03/23/26

Looking at Mikhail Trunin’s Article (2017) “Semiosphere and history” (Part 8 of 8)

0935 What happens next?

Lotman and Uspenskij publish an article in Russian (in 1971), which is translated into English (in 1978), titled “On the semiotic mechanism of culture”.

This is followed by intense study of Vernadskij’s language of life-pressure, then the publication of Lotman’s seminal paper, “On the semiosphere”, in Russian (in 1984).

0936 The author goes to some length to distance Lotman’s concept of the semiosphere and Teilhard de Chardin’s (1881-1955) framework of Alpha-Omega Points.

Why?

De Chardin’s concept does not put the dyad, {cognition as matter_2bm [substantiates] social interaction as form_2bf}, into a semiological message_1c. De Chardin packages this actuality_2b into a theological message_1c. A theological message_1cdoes not comport with the TMS positivist intellect_3a.

0937 Or does it_1c now that the USSR no longer reigns?

That is question for another day.

0938 For this examination, I must stay with a positivist-loving message_1c.

The crucial point is that culture-pressure_2b is like life-pressure_2b and the perspective-level model_1c that is appropriate for this culture-pressure_2b is esse_tially semiotic.

Esse_tailly?

Yes, esse_ce is matter substantiating and essence is substantiated form.

So, semiotic arrangements as matter_2cm [substantiate] human conditions as form_2cf.

0939 Here is a picture.

0940 Esse_ce is {semiotic arrangements as matter_2cm [substantiating]}.

Essence is {[substantiated] human conditions as form_2cf}.

0941 Do I need to note that the universe of messages_1c is Lotman’s “semiosphere_1c“?

0942 The semiosphere_1c parallels the concept of biosphere_1c.

One can say that the semiosphere_1c contains the totality of individual texts and independent languages. They all relate to one another.

Why?

All texts and statements are forms_2af that entangle matters of the language of meaning_2am. The presence of the language of meaning_2am has the potential_1b of engendering the matter of cognition_2bm. Cognition as matter_2amsubstantiates social interactions as form_2bf. These forms_2bfare contextualized as messages_1c. A universe of messages_1cundergirds the doctrine_2c that semiotic arrangements_2cm substantiate human conditions_2cf, in the normal context of mind theory_3c.

0943 And what else?

This explanation also applies to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. See Razie Mah’s e-book, The Human Niche. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations.

0944 According to the author, Lotman and Uspenskij agree.

They also disagree.

That is the nature of intellectual discourse and discovery.

The author tells some of the story in a section titled, “How Lotman and Uspenskij influence each other”.

0945 In our current Lebenswelt, cultural studies_3b (the situation-level normal context in the derivative interscope) always involve historical processes and texts_2bf (situation-level actualities of the fundament interscope).

0946 How so?

The normal context of cultural processes_3b brings the dyadic actuality_2b of {cognition_2bm [substantiates] social interaction_2bf} into relation with the possibility of presence_1b.

The presence_1b of what?

Literary texts_2af [entangling] a language of meaning_2am.

0947 In the twentieth volume of Sign Systems Studies (1987), Uspenskij publishes “On the problem of the genesis of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics”.

This examination adds value by commenting on Mikhail Trunin’s 2017 review of Uspenskij’s conflation of semiotics and history.

0948 The subtitle of the twenty-fifth volume of Sign Systems Studies (1992), the last volume edited Juri Lotman, is “Semiotics and history”.

Twenty-five years later, the forty fifth volume (2017) contains a special issue on semiotics and history.

0949 Finally, in 2025, Kaveli Kull and Ekaterina Velmezova publish Sphere of Understanding: Tartu Dialogues with Semioticians. The book contains interviews with several of the figures mentioned in this article (volume 23 of Semiotics, Communication and Cognition, edited by Paul Cobley and Kalevi Kull, Walter De Gruyter, Boston/Berlin).

0950 One wonders whether the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics will find a path to a second ascent.

0951 Surely the scenery will differ.

In the first ascent, science is god and {material arrangements [substantiate] human conditions}_2c.

In the second, the divine Trinity is God and {semiotic arrangements [substantiate] human conditions}_2c.

0952 So, what I am I suggesting?

Is Juri Lotman the Karl Marx of a new era?

History is a species of semiotics.

03/21/26

Looking at Augustin Fuentes’s Article (2016) “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis…” (Part 1 of 16)

0001 The full title of the article before me is “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an Integrated Anthropology”. The work is published in Current Anthropology (volume 57, supplement 13, June 2016, pages S13-S26; DOI: 10.1086/685684). At the time of publication, the author is a Professor at the Department of Anthropology at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. He has since been scooped up by Princeton.

Scooped?

Ask anyone in Human Resources what that term means.

0002 The material for this thought-piece is developed at the Center for Theological Inquiry in 2012-13, in a collaborative titled, “Inquiry on Human Nature”, and presented to a Wenner-Gren symposium in 2014.

0003 This is the time when the much-vaunted program of “niche construction” is in the Zeitgeist… er… air. The author seeks to capitalize on this extension of the evolutionary synthesis. The first extension, starting fifty years earlier, is from natural history into genetics, and is now called “Neodarwinism”.

And what does he want to invest that capital in?

An integrated anthropology.

0004 Integrated anthropology?

I suppose that anthropology is to integrate with evolutionary science.

This is precisely an interest of Razie Mah, as witnessed in his three masterworks: The Human Niche (2018), An Archaeology of the Fall (2012), and How To Define the Word “Religion” (2015).

0005 But, that is not the references that I really should be pointing to.

I should be indicating two primers, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. These are A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0006 Why?

The terms in the title of the work under examination associate to elements in a category-based nested form.

I associate “integration” to the normal context₃.

I associate “anthropology” to the actuality₂.

I associate “evolutionary science” to the potential₁.

0007 The category-based nested form derives from the philosophy of Charles Peirce. It consists in four statements. The fourth is paradigmatic. A triadic normal context₃ brings a dyadic actuality₂ into relation with the monadic possibility of ‘something’₁. The subscripts correspond to Peirce’s three categories.

0008 Here is a picture of my associations, along with how each element gets specified by the title of this article.

0009 What do these associations imply?

The human niche₃ is the “integration₃” of an “integrated anthropology”.

As such, the human niche₃ should contextualize ethnography₂ (as a specific application of anthropology₂).

0010 The formal causation in these statements seems reasonable.

But, does the efficient causation seem plausible?

Does anthropology₂ emerge from the potential of evolutionary science₁?

Can ethnography₂ situate the potential of ‘niche construction (as a case-study for an extended evolutionary synthesis)’₁?

0011 The following figure distills the author’s challenge.

03/4/26

Looking at Augustin Fuentes’s Article (2016) “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis…” (Part 16 of 16)

0163 Consequently, a pattern of domestication and entanglement is an appropriate darwinian model for the adaptations involved in discipline of ethnography.

0164 On one hand, the ethnographer is an emissary from a society with wealth and power and serves as an actuality independent of the adapting narod-folk_2a.

The potential of intergroup competition_1b says that fear should be the appropriate adaptation_2b, in the course of natural and cultural selection_3b.

0165 But this does not happen. Instead, the narod-folk_3b,1b adapt by losing their fear of the ethnographer’s society_2b. This is the nature of domestication.

0166 On the other hand, the narod-folk_2a are the actuality independent of the adapting species for anthropologists within Western academies_3b who are trained by (and train) ethnographers on the methods of mapping the cognitive spaces of narod-folk_1b. The very act of mapping the cognitive spaces of a narod (whether historically given or spontaneously generated) exhibits the anthropology of substantiation and entanglement.

0167 I conclude by returning to the snarky comment at point 119 and apologizing.

Yeah, semioticians have teeth.

0168 The author notes, in the final paragraph, that the human niche is a basal framework that enables the inquirer to include the salient features, forces and processes at multiple levels of… um… organization. Surely, that description fits the idea of using the purely relational structure of the category-based nested form as a tool for inquiry. All that this examiner has done is transpose elements from the author’s argument into the empty slots of a category-based nested form.

This suggests that category-based nested forms satisfy Bourdieu’s enigmatic phrase, of “structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures”. Category-based nested forms are purely relational (triadic) structures that gather material through the intuitive use of association, followed by an exploration of the implications.

0169 My thanks go to the author of this article, who undoubtedly has published more academic literature since this work from 2016, without the value that this examination adds. Perhaps, this 2026 review may add to a re-illustration of the envisioned integrated anthropology.

02/28/26

Looking at Mihhail Lotman’s Article (2017) “History as Geography” (Part 1 of 8)

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 reasonable_3a,when allowing experts to decide which tidbits of what I say_2af shall be ascribed to um… the citizen’s will_1a?

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?”

Intellect_3a conveys identity. There are two types of identity. One is potentiated by truth_1a. The other is potentiated by my will_1a.

Notice, that the term, “identity”, which labels my intellect_3a based of the potentials of truth or my will_1a, 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 Identity_3a is a style of understanding. Is_3a it not?

After all, it_3a changes with potential_1a. Does it_3a not?

One cannot picture or point to identity_3a.

If one searches for it_3a, it_3a will always prove elusive, because it_3a contextualizes₃ and potentiates₁ what I think_2am and what I say_2af.

Better to think_2am and speak_2af about geography.

02/19/26

Looking at Peeter Torop’s Article (2017) “Semiotics of Cultural History” (Part 1 of 11)

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.

0966 What a weird analogy.

Nevertheless, allow me to continue.

02/7/26

Looking at Peeter Torop’s Article (2017) “Semiotics of Cultural History” (Part 11 of 11)

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 text_2bf 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. Parole_2af 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 table_2bf (fundament and derivative, Figure 1).

Perhaps, this table further develops and refines Bakhtin’s semiological structuralist model_2c (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 model_2c and the derivative rises to a yet-to-be-determined perspective-level actuality_2c.

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 semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c. 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 tables_2af entangle a language_2am of presence_1b (as well as meaning_1a). Lotman recognizes_2bm time_2af as a formal requirement of the chronotope_2am and forces Torop to construct his own table (Figure 4 on page 330) as a way to situate_2bf that entanglement_2a.

1096 Here is a juxtaposition of the virtual nested form in the 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 actuality_2c (to be determined) brings the situation-level actuality of {cognition_2bm [substantiates] social interaction_2bf} into relation with the possibility of {a literary text_2af [entangling] a language_2am of meaning_1a, presence_1b and message_1c}.

1099 For Torop’s table addressing Lotman (Figure 4), the perspective-level actuality_2c of {semiotic arrangements_2cm[substantiate] human conditions_2cf} virtually brings the situation-level actuality of {Lotman’s recognition of time_2bm[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 text_2af [entangle] the chronotope’s formal requirements_2am of the normal context of the Tartu-Moscow School_3a}.

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 model_2c of Bakhtin’s insights_2af and support the entanglement of a language_2am that sounds very much like any language of interpretation.

What is the meaning_1a, presence_1b and message_1c 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 actuality_2c 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.

01/31/26

Looking at Ekaterina Velmezova and Kalevi Kull’s Article (2017) “Boris Uspenskij…” (Part 1 of 19)

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 actuality_2a on the content-level of a two-level interscope. Language_2bm is the situation-level matter that induces a constellation of the content-level hylomorphe.

0384 Okay, if language_2b is (by Saussure’s definition) the dyad, {langue_2am [arbitrary relation] parole_2af}, then how can language_2b situate itself_2a?

This can only happen if language_2b is already participating as a situation-level category-based nested form involved in the production of statements_2b.

0385 Here is a picture.

0386 It is as if the content-level actuality_2a is immediately situated by a demand to substantiate a statement, as if language_2b is matter and a statement_2b is form.

0387 But, obviously, there is more.

The content-level actuality_2a is accompanied by a normal context_3a and potential_1a.

So is the situation level actuality_2b.

0388 For the content level, the normal context of Saussure’s semiology_3a 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.

01/10/26

Looking at Ekaterina Velmezova and Kalevi Kull’s Article (2017) “Boris Uspenskij…” (Part 19 of 19)

0627 Today, we no longer are who we evolved to be.

What does this imply?

We can no longer be who we evolved to be.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0628 Today, the general ego interscope presents a purely relational structure (a suite of triadic relations) that may be processed implicitly. This is the configuration of langue, as opposed to parole.

Here is a picture.

0629 Almost all of the elements of the interscope are filled with explicit abstractions.

A trace of Aristotle’s philosophy resides in the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics. Upwellings from deep within Slavic civilization breathe into explicit abstractions.

An archaeology can be seen in the structure of the content- and situation-level actualities. According to Aristotle’s hylomorphe, matter [substantiates] form. But, this Christianized pagan civilization realizes the inverse is also a thing. Form [entangles] matter.

0630 In the example, the form of a small bird entangles the matter of a young initiate.

The claim coheres with the crucial claim of Razie Mah’s book on hominin evolution, The Human Niche. Our niche is the potential of triadic relations.

The lesson appears like a banner on the perspective level.

0631 This brings me to the joke about Juri Lotman’s soulful encounter with St. Methodius.

During the first ascent of the Tartu-Moscow School in the USSR, structural_3b semiological_3a models_2c are on the scientific side of the fence. The fence demarks the academic turfs of science (Marxist theory) and superstition (Christian faith, in all its diversity).

Now, the second ascent of the Tartu-Moscow School occurs as the USSA, the maven of technology without meaning,claims the mantle of science (psychometric theory) as opposed to superstition (still Christian faith, in all its diversity).

0632 Does the second ascent of TMS forgo occupation of the science side of the fence?

Or does it straddle the fence?

0633 It may sound uncomfortable, but take a look at the following sequence of perspective level nested forms.

0634 In regards to the universe of signs, Lotman challenges Marx’s paradigm.

Do material arrangements [substantiate] the human condition_2cf?

Lotman begs to differ.

0635 In regards to the evolution of humanity, Peircean diagrams turn out to be useful for depicting the relational beings inherent in implicit abstraction.

Consider Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019), by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0636 In regards to the human as a semiotic animal, one must not forget that both exemplar and interventional signs intercalate in the perspective level of an interscope.

The specifying, exemplar and interventional signs appear in Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal”. This sequence of blogs appears in Razie Mah’s website in October 2023.

0637 What wonderful opportunities for the second ascendance of the TMS!

0638 But, that is not the only challenge that comes from this examination of the interview with Boris Uspenskij in the early 2010s and published in Sign Systems Studies in 2017.

I suppose that there is more than one way to denote primary, secondary and tertiary modeling systems, so why not advance one more?

0639 Here is another proposal.

Consider three tiers of interscopes, with the perspective-level of each tier displaying the following nested forms.

0640 To me, this sequence of primary, secondary and tertiary modeling systems suggest that Peirce’s diagrams may assist in knitting biosemiotics and TMS together into one overarching theoretical framework.

Three tiers of interscopes works well in the chapter on presence in Razie Mah’s How To Define The Word “Religion”. So, this might be a diagram worth mulling over.

0641 I thank the interviewer, Kaveli Kull, and Boris Uspenskij for engagements worthy of examination. I thank Ekaterina Velmezova for the translation into English.

01/9/26

Looking at Boris Uspenskij’s Article (2017) “Semiotics and Culture” (Part 1 of 8)

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 semiology_3a, structuralism_3b and disciplinary languages_3c that retain formal and final causations along with material and efficient causalities (called “exact methods_3c“). The result is an actuality_2c, a semiological structural model_2c (SV_i), that stands for a dyadic actuality_2a where {the literary text_2af (SO_i) [entangles] a language_2am of meaning, presence and message_1a}.

0644 Here is a diagram of the fundament interscope.

0645 Exact methods_3c?

Think of it_3c as flying a probe_2bm into a cloud of phenomena_1c that cannot fully objectify the noumenon of a literary text_2bf. This scholarly data-collector_2bm extracts observations and measurements_1c that will be evaluated (using exact methods) on the basis of signification_3a(1a) and structure_3b(1b).

0646 Semiological structural model_2c?

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 methods_3c (relation, thirdness) brings a semiological structuralist model_2c (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena_1c within a literary text_2bf (what is,firstness).

0647 Phenomena_1c?

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 Language_2bm?

Language_2bm is the situation-level matter (as opposed to form) constituted by Saussure’s definition of language_2aentering into a structure (or system)_3b, such as a mother tongue_3b, a genre_3b, a style_3b, an artistic community_3b, a tradition_3b, and other civilizational beings_3b.

0649 Clearly, the semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c aims to capture an Aristotelian expression of how language as matter_2bm substantiates a literary text as form_2bf.

Without the literary text_2bf, a semiological structural model_2c 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 matter_2bm gives substance to the literary text as form_2bf.

At the same time, the literary text as form_2bf allows the entire situation-level hylomorphe_2b to take a shape where language_2bm may be regarded as phenomena.

0651 Say what?

Language_2bm substantiates the literary form_2bf and, at the same time, may be regarded as phenomena of the literary form_2bf.

It_2bm is substantiating matter_2bm (esse_ce) because it virtually situates the content-level actuality_2a, {langue_2am[substantiates] parole_2af}.

It_2bm is regarded as literary phenomena by the perspective-level potential_1c.

0652 The substantiated form_2bf(essence) is like a noumenon and its_2bf substantiating matter_2bm (esse_ce) serves as its_2bf observable and measurable facets (that is, its phenomena).

12/31/25

Looking at Igor Pilshchikov and Mikhail Trunin’s Article (2016) “The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics” (Part 1 of 27)

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.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Tag Archives: noumenon