the Positivist’s judgment, which contains the empirio-schematic judgment as what ought to be.

0144 What is the Positivist’s judgment?

A positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with phenomena (what is, firstness).

When Neptune is in Aries between 1697 and 1706, the relationship between faith and reason is a topic of intense interest.  Scientific reason as a manifestation of literalism (as opposed to religious reasoning) arises from the sea of uncertainty and sets the stage for further developments.  The western Enlightenment is going to be the high-point of the coming cycle (1697 to 1861).  I call this Neptune-in-Aries cycle, “Spinoza’s thing”.

0145 Here is a picture.

0146 Both Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) write between the emergence and submergence.  In a way, they represent how Spinoza’s thing, actualized by Leibniz during Neptune’s passage through Aries, reaches its peak as well as its point of manifesting the contradictions that will lead to its submergence.

In the descent, Karl Marx (1818-1883) proposes a dyadic structure that substitutes for a mathematical and mechanical model.  In other words, Marx claims that his dyadic model is scientific.  At the start of the next passage of Neptune through Aries, the Paris Commune proclaims Marx’s thing as the scientific model that must be taken literally by their international movement.  This international movement captures the imagination… er… “empirical interest”… of the burgeoning social sciences.

0147 Here is a picture of the next cycle for Neptune in Aries, which comes to its submergence at the current moment (1861-2026).

0147 For this cycle, one may ask, “Is Marx’s thing really a scientific model?  Or is Marx somehow gaming the Positivist’s and the empirio-schematic judgment?”

0148 The answer begins with the question, “What is a judgment?”

A judgment contains three elements, relation, what ought to be, and what is.  When each element is assigned a unique Peircean category, then the judgment becomes actionable.  Actionable judgments unfold into category-based nested forms on the basis of the categorical assignments.

0149 What are the Positivist’s and empirio-schematic judgments?

The Positivist’s judgment consists of a positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) bringing an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the dyad, {a noumenon [cannot be fully objectified as] its phenomena} (what is, firstness).

The empirio-schematic judgment, in turn, consists of a disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) bringing a mathematical or mechanical model (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).

0150 Here is the trick.

Marx’s thing has the structure of Peirce’s secondness. Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. The real elements are material arrangements and human conditions.  Secondness is the realm of actuality. 

Mathematical and mechanical models belong to what ought to be in the empirio-schematic judgment.  And, what ought to be is assigned to the category of secondness.  Observations and measurements belong to the category of firstness.  Disciplinary language belongs to the category of thirdness.  These assignments place mathematical and mechanical models into the realm of actuality.

Also, the empirio-schematic judgment belongs to what ought to be and is assigned to the category of secondness in the Positivist’s judgment.

0151 So, why would a dyad that belongs to secondness not effortlessly glide into a slot that is twice imbued with that category?

0152 Who is so fixated on the natural sciences as to notice that Marx’s thing is not exactly a mathematical or mechanical model?

Only natural scientists would notice.  Those that do are shunned by social scientists.

0153 Meanwhile, social scientists bend over forward in order to apply rigorous statistical criteria and analysis to their materials and methods sections, as if statistical manipulations are equivalent to mechanics and mathematics.

Precisely how does an inquirer demonstrate that the Marxist thing (as a scientific model) does not work because there is a flaw in its mathematical or mechanical formulations?

Indeed, phenomena are observed and measured selectively in order to support the appearance of mathematical or mechanical certainty characteristic of the physical sciences.

0154 Even more disheartening, statistical models constructed on selective observations and measurements of phenomena are crucial for the publications that administrators count, as if each publication is a data point that goes into a model of “academic productivity”.

0155 No wonder young professional archaeologists are exhausted.

It is Marx’s thing all the way down.

09/16/26

Looking at Jess Beck, et al.’s Article (2026) “Changing the Landscape of Archaeological Publishing” (Part 13 of 20)

0156 In biology, appearances initiate sign-relations.

Sign-relations are based on Peirce’s three categories of firstness (monadic possibility), secondness (dyadic actuality) and thirdness (triadic relations).

So are category-based nested forms.

0157 Category-based nested forms are not material.  Materials participate in these immaterial relations.

Category-based nested forms are real.  They contain secondness (what most scientists consider to be their subject matter) within their relational structures.

0158 How real are triadic relations, such as signs and category-based nested forms?

According to Razie Mah’s 2018 e-book, The Human Niche, our kind adapts to exploit the potential of triadic relations.  This e-book is packaged with separate reviews of four works: Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind, Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big, Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More Than Nature Needs and Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?.

Later works by Razie Mah include the 2024 work, Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019).

0159 What else might be of interest to young professional archaeologists?

What else points to the failure of Marx’s thing?

Here is a question.

Does human evolution comes with a twist?

In four blogs posted on January 1, 2026, Razie Mah looks at Melinda Zeder’s Article (2025) concerning the term, “Neolithic”.  He proposes that two transitions occur at the same time (S and T).

0160 The first (S) concerns the domestication of plants and animals, sedentary communities, and other items that archaeologists associate with the term, “neolithic”.  This topic has been the subject of intense inquiry by archaeology since… around… 1861 to 1875?  Research into the neolithic era has been conducted with Marx’s thing in mind. 

0161 Well, shades of Neptune in Aries, according to my internet search, the term “neolithic” was first coined by John Lubbock in 1865, as a refinement of the stone, bronze and iron ages.

0162 The second (T) concerns a change in semiotic conditions, from hand-speech talk (the way of talking for Homo sapiens since its inception) to speech-alone talk.  According to Razie Mah’s short 2014 e-book, The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, the first culture to practice speech-alone talk is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.  The Sumerian language (which is unrelated to any family of languages) is a speech-alone creole formed when two hand-speech talking cultures (one living along coast and rivers and one living on hills in the dryland Arabian Gulf) are forced into proximity by the rising waters of the Persian Gulf.  They form a pidgin, then a creole.

0163 Returning to that review of Melinda Zeder’s (2025) article in the journal, Prehistory, Razie Mah suggests that, within the currently conceptualized Neolithic period, another transition – a change in semiotic practices – occurs with the spread of speech-alone talk from the Ubaid to the hand-speech talking world, constituting an irreversible phase transition.

Needless to say, Razie Mah’s hypothesis of the first singularity suggests that a lot of research needs to be done in the field of archaeology.

The e-work, The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, is framed as a research proposal.

0164 The word, “sumer”, is first published in 1869, when Neptune is in Aries.

0165  The review of Melinda Zeder’s article is published January 1, 2026, at a time when Neptune is about to enter Aries.

0166 I’m not saying that this is an astrological phenomenon.  I am saying that anthropological researchers need a way to track civilizational changes within our current Lebenswelt, spanning from  the most rapid sea-water rise at the end of the last ice age (nominally, at 0 Ubaid Zero Prime) to our current moment (nominally at 8823 U0′).   The orbits of the outer planets may have periodicities convenient for marking spiraling developments in unconstrained social complexity.

I love sentences like that.

For U0′, subtract BC year from 6800 or add AD year to 6800.  6800BC equals 0 U0′.

Future refinements should be anticipated.

0167 This examination of two distinctly different contemporary works, a (possibly AI-generated) book on Sumerian mythology by Dr. D. Basak and a recent publication on the need for a change in publishing in archaeology, show that – whatever is responsible for the Sumerian civilization – is still operating today.

0168 There may be (say) two millennia (12 Neptunian cycles) between the routinization of the creation myth associated with Enlil3 and the one associated with the so-called “Eridu Genesis”.

Yet, from my associations (which are admittedly speculative), both narratives rely on the potential of ‘a separation that serves as a substance’1.

0169 Here is a picture.

0170 Does that potential still operate today?

The surprisingly evocative similarity between the creation of humans in the Eridu Genesis and a recent publication in Current Anthropology suggests that the current labor dispute will resolve with the creation of a new “human” that will take some of the work of the Igigi-like professional archaeologists.

I think that these new “humans” will be podcasters.

0172 Even more disturbing, the similarity suggests that [tenure]2a, the promise of low pay combined with total job security, is the substance that actualizes the potential of ‘a separation that serves as a substance’1a for the current labor dispute.

0174 Did the Igigi work so diligently for the Anunnaki because they were promised something akin to tenure?

I wonder.

09/15/26

Looking at Jess Beck, et al.’s Article (2026) “Changing the Landscape of Archaeological Publishing” (Part 14 of 20)

0175 In the following diagram, the current iteration of the Eridu Genesis occupies the content-level of the following two-level interscope.

0176 Marxist empirio-schematics occupies the situation-level.

Marxist disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings the dyadic model, {material arrangements [substantiate] human conditions} (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of civilizational phenomena (what is, firstness).

0177 The situation-level virtually emerges from (and situates) the content-level.

Here, “virtually” means “in virtue” (the premodern reference) rather than “in simulation” (the modern reference).

0178 Beck et al. clearly exhibit the hallmarks of this sensible construction.  The article clearly articulates that the material arrangements of academic publishing and university promotions [substantiate] their less-than-acceptable conditions.  The essay suggests ways to improve those arrangements.

The manifesto does not suggest any changes that challenge the substance that separates the archaeological researchers (the authors) from the keepers of the public good (university administrators and publishing houses).  After all, these young professionals have worked so hard to obtain tenure.  It is inconceivable that “tenure” is the highest point of elevation in a wave, passing through time, starting with legislation promoting higher education as a “public good” (in the 1860s) and ending with a publication arms-race that guarantees that the… um… well connected get to pass through the separation that serves as a substance (in the 2020s).

0179 Meanwhile, Dr. D. Basak does not need tenure to produce an (apparently AI generated) book on Sumerian mythology, ancient civilization and the epic search for humanity’s origins. Perhaps, Dr. Basak does not care that tenure is what falls apart as a sea change submerges due to the weight of its internal corruption and contradictions.

Nor does Dr. D. Basak recognize that the first chapter, which asserts the dyad, {the material arrangements of geology, ecology and climate of the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers [substantiates] the human conditions associated with the emergence of the one of the earliest civilizations on Earth}, is Marxist to the core.

0180 The proposition may be correct to some degree.

A particular set of material arrangements may have set the stage for a change in humanity’s semiotic arrangements.

However, speech-alone talk is what potentiates unconstrained social complexity, in a unique irreversible transition that starts with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, 8826 years ago.

0181 Doesn’t that sound like a huge research project?

Plus, it portends the dissolution of the Neptune-in-Aries sea-change starting between 1861 and 1875.

0182 The claim that Juri Lotman’s semiospheric thing will replace Karl Marx’s materialist thing as the social science model is developed in Razie Mah’s blogs in December 2025 through March 2026.  The first in the series is Looking at Igor Pilshchikov and Mikhail Trunin’s Article (2016) “The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics”.

0183 Here is a picture of a new paradigm for understanding Beck et al.

Now, postmodern intellectuals can imagine that tenure2a actualizes the potential of ‘a separation that may serve as a substance’1a.

This raises the semiotic question, “What does tenure2a stand for?”

What does it specify?

09/14/26

Looking at Jess Beck, et al.’s Article (2026) “Changing the Landscape of Archaeological Publishing” (Part 15 of 20)

0184 I now summarize.

0185 First, ideology defines the Sumerian city (chapter 2, Basak) and the modern multiversity (section 2, Beck et al.).

0186 Second, Peirce’s natural sign typology may be used to frame the historic transition from ideographs to the rebus principle (chapter 3, Basak) as well as the historic development of academic journals (section 2, Beck et al.).

0187 Third, the same historic transitions in the second item may also be framed using Razie Mah’s category-nested form for the definition of a spoken word.

0188 Fourth, the creation of humans in the Eridu Genesis (chapter 4, D. Basak) portrayed as a nested form, matches the current crisis in academic publishing in the discipline of archaeology (discussion, Beck et al.).

0189 Fifth, D. Basak fails to recognize that the Sumerian divine assembly (the Anunnaki) may be portrayed by filling in slots within the purely relational structure of the category-based nested form.  This failure indicates a blind spot that implicates the field of archaeology for the past 165 years.  If the speculation that the book under examination is AI-generated is true (and that is not certain at the moment of writing) and if an AI program cannot process what its training material does not envision, then this failure may also apply to Jess Beck et al.’s assessment of the material arrangements that substantiate the conditions of young professional archaeologists.

These researchers are blind to parallels between ancient Sumerian mythology and their own professional crisis, because the Marxist thing clouds their vision.

0190 Sixth, the Marxist thing sinks into a sea of uncertainty.  Anthropologists are burdened with material analysis.  They cannot envision Lotman’s thing, {semiotic arrangements [substantiate] human conditions}, distilled within a Marxist political institution from the art and literature of Slavic civilization.

Only Lotman’s thing3b allows anthropologists to address the question, “What if tenure2a (SVs) stands for the substance2b (SOs) actualizing the potential of ‘observing and measuring a social conflict’1b in the normal context of the disciplinary language of the Tartu-Moscow School of semiotics3b (SIs)?”

What if tenure is not situated as a material arrangement?

What if tenure (SVs) stands for a semiotic arrangement (SOs)?

0191 Indeed, the specificative sign-relation says the following, “The content-level actuality of {keepers of the public good [tenure] servants of the keepers)2a (SVs) stands for the situation-level actuality of Lotman’s thing2b (SOs) in regards to the disciplinary language of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics3b operating on the potential of ‘observations and measurements of phenomena of the current crisis in the publishing of research papers and its importance in promotions in post-modern universities’1b (SIs).

Where can I get information on this specifying sign-relation?

Take a look at Razie Mah’s blog for October, 2023, titled Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal”.

0192 Now, I would like to return to the idea that Dr. D. Basak approaches Sumerian mythology, ancient civilization and the epic search for humanity’s origins from a Marxist point of view, because, to date, all research in anthropology is conducted with the Marxist thing as a model.

0193 The following figure shows the challenge posed by a specifying sign-relation whose time has come (according to a Neptune in Aries cycle).

0194 This specifying sign-relation says, “The content-level dyad, {An (sky) [separation] Ki (earth)}2a (SVs) stands for the situation-level dyad, {semiotic arrangements [substantiate] human conditions}2b (SOs), in regards to a situation-level normal context, Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics disciplinary language3b, operating on the potential of ‘observations and measurements of mythic phenomena’1b (SIs).

09/12/26

Looking at Dr. D. Basak’s Book (2025) “Sumerian Mythology…”  (Part 16 of 20)

0195 So, what does the differentiation of Nammu specify?

Let me consider the mythic separation of An (sky) and Ki (earth) (SVs), appearing in chapter 4.

What are the semiotic arrangements (SOs) that it stands for?

0196 Here is my initial guess.

An2 and Ki2 are two real elements.  They belong in the category of secondness. They are two [contiguous] real elements.  These constitute a content-level actuality2a and the sign-vehicle of a specifying sign-relation (SVs).

The embrace of An and Ki has the potential to be fertile1b.  This situation-level potential1b plays a role in the specifying sign-interpretant (SIs) along with a normal context that has to do with cognition3b (SIs).  The implicit abstraction of fertility becomes explicit with a conception2b (SOs).

0197 The fertility of An and Ki’s embrace1b produce the child2b that will separate them into father and mother figures.  The sky and the implicit abstraction of fatherhood are labeled “An”.  The earth and the implicit abstraction of motherhood are labeled “Ki”.  The substance potentiated by that separation is [the air], the domain of Enlil3.  The domain of the god of the storm, Enlil3, is the child that separates father and mother.

0198 Formulated in this manner, the Marxist thing no longer applies.  That is expected.

What is not expected?

The resulting sign-relation says that the separation of An and Ki2a (SVs) (which occurs after the birth of Enlil) ends up conceiving Enlil2b (SOs).

That makes no sense at all.

0199 So, I must step back and concoct a second guess.

0200 If I want to observe a sign-relation within the Sumerian creation story, then I need two levels.

The story starts with Nanna.  Nanna2a is a pure monad, but still belonging to the realm of actuality.  Of course, this is not possible.  All it takes is a spoken word1a in order to induce a disturbance in this monad3a, that supports the differentiation of Nanna2a.

So, the content-level actuality2a and the specifying sign-vehicle (SVs) testify to the instability of pure potential in a world where all that it takes is a spoken word1a to induce a disturbance in the monad3a.

Perhaps, this explains why monotheism takes so long to develop in our current Lebenswelt.  On the content level, a single god is a monad that either (1) remains in the category of firstness and therefore does not actualize or (2) enters into the category of secondness and differentiates into a dyadic actuality.

0201 Okay, that is a good start.

Here is a picture of my second guess for the specifying sign-relation.

0202 The sign-relation is apparent.  Nanna differentiating into An (male) and Ki (female)2a (SVs) stands for the actuality of the separation of An (sky) and Ki (earth)2b (SOs) in regards to Enlil3b (the child, whose domain is the air) operating on the potential of ‘the fertile embrace of An and Ki1b (SIs).

In effect, the birth of a normal context3b shuts down further expression of the potential1b that supports it.

Or, does it?

Recalling earlier comments, the potential of ‘the fertile embrace of An and Ki’1b shifts into ‘separation that may support a substance’1b in the normal context of Enlil3b.  In short, the fertility of the embrace between the heavens and the earth1b sublimates into the separation that supports Enlil’s domain of the [air]1b.  The [air] is the contiguity between heaven and earth.  Enlil3b is the god of the storm2b.

0203 If I compare the sign-vehicle and the sign-object for the two guesses, I get the following.

0204 In the first guess, I start with the same actuality that I conclude with in the second guess.

Each guess produces a specifying sign-relation.

Do these two guesses offer a lesson about semiotic arrangements?

Surely, it is not necessarily obvious how explicit abstractions fit into the empty slots of the two-level interscope of sensible construction.  One of the reasons is that the content and situation two-level interscope embodies a specifying sign-relation.  In other words, the two-level interscope contains a semiotic arrangement.  Associations must comport with the logics of both relations.

0205 The SOs contributes to the esse_ce of the situation-level actuality2b, “separation” is an explicit abstraction that does not indicate what fills in between the two real elements.  “Air, Enlil’s domain,” (SOs) is an explicit abstraction that does indicate what fills in between the two real elements.  What is the implicit abstraction that one must draw?  Enlil’s domain is not a real element.  It is neither heaven nor earth.  Enlil’s domain actualizes a separation that serves as a substance.

0206 A comparison of the two guesses in the realm of possibility is also interesting.

The content-level comparison is evocative.  In the first guess, I choose the potential of ‘a separation that serves as a substance’1a as the ground for the separation of An and Ki2a.  In the second guess, the potential of ‘the breath it takes to speak a word’1a is enough to destabilize the pure monad of everything, Nammu, having entered the realm of actuality2a.

0207 In sum, the Lotman thing directs the inquirer to consider entering terms of explicit abstraction into interscopes that contain embedded sign-relations.  The discussion here is only an intimation of how extensive this research project will be.  The three types of sign-relation that are integral to the three level interscope is discussed in Razie Mah’s blog for October 2023 titled, Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal”.  A lengthy anthropological application may be found in the four-part e-work, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

09/11/26

Looking at Dr. D. Basak’s Book (2025) “Sumerian Mythology…”  (Part 17 of 20)

0208 Chapters 4 and 5 of Basak’s text discuss the generation of the major and minor gods that comprise the divine council, the Anunnaki.

I would like to start with the actuality2 of Enlil’s separation of the sky and the earth from the point of view of Lotman’s thing.

0209 Here is a picture of Lotman’s empirio-schematic virtually contextualizing a nested form of Enlil’s creation story.

Uh oh, does this figure imply that Lotman’s thing is now operating on the perspective level?

Does that mean that an unfolded empirio-schematic judgment occupies the perspective level?

Oh my.

0210 As mentioned earlier (and completely missed by Basak), the actualities of An2 and Ki2 are further differentiated in the creation of the other members of the divine council, resulting in a surprisingly rich actuality2 composed of two contiguous real category-based nested forms.

Remember that the green separation consists of Enlil’s domain, which is not a real element, but a substance.  The [air] is the contiguity between the heavens and the earth.

0211 The categorical qualities within heavenly and earthly nested forms are colored by the fact that the nested forms are real elements within a divine actuality2b.

0212 The thirdness of An3 and Ki3 is reified into two complementary normal contexts3.  They do not align with one another.  They do not exclude one another.

0213 The secondness of Utu2, Nanna2, Ninhursag2 and Ereshlugal2 is as solid as the sun, moon, mountains and underworld.

0214 Finally, the gods of Enki1 and Inanna1 associate to the realm of possibility, as if those possibilities are actual.

Surely, these are speculative observations.

Nevertheless, these are the ones that I want to explore, using Basak’s text for mythological accounts.

0215 I start with Enki1.  Part III of chapter 6 recounts the congratulatory celebration following the creation of humans as the resolution of the Igigi’s labor stoppage in the Eridu Genesis.

Yes, the gods throw a party.  Enki1 and Ninmah2 (Ninhursag2) are both in attendance.  Enki1 is the one who comes up with the idea of creating humans in order to solve the divine labor dispute.  Ninmah2 is crucial to fashioning the human out of clay from Enki’s domain, the Abzu.

Already, the impression is made that Enki1 belongs to the realm of possibility (the category of firstness) and Ninmah2 belongs to the realm of actuality (the category of secondness).

0216 After drinking jugs of beer, the two gods engage in a contest about who can create the most useless humans.

0217 Ninmah2 goes first.  She creates six messed up humans.  One has weak hands.  Another is blind.  A third has broken feet.  A fourth is incontinent.  A fifth is barren.  A sixth is sexless.  This comports with what one expects for a goddess imbued with secondness (in regards to Ki3) within Enlil3‘s secondness.

Enki1‘s retort addresses the question, “How can each disfigured or dysfunctional person be a productive member of society?”  He assigns different specializations to each.  In doing so, he1 offers a divine precedent for inclusion and for balancing apparent contradictions (between a person’s functionality and that person’s job).

0218 Enki1 goes next.  He fashions a creature that looks like the following.

It cannot sit.  It cannot stand.  It cannot walk.  It cannot eat bread or drink beer.  It cannot speak or listen.  What can this flawed, helpless being do?  It cannot do anything.  Ninmah2, the so-called “mother goddess”, is flummoxed.   She2 curses Enki1 for his folly.

0219 Chapter 5 discusses the goddess Inanna1 (in Sumerian) and Ishtar1 (in Akkadian).  She is queen of the heaven and earth, but mostly the earth, since her interests include love and war.

Yes, she reigns over the contradictory domains of love, beauty, sexuality and fertility as well as war, conflict, political power and intrigue.

To me, that sounds like the category of firstness.  The logics of firstness are inclusive.  Firstness allows contradictions.

0220 The following story associates to the forty-day retrograde of the planet Venus.

0221 Inanna1 desires power (one wonders why) even from Kur, the underworld, the domain of her elder sister, the goddess Ereslugal2.  She1 decides to go herself1.  Inanna1 adorns herself before her descent, but she is forced to surrender a piece of her regalia at each of the seven gates.  By the time she gets to Ereshlugal2‘s throne-room, she is naked and powerless to defend herself.

Uh-oh.

0222 Ereshlugal2 calls the Anunnaki, once the celestial divine council (in the Sumerian sign-world), now a court ruling over the fate of the deceased (in the Akkadian sign-world).  Their decision is brutal.  Inanna1 is killed and her corpse is hung on a hook.

Is this what happens when potential1 enters the underworld of actuality2 in order to obtain power?

Is this what happens when the planet Venus enters into combustion (conjunction) with the sun?

0223 As one might expect for a goddess imbued with potential1 (in the normal context of Ki3) as well as actuality2 (in the normal context of Enlil3), after three days, Inanna’s servant Ninsubar1, and Enki1, find a way to rescue her1.  A deal2 is struck, Inanna1 may leave the underworld alive if she1 provides a substitute for… you know… that hook.

0224 Upon her return, she1 finds a substitute right away.  A shepherd king sits on her empty throne.  Out come the demons to drag the presumptuous fellow down to serve as Inanna1‘s substitute on a meat-hook in hell.

0225 While these two instances do not grant certainty to the assignment of Enki1 and Inanna1 to the realm of possibility for An3 and Ki3 respectively, within Enlil3‘s differentiated actuality2, they do lend credence to the intelligence of the guess.

Isn’t that the most that we can expect in a world perfused with sign-relations?

09/10/26

Looking at Dr. D. Basak’s Book (2025) “Sumerian Mythology…”  (Part 18 of 20)

0226 Chapter 7 of Basak’s text is titled “When the Heavens Wept: The Great Flood Myth”.

0227 The biblical story of Noah’s flood corresponds to similar stories written about the end of the Uruk archaeological period, often labeled the “Jamdet Nasr” (3600-3800 U0′).  If the Uruk starts around 2800 U0′, then the townships of the Uruk period have around 1200 years (or 7 orbits of Neptune) to denude nearby forests in unwitting preparation for catastrophic flooding.

Or, the Uruk townships have 3 transits of Eris in order to destroy their own Lebenswelt from within… er… without.  After all, who cares if Uruk deforests the hills that surround Mesopotamia and attacks the nascent civilization forming on the nearby Susa plain and digs holes all over the region in order to extract copper to smelt and sends emissaries to distant lands in order to show how wealthy and powerful the gods of the townships have become?

0228 Surely, the long periodicity and the name selected for Eris offers an opportunity to frame a cyclic process beginning and ending in strife and discord.

“Strife and discord” constitute divine punishment.  So do catastrophic natural events.

0229 On one hand, no archaeologist knows precisely which flood (among several candidates) informs both the Biblical flood story and the flood story appearing in the Epic of Gilgamesh.  So, the Marxist interpretation of the flood stories suffers in that no one can figure out the material arrangements.

0230 On the other hand, at the start of 2026, no archaeologist is aware of Razie Mah’s groundbreaking hypothesis, propounded in the e-book, The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, and briefly outlined in points 0162 and 0163 of the exposition at hand.  So, none can appreciate the relevance of a Lotmanist interpretation of the causes for the flood according to the ancient texts themselves.

This figure is not accounted for in Basak’s survey of current (up to 2025) literature in the field of archaeology.

0231 It almost makes one wonder, “Could civilization have been potentiated by a semiotic transition from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk, starting with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia?”

0232 If the answer is affirmative, then our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Plus, the celestial clocks suggested in this commentary start to tick.

0234 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the celestial bodies were used for signs and for marking the seasons.

In our current Lebenswelt, the celestial bodies may be used as time-pieces, whose zodiac return marks the turning of a spiral of revolutions within the trajectories of unconstrained social complexity.

0235 At this point, young professional archaeologists may want to know how Razie Mah gets to the claim that, since the inception of our species, hand-speech talk has been re-organizing the way humans think.  The following diagram presents two recent reads that should assist in satisfying that desire.

0236 The first commentary reviews a number of books by a (now former) Director of the Department of Evolutionary Anthropology at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig.  Michael Tomasello never adopted a fully semiotic frame of mind.  This commentary adds value to his works by showing how relevant the framework of triadic relations can be.

0237 The second commentary reviews Steven Mithen’s 2024 book, The Language Puzzle, as well as Julian Jaynes 1976 book, The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.  Steven Mithen intimates that synaesthesia is instrumental in attaining speech talk, yet refuses to consider that a fully linguistic hand talk need only add the voice as an adornment, using synaesthesia as a guide, to achieve hand-speech talk.  The fluid semiotic dynamics of hand-speech talk explains many cultural features of the Late Paleolithic.

09/9/26

Looking at Dr. D. Basak’s Book (2025) “Sumerian Mythology…”  (Part 19 of 20)

0238 Why is a review of an old (1976) book by an expert on literature be relevant?

0239 If it turns out that synaesthesia is instrumental in adding the voice, as an adornment, to fully linguistic hand-talk at the dawn of our species, Homo sapiens, then the mindset where a spoken word is recognized to image or indicate the same referent as a hand talk word must be of interest.  Spoken words do not picture or point to anything.  Hand talk words do.  So, the automatic transit of spoken word to image and indication suggests that… if a person hears a voice… then that purely symbolic being is automatically taken to be as real as the iconic and indexal beings of hand talk.

Julian Jaynes calls this mind-set, “the bicameral mind”.  He argues that Homer’s Iliad portrays the bicameral mind, where the words of the gods (that is, auditory hallucinations) are regarded literally, and the Odyssey portrays modern consciousness, where spoken words are not immediately and literally taken as one would regard a manual-brachial gesture.  As it turns out, the same difference applies to Atarasis and Gilgamesh.  There is a different in mind-set between the two.  The same difference applies to Noah and Abraham.

0240 Here is a picture summarizing the issue.

To me, this shows how Lotman’s thing may be more relevant to the discipline of archaeology than Marx’s thing.

0241 Chapter 8 covers the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The tablet containing one chapter of the Epic of Gilgamesh is pieced together by George Smith in 1872.  This portion of the epic contains an account of the flood that parallels the Biblical account of Noah (a table appears in chapter 7).

Gilgamesh, a king who lives long after the flood, quests for immortality after the death of his friend.  He knows that Utnapishtim (Atarhasis) was granted immortality by the gods after the flood.  Gilgamesh makes the dangerous trek to visit him in order to obtain the secret.

Gilgamesh learns that there is no way to get immortality from the gods.  But (and this sounds precisely like a sales pitch) there is a plant that grows at the bottom of the sea that produces youthful regeneration.  Eat this plant and the promise is youthful renewal.  So, Gilgamesh goes to the bottom of the sea, obtains the plant, then takes a nap.  A snake eats the plant, then sheds its skin, thereby attaining youthful regeneration.  See!  The plant works as promised!

0242 Here is a comparison between the mythic tree of life in the Biblical Garden of Eden and the plant that Gilgamesh obtains from the bottom of the sea.

0243 When the word, “immortality”, is taken literally by Marx-informed archaeologists, something is missing.

What is missing?

Where is the semiotic difference between the world of hand- and hand-speech talk (that is, the Lebenswelt that we evolved in) and our current world of speech-alone talk (that is, our current Lebenswelt)?

0244 Chapter 9 covers more spoken-word games.

The Weld-Blundell prism offers an ideological narrative called “the Sumerian King List”.  Gilgamesh is one of the kings before the great flood.  The kingship descends from heaven.  Only one city at a time holds the banner.

The name for this type of narrative is “mytho-history”.  The narrative is ideological, but seems to read… well… y like any other story.

The spoken words say, “Take our purely symbolic beings to be icons and indexes that picture and point to their referents.”

0245 Julian Jaynes argues that the invention of writing disrupted the operations of the bicameral mind in the most insidious manner. Writing allows oracular proclamations to be compared.  Before writing, a person would hear a voice telling him to do this or that, and, just like Utnapishtim and Noah, the person would create the artifact that the voice was calling for.  After writing is invented, one can see that the voices convey different messages.

Even better, the person writing the script is now in a position to be a voice in other people’s heads.

0246 Chapter 10 concerns the divine assembly, the Anunnaki, according to Akkadian script.  As already noted the Anunnaki originally have seven members.  The big three (in green) are Enlil3, An3 and Enki1.  The other four (in blue) are Utu2, Nanna2, Ninhursag2 and Inanna1.

Here are the assignments based on what the gods represent (see list in chapter 5.2).

0247 Early on, in the Sumerian civilization, the Anunnaki compose a divine council.  They decree that a great flood should occur.  After the flood, they rule that Utnapishtim receives immortality.  They also rule that humans should be created to solve the Igigi labor dispute.  The Anunnaki declare fate from above.

Once the mantle of civilization passes to the Akkadians, the Anunnaki become judges in the underworld.  They work for Ereshlugal, the queen of the underworld.

0248 What a change in jobs.  Here is a picture.

After centuries, maybe millennia, the Anunnaki lose their differentiated nature.  They become like a jury, where all the members are technically the same.  In this capacity, they serve as the court that condemns Inanna, the goddess of love and war, to death.

09/8/26

Looking at Dr. D. Basak’s Book (2025) “Sumerian Mythology…”  (Part 20 of 20)

0249 Chapters 11, 12 and 13 are devoted to debunking an agenda, called “the ancient astronaut theory”, proposed by various hucksters starting in the 1950s.  This theory is multifaceted, since there is more than one proponent.  Basak’s book says that the theory sweeps into public popularity because of the uncertainty following the second battle among the Enlightenment gods, the hot war among fraternal ideologies (1938-1945 AD) and leading into the third battle among the Enlightenment gods, the cold war among materialist ideologies (1945-1989).

0250 Against this interpretation, which explains this social phenomenon in terms of a model where material arrangements after the Second World War and the start of the Cold War [substantiate] conditions ripe for scam-ideas about ancient civilizations, I place a Lotmanist suggestion that the social popularity of the ancient astronaut theories is accounted for by the inadequacies of Marxist-interpretations of archaeological research into the Neolithic period.

0251 Here is a picture of the framework of the latest cycle of Neptune in Aries.

Highly successful excavations by Western archaeologists offer the promise of coming to terms with the rise of ancient civilizations, based on Marxists formulations.

The Marxist thing does not quite do the job, so alternate theories are proposed by hucksters anticipating an explanatory breakthrough.  Basak’s exercise in debunking the very entertaining alternatives only replays the Marxist thing. Basak relies on the Marxist thing to debunk the alternatives that arose from the lack of explanatory power of the model that material arrangements [substantiate] human conditions.

Now, anthropologists are starting to realize that all those people who entertained the now-debunked “ancient astronaut theory” were not as stupid as the Marxist thing presumes.

0251 Once again, Razie Mah’s four part blog, Looking at Melinda A. Zeder’s Article (2025) “Unpacking the Neolithic”, offers insights.  The results of anthropological research into the so-called “Neolithic” does not… indeed, cannot… account for another trend hidden within the data.  That trend is towards unconstrained social complexity.  Basak’s AI program (my speculation, of course) trains only on results and discussions produced by researchers interested in looking for the material arrangements that substantiate neolithic conditions.  They cannot account for a change in semiotic practices.  They cannot account for what Razie Mah’s hypothesis of the first singularity suggests.

0252 Therefore, why not postulate ancient astronauts?

Surely, ancient monumental constructions, such as pyramids, stone circles, and tracks of figures that can only be seen from the sky indicate ways that civilizing humans communicate with these alien beings.

0253 If this is not a cry for a semiotic accounting for the emergence of unconstrained social complexity, I don’t know what is.

0254 Chapter 14 offers a standard summary of the achievements of ancient Sumeria.

0255 Chapter 15 returns to the topic of the Sumerian creation myths.  Once again, the text re-iterates established points.  On one hand, the Marxist thing can provide an explanation that cannot be challenged because… well… it is supposedly just like a mathematical or mechanical natural science model.  On the other hand, the Marxist thing cannot account for the emergence of unconstrained social complexity in southern Mesopotamia.

Lotman’s thing can.

0256 Here is a picture.

0257 Although this pair of options may appear stunningly simplistic, the ancient astronaut theory shows that stunningly simplistic can work.  It can offer an off-ramp to the current academic highway of a publication-based arms race, where young professional archaeologists struggle to pass through the substance called “tenure” only to realize that they have merely passed from antithesis to thesis (see points 0124-0128).

0258 Beck et al.’s manifesto, “Changing the Landscape of Archaeological Publishing” (Current Anthropology 67(1) (2026), https://doi.org/10.1086/739789), is well worth contemplating as a marker for the end of one Neptune in Aries spiral and the beginning of another.