0084 Descent with modification is the name of the evolutionary game, according to Darwin.

Darwin assumes some process of inheritance that yields variety in each generation.  This is accomplished by mixing chromosomes from the male and the female in sexual reproduction.  So, variation is assured with descent.  Every member of a species has a different phenotype (and sometimes, those differences cannot be easily observed).

Modification comes by way of natural selection.  Adaptations are modifications that increase reproductive success (what used to be called “fitness”).  Reproductive success is the likelihood of one’s descendants surviving to… um… reproduce.  

0085 The confusion?

A phenotype_2b is not the same as an adaptation_2b.  However, they both refer to same entity: a species.  A “species” is a Latin term that can mean an individual, a kind, or a type.  So, “species” can denote an individual, a species or a genus.

0086 Here is a picture of this double referral.  The structure is called an “intersection”.

Two category-based nested forms intersect.

0087 An adaptation_2H refers to a species₂ within the normal context of natural selection_3H operating on a niche_2H.  Note how the actuality independent of the adapting species gets shoved under the rug.

A phenotype_2V refers to a species₂ within the normal context of body development_3V operating on a genotype_1V.  Here, DNA gets pulled offstage.

0088 Here is the confusion.

If one proceeds with an explanation in natural history, such as the theory of niche construction, the horizontal axis is active.  Nevertheless, the horizontal axis intersects the vertical axis.   So, research into a genetic explanation is called for in each instance of adaptation into a constructed niche.

0089 For example, for the co-evolution of cows and humans.  Cows adapt to human sociality (by becoming domesticated).  Humans adapt to cow milk as food, even in adulthood (by becoming lactose-tolerant).  Adaptation_2Hintersects with phenotype_2V.  So an inquiry into body development_3V and genotype_1V is demanded for a full explanation of both cow and human adaptations.  However, body development_3V is not a cause for adaptations_2H, natural selection_3H is.

0090 To me, natural history and genetic explanations are often confused, so much so that the author claims that human activity affects genetic and other biological patterns.  Plus, natural selection can influence developmental outcomes, which in turn feed back into human activities.

0091 To me, the process of ‘niche construction’ is intelligible, not because the extended evolutionary synthesis permits natural history to intersect with genetics, but because niche construction extends the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a by introducing an adaptation-induced normal context_3a and potential_1a.

Yes, an induced normal context_3a and potential_1a can change the character of the actuality_2a that is theoretically independent of the adapting species.

0092 In the case of the cow_2a, the animal_2a becomes domesticated.

In the case of the human_2a, the human_2a becomes entangled.

In 2012, Ian Hodder writes a book titled Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things(Wiley and Blackwell, Oxford).

0093 To me, the author avoids the entanglement aspect, even though it awaits the unsuspecting anthropologist.

Furthermore, the author of the article under examination suggests that the niche-construction approach, for humans, may illuminate cultural complexity.

0094 Section four is titled, “‘Cultural Complexity’ and the Human Niche Approach”.

To recall, the author begins with three complaints.

One concerns the fact that anthropologists who train ethnographers tend to ignore (or are hostile to) evolutionary theory.

Two concerns the fact that evolutionary theorists have not formulated a schema that an ethnologist would be interested in.

0095 In response to one, this examiner derives a two-level interscope where an ethnographer_2b virtually situates persons in community_2a.

0096 In response to two, this examiner develops a two-level interscope for how niche construction works. 

0097 The question arises, “How do these two two-level interscopes relate to one another?”

My initial view is that they are incommensurate.  Communty_3b compares to natural selection_3b?  That is nonsense.

But then, I look at the potentials.  The possibility of ‘cognitive spaces’_1b compares well to “constructed” niche_1b.

Also, {the person as matter [substantiating] the narod space as form}_2a could be an adequate description for an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a (at least, as far as academic anthropologists are concerned).

0098 Perhaps, one or the other two-level interscope may be tweaked, so the narod subject belongs to the content leveland anthropology belongs to the situation level.

0099 Does this resolve anything?

For niche construction, the adaptation within a species_2b introduces a normal context_3a and potential_1a to the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.  This may substantially change the actuality_2a.  For beavers, a fast moving stream_2a becomes a glen_2a in the normal context of a dam_3a operating on the potential of blocking the flow of water_1a.

For the recording of communal… er… narodal cognitive spaces_2b, the work of the enthnographer_2b does not introduce a normal context_3a and potential_1a to the dyad, {persons as matter [substance] narod as form}_2a.  Unless of course, something goes horribly wrong.

0100 Instead, the subject community_3a and its potential of communal living_1a serve as the normal context_3a and the potential_1a for the narod_2a.  In other words, at first sight, the narod_2a is an actuality independent of the enthnographer_2ain the same fashion as the darwinian schema.  Also, the narod’s normal context_3a and potential_1a are taken for granted.

0101 So, is the subject narod_2a comparable to cows_2a who can be milked for their cognitive spaces_1b?

If so then the following implications apply.

In the case of the subject society_2a, the narod_2a becomes domesticated.

In the case of the ethnographer_2a, the discipline of anthropology_2a becomes entangled.

0102 The implications for both anthropology and human evolutionary theory are profound.  Here is a comparison, pertinent to our current Lebenswelt, that may be in operation in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0103 For our current Lebenswelt, we can look for parallels in history.  What historical figures are like ethnographers.  The Christian missionary comes to mind.  So does Louis Althusser’s concept of “interpellation”.  Oh, lest I forget, what about the ten oxherding pictures in Zen?

For the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, I recall Dugin’s Greimas square, now relabeled for one of the key distinctions between who we are and who we evolved to be.

0104 The narod, the traditional society in our current Lebenswelt, is the subject of ethnographic inquiry.  That traditional society may arise spontaneously within a people (as expected for civic society) or may come out of the mists of time.  Either way, civilized people do not have an incentive to rope them in, so they maintain their traditional pre-political ways.  The narod is the raw material that gets fashioned, through institutions and their theological and political theories, into a people.

0105 The ethnographer comes from the people.  Each people, including those belonging to the discipline of anthropology, contrasts with the various political theories that interpellate and organize them.

0106 It makes me wonder, “What motivates ethnographic research?”

The narod may have labor and social specializations, but that is nothing compared to a people.  Theological and political unity permit incredible specializations.  These are the sources of wealth (labor) and power (social), which is the subject of inquiry in Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism”, serialized in Razie Mah’s blog for August 2025.

0107 But, what about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

Isn’t that where the adaptation that supports domestication and entanglement evolves?

Oh yes, according to Alexander Dugin, the ethnos is what the narod can never return to.

0124 Section seven is titled, “Sexual Partnering and the Human Niche Framework”.

This section is accompanied by figures.

No, not those types of figures.

Rather, these figures illustrate the mutual influence of the “nodes” of individual, social group and community.

0125 That author starts with the individual.

Figure 1 is roughly re-illustrated here.

0126 The driver is an ecological or environmental danger or opportunity_2a.

I suppose the niche is the circle, representing that the danger or the opportunity_2a has the potential to produce adaptations (in development, morphology and behavior)_2b.

So, the adaptation_2a is portrayed as the threefold element within the circle (niche_1b) and corresponds to how individuals adapt over generations.

So, the big arrow must associate to the environment of evolutionary adapatation_2a, as well as natural selection_3b.

0127 Can I associate this figure to the two-level interscope for Darwinism?

Here are my guesses.

The normal context of natural selection_3b brings the actuality of individual adaptations (in development, morphology and behavior)_2b into relation with a niche_1b, where the niche is defined as the potential of ‘something ecological’_1b.

0128 The only caveat falls into the perspective-level potential_1c.  The adaptation_2b potentially applies to the individual_2a.

So, there are two double associations.

The big arrow associates to both natural selection_3b and the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.

The big circle associates to both the individual (as the focus of inquiry)_1c and the niche_1b.

0129 Figure 2 (re-illustrated here) adds the social group (the second “node”) to the framework.

0130 So, let me start with the smallest social circle.  While the chimpanzee roves in bands, the social circle under the greatest social pressure is family and friends.  Family concerns maternal care, under conditions of individual foraging. Friends engage in grooming, literally picking bugs off one another.  Plus, friends are allies in fights.

Three phenotypic features turn out to be adaptive to the social circle of family and friends.  Personal bonding assists in questions of pecking order and who to look for at times of confusion.  Cognitive space includes the ability to read signs calling for assistance, as well as signs of danger.  Finally, both personal bonding and the ability to read the other hominin play roles in the organization of behavior of family and friends.

0131 The theory that male-female pair-bonding co-evolved with bipedalism applies here.  Even though all hominin societies have some degree of promiscuity, the coincidence of male provisioning and female fidelity offers an opportunity for reproductive success for both sexes.  Male provisioning makes food available for his female and her children.  Female fidelity assures that the children are his (therefore contributing to his reproductive success).

These are difficult adaptations, because they engage a style of semiotics that really pays attention to intentional cues, the raw material of language.  When a young male consistently offers food to a female, and expects fidelity in return, cultural feedback loops established within the band are crucial.  The semiotics of long-term male-female pair bondingare vastly different than the semiotics of maternal care.

0132 Bipedalism is an adaptation to mixed forest and savannah.  So, the hominids who can walk turn out to be best adapted to this new ecology, while hominids who retain the current chimpanzee style continue in tropical forests, where individual foraging does not conflict with walking long distances.

0133 This brings me to a crucial idea, implicit in figure 2, but not discussed in this article.  The social circle under the most significant selection pressure changes during hominin evolutionary history.

0134 Here is a picture.

0135 The list on the left contains four evolutionary epochs.  The first three define the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  The last labels our current dilemma.

Current dilemma?

You know, ours is a time when one civilization sends ethnographers into diverse narods, because there are no longer any ethnos to send them to.

0135 The reference is Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019), by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  Michael Tomasello’s productive research years significantly overlap with Augustin Fuentes, so it is not surprising that both evolution-minded anthropologists are discussing similar ideas.

Razie Mah’s semiotic-oriented masterworks appear in this timeframe.  An Archaeology of the Fall is first uploaded in 2012.  How To Define the Word “Religion” is uploaded in 2015.  The Human Niche is uploaded in 2018.  These three works offer a Peircean vision of human evolution.

0136 The question that I failed to address is this, “Does the author’s figure 2 comport with the two-level interscope for natural selection?”

0137 What if I replace “natural selection” with “cultural selection”?

Here is a picture.

0138 The normal context of cultural selection_3b brings the actuality of social adaptations (including social bonds, cognitive spaces and cooperative interactions)_2b into relation with a social niche_1b, defined as the potential_1b of individuals facing natural selection pressures in the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA)_2a.

0139 Of course, these social adaptations_2b potentiate the social group_1c, which, as noted earlier, includes the social circle that is under the most significant selective pressure.

At the same time, I may say that the potential of the social group_1c creates the situation where social beings_2b are adaptive.

0140 Next, imagine that the salient social circle is the team (15).  Over generations, the team_1c encourages social adaptations_2b that rewards individuals with phenotypes that are appropriate to that team_2a.  In other words, successful teams_2a, as the medium responding to evolutionary pressures associated with obligating collaborative foraging,produces a selection pressure_3b on the individual_2b.

One of the social adaptations_2b is protolinguistic hand-talk_2b.  The semiotics of protolinguistic hand-talk_2a become the actuality independent of adapting individuals (species)_2a.  Individual adaptations_2b encourage sensible constructionduring team activities.  Hand-talk facilitates sensible construction.

0141 Next, imagine that, during the domestication of fire, cooking changes everything.  Cooking with fire unlocks hitherto sequestered nutrients.  More teams can be successful.  More teams means larger brains and larger groups.  Bands (50) grow into communities (150).  Communities are teams of teams.

Enough versatility exists among teams that ecological pressures are mediated by organizational capacity.

In short, the salient social circle is now the community (150).

0142 The author’s next set of feedback loops is collective action, which roughly corresponds to the interactions within a community and its environment.

0143 This set of feedback loops demands that a perspective level comes into play.  The situation-level might be family (5), friends (5), team (50) and band (50), as well as mega-band (500) and tribe (1500).  A perspective-level adapts to the community (150).

After all, that is what Robin Dunbar’s correlation between human brain size and group size predicts.  Human brains are adaptive for groups with a size of 150.  But, a community contain smaller groups, so one of the jobs of the community is to bring harmony among the teams, friends and families.  One of the other jobs is to face outwards towards other communities (that is, mega-bands and tribes).

0144 Well, if I add a perspective level to the two-level interscope, then a whole new typology of social bonds, cognitive spaces and cooperative interactions_2c manifests.  If Dugin is correct, these actualities_2c fall under the label, “ethnos”, for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0145 Here is the three-level interscope.

On the perspective level, the normal context of hominin flourishing_3c brings the actuality of the ethnos_2c into relation with the potential of harmony among all social circles, including those smaller and larger than the community_1c.

On the situation level, the normal context of cultural selection_3b brings the actuality of social groups_2b into relation with the social niche_2a, consisting of the potential of individuals in community_2a.

On the content level, the presence of need_3a brings the individual in community_2a into relation with the potential of meeting a challenge_1a.

0146 One question is, “Who constructs this content-level normal context_3a and potential_1a?”

Plus, how are these normal contexts₃ and potentials₁ constellated in niche construction?

0147 Here is another question.

0148 What situation-level potential_1b’ are these individuals in community_2b’ manifesting?

What is the actuality independent of the individual in community_2a’ that defines the human niche_1b’ in the normal context of natural selection_3b’?

The answer is the thesis of Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche.

The answer is triadic relations.

0149 Section eight of this article seeks to establish that aspects of the author’s conceptual framework are already in practice.

0150 Indeed they are.  The author offers Figure 4, concerning human capacities to modify local ecologies.  The figure is re-illustrated here.  But, be warned.  Organizational capacities significant enough to change local ecologies (other than the selective use of fire and some other tricks, like laying stones that encourage animals to migrate into a trap) are not that relevant to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  They are relevant to our current Lebenswelt, because the organizational capacity of humans is no longer constrained after the first singularity.

0151 Remember the Genesis condemnations leveled by God to Adam after the Fall, while still in the Garden of Eden?

God’s curse is the law of diminishing returns.

Why does God level such a curse?

Adam is a mythical figure that is created in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, but transmogrifies into a creature that introduces all humanity to our current Lebenswelt.

The law of diminishing returns applies to the times when humans are so organized that they can transform the ecology and environment.

That is our times.

0152 “The first singularity” is the label that I apply to the transmogrification of the ethnos to the narod, at the dawn of history.

0153 See The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace (for a brief presentation) and An Archaeology of the Fall (for the dramatic exposition) for more information.  Both are by Razie Mah and available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Or, the inquiring person may explore Razie Mah’s blogs.

The years since 2019 are particularly notable.

0753 So, we talk about one thing (geography) and search for another (identity).

Each spoken term is a placeholder in a system of differences.

At least, that is how Ferdinand de Saussure (1859-1913 AD) characterizes spoken language.  

Spoken language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences: parole (speech act) and langue (mental act).  The contiguity between langue as matter_2am and parole as form_2af is purely arbitrary, that is, based on habit and convention.

In contrast, for hand- and hand-speech talk, the contiguity is motivated, not arbitrary.  Each parole (gestural word) pictures or points to its langue (referent) (except, of course, for word-gestures that have purely grammatical functions, then the referent is purely relational).

0754 The implications?

Oh, that must be a topic for future semiotic inquiry.

0755 Instead, I ask, “If each parole is a placeholder in a system of differences, then is there a semiotic tool that illuminates adjacent parole in that system?”

0756 One answer is provided by the Greimas square.  The Greimas square consists of four elements, represented as four corners of a box.

The first corner, A, is the term under consideration.

The second corner, B, contrasts with A.

The third term, C, contradicts (or “speaks against”) B and complements A.

The fourth term, D, contrasts with C, speaks against A and complements B.

0757 Here is a picture.

0758 I now ask, “Does the postmodern ground for “geography” associate to Greimas square?”

Well, I suppose that my Russian identity_3a is the term under consideration (A).

In contrast (B), what I think_2am takes geography as matter. What I say_2af forms geographic indexes that are contextualized by my identity_3a operating on my will_1a (or maybe, the truth_1a of me).  The indexes_2af tell me where I am.

0759 My Russian will_1a (C) speaks against the dyad (B) of {geography as matter_2am [substantiates] indexes as form_2af}.  How so?  My will_1a can potentiate a diversity of dyads, all taking the structure of {what I think_2am[substantiates] what I say_2af}.  As such, my will_1a complements my identity_3a.

Finally, standing against my will_1a is the truth (that is, the truth_1a that should potentiate my identity_3a, but obviously does not).

How do I know this?

Since when does geography_2am determine identity_3a?

0760 Here is a picture that answers that question.

0761 In the abstract, the author contends that spatial parameters constitute one of the most important constants in Russian history.  Furthermore, this constant does not depend on ideology.  Instead, ideology evaluates this constant.  No one contests the dominance of spatiality.  Russian ideologies have articulated all theoretical options for contextualizing geography through identity.

0762 What does this imply?

Geography_2am goes with what I think_2am and serves as matter in B, the contrast to A.

But, what is geography_2am doing?

It is speaking to me.  Not in spoken language.  Rather, it speaks in the words of the divine_2af.

0763 Geography_2am gives substance to the ways that I orient myself in the world_2af.

Consider the following three “B”s.

0764 However, the question remains.

How can matter_2am determine normal context_3a?

0765 Does Russian culture savor binary models?

Or are binary models more than what they seem on the surface?

The author mentions two kinds of dualisms.

0766 One is obvious.

Two, equally powerful options prevail, such as the ideologies of “capitalism” and “communism”.  Like identities, these are normal contexts and belong to Peirce’s category of thirdness.  The logics of thirdness are exclusion, alignment and complement.  The two mentioned ideologies appear to be exclusive.  But, if they are formatted by scientific methodology, then one has difficulty seeing the signs of their exclusivity.  Under this circumstance, can they align?

0767 The other is ontological.

Ontology is the logos of “ontos” or… for Peirce’s formalism… actuality₂.  Ontologies are real, no matter what people say or think.  At least, that’s what I think and so I am saying it.

The author’s example for the ontological binary is Russian culture.  Russian culture is substantiated before Christianity.  Yet, now, everyone says that Russia is a Christian nation as opposed to what it just recently was, an officially atheist Marxist nightmare.

0768 Here is the thing.

Before 800 AD, the Slavs were a narod, a traditional culture, speaking Slavic languages.  They were not a “tribe”.  They were not an “ethnos”.  They were not a “people”.  The term, “narod”, is employed by Alexander Dugin to describe traditional cultures, before and after adoption of Christianity.  In short, the Slavs remain a narod after converting to Byzantine Orthodoxy.

0769 If I follow the author, the archaic images and indexes of pre-Christian Slavic culture are like matter.  Geography is intrinsic to this picture… er… archaic imagery.  Indeed, the matter of geography and its iconography_2a substantiates the form of Russian identity_3a and will_1a.

Consequently, an actuality_2a provides matter to the form of a normal context_3a and its potential_1a.

0770 So here is a picture of the original thing.

0771 This thing is called an “incorporation”.  A thing is incorporated (as matter or form) into another hylomorphic actuality.

B corresponds to the actuality_2a in the category-based nested form.  The geography thing appears as a dyadic structurefor originating matter.

A and C constitute the original form (that will go on to entangle matter).  To a degree, this constitution reifies the co-opposition between A and C. 

0772 Co-opposition?

Imagine will_3a becoming a normal context and identity serving as its potential_1a. 

Identity and will are co-opposed.

0773 I suppose that a modernist may object.

How can a normal context_3a and its potential_1a (A and C) occupy a slot that is reserved for a form?

Aren’t forms typically actual₂?

After all, Aristotle’s hylomorphe of {matter [substantiates] form} is an exemplar of Peirce’s category of secondness.  Secondness (the realm of actuality) consists of two contiguous real elements.  For Aristotle, the real elements are matter and form.  The contiguity, placed in brackets, is [substance].  The noun and the verb are interchangeable in this regard.  The contiguity is both noun and verb.

0774 A scholastic note appears on each side of the hylomorphe.  Esse_ce brings the Latin term, esse, into English.  Esse_ce is matter substantiating.  In contrast, essence is substantiated form.

So, let me rename the hylomorphic actuality_2a (B) as a thing that occupies the slot for matter.

In the following figure, the esse_ce of archaic pagan imagery substantiating binds to the essence of substantiated Russian identity and will.

0775 During the sovereignty of the USSR, the Union of Soviet Social Republics, this original Russian thing entangles Marxist atheism as matter.  For decades, the confounding almost resolves in favor of entanglement.  Russia stood on the verge of the dyad, {Marxist atheism as matter [substantiates] Russian identity and will as form}.  But, society buckles starting in 1989.

This only goes to show how dangerous confoundings can be.

0776 The civilizational struggle is not between the matters of atheism and Christianity.  The struggle is between Marxist atheism and archaic pagan imagery.  If Marxism (as matter) ends up substantiating Russian identity and will (as form), then it will have to take the place of archaic pagan imagery (that is, of originating matter).

During the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods, the Hot War Among Fraternal Ideologies (1937-1945), Adolf Hitler’s matter of The German People substantiates German identity and will (as form), by taking on the attributes of the archaic pagan imagery of the German narod.  The resolution of the confounding in favor of entanglement stuns Christendom.  Some of that pagan imagery turns out to be truly nasty.

0777 The lesson?

A confounding is one form standing in relation to two matters, one originating and one entangled.  The originating matter and form are one thing.  The entangled matter and form have the capacity to become a palpably different thing,even though the form is the same.

According to the author, archaic pagan imagery infuses the Russian thing, which starts centuries before 1000AD, and includes the conversion of the kingdom of Rus (centered in Kiev, composed of Scandinavian rulers and Slavic subjects, who undoubtedly do not care about who rules them).  I think that the Slavs like Christianity.  Saints Cyril and Methodius hale from Byzantium and represent a branch of Christianity that never loses touch with Aristotle’s tradition.

0778 Here is a picture.

0779 Here is a confounding that is highly rewarding.

Some claim that, over the past thousand years, the confounding resolves in favor of Christianity.  Others would contest that proposition, saying that the Russian identity belongs in Heaven or White India or somewhere in the East or somewhere in the West.  This reminds me of archaic pagan imagery, weirdly sanctified through its confounding with Christianity (and, for a lifetime, weirdly corrupted by its confounding with Marxist atheism).

0780 Indeed, the author claims that, the Viking Kiev-Rus tended to reject and censor Byzantine culture, even while allowing Orthodoxy to spread.  Then, Rus sovereignty fell to Mongol domination.  For the next few centuries, Russian… Church Slavonic… culture is encapsulated by the… um… archaic pagan imagery of the Mongols.

0781 What does that imply?

Does it mean that the pagan imagery of the Mongols became an esse_ce to the Russian essence?

This is a historical question.

0782 After the fall of Constantinople, Russia becomes an Orthodox stronghold.

This means that the confounding resolves in favor of Christianity, as shown below.

0783 But, I don’t believe it.

Why?

The geography of Russia itself figures into its archaic pagan imagery_2a. 

0784 So, there are two models of the binary in Russian theory.

0785 One model conforms to the West, consisting of two equipotent elements, such as Wilhelm Hegel’s trope of thesisand antithesis.  As long as the potential of synthesis is suppressed, then a thesis (as matter) will substantiate its antithesis (as form).  Perhaps, antagonism is perpetual, because the thesis (as matter) cannot substantiate its antithesis(as form).  So each accuses the other.  The thesis says, “You are the wrong form.”  The antithesis says, “You are the wrong matter.”

0786 The other model suggests that Russia and other Slavic civilizations embody one form relating to two matters, one substantiating and one entangled.  The confounding is dangerous because, unlike equipotent thesis and antithesis (both interested in suppressing the possibility of synthesis), there are two matters that will vary in potency, especially with respect to one another.

The author tells a personal tale where, as an intellectually inclined youth, in rebellion from his academically renown father, considered binarism as a methodological device.

0787 Binarism is a scholarly illusion, so to speak.

Boris Uspenskij argued with the youth, offering the following historic example where the archaic primal imagery of reform characteristic of Peter the Great ends up literally building a new capital, St. Petersburg, as an icon of the new Russian Identity and Will.  However, at the moment when the vision is realized, the capital thing gets entangled with allusions to the Vatican and Rome.

0788 Yes, Moscow… er… St. Petersburg is the Third Rome, but exactly how Vatican-like can it be?

Oh, the St. Petersburg coat of arms clearly alludes to the Vatican’s coat of arms.

Coincidence?

0789 The author goes on to say what happened next.

To many, the confounding resolved in favor of entangled matter.

The form (of the capital of St. Petersburg, as well as Moscow) remains the same, more or less.

But now, the form is substantiated by “the czar” (the Russian word for the Latin “Caesar”).  The Tsar is a fusion of spiritual and spiritual authorities.  I figure that such a fusion characterizes the narod, the prepolitical Slavs, whose rulers spontaneously manifest as both spiritual and physical winners before… you know… the Vikings arrive with their shallow-hulled boats and their ferocious swords.  Talk about identity and will!

0790 Yet, the allusions to Vatican (spiritual) and Roman (political) imagery makes it seem like the form of the Russian capital is substantiated by Christianity as matter. 

0791 And what gets entangled?

Does the Vatican and the capital of Rome constitute Christianity?

Protestant churches preached against the Czarist’s Christian thing.  They, along with the freemasons and other private circles, get entangled as matter.

0792 At this point in the article, the author slides into the methodology of typology, which attaches labels with the goalof “to name it is to know it”.

The typology labels three types of oppositions.

The thesis and antithesis type is “equipollent”.

The confounding and its resolution type is “privative”, “gradual” or (may I add?) “explosive”.

0793 Sometimes the labels are confusing.

Otto Mandelstam (1891-1938) offers a short story where a criminal (as thesis) and his victim (as antithesis) are regarded as the same.  The crime remains as long as justice (as synthesis) never arrives.

While the criminal and victim are equipollent (in terms of matter), they are different when the story is cast as “privative”.  The criminal is originating matter.  The victim is entangled matter.  

The form is the crime.

0794 Of course, the author does not detail the above diagrammatic conceptual apparatus.

Instead, he explains the semiotics in ways that are descriptive, rather that diagrammatic.

Diagrams assist in illuminating the inherent relationality in both semiology and structuralism.

0795 Perhaps, this examination will assist in constellating a second incarnation of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics.

Diagrams expand the TMS sphere of understanding.

0796 Now, I repeat myself, more or less, with an awkward shift in associations.

On page 268, the author makes an important observation.  There is a popular saying that Soviet people (Russians in the USSR) think one thing and say another.  This is a joke.  This is also an act of will_1a, as opposed to truth_1a.  If I spoke_2awith truth_1a as the potential_1a underlying my intellect_3a, then one could estimate that what I think (as matter)_2a from the form of what I say_2a.

Obviously, there is a problem with previous associations to the Greimas square, where my (Russian) truth_1a (D) contrasts with my (Russian) will_1a (C), contradicts my Russian identity_3a (A) and complements the dyadic actuality of {what I think_2am [substantiates] what I say_2af} (B).

0797 The author thinks that the actuality_2a comports with George Orwell’s doublethink, where one holds two contradictory ideas in one’s consciousness.  Is that like one form and two matters?

Consciousness itself is doubled.  Each consciousness is intrinsically coherent.  Plus, the two consciousnesses do not seem to communicate with one another.  The person experiences a “split reality”.

0798 Does this “split reality” conform to the character of spoken language as two arbitrarily related systems of differences?

0799 The Greimas square may assist.

If I focus on my Russian identity (in a Soviet regime)_3a as a manifestation of my intellect_3a (A), then the following associations fall into place.

The subscript “om” stands for “originating matter”.  The “en” stands for “entangled matter”.

0800 The focal term (A) is my Russian identity (in a Soviet regime)_3a, corresponding to the normal context of the content-level of the interscope for the post-truth condition.

B contrasts with A.  What I say as a content-level matter_2ma substantiates (rather than entangles) my official consciousness as form_2af (B).

Somehow, what I say_2a changes from form to matter.  Plus, consciousness_2af stands as the form.

I suppose that the normal context_3a and the potential_1a must be different than before.

0801 Notably, this thing (B, matter and form) serves as phenomena for psychometric analysis by experts.

What are the experts trying to evaluate?

Obviously, Soviet experts are assessing my Russian will_1a (within the Marxist denkstyle) (C).

Currently, in the USDB, two types of experts are employed, each utilizing a scientific format in order to camouflage their theoretically incompatible denkstyles (of capitalism and of communism).  

Of course, expert valuations built by two incompatible ideologies and inscribed in disciplinary languages that mimic scientific layouts, may seem incoherent to people without academic credentials.

Consequently, many in the USDB no longer trust the science.

But, that is another story.

0802 Right now, my American will_1a (which underlies my intellect_3a) (C) speaks against what I say as matter_2aom and my official consciousness as form (B).  My American will_1a (C) complements my American identity_3a (in the USDBregime) (A) and, in doing so, partially accounts for the joke in point 0046.

0803 The joke is fulfilled when my private consciousness as form, which is a facet of my consciousness which is not official, entangles what I think_2am as matter, implying that what I think_2am cannot substantiate what I say_2af.

0804 Ha…ha…ha….was that an awkward shift in associations?

I suppose that the USSR and the USDB are not so… um… what was I going to say?

Maybe the following diagram will assist.

0805 I have been warned.

Never try to explain a joke.

Jokes are dangerous, just like confoundings.

0806 If I return to a color-coded Greimas square for Russian identity_3a (or reasoning_3a(1a)) during the Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989), then it becomes clear that the joke reveals that my official consciousness (B) and my private consciousness (D) are not contrasts, but are (weirdly) intrinsic to my Russian identity_3a (A) and my Russian will_1a (C), respectively.  They are intensions, according to the Soviet regime and the Marxist denkstyle, of what I am supposed to say_2a and what I am supposed to think_2a.

0807 Indeed, the dyad of {my voice_2aom [substantiating] my official consciousness_2af} (B) depicts the “mental geography of the Soviet regime”, that substantiates Soviet… er… Russian identity_3a (A) and Russian will_1a (C).  In effect, B is official Marxist imagery_2aom.

The following figure depicts the elements of the above Greimas square as a confounding.

It makes me wonder about the nature of the Greimas square.

0808 The essence should be substantiated official consciousness_2af.  But, since the Russian has both an identity_3a (A) and will_1a (C), and since identity_3a (A) associates to official consciousness_2af (B) and will_1a (C) associates to private consciousness_2af (D), then a freakish doubling of consciousness occurs when I think_2aem (D).

0809 Now, this type of dualism, as funny as it appears, my also have been at play… quite literally… in medieval diglossia.

Boris Uspenskij describes this phenomenon, where Church Slavonic language_2a (which would go with B) substantiates Russian literary language_bm (which would go with both A (Orthodox identity_3a) and C (Russian will_1a)) and entangles Russian wit_2aem (which goes with D).  If the literary text_2bf is synonymous with wit_2a (what I think_2aom D), then Russian civilization is much more… um… hilarious than western Europeans are willing to admit.

0810 The author provides several examples, one of which is the practical business-oriented Julian calendar (which appeals to official consciousness) and the somewhat off-kilter theology-oriented Gregorian calendar (which appeals to private consciousness), leading to questions about whether one can celebrate New Years if it comes before Christmas.