03/31/26

Looking at Mikhail Trunin’s Article (2017) “Semiosphere and history” (Part 1 of 8)

0841 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (volume 45(3/4), 2017, pages 335-360) by Mikhail Trunin in the School of Humanities at Tallinn University, Estonia. The full title is “Semiosphere and history: Towards the origins of the semiotic approach to history”. This particular volume is dedicated to semiotics and history.

0842 Juri Lotman (1922-1993 AD) and Boris Uspenskij (1937-present) are central characters in the first ascent of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics during the 1960s through the 1980s.

Lotman’s treatment of a semiotics of history connects to his conceptualization of the semiosphere. Of course, “semiotics” stands in the place of “semiology”.

Uspenskij’s treatment of the semiotics of history starts with the Latin phrase, “historia sub species semioticae”. The phrase transliterates (more or less) into “history as a species of semiotics”.

Or maybe, “historical under the semiotic species”.

Of course, “semiotics” stands in the place of “semiology”.

0843 Previous examinations of articles in this and other volumes of Sign System Studies provide a way to appreciate what these semiologists have in common.

0844 So, let me briefly review.

The academic development of semiological consciousness for humanities scholars starts in the Departments of Slavic languages, during the so-called “Cold War”, since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics casts its dominant ideology as that of science. These humanities scholars begin to frame their interpretations of Slavic literature in terms of Saussure’s semiology and structuralism. After all, semiology and structuralism are scientific, aren’t they?

0845 Semiology deals with content, the relation between parole (spoken words) and langue (corresponding ideation). Technically, the relation between speech and thought is not motivated (hence the qualifier, “arbitrary”), since spoken words do not image or point to their referents. Nonetheless, civilized humans behave as if they do. But, that behavior may be attributed to grammatical structure (for a mother tongue) or a style system (for specialized discourse).

0846 Structuralism deals with how content is situated. Humans do not behave as if a spoken word is arbitrarily related to a mental act (or thought). Humans act as if words and thoughts are one thing.

Rather than attributing this behavior to an innate trait evolved under conditions where a parole (manual-brachial word gesture) images and indicates its referent (by way of the natural sign-qualities of icons and indexes, respectively), the modern scientist must attribute the behavior to truncated material and efficient causes.

In this case, the situating efficient and material causes are due to a system_3b. Both mother tongue and specialized discourses_3b operate on the potential of ‘laws of the system’_1b.

0847 Here is a fundamental interscope containing semiology_3a and structuralism_3b.

0848 On the content level, the normal context of Saussure’s semiology_3a brings the actuality of the dyad {langue as matter_2am [substantiates] parole as form_2af}_2a into relation with the potential of ‘signifier and signified’_1a.

Cleverly, the content-level potential_1a buries the evolution of language in the milieu of hand-talk in the ambiguity of the co-existence of signifier and signified. Can a signifier exist without a signified? Of course not. They must be belong to a monad, a single element.

Can a thought about ‘something’ exist without an image or indication of that ‘something’?

Does a manual-brachial word-gesture picture or point to its referent?

0849 Ironically, both Charles Peirce (1839-1914 AD) and Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) live right before the monumental, civilization transforming battles among the enlightenment gods. Peirce focuses on the nature of signs as triadic relations. Saussure focuses on language as a thing (that is, a dyadic actuality).

0850 The above figure tells the tale. The content and situation level actualities₂ are dyads, as suggested by Saussure. Normal contexts₃ and potentials₁are presumed in Saussure’s tradition, but explicit in terms of Peirce’s categories.

The category-based nested form is a triadic relation. Triadic relations constitute the human niche. Hominins adapt into the potential of triadic relations.

The content-level appears to be a reasonable expression of Saussure’s semiology because it expresses a triadic relation. Not only that, but the content-level category-based nested form manifests all four of Aristotle’s causalities. The dyadic actuality, corresponding to Peirce’s category of secondness, parallels Aristotle’s hylomorphe, the home of material causes and one terminus for efficient causation.

0851 Here is a picture of the category-based nested form as a manifestation of Aristotle’s causalities. Peirce’s category of secondness contains two contiguous real elements. For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, the one real element is matter. The other real element is form. The contiguity is [substantiates] or [substance].

0852 So, what does this imply?

First, Lotman and Uspenskij start out as scholars of Slavic literature in Russia, under a socialist regime, which extols its scientific credentials. Academics in literature adapt to regime incentives by adopting Saussure’s scientific approach to language. Saussure’s semiology is regarded as a scientific theory explaining the phenomena of language in our civilized world.

Second, the fundament interscope starts with Saussure’s semiology_3a as a content-level nested form. The actuality₂ is {langue_2am [substantiates] parole_2af}.

Third, the category-based nested form manifests all three of Peirce’s categories as well as all four of Aristotle’s causalities.

Fourth (and yet to be discussed), Lotman’s and Upsenskij’s treatment of history and semiology starts with the fundament interscope. Semiology characterizes a content-level interscope. History enters the picture as a literature-based situation-level form_2bf.

0853 If these implications stand, then Upsenskij’s Latin title, “history as a species of semiotics”, will convert into “history as a species of literary text”.

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.

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.

02/7/26

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).

01/2/26

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

0732 The article concludes after the third asterisk (3).

Discussion shifts from the topic of the future to the metaphor of space.

0733 Historical consciousness discusses the future as the place that we are going.

Cosmological consciousness portrays the future as a place that we have been before.

0734 Both ways, the message_1c is that the future will be a continuation of past and present.

But, what if we lived in a Lebenswelt where our hand-talk could not picture and point to these explicit abstractions?

What if we could manual-brachial gesture an arc from the location of the sun (or moon) towards its point of rising (past) or setting (future)?

Would these hand-talk words testify to an implicit abstraction?

0735 What if we could not explicitly state that the normal context of space-time_3c brings the dyadic actuality of {continuity in time as matter_2cm [substantiates] our current Lebenswelt as form_2cf} into the relation with the potential of ‘a message concerning the continuity of past, present and future’_1c?

0736 Here is a picture of the interscope with that perspective-level nested form.

0737 Space is an excellent metaphor for time.

We move through time, just as we move in space.

0738 Our motion in space is continuous, so time must be continuous as well.

Well, it must be continuous if space and motion and time are metaphors for one another.

But, one wonders.

0739 Does the perspective-level hylomorphe, {continuity in time_2cm [substantiates] our current Lebenswelt_2cf} apply to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

Does the derivative interscope explicitly manifest in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

0740 Can one express the explicit abstractions of history, cosmology, consciousness, continuity, and space-time in hand-talk?

What is there to image or point to?

0741 It makes me wonder. Are the foundations for these explicit abstractions somehow, built into the human thing… er… being?

Matter and form?

After all, “ego loquens” means “I speak”.

But, what if our kind evolves in the milieu of hand talk?

0742 My two conclusions are obvious and open-ended.

First, Uspenskij’s work may be diagrammed using the fundament (loquens) and derivative (ego) interscopes.

Second, time is not the only semiotic problem.

0743 My thanks to Boris Uspenskij for publishing this brief, yet engaging article.

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.

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: Phenomenology