12/2/25

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

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 intellect_3a brings the actuality of the dyad_2a, {literary text_2af [entangles] language_2af}, into relation with the potential of ‘(positivist) meaning’_1a.

On the situation level, cultural studies_3b brings the dyad_2b, {cognition_2bm [substantiates] social interaction_2bf}, into relation with the potential of ‘(civilizational) presence’_1b.

On the perspective level, mind theory_3c brings the dyad_2c, {semiotic arrangements_2cm [substantiate] human conditions_2cf}, 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 Mind_3c brings the Universe of Actualities_2c into relation with the potential of the Universe of Messages_1c.

0353 Mind theory_3c brings the dyadic actuality of {semiotic arrangements [substantiating] human conditions}_2c into relation with the ‘semiosphere’_1c.

Marxist theory_3c 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 theory_3c stands as an alternative to Marxist theory_3c.

Marxist theory_3c contextualizes the message of Soviet communism_1c.

The Universe of Mind_3c contextualizes the semiosphere_1c.

Welcome to the Fourth Age of Understanding.

0355 The concept of the semiosphere_1c 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 theory_3c brings cultural studies_3b into relation with the possibility of the TMS positivist intellect_3a.

0359 Finally, in the virtual nested form in the category of firstness, the semiosphere_1c, the universe of messages_1c, brings civilizational presence_1b into relation with positivist meaning_1a.

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 theory_3c 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 theory_3a (now transcending Marxist theory_3c) 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-Actualization_3c 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 potential_1c underlying God’s Self-Actualization_3c.

0372 What does this juxtaposition inspire me to imagine?

Does it seem that the Speaker_2c occupies the space for semiotic arrangement_2cm?

Does it seem that Word_2c, 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 condition_2cf?

0373 Does it seem that God’s Self-Actualization_3c encompasses a theoretical Universe of Mind_3c?

Does it seem that the Oneness of God_1c manifests the omnipresence and the omniscience of a universe of messages_1c?

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.

10/31/25

A First Look at Julian Jaynes’s Book (1976) “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” (Part 1 of 21)

0236 Why do I examine this work?

I reviewed Steven Mithen’s book, The Language Puzzle: Piecing Together The Six-Million-Year Story Of How Words Evolved (2024, Basic Books, New York). See Razie Mah’s blog for September 2025. The examination concludes on point 0235.

During the examination, I recall a book that Julian Jaynes publishes in 1976.

I wonder, “Why does Mithen’s book remind me of Jaynes?”

I now have a copy of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (First Mariner edition (2000), New York, New York) before me.

This explains why I start the current examination on point 0236.

0237 Julian Jaynes (1920-1997 AD) earned master and doctoral degrees in psychology at Yale University. He lectured in psychology at Princeton from 1966 to 1990. In 1990, he writes a postscript that appears in the Mariner edition.

This afterward lists the four hypotheses in Books I and II. Plus, the postscript expands on Part III, by discussing the psychological transition from the bicameral mind to subjective consciousness at the end of the Bronze Age in the Near East.

0238 Here is the list.

0239 So, why does Mithen’s book remind me of Jaynes’s work?

My review of The Language Puzzle led me to conclude that Mithen’s explicit rejection of a gestural origin of languageprevents him from realizing that his information implicitly supports the very position that um… he rejects.

Yes, if I ignore his declaration against a gestural origin to language, then I can start to recognize that speech is added to fully linguistic hand-talk after the domestication of fire, when the community becomes a social circle under pressure from natural selection.

0240 That reminds me of a curious pun that seems to have import in the year 2025AD.

The Russian word for “no” is “nyet”.

To the American ear, “nyet” sounds like “not yet”. And, that means, “Yes, but not now.”

So, when Mithen says, “nyet”, to the gestural origins of language, his English speaking bicameral mind hears, “not yet”. So, Mithen unwittingly drops clues to his nyet hypothesis within his own subjectively conscious argument. These hints offer a weird twist to Looking at Steven Mithen’s Book (2024) The Language Puzzle. It is as if Mithen’s own bicameral mind offers – what I will call – “a nyet hypothesis”.

0241 Now, consider the first two hypothesis (A and B) in Jaynes’s Books I and II.

First (A), subjective consciousness relies on spoken language. Mithen consciously proposes that spoken words are built over millions of years through synaesthesia, cross modal “leakage” of sensations, from visual things and events to auditory vocalizations.

0242 Of course, this proposal comes across as sketchy. Why would early hominins, such as the australopithecines and the early species in the Homo genus (3.5 to 0.6Myr – millions of years ago) do this? And how? The voice is most likely not under voluntary control. Involuntary calls rule the day.

But, the vocal tract changes over time. Most likely, the voice is on the verge of coming under voluntary control by the time that Homo heidelbergensis appears in the fossil record (perhaps, over 600kyr – thousands of years ago).

On top of that, Homo heidelbergensis shows up during the period when hominins domesticate fire (800-400kyr). So, Mithen consciously and cautiously suggests that the synaesthesia business really takes off around that time.

0243 The nyet hypothesis?

Well, of course, proto-linguistic hand talk has plenty of time to evolve without cross-modal leakage during the early period (3.5 to 0.6Myr) and even has a couple of hundred-thousand years to become fully linguistic after hominins start to play with fire (0.8 to 0.6My).

So, synaesthesia would not make a jump from things themselves to vocal utterances, but from manual-brachial word-gestures to vocal utterances.

Suddenly, synaesthesia no longer seems implausible.

0244 Second (B), compare Mithen’s nyet hypothesis with Jaynes’s proposal of the bicameral mind.

To me, the idea that manual-brachial word-gestures provide stimuli allowing synaesthetic crossover from visual to auditory sensations seems like “auditory hallucinations”.

0245 My goal in this first examination is to develop this impression.

10/8/25

A First Look at Julian Jaynes’s Book (1976) “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” (Part 21 of 21)

0519 I conclude this first look at Julian Jaynes’s breakthrough masterwork, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, with a brief summary.

I examine the First Mariner Books edition, published in 2000, which offers the advantage of a postscript… er… “afterword”, written in 1990, fourteen years after the first edition.

The afterword does not substitute for the masterwork, even though it neatly distills the complex argument into four propositions.

0520 Here are the four propositions.

0521 This examination commences with these four propositions.

Why do I pursuit of this topic?

In my view, Mithen’s 2024 work, The Language Puzzle, exhibits the hallmarks of both subjective consciousness and bicameral mind.

0522 This examination concludes with modifications on Jaynes’s four propositions.

0523 Each of these modifications have been discussed in full.

These modifications bind together Mithen’s nyet hypothesis, pertaining to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, and Jaynes’s historical hypothesis, pertaining to our current Lebenswelt.

These modifications demonstrate that our current Lebenswelt (items in blue) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (items in green).

These modifications propose how the first singularity is a major cause for this difference.

The first singularity stands between the green and the blue items.

0524 Steven Mithen publishes in 2024, almost precisely five decades after Julian Jaynes publishes in 1976. So much has happened during the past fifty years. Also, so little has happened, when it comes to developing Jaynes’s four propositions. How strange it is that Steven Mithen’s bicameral mind may have constructed a foreword to Jaynes’s masterwork, without the author consciously realizing it.

0525 This is precisely the irony that permeates Jaynes’s landmark work.

Who could have known?

So concludes this first look at Jaynes’s text.

09/30/25

Looking at Steven Mithen’s Book (2024) “The Language Puzzle” (Part 1 of 23)

0001 The full title of the book before me is The Language Puzzle: Piecing Together The Six-Million-Year Story Of How Words Evolved (2024, Basic Books, New York). Dr. Mithen is a Professor of Early Prehistory at the University of Reading. He has published before. More on that later.

The book works on the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle. Fourteen chapters present the pieces. The introduction and conclusion stage and arrange them.

0002 This current metaphor is very different than a glorious historical metaphor used in a book published almost three decades earlier. The Prehistory of The Mind (1996) offers the historical development of the architecture of cathedrals in Europe as a lens for considering cognitive evolution. The metaphor works well because the nave associates to general intelligence and side chapels associate to specialized mental modules.

0003 From the genetic divergence from chimpanzees to the start of bipedalism, the simple nave of general intelligenceadapts to cognitive challenges.

From the appearance of bipedalism to the domestication of fire, specialized modules are added to general intelligence, but the two do not integrate. Indeed, both specialized modules and general intelligence are supported by their own, thick, walls. The metaphor is the Romanesque cathedral.

From the domestication of fire until the first singularity (think, “the potentiation of civilization”), general intelligence integrates with specialized modules, presumably due to talk becoming fully linguistic. Language becomes the walls, supported by flying buttresses of automatic decoding. The metaphor is the Gothic cathedral.

0004 Here is a picture.

0005 The metaphor is so wonderful that Razie Mah publishes the e-book, Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of The Mind as one of the readers that accompanies the masterwork, The Human Niche, in the series A Course On The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0006 Mithen’s approach is also echoed in the work of another evolutionary anthropologist, Michael Tomasello, working at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, as discussed in Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019) (by Razie Mah, also see blogs for January through March, 2024).

0007 Mithen’s approach is also reflected in another review that belongs to the series, A Course On The Human Niche. The title is Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big. In this review, social circles turn out to be very important in hominin evolution. Mammalian brain size roughly correlates to group size. So, the larger the hominin brain grows, the larger the group.

Not surprisingly, Mithen’s metaphor indicates the social circle under the most intense selection pressure, irrespective of group size.

0008 What does this imply?

Obviously, group size is not the crucial factor in hominin evolution.

Whatever is increasing hominin brain size is.

0006 To me, it is not surprising that Mithen has not encountered Razie Mah’s review of his 1996 work, even though it is one of the few more-than-surface reflections on The Prehistory of The Mind available.

Perhaps, the same will go for this blog, which will take Mithen’s metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle quite literally.

09/4/25

Looking at Steven Mithen’s Book (2024) “The Language Puzzle” (Part 23 of 23)

0229 So, what is The Language Puzzle about, in an implicit sort of way?

It is about how speech gets added to hand talk after the domestication of fire.

The irony of the work is found in Mithen’s explicit denial of the gestural origins of language, while…

… at the same time, the author provides a solution to a question that he cannot even pose.

0230 Examinations don’t get better than this.

This examination adds value to Mithen’s work in a surprising fashion.

0231 This examination suggests that a tremendous amount of theoretical reformulation needs to be done. In particular, the following juxtaposition of events is suggestive.

0232 I ask, “Does Homo sapien’s encounter, love affair, then divorce from the Neanderthals create a condition where speech becomes more and more independent as a mode of talking? Does speech become capable of operating linguistically, independent of hand talk, yet remain integrated into the natural-sign references of hand-talk?”

0233 Take a look at the artifact of the lion-man, pictured in figure 3 on page 28 of Mithen’s text.

Maybe, we can ask him.

Do you think that he has something to say to us?

Surely, he cannot perform hand-talk.

So, the lion-man must speak for itself.

0233 Yes, it’s like synaesthesia gone wild.

0234 But, “wild” is not even close to this last implication, which tells me that our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

What about the item in red?

See Razie Mah’s e-books, The First Singularity and It’s Fairy Tale Trace (for a technical proposal) and An Archaeology of the Fall (for a dramatic rendering), available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0235 With that said, I thank Steven Mithen for publishing a book that can be fruitfully read both explicitly and implicitly.

Also, the story does not end here, because this examination plays a prominent role in the next commentary, Looking at Julian Jaynes’s Book (1976) “The Origin of Consciousness in The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”.

08/30/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 1 of 33)

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 oneness₁ through 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?

08/1/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 33 of 33)

0339 So, why compare the two interscopes?

Well, there are two Relativist Ones, one belonging to Zizek’s configuration and one contained in the post-truth condition.

That is a tad confusing.

Plus, it seems to me that the following association of Lacan’s terminology with open slots of the perspective level applies to both interscopes.

All these items may be regarded as writ small.

Plus, the pattern repeats within Zizek’s interscope. Jouissance₁ writ large coincides with the virtual nested form in firstness.

Similarly, objet a_2c(2a) writ large matches the actualities₂ on the perspective_c and content_a levels. The petit objet a writ large matches the situation-level actuality_2b.

Uh, does that also apply to the interscope for the post-truth condition?

If it does, then there are two Relativist Ones_3c, one corresponds to a little Big Other_3c(2b₎ (in Zizek’s configuration as a psychometric valuation_2b) and one corresponds to a big Big Other_3c (for the interscope for the post-truth condition).

0340 Okay, the little Relativist Big Other_3c(2b) dwells within the big Relativist Big Other_2b.

What about Christian atheism?

Zizek’s configuration resides within the slot for psychometric valuation_2b.

Does Zizek’s Christian atheism_3c(2b) deny the divinity of the big Big Other_3c?

If it does, then the following comparison offers another reason why modern politics is immanently theological and supports Zizek’s concluding chapter, arguing that the post-modern West should not disregard psychoanalysis, simply because it questions postmodern scientific-sounding capitalist and socialist valuations_2b.

0341 So… uh…. why does Zizek propose Christian atheism_3c(2b)?

Isn’t Slavoj Zizek an expert_2b operating on the formalized knowledges of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Hegelian philosophy and Marxist materialism_1b?

Excuse me while I scribble a note saying, “Of course, he sees the light…”

0342 I want to note, if the big Relativist One_3c is divine, as preached by the banquet dinner speaker, Baelzebob Jones,speaking, way back when, to the CPP on the evening when I was conceived, then psychoanalysis should be disregarded, because “wealth” and “power” are two distinct and separate entities_2c, just like photons as waves and… um… photons as particles.

“… yeah, the light.”

Photons as particles_1b(2b) and photons as waves_1b(2b) produce distinct and separate measurements_2b(2b), as far quantum-physics apparatuses_3b(2b) are concerned. Data_1c(2b) is the potential_1c(2b) of measurements_2b(2b). And, measurements_2b(2b) virtually situate a model standing in the place of the noumenon_2a(2b).

Consequently, an irreconcilable distinction between particle and wave_2b constitutes an opportunity_1c that supports the divinity of the big Relativist One of the Physics of the Quantum Universe_3c.

Fortunately, all hell broke loose before Dr. Jones finished his address.

0342 The logics of thirdness are exclusion, complement and alignment. Here the little and the big normal contexts align, but the little cannot replace the big. Nonetheless, the same term is used for both perspective-level normal contexts, even though the two normal contexts differ. Both are Relativist Ones.

0343 The logics of secondness are those of contradiction and non-contradiction. If the two actualities of {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}_2c(2b) and psychometric valuation_2b do not contradict, then I can regard one as an example of the other… or maybe… the little one pays tribute to the big one.

0344 The logics of firstness are inclusion. Firstness allows contradictions. Here, the same principle noted above applies. A synthetic truth_1c(2b) supporting a situation-level little Relativist one_3c(2b) offers opportunity_1c for a perspective-level big Relativist one_3c.

In Zizek’s book, a synthetic truth_1c(2b) undergirds an intellectual configuration of the dyad, {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}_2c(2b) for Zizek’s little Relativist One_3c(2b). Zizek’s psychometric valuation_2b may contextualized as a possible opportunity_1c by a post-truth big Relativist One_3c.

Surely, opportunity_1c is potentiated by the little Relativist one_3c(2b).

But, what opportunity_1c is potentiated by Christ_3c(2b)?

Oh, I must not forget, Zizek calls for psychoanalysis.

So, Christ_3c(2b) must be an intervention.

0345 The perspective-level nested form in Zizek’s configuration neatly fits into the slot for psychometric valuations_2bon the situation-level of the post-truth interscope.

Does this explain why the names of post-truth levels should be totally juiced up?

0346 Okay, the entire interscope for Zizek’s configuration resides in the slot for psychometric valuations_2b for the post-truth interscope.

This remarkable finding adds value to Zizek’s argument.

Zizek’s Christian atheism is designed to challenge current psychometric valuations_2b arising from the potential of ‘a postmodern formalization of knowledge’_1b within the normal context of a stylistic union of capitalist and socialist expertise_3b.

Christian atheism_3c(2b) can substitute for the little Relativist One_3c(2b).

But, what about the union between the big Relativist One_3c and the little Relativist One_3c(2b)?

Would some say… “the unholy union”?

0347 See Razie Mah’s blog for February 11, 2023 for that one.

This blog serves as the first exercise for exploring the utility these arguments.

First, associate features of the music video to elements in Zizek’s configuration.

My hint is that the dyad, {money and political influence [pays for] the Body Shop} associates to the imaginary actuality, {raw materials [construct] specified product}_2a(2b).

The rest is left to the exercise.

Second, place the first step into the slot for psychometric valuations_2b in order to explain why this music video is produced and advertised by American corporate media.

0348 Do the producers and promulgators of this video want to influence what the white woman has to say?

Write your essay and send to raziemah@reagan.com with written permission for publication on Razie Mah’s blog.

0349 This first exercise reveals the comedy of locating Zizek’s configuration in the slot for psychometric valuations in the post-truth condition. It also reveals the tragedy.

Consider the tragic photon.

In order to reveal itself as either a wave or a particle, it must be annihilated.

Is that too high a price to pay?

I guess not, because a photon is neither living nor dead.

0350 Take a look at the preceding interscope.

On the obscene level, no-one cares what the photon thinks, because it is doomed to annihilation in the process of determining whether it “says” that it is a particle or a wave. How obscene is that?

On the undead level, experts in physics_3b operate the apparatus_3b(2b) that converts what the photon says_2a into measurements_2b(2b), that support an orderly model_2c(2b). The model_2c(2b) asserts that the photon will say, “I am a particle composed of superimposed states and waves”_2a(2b)“. In other words, the measured photon_2b(2b) says what the experts_3b predict that it will say.

0351 Does this demonstrate the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’_1b?

Formalized knowledge_1b makes the annihilation of the subject_2b(2b) possible.

The subject_2a(2b)‘s content-level autonomy converts into a situation-level measurement_2b(2b) that supports a model_2c(2b)that offers an opportunity_1c for an empirio-normative judgment_2c to stand for what people think and say_2a concerning the soon-to-be annihilated subject_2a(2b).

0352 On the sacred level, the One Physicist_2c formulates a judgment_2b weighing the intelligibility of what the experts report_2b and the universality of what photons are telling the experts_2a. This judgment reveals to human reason_3a(1a)that it_1b does not matter what photons think_2a.

Isn’t that obscene?

Indeed, reason_3a(1a), defined as “the intellect_3a operating on the will_1a“, is obscene.

Where the hell is truth_1a?

0353 Isn’t that what Zizek is interested in?

Isn’t that what Christian atheism is supposed to deliver?

0354 So concludes my independent approach to what Zizek argues for.

I end with a note on nomenclature.

Lacan is very clever in his terminology.

So is Zizek.

In the following picture on nomenclature, Lacan’s column applies to the entire interscope of Zizek’s configuration and Zizek’s “juiced up” column applies to the entire post-truth interscope.

Perhaps, these columns intimate future directions of inquiry during these crazy times, belonging to the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods.

0355 I thank Slavoj Zizek for a book that is worthy of examination.

07/31/25

Looking at Hugh Ross’s Book (2023) “Rescuing Inerrancy” (Part 1 of 25)

0001 The full title of the book before me is Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense (2023, Reasons To Believe Press, Covina California). The author, Hugh Ross, is an excellent writer and a Christian scientist. The qualifier is crucial here, because biblical inerrancy is mysteriously conjunct the modern construct of scientific inerrancy. “Conjunct” means “stuck with”.

0002 The book has both a greek and a semitic architecture. As noted in The Instructor’s Guide to An Archaeology of the Fall (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), the two literary styles represent different types of recognition.

The greek argument presents a variety of opinions, weeds out the inadequate ones, then proclaims the one left standing, the winner. One might call it “linear thinking”. The greek style dominates the second half of the book (chapters 12 through 20), concluding with the proposal of a “model approach”.

The semitic style presents various rhetorical tricks, aiming to induce the reader to recognize a possibility. Am I saying that the Bible is full of rhetorical tricks? I suggest the reader look at the appendix of Ross’s book on that one. Or, consider the Genesis use of the word, “day”, in the Creation Story. The word leads to a flight of fancy, so to speak, asking the reader to recognize that the reported events are themselves, a flight of… what?… not of fancies, but of revelations… or significations… that become more and more esoteric (or hidden) even as they appear more and more exoteric (or obvious).

0003 What about Adam and Eve, fashioned from dust and rib, respectively?

Oh, they end up getting fooled by a talking snake.

0004 Christians are fine following the exoteric lessons and scratching their heads about some of the esoteric implications.

The problem is that Christians are stuck with the sciences. Conjunct! Science is all about truncated material and efficient causalities. Truncated? Scientific causalities are shorn of formal and final causation. Formal and final causes are metaphysical (a step beyond physics) because they concern triadic relations. It is like being able to account for all the motions (the truncated material and efficient causes) of a mechanical clock without acknowledging that the clock has a design (formal cause) and purpose (final cause)

And, the purpose has ‘something’ to do with us!

0005 The positivist intellect has a rule. Metaphysics is not allowed.

So Christians are conjunct with a positivist intellect who has no idea that the purpose of the Genesis text may have something to do with us, right now, not as we once were at some time in the not-so-distant past. The positivist intellect cannot consider that the first chapter of Genesis may be like a clock or whatever mechanical analogy one wants to use. Is it a story designed to set the “time”? The time of what?

Truncated material and efficient causalities cannot ideate what Christians observe (and sort of… measure, in the sense of “weighing”) in Scripture. Christians struggle to discern what the early chapters of Genesis could possibly reveal. Plus, those possibilities are not obvious at all. Even a plain reading of these stories tells the inquirer, “A plain reading of this text is not enough.”

0006 The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, published in 1982, says as much. Ross lists the relevant articles in chapter three.

For example, in article eighteen, the convening theologians confirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatical and historical exegesis, so that Scripture is used to interpret Scripture. Then, they reject the legitimacy of various modern quests, including postulating extra-Biblical civilizational sources, relativizing the text by comparing it to evolutionary science, demonstrating that the accounts are not “historical” in the modern sense of the word, and rejecting the Bible’s claims to authorship.

Here is a picture.

0007 I ask, “Are these theologians affirming that Genesis 1-11 confronts the reader with the possibility of ‘something’, and that ‘something’ is not obvious from a plain reading of the text?”

They say, “Look at the grammar. Look at what the stories are saying in regards to history, in the widest sense of the term.”

0008 I ask, “Are these theologians denying that Genesis 1-11 can be assessed, compared to, and explained by scientific empirio-schematic inquiry?”

It sure looks that way.

And, that is a problem in a civilization where science appears triumphant.

07/1/25

Looking at Hugh Ross’s Book (2023) “Rescuing Inerrancy” (Part 25 of 25)

0211 This examination adds value to Ross’s project in five ways.

First, it introduces a history that encompasses the modern conundrum presented in this text.

Hugh Ross and the Reasons To Believe Team are actors in a theodrama that is at least 800 years old.

Plus, that theodrama is about to undergo a pivot that is captured in the following figure.

0212 Yes, the redemption_2c offered by the party that exalts grace_3c over nature_3c and the protocols_2c offered by the party that exalts nature_3c over grace_3c, are now entangled because, on the content level, the Creation Story is a sign of the evolutionary record and the Primeval History is an insider’s view of the start of our current Lebenswelt.

0212 Second, this examination offers a semiotic way to view what Ross is trying to articulate. Theologians should be interested in sign-relations. Scientists take sign-relations for granted. Ross’s book is titled as if a scientific defense will rescue Biblical inerrancy. This makes no sense unless its taken from a semiotic point of view. Inerrancy draws the Bible, especially Genesis 1-11, into hitherto unimagined triadic relations with scientific inquiry. The empirio-schematics of artistic concordism and the first singularity are variations of what ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment.

When, you think about it, signs tend to share certain characteristics with the term, “inerrancy”. Every sign-vehicle stands for its sign-object in regards to its sign-interpretant. Even if the interpretant is camouflage, the sign-relation purports to be flawless and honest in its own way. Indeed, all signs are “inerrant” in the eyes of God.

0213 Third, this examination offers a way of appreciating how Ross’s efforts aesthetically derive from the Positivist’s and the empirio-schematic judgments. Indeed, Ross’s project towers head and shoulder above other projects in the Venn diagram of science and religion because his aesthetics are one step away from the ways that scientists operate.

0214 Fourth, this examination offers a slightly different version of concordism than Ross. Mah’s artistic version may assist Ross’s moderate version in future research. In particular, I pray for a science book on the Earth’s evolutionary history to accompany Exercises in Artistic Concordism. Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

Fifth, this examination offers a wonderful endpoint, in the form of a label for the single actuality implied by the intersection of redemption_2c and protocols_2c. The early scholastics knew this label well. And now, perhaps, the following dyad will be born again.

0215 My thanks to Hugh Ross and this team at Reasons To Believe for publishing a book worthy of examination.

06/30/25

Looking at George Mikhailovsky’s Chapter (2024) “Meanings, Their Hierarchy, and Evolution” (Part 1 of 9)

1053 The text before me is chapter six of Pathways (see point 831 for book details, pages 101 through 136). The author is one of the editors of Pathways.

1054 To me, the abstract introduces evolution writ large.

The abstract suggests that the interventional sign-relation precedes semiotic agency, as far as evolution writ large goes. Evolution writ large includes the evolution of the inanimate universe along with the evolution of life.

1055 Before life, inanimate objects manifest only as meanings-in-themselves. An evolving macroscopic thing may be labeled an “eventity”, which seems like a real initiating (semiotic) event_2a (SV_s) or an action that could be goal-directed_2c (SV_i).

Surely, some eventities rely on lower-level entities. But, what about agency and subagency?

With non-human life, hierarchies of sub-agents₃ operate within each living agent₃ (or “holobiont”).

With human life, persons₃, who are holobionts in terms of anatomy and physiology, operate as subagents within… what?… social circles?

1056 The introduction (section 6.1) starts with an observation. The term, “meaning” is typically used in three situations.

Here is the list along with associated sign-elements.

1057 This coincidence is remarkable. At the very start of the introduction, the author offers situational instances of “meaning” that correlate to the three sign-objects intrinsic to a three-level interscope.

The author then writes that he is interested in the first two types (the ones associated with semiotic agency) but not so much the third type (the one associated with the interventional sign relation), because this one is already well-developed in linguistic semiotics.

1058 But, there is another coincidence to note.

Recall that Peirce’s typology of natural signs is based on the categorical qualities of the sign-object.

The icon is a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on the qualities of firstness, including images, pictures, unities, wholes. The logic of firstness is inclusive and allows contradictions. A sign-vehicle stands for its sign-object on the basis of similarity or imagery.

The index is a sign-relation whose sign object is based on the qualities of secondness, including contact, contiguity, pointing, influence, cause and effect and so on. The logic of secondness includes the law of noncontradiction. A sign-vehicle stands for its sign-object on the basis of indication and pointing.

The symbol is a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on the qualities of thirdness, including normal context, mediation, judgment, habit, tradition and so on. The logics of thirdness are exclusion, complement and alignment. A sign-vehicle stands for its sign-object on the basis of convention.

1059 Since all sign-objects belong to secondness, I can assign Peirce’s typologies on the basis of the category of the level in a three-level interscope. Icon goes with the level of content. Index associates the situation level. Symbolmatches the perspective level.

1060 Here is a list of associations.

1061 I ask, “How well do the two coincidences correspond?

1062 I start with thirdness, an exemplar sign is a symbol whose sign-object, SO_e, denotes a goal_2c on the perspective level. The sign-object has the qualities of both acquired habit and innate disposition. So, the assignment of symbolworks.

1063 For secondness, a specifying sign is an index whose sign-object, SO_s, denotes a symptom_2b on the situation level. I suppose that corresponds to information_2b. A symptom_2b virtually situates its phenomenon_2a in the same way that information_3b virtually situates an initiating (semiotic) event_2a. The sign-object holds the qualities of indication and pointing. So, the assignment of index works.

1064 For firstness, an interventional sign is an icon whose sign object, SO_i, denotes something that is indicated or expressed in spoken words or symbols_2a on the content level. Does that correspond to intention expressed_2a (SO_i)? Or, better yet, does that correspond to an image of intention expressed_2a (SO_i) that is contiguous with a real initiating event_2a (SV_s) in the dyadic content-level actuality_2a?

Is the third situation for “meaning” an image that is indicated or expressed in spoken words and symbols.

Imagine that!

‘Something’ is an image.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: Empirio-schematics