0306 Now, I proceed to the derivative interscope.

0307 The content level deals with semasiological issues.  Given the words of a literary text_2af, how do we discuss_2amthese words_2af by way of meaning_1a?

Or should I ask, “Given a signifier_2af, then what is the proper signification_2am?”

The literary text as semiological structuralist form_2af [presents signifiers that entangle] positivist language as matter_2am.

Given a positivist language as matter_2am, then what corresponds to its meaning_1a?

0308 Does the correspondence reflect the nature of explicit abstraction?

Does the model-regarded parole_2af of the literary text_2af entangle a language_2am, displaying the attributes of a langue_2am emerging from (and situating) the possibility of ‘positivist meaning’_1a?

Given the parole_2af of a literary text_2af, what does the entangled language_2am corresponding to langue_2am suggest by way of meaning_1a?

0309 What type of confounding is this?

The single form is in red.  The originating matter is language_2bm (fundament).  The entangled matter is language_2am(derivative).

0310 The onamasiological question concerns whether there is a spoken parole corresponding to a particular (and perhaps, yet to be fully articulated) positivist langue.

When applied to the situation-level of the derivative interscope, the onamasiological question transforms into a cultural query, asking “Is there a presence_1b to attach to the meaning_1a underlying the content-level positivist langauge_2am?”

0311 Say what?

Oh my.  I now proceed step by step.

0312 Step one, the literary text_2af (the SO_i for the semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c as SV_i) entangles an explicit abstraction_2am consisting of a label_2am emerging from (and situating) a positivist_3a meaning_1a.

In this entanglement, the fundament is confounded with the derivative.

0313 In step two, I compare the two content-level actualities.

In the fundament interscope, langue_2am (more or less actualizing a signified_1a) [substantiates] parole_2af (more or less serving as a signifier_1a).

In the derivative interscope, the literary text_2af, that was originally substantiated by the language_2bm of the mother tongue, now serves as the form_2af  (perhaps, as a semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c substituting for the literary text_2bf) entangling an expert language_2am that emerges from and situates the possibility of ‘positivist_3a meaning’_1a.

0314 This directly calls to mind the semasiological question, “Given a spoken word_2am, then what is its meaning_1a?”

In other words, what is the meaning_1a (associated to signifier_1a) of the explicit abstraction_2am (associated to parole_2af) in the derivative interscope?

0315 For the fundament, definition is regarded as implicit for the originating language_2bm, specified by a text’s {langue_2am [substantiates] parole_2af}.

For the derivative, definition must be explicit, leading to the semasiological question.  An explicit abstraction_2am (a label, parallel to parole_2af) is entertained (or entangled).  However, the positivist meaning_1a, which may serve as a metaphorical signifier_1a for the explicit label_2am resides in the domain of possibility₁. An explicit abstraction_2amemerges from (and situates) the potential of positivist meaning_1a in the normal context of the TMS intellect_3a.

0316 Step three, the derivative’s explicit abstraction_2am manifests as a label_2am arising (like a parole_2af) from the potential of ‘positivist_3a meaning’_1a (serving as a metaphorical signifier_1a).  The label_2am (the fundament’s parole_2afserves as a metaphor) emerges from a meaning_1a (the fundament’s signifier_1a serves as a metaphor) and its signified_1acarries the potential of ‘exhibiting explicit positivist_3a meaning’_1a (and the fundament’s signified_1a serves as a metaphor).

0317 In short, the entangled language_2am seems like parole_2af.

Plus, positivist meaning_1a seems like a signifier_1a.

The language_2am of the explicit abstraction_2am (the metaphorical parole_2af) appears to do justice to the TMS positivist intellect_3a and the potential of ‘meaning’_1a (the metaphorical signifier_1a).

How about a diagram of four elements of the derivative interscope?

0318 So far, step three covers the content-level elements.

0319 Once again, Saussure’s langue_2am (for the fundament interscope) also serves as a metaphor for the literary text_2af(for the derivative interscope).  The literary text_2af (perhaps, now a semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c substituting for the literary text_2bf) is formally contextualized by the TMS positivist intellect_3a and is alchemically enclosed in the scholar’s inquiry as a metaphorical langue_1am, corresponding to the possibility of a ‘signified’_1a.

Saussure’s parole_2af serves as a metaphor for the language_2am that is entangled by the literary text_2af.  This metaphorical parole_2am is both finally and efficiently related to the potential of a ‘positivist_3a signifier’_1a“ by way of definition₃.

Of course, this sounds a little goofy, since an explicit abstraction_2am emerges from a metaphorical signifier_1a, and I am not sure what the corresponding ‘signified’₁ might be.

0320 For the fundament interscope, I know that langue_2am [substantiates] parole_2af.

For the derivative interscope, I suspect that the literary text (semiological structuralist model)_2af as metaphorical langue_2am [now appears to substantiate] a language_2am as a metaphorical parole_2af, offering an explicit label_2amallowing a positivist signifier to constellate_1a.

Does that imply that the label_2am (metaphorical parole_2af, associated to signifier_1a) precedes its meaning_1a(metaphorical langue_2am, associated to signified_1a)?

That is a very good question.

0321 In step four, I ask, “If the explicit abstraction_2am that labels a positivist meaning_1a constellates the potential of ‘a signifier’_1a, then what is the corresponding ‘signified₁‘?”

It cannot be the literary text_2af, because the literary text_2af is the metaphorical langue_2am that corresponds to… um… the interventional sign-object (SO_i) of the structuralist_3a semiological_2a model_2c (SV_i).

If that is the case, then the corresponding signified₁ may be something_1b that acknowledges the presence of the entangled language_2am.  Plus, it_1b should show up on the situation level.

0322 Ah, I have arrived at the situation level.

If the onomasiological question concerns whether there is a spoken parole_2af corresponding to a particular langue_2am, then how does the question apply to a situation where the presence of a signifier_1a, underlying an explicit abstraction_2am, requires a corresponding situation-located signified_1b?

Given the presence_1b of a metaphorical signifier_1a, then what technical term might label that presence_1b as a signified_1b?

Would such a signified_1b support a referent_2b as the situation-level actuality_2b that virtually situates the entangled explicit abstraction_2am?

0323 So maybe, the onamosiological question may be reframed by the situation-level of the derivative interscope.

Does the presence_1b of a label_2am associated to the entangled language_2am of positivist signifiers_1a in the derivative interscope serve as a signified_1b that is situated by cognition_2am, as a situation-level actuality_2b in the normal context of cultural studies_3b?

0324 Well, if that reframed question sounds plausible, then I can offer the following conclusions.

The fundament interscope operates as an empirio-schematic description of what is going on in any particular literary text.  What is going on when an author writes and a reader reads entails implicit abstraction, for the most part.  In other words, the writer conveys a text and the reader uses the same text in order to fill in the elements of a purely relational structure associated with langue.

This implicit process is the subject matter for semiology_3a and structuralism_3b.  These two fields of inquiry culminate ina judgment, actualized as a model_2c.

The derivative interscope serves as a Positivist description of what is going on when writing and reading a particular literary text.  This description uses explicit labels_2am, bearing the qualities of a metaphorical parole_2af (that is, of a positivist signifier_1a), that will be virtually situated by a cultural thing_2b.  In short, an explicit abstraction_2am (SV_s) broadly stands for a cultural thing_2b (SO_s) in regards to cultural studies_3b operating on the potential of a signified_1b(virtually situating a positivist signifier_1a)’ (SI_s).

0325 Thus, the situation level of the derivative wrestles with onomasiological issues in a strange manner.

Given a signified_1b, then what is the name of the corresponding referent_2b?

Does cognition_2bm, as a situation-level actuality_2b in the normal context of cultural studies_3b, virtually situate the presence_1b of a label_2am associated to the entangled language_2am of positivist signifiers_1a in the derivative interscope?

0326 {Cognition as matter_2bm [substantiates] social and cultural interaction as form_2bf} situates the presence_1b of positivist_3a meaning_1a in the normal context of cultural studies_3b.

0327 May I further transform the onomasiological question and ask, “Is the situation-level actuality of cognition_2bmand social interaction_2bf  the referent of an explicit abstraction_2am (or label_2am) that is entangled by a literary text_2af?”

The answer is, “Yeah, just watch what people do after they read a particular text.”

Do actions speak louder than words?

Hmmm.

0329 The story does not stop there.

Notably, this following two-level interscope does not have a perspective level.  A perspective is required to complete a langue, a three-level interscope.

Here is a picture of what I am talking about.

0330 What fills the void of the perspective level?

Before 1989, Lotman has a ready-at-hand perspective level that satisfies any Soviet authority who may be asking.

Who is going to argue with the following?

Certainly not a poorly educated rube with a rubber stamp.

0331 What does this imply?

Those summer schools in Estonia must have been amazing.

On the one hand, international and intellectual “students” are free to play, because the perspective level is missing.  Discourse consists of sensible construction, because the missing perspective level is… um… somehow benevolent.

Benevolent?

No rubber-stamper is going to argue with the prior figure.

0332 Marxism is the ideological currency of the USSR before 1989.  The value of that currency begins to decline after 1968.  But that does not mean… you know… that one can directly deceive the ones who are charged with supervision of intellectual giants like Juri Lotman and his cohorts.

The mantra is “appease, not deceive”.

0333 At the same time, the missing perspective level is benevolent in a complete different fashion.

The gathering scholars study a civilization that converts to Christianity through the charisma of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and other saints (depending on the nation), in the 800s AD.  Cyril translates the Bible.  The Cyrillic alphabet (the raw material of the written words under investigation) is forged at this time.

0334 Most importantly, these missionaries hail from Byzantium.  They grow up on the Greek side of the formerly “Roman Empire”.  They are familiar with Aristotle.

In contrast, in the West, familiarity with Aristotle is… um… lost… then regained.  In the 600s, Boethius, who intends to translate classical Greek philosophy into Latin, croaks.  Aristotle does not get translated into Latin.  In the 1200s, the Crusaders bring Greek and Arabic texts from the Levant.  Aristotle finally gets translated and Saint Thomas Aquinas “baptizes” Aristotle’s philosophy, amidst controversy.

0335 Differences between Slavic and Western civilizations show up in subtle ways.  Hylomorphic structures occupy almost every slot for actuality in the above figures.  Westerners would put a single word into each slot.  They would not ideate the hylomorphe that expresses Peirce’s category of secondness.

0336 Appease.

Don’t deceive.

Confound.

Don’t confront.

There is a rubber-stamper who needs answers to questions like, “Comrade, does your theory reveal how material arrangements [substantiate] humans conditions_2c?”

0337 Sections seven and eight (7 & 8) offer three ideations that dwell within the ambiguity depicted above.

Section seven (7) first discusses Poldmae’s theory of verse.

0338 Jaak Poldmae (1942-1979) considers poetry in the Slavic and German civilizations.  To me, it looks like his interest in metrics goes with the signifier and his interest in poetics associates to the signified.  Once these substitutions are made, the following derivative interscope is readily completed from the authors’ brief description of verse theory.

0339 While Poldmae may come unnervingly close to the old formalist habit of finding the literary devices, the above interscope is not a mere collection of mechanisms.  Verse theory is an organic whole.  Plus, the perspective-level category-based nested form looks like a clone of Marxist theory.

0340 To me, this begs the question, asking, “What happened to the content and situation levels of Marxist theory?”

Did they somehow deplete themselves?

Plus, the rubberstamper is uncharacteristically uninterested, because Poldmae asserts that poetry_2c somehow corresponds to… or reveals… or depicts… the human condition_2c.

Isn’t that what any Slav already appreciates?

0341 Section seven (7) next discusses the phenomenon… er… model substituting for the noumenon (?)… of intertextuality.  Intertextuality delocalizes the poet, because the poet produces a text in relation to other (prior) texts.  In a sense, a contemporary poet joins the conversation of other poets.  The contemporary poet responds to the poetics and the metrics of… what?… civilization, past and present?

0342 Uh oh, remember Saints Cyril and Methodius?

Where did they come from?

The Byzantine civilization is a fusion of Greek and Jewish civilizations, made possible by the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

0343 Unlike America, Russia is not made of new cloth.  The Slavic civilization is cut from old cloth, over and over again, in a theodrama that the American Empire simply wants to ignore.

Oh, I should say, “the USSA”?

0344 The term “intertextuality” is a beautiful Platonic term, offered by Julie Kristeva, a French linguist, that serves to cover over the perspective-level actuality of the following three-level interscope, in such a manner as to comport with the actuality_2c of Marxist theory_3c.

0345 To appreciate the rhizomic character of intertextuality, an inquirer may consider Razie Mah’s blog for August 2025, titled Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism”.

Zizek is a philosopher, not a poet, but he sounds like a poet some of the time.  He writes like a poet, even though he doesn’t know it.  Only a poet would make “Christ”, the adjective, and our human condition, the noun.  Isn’t that what the story of the Garden of Eden tells us?  We have been kicked out of the Garden because we can now challenge God Himself.  Now, outside of His Domain, we are “a-” (“without”) “-theists” (“God”).

Does Zizek suggest that Christian Atheism can stand in for… material arrangements_2c?

0346 As if to confirm, Zizek concludes with a reflection on Alexandr Blok’s poem, The Twelve, written in 1918, depicting Christ as a holy ghost leading twelve Red Guards on their patrol of revolutionary Petrograd.   Of course, Soviet authorities later replaced the word, “Christ”, with “sun”, because they were too embarrassed to substitute in “material arrangements”.

0347 Zizek aside, intertextuality and verse theory both cohere to the reality of Lotman’s and Jakobson’s legacy.  Plus, they do not cross the line that Lotman’s derivative interscope tunnels under.