0653 How is this possible?

The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics grows out of the ambition of language departments – departments on Slavic studies – to become scientific, and gain repute in the socialist regime of the USSR.  They do not fully appreciate that the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s explicitly reject Aristotle’s formal and final causes, as well as Aristotle’s hylomorphe of {matter [substance] form}.  This appreciation is further muddled by the fact that the Marxist perspective-level vision (or is it “model”?) for the derivative interscope, is the hylomorphe, {material arrangements [substantiate] human conditions}_2c.

0654 Plus, the Slavic civilization grows, and expresses itself, within an unbroken tradition with Aristotle (unlike the West, who regains Aristotle’s texts in the 1000s to 1200s, during the crusades to the eastern Mediterranean).  My guess is that Orthodox Christians are already working with the inverse of Aristotle’s hylomorphe, {form [entangles] matter}, for centuries before the modern era.  Surely, {form [entangles] matter} sounds like the stuff of angels and a God of all Creation.

0655 So, the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics builds on the semiology_3a and structuralism_3b inherent in Saussure’s tradition, while the literary texts_2bf speak for themselves.  They speak through hylomorphism and entanglement, through normal contexts and potentials, without providing labels for their language_2bm and without scientifically translating their voices into a language_2am designed to label meaning_1a, presence_1b and message_1c.

The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics intends to convert the literary works_2af of the Slavic civilization into models_2c, whereby the literary text_2af can entangle a positivist_3a language_2am of meaning_1a, which then virtually potentiates presence_1b and engages a message_1c.

0656 Their intention is as Slavic as the civilization that they are trying to bring into the scientific era.  Their intention may be pictured as a confounding of substance and entanglement that crosses from the fundament to the derivative (or the loquens to the ego) interscope.

Here is a picture.

0657 What a breath-taking confounding.

The literary text_2af, the thing itself, is substantiated by language_2bm as esse_ce (substantiating matter), and entangles positivist language_2am, the matter of meaning_1a, presence_1b and message_1c.

0658 A casual observer has difficulty fully appreciating the daring and innovation of Lotman, Uspenskij and other members of the first ascent of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics.  They are like scholars pulling something old and something new from their treasures.  That includes the wool that goes over the eyes of watchful authorities.

0659 Confoundings are both illuminating and treacherous.  They are not to be toyed with lightly.

The esse_ce side is well constructed, using the tools of Saussure’s linguistics and Structuralism.

The essence side is open, as it must be, because that is the way of entanglement.

0660 The derivative or ego interscope allows the inquirer to see the dangers, as well as the opportunities, faced by the TMS.

0661 On the content level, the positivist intellect of the Tartu-Moscow School _3a brings the actuality of {literary text as form_2af [entangles] a language of meaning as matter_2am} into relation with the possibility of ‘meaning’_1a.

Surely, language as matter_2bm that substantiates the form of the literary text_2bf (the Slavic mother tongue) is not the same as language as a matter_2am of meaning_1a entangled by the literary text_2af, serving as the interventional sign-object (SO_i) for an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i), consisting of a semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c.

0662 Interventional sign relation?

Am I getting ahead of myself?

Or am I walking a previously trod path?

0663 On the situation level, the normal context of culture (the stuff of cultural studies)_3b brings the dyadic actuality of {cognition_2bm [substantiates] social interactions_2bf} into relation with the possibility of ‘a presence that situates the language of meaning_2am‘.

In short, the language of meaning_2am (that is entangled by a literary text_2af as the objectification of its semiological_3astructuralist_3b model_2c) is sensibly situated by a presence_1b that makes possible the substantiation of social interactions as form_2bf by cognition as matter_2bm.

The key term in the last sentence is “sensibly”.

0664 The perspective level is potentiated by a ‘message’_1c that contextualizes the sensible construction of the situation-level actuality_2b.

0665 Notably, the perspective level actuality_2c is a site of confusion between semioticians and Marxists.

Why?

It is empty, as far as the scholars of Slavic literature in the USSR are concerned.

Does that send a message_1c?

0666 The subtitle of the article offers a clue to the confounding, “The perception of time as a semiotic problem.”

If the article was of Marxist orientation, the subtitle might say, “The perception of time as a material arrangement that substantiates the human condition”.

0667 Am I saying that the perception of time as a semiotic problem substantiates the human condition?

Absolutely not.

That would contradict Marx’s model of civilization.

0668 Meanwhile, Uspenskij precedes the introduction with two quotes.  One is from St. Augustine’s Confessions.  The other is from Blaise Pascal’s Pensees.  Both testify that time is a problem for the human condition.

0669 The article is divided into four parts: the abstract and introduction (0), after the first asterisk (1), after the second asterisk (2) and after the third asterisk (3).

0670 With the abstract and quotes (0), I know that time_2bf is the literary text as form_2bf in the fundament interscope.

Here is a picture.

0671 Well, that was easy.

Uspenskij expands his discussion from the situation-level actuality_2b outwards.

First, what are the mother tongue’s traditional references concerning time_2af?

Obviously, tenses and moods are useful for denoting the past, present and future_1b as the potential_1b upon which time as a system_3b operates.

0672 Here are my associations of the situation-level of the fundament interscope to elements within Uspenskij’s abstract and introduction.

0673 It seems that Uspenskij states the obvious.

He dwells on the content level after the third asterisk (3), where he compares time and space.  

Time goes in only one direction.  Space goes in three directions.  Well, two directions for anyone in an automobile.

So, geography, space and time can mix with one another in the potential of ‘signified [&] signifier’_1a within the normal context of Saussure’s semiology.  The potential of time_2af is ‘something like moving through space’_1a, in one direction. There is no going backwards.  But, in science fiction, even going back in time is possible.

0674 Saussure’s semiology says that, for speech-alone talk, parole_2a and langue_2a are two arbitrarily related systems of differences.  The structure of the arbitrary relation_3b situates the content of within two systems of differences_3a.

0675 How do traditional time terms_2af and time-related practices_2af differ from one another?

Perhaps, they divide the one-dimensional motion of time_2am through explicit abstraction.

Certainly, the explicit terms, “past”, “present” and “future” accomplish this.  These terms are explicit abstractions.  Not all spoken languages maintain such terms.  Sometimes, a spoken language will present implicit versions of the above explicit terms, through tenses and moods.  In other words, tenses and moods do not explicitly register past, present and future.  They implicitly do.

0676 Here is a comparison between the general content-level and the application.

0677 The explicit spoken terms of “past”, “present” and “future” belong to our current Lebenswelt.

What about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

0678 This is a question that Uspenskij cannot approach, even though his argument indirectly raises this question.  Does “time_2af” exist before the first singularity?

Of course it does.  We grow older as if we are moving in one direction through space.

So, how does one express time using hand-talk?

[Point to SUN or MOON][move pointing hand towards the rising (for past) or setting (for future)]

0679 How simple is that?

The very same principle that confounds time, space and geography is used in hand-talk to implicitly refer to something that can be imaged and pointed to.  The sun and moon move in time.  Time is an implicit abstraction.

History and cosmography are confounded in hand-talk words for “time”.

0680 However, the spoken label, “time”, does not exist.  Time is not an explicit abstraction.  It_2af can be performed using gestural-words that picture and point to pre-existing referents.  The referent_2am precedes the gestural word_2af.

0681 To date, the TMS tradition has not confronted the distinction between implicit and explicit abstraction that divides hand- and hand-speech talk and speech-alone talk.  What does it mean to refer to time as an implicit abstraction usingthe gestural-words depicted above?

Razie Mah offers an e-book, A Primer on Implicit and Explicit Abstraction (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  Perhaps, this is an adequate place to start.  The topic is currently wide open.  Inquiry will clarify the differences between the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and our current Lebenswelt.

0682 Finally, I come to the perspective-level for the fundament interscope.

0683 The normal context of a language of exact methods_3c brings the actuality of a semiological_3a structuralist_3bmodel_2c into relation with the potential of ‘observing phenomena in a literary text’_1c.

Language_2bm is both the matter that substantiates the literary text_2bf (esse_ce) and the observable facets (or phenomena) of the substantiated text (that is, the essence_2bf).

0684 Here are my associations to Uspenskij’s text.

The normal context of a language of semiotic problems_3c brings the actuality of historical and cosmological consciousness_2c into relation with the potential of ‘observing the phenomena of time’_1c.

0685 The semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c is historical and cosmological consciousness_2c.

In our current Lebenswelt, historical and cosmological time are distinct explicit abstractions.

In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the distinction cannot be talked about using hand talk, even though the distinction is intrinsic to the (proposed) hand-talk word-gestures.

0686 The fact the Uspenskij does not state that historical and cosmological consciousness_2c is a semiological_3astructuralist_3b model_2c is telling.  He intuitively performs what this examination depicts explicitly, by filling in the blank slots of a purely relational structure, because the purely relational structure expresses an implicit abstraction.

0687 Say what?

What is Uspenskij doing implicitly that this examination is doing explicitly through diagrams?

0688 Uspenskij builds the foundation for an interventional sign-relation.

Historical and cosmological consciousness_2c (SV_i) stands for the dyad_2a, {time as literary form_2af (SO_i) [entangles] a language of consciousness_2am} in regards to the normal context of the TMS_3a operating on the potential of ‘meaning’_1a(SI_i).

0689 Uspenskij performs the interventional sign-relation flawlessly and without hesitation.

The interventional sign-relation passes from the perspective level of the fundament (or loquens) interscope to the content level of the derivative (or ego) interscope.

0690 This particular application of the interventional sign-relation reminds me of the opening of the gospel according to John, re-presented here with my own ad-hoc commentary.

In the beginning was the Word (Loquens), and the Word (both the Word-Gesture and the Spoken Word) was with God, and the Word (Ego, Jesus the Messiah) was God.  Jesus (as an element in a triadic relation) was in the beginning with God (the one triadic relation); all things (that can be pictured or pointed to using hand talk) were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made (including me, an ego as an image of God).

0691 How informative.

The New Testament application brings me back to the structure of the interventional sign-relation.

Here is a related example.

The Word as the beginning (a semiological_3a structural_3b model_2c of biblical revelation) (SV_i) stands for {the gospel of John as a literary text_2af  (SO_i) [entangling] consciousness of the Word (the Logos)_2am} in the normal context of the tradition of Christ_3a operating on the potential of ‘meaning’_1a (SI_i).

0692 So, what am I saying?

Is it possible for the TMS positivist intellect_3a to contextualize the metaphysical?

Absolutely, since material and efficient causations operate seamlessly with formal and final causalities.

0693 Uspenskij is a scholar of Slavic languages and the Slavic civilization does not become a people until St. Cyril and St. Methodius introduce a theological theory about the nature of Who I Am.  The Scandinavian Vikings who build a fort and proclaim sovereignty over the realm do not define the Slavic civilization.  Mundane sovereignty does not give the Slavs meaning_1a, presence_1b and message_1c.  Celestial sovereignty does.

In the conversion of the Slavs, Christ introduces Aristotle to the narod.

In the ensuing generations, Slavic civilization explores Aristotle’s hylomorphe of {matter [substantiates] form} all the way to its full inversion of {form [entangles] matter}.

0694 Here is a depiction of Uspenskij’s revelation.

Er… I meant to say “confounding”.

0695 The implications of the confounding, a binary of matter, have yet to be explored.

0696 One point is certain.

Western civilization, when it abandons metaphysics in order to achieve ideological purity within the Positivist’s judgment, lost the ability to recognize confoundings.

The scientific West is blind.

Through TMS, vision may one day return.

0697 Historical and cosmological consciousness?

After the first asterisk (1), Uspenskij discusses past and present in a detailed manner.

His discussion traces the contours of the specifying sign-relation.

0698 The actuality of {time in the form of a literary text (or is it a semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c based on the text_2bf?)_2af (SO_i) [entangling] historical and cosmological consciousness_2am (SV_s)} stands for the actuality of {cognition based on past and present_2bm (SO_s)[substantiating] the present as a result of planning, as well as the present as a situation produced by cosmological antecedents_2bf (SV_e)} in regards to cultural – civilizational – inquiry_3boperating on the potential of ‘the presence of past and present’_1b (SI_s).

0699 What does the term, “consciousness” imply?

Consider Julian Jaynes’s use of the term in Looking at Julian Jaynes’s Book (1976) The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Razie Mah’s blog for October 2025 and appearing in the e-book, Synaesthesia and the Bicameral Mind in Human Evolution, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0700 Consciousness involves reflective thought.

So the ‘presence_1b‘ that cognition_2bm emerges from (and situates) is reflective, as well as representative.

0701 What does this imply?

A spoken word labels a past event.  Does that spoken word represent the past event?  Does that spoken word serve as an artifact that allows us to reflect upon what it represents?  Does that reflection eventually distort the representation?  Can we then reflect upon that distortion?

We can, only if we are “conscious”.

0702 Spoken words do not picture or point to their referents.

Spoken words invite us to create artifacts that validate their referents.

This applies to the spoken language_2am that is fixed in time in the form of a literary text_2af.

0703 As to the past leading to the present, Uspenskij identifies two styles (or “genres”) of representation and reflection.

0704 Historical consciousness sees one event following another in a complicated chain of causalities.  The continuity between past and present is like a path that leads somewhere.  We can extrapolate where we are going (the future) by sensible construction based on past events.

Cosmological consciousness testifies to a foundation event that predicates what is to come (the future).  Some call it “the cyclic view of history”.  With respect to a founding event, what is to come is both our past and our present.  So, the cognitive structure takes on the feel of a house of mirrors.  One cannot plan ahead with conviction, but one can rely on symbolic reproduction to avoid or dodge cyclic catastrophes.

0705 Both historical and cosmological awareness appear in all civilizations.

Why?

Time as a literary form_2af [entangles] the language of consciousness_2am.

0706 After the second asterisk (2), Uspenskij discusses the future in a detailed manner.

Here is a comparison of the general and applied situation-levels of the derivative (or ego) interscope.

0707 Historical consciousness looks at the future as an extrapolation of the past and present.

Cosmological consciousness regards the future as part and parcel of a re-enactment of an originating primal event.

0708 I suppose the first has short-term expectations, born of sensible construction.

The second has long-term expectations, born of social construction.

0709 Here is the trick that Uspenskij does not articulate.

Sensible construction builds on social construction.

Sensible construction pertains to the content and situation levels of a three-level interscope.  The perspective level is not even apparent until a dramatic failure occurs.  A dramatic failure may come from ongoing sensible construction compromising the original social construction, as described, in fairy tale fashion, in the opening chapter of An Archaeology of the Fall.

0710 For example, in America, the word “freedom” was originally a potential₁ and “responsibility” was its normal context₃.

One transit of Pluto later (248 years), according to modern corporate media, “freedom” is now a normal context₃ and “responsibility” is someone else’s problem₁.

By “someone else”, I mean “the taxpayer”.

0711 What does this imply?

Can corporations sell more product when freedom is the normal context₃ rather than responsibility₃?

Is this especially the case when the one who ends up holding the bag₁ is not the person engaging in an addictive behavior₂.

0712 Are apparently sensible, yet playfully transgressive, broadcast manipulations capable of altering the language of… what?… the language that supports the literary text as noumenon_2bf… or the language that supports the literary text as a model of the noumenon_2af?

0713 At some point, does a complete inversion of the co-opposition between “freedom” and “responsibility” occur, marking a turn – or a half-turn – of a cosmological cycle?

Or does the historical step-by-step conversion of “freedom” from the potential₁ to act, while suffering the normal context of responsibility₃, to the normal context of acting without constraint₃, with others to suffer the consequences₁, merely present the appearance of a cosmological process?

0714 In short, does Uspenskij’s model of time as a literary text_2af entangling both historical and cosmological consciousnesses_2am play out as a category-based nested form or an interscope moving diachronically through time?

0715 Here is a picture of the diachronic results for freedom as the textual thing itself_2bf and its model_2af.

0716 The implications are difficult to assess.

0717 Historically, at what point, does the entangled language_2am become the language that substantiates_2bm?

0718 At the second asterisk (2), Uspenskij moves from consciousness of past and present to perceptions of the future.

Historical consciousness looks at the future as an extrapolation of the past and present.

Cosmological consciousness views the future as a repetition of a primal foundation.  It does not anticipate resolution.

0719 Why would this be the case?

0720 May I frame these views in terms of Hegel’s triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis?

Historical consciousness offers a thesis, allowing sensible plans to be constructed.

Cosmological consciousness offers an antithesis.  Sensible plans cannot be made.  However, symbolic representation of the origination of an historical polarity grants a degree of awareness of the dangers occurring when thesis and antithesis exchange dominance.

0721 What do these re-framed views have in common?

Neither anticipate a synthesis.

The current paradigm of time_2af continues as long as a synthesis does not resolve the tension between thesis and antithesis.

0722 At least, that is my guess.

My guess comports with Uspenskij’s discussion because a synthesis is not on the horizon.  Uspenskij’s model_2csuggests that a slow transition of language from talking about past, present and future_2bf to talking about historical and cosmological consciousness_2af will advance with his publication.

0723 Does that take the inquirer beyond the thesis of historical consciousness and the antithesis of cosmological consciousness?

Either way, continuity over time is anticipated.

On the situation level, the normal context of prognostication_3b brings the dyadic actuality, {the coming future_2bm[substantiates] continued continuity_2bf}, into relation with the possibility of ‘the presence of both historical and cosmological time’_1b.

0724 Here is a picture of the derivative interscope.

0725 Uspenskij recognizes continuity in two, strikingly different literary texts.

0726 The first is the miraculous columns in Constantinople, built by Theodosius the Great in 386, showing a future conquest of the city by people who look a lot like the crusaders.  When short haired, iron-sword bearing warriors come from the west (as predicted), they are taken aback by the panels on the column depicting the prophecies of Sibyl.

0727 The second is a thought experiment by American cyberneticist, Norbert Weiner (1894-1964).

Imagine an intelligence whose flow of time proceeds from our future to our past.

How could any communication occur?

It could only occur at the moment of the present, which is a very small window.

0728 Consider trying to get the letter, “m”, through this nanosecond portal.

A pulse of light, perhaps containing the entire “m”, will be received by a much less intelligent and not-so-prepared being (such as we humans) in an altogether incompetent manner.  After all, nothing in the past prepared any human for such a transmission.

Weiner concludes that the reception of such an encoded photonic pulse would be experienced as either the suggestion of the letter, “m” or an omen of an “m”.

0729 Either way, the experience pictures and points to continuity.

0730 A psychic looks into her crystal ball, which inadvertently substantiates the matter of the encoded transmission into the form of the letter, “m”.

After consulting her mystic-oriented companions, she decides that, since “m” is the 13th letter of the alphabet, that she will announce, in thirteen days, that an alien intelligence, moving from the future into the past, generated the matter of a photonic expression of the letter, “m”, that simultaneously substantiated the form of the letter, “m”, in her crystal ball, the instrument of substantiations.

0731 She is the prophetic witness to a presence in an alternate time-direction.

Her crystal ball embodies the continuity.

History_3c relies on the potential of ‘continuity’_1c.

0024 Within two decades of V Gordon Childe’s publication, other voices attempt to shape the matter.  A list of twelve items really does not help, except for those who like to check boxes.  Nor does it indicate the… um… substance of the revolution that defines the neolithic archaeological period.  In other words, the items characterized observations and measurements of phenomena.  The noumenon is what needs to be explained.

Robert J. Braidwood (1907-2003) made an intelligent guess about the noumenon, the thing itself.  The neolithic emergence probably did not start in the great river valleys of southwest Asia.  It probably started in their hilly flanks. 

This guess vastly simplified expectations as to what phenomena to look for, as shown in the following figure.

0025 Here are some other advantages of Braidwood’s guess.

The selected material arrangements are sort of like the old matter of lithic technologies.  The continuity with the prehistoric human condition concerns [technique], as the art of figuring material arrangements out.

A Darwinian motif lingers in the background.  Natural selection worked against those who could not figure out the correct material conditions.  The Marxist hylomorphe maintains its integrity.  

Plus, the actuality₂ still fits into Childe’s breakthrough title.

0026 The material arrangements selected by Braidwood also clarify the substance.

The original contiguity of [technique] recalls efficient causalities.   The matter of paleolithic technologies sets the stage for how hominins condition themselves through techniques expressing efficient causalities.  So does the matter of neolithic technologies.  

0027 The [substance] for Braidwood’s Marxist formulation anticipates different efficient causalities than for Childe’s.  The matter of six material arrangements_2m constellates the substance of [location and domestication].  A new suite of efficient causes emerges from a novel potential₁.  Rather than man₃ making₂ himself₁, a climate-bound interglacial ecology₃ makes₂ complementary seasonality (living at one location) and insurance (through domestication)₁ possible.

0028 In the following figure, I substitute [location and domestication] for [substance].

Here is Braidwood’s actuality₂, an influential paradigm since the 1980s.

0029 And, here is the accompanying nested form.

0030 So, maybe man₃ does not make₂ himself₁, climactic change₃ does.

0031 The story does not end here.

This is what the article under examination is all about.

0032 The formal cause for Braidwood’s actuality₂ involves the normal context of novel interglacial ecologies₃.  The neolithic archaeological period flowers at the end of the previous ice age.  New ecologies allow humans to figure out how to live in one location and engage in domestication.  The substance of [location & domestication] defines the essence of the neolithic human condition_2f.

The final cause might be labeled ‘settling down’.  Complementary seasonality₁ (different ecologies assessible at one location) and insurance₁ (through domestication) support efficient causes that cohere to the final cause of ‘settling down’₁.  

0033 Indeed, complementary seasonality and domestication may be reified into the contiguity between the real elements for Braidwood’s material arrangements_2m and neolithic human conditions_2f.

As soon as this is done, then the normal context₃ of interglacial ecology₃ is destabilized.  An interglacial ecology₃ does not contextualize the final cause that arises from the potential to ‘settle down’₁.

0034 Here is a picture.

0035 Although, the author’s history of “neolithic” (A) does not articulate the resulting confounding, the storyline suggests the following.

0036 The matter of a bauplan, a fairly well conceptualized unfolding pattern (such as embryo development) seen over and over in evolutionary biology, is now entangled with the form of the neolithic condition.

This is the agenda hidden within the article under examination.  The idea of bauplan is introduced in the third section (C), but the idea colors the presentation of current information about neolithic emergences throughout the world (B).

Or does it?

0037 Of course it does, because the author’s interest shifts from the efficient causalities that rely on the potentials₁underlying sedentism₂, that is, complementary seasonality₁ (at one location) and insurance₁ (in the style of domestication), to final causalities such as ‘settling down’.  Why would a species that is used to traveling settle down?  Well, certain locations offer the proper affordances.

However, these locations cannot be recognized and the affordances cannot be cultivated if there is no… how to say it?.. unfolding of ‘something’ within the species (humans) that is settling down.  Can location somehow consolidate human social circles?  Can plants and animals apply to the potential of settlement₁?

These are very good questions.

0038 The evolutionary biologist who retains an interglacial ecology₃ as the normal context for the neolithic condition_2fcannot explain the development of ‘something’₁ implicit to the archaeological data (B).

0039 What is the bauplan?

The bauplan₃ situates the interglacial₃ in so far as the emphasis shifts from efficient causes, where ecological and environmental features of the interglacial₁ potentiate material arrangements_2am, to final causes, where the substances of enhancing complementary seasonality (say, by building sheds to store food) and actualizing domestication (say, by doing what the animals and plants want them to do) makes₂ the neolithic… um… “revolve”.

0040 Or, maybe, I should say, “Spiral.”

“Spiral” portrays the character of final causality, every bauplan unfolds according to the intentions built into the formal design.  Efficient causes do not have to be coordinated.  They only need to influence one another, as if trying to achieve the same ends, for the bauplan to spiral into actuality.

0041 The author frames her proposal that the normal context₃ is (some sort of) bauplan₃ with the term, “middle way”.  The middle way covers the span from the start of a spiral to its terminus.  The spiral starts in our current interglacial with a change in stone tools_2m, along with all sorts of other arrangments_2m, working to actualize the potential of ‘settling down’₁.

0042 The following diagram depicts the author’s paradigm as a category-based nested form.

0043 The normal context of a spiraling middle way₃ (characteristic of a bauplan₃) brings the dyadic actuality, {arrangements based on final causes_2m [complementary seasonality and insurance] neolithic human conditions_2f}, into relation with the potential of ‘a convergence of final causes, such as settling down’₁.

At least, that is what I (C).

0044 The sections summarizing recent research on the Neolithic (B) walk the reader towards two conclusions.

0045 First, each region follows a different trajectory, due to efficient causalities pertinent to that ecology and environment.  Nevertheless, all regions fall within the expectations of the author’s middle way₃.  The potentials inherent in efficient causalities are reified into a substance₂ that stands between the matter of the settler’s arrangements_2m and the form of the neolithic human condition_2f.  The potentials inherent in final causalities₁ undergird a bauplan₃.

Efficient causalities vary.  Final causes are held in common.

0046 Second, I may ask, “How does the educated expert investigate the neolithic bauplan₃ and its potentials₁?”

0047 Well, a top-down reduction of matter and substance (what a Latin-speaking scholastic would call, “esse“, or being substantiating) does not assist, because… well… the mechanical philosophers rejected final causation back in the 1600s.

A bottom-up theoretical construction of substance and form completely misses the normal context₃ and potentials₁, which harken back to evolutionary biology.

0048 The author admits the impossibility of reductionist and social constructionist approaches by singling out Uchiyama’s NEOMAP cultural landscape framework as exemplar.  The project synthesizes data from the so-called “inland seas” of China, Japan, Korea and Eastern Russia with the intent of identifying convergent (efficient causal) factors.

Oops.

It’s the final causes that give rise to behavioral arrangements as matter that are convergent.

0049 Now, I could stop here and return to my cocktail, but there is a third conclusion.

Really, it is an observation about the second movement (B).

An irreversible transition towards unconstrained social complexity occurs within each region that the author discusses.

0050 The clue is found in a figure that accompanies each region (southwest Asia, China, Japan, Eastern North America, Mesoamerica and the Pacific Northwest of North America).  The horizontal axis is time.  The vertical axis divides according to Braidwood’s complex of material arrangements.

The spiral (inherent to any bauplan₃) is indicated by the thickness of a horizontal line, which widens until a point of… shall I say?… no return.  There is a line for each material arrangement.  When the width of the dotted line reaches its maximum, an irreversible transition has taken place.

0051 Here is a picture of what I am saying.

0052 Irreversible transition?

The author emphasizes the concept that the early neolithic is reversible, tentative, and subject to dynamic change, especially in response to climate.  In other words, the early neolithic (when the dotted lines are narrow on the pertinent figures) slowly constellates according to an emerging bauplan₃.  The fact that the final causes for all regions are the same makes possible the trend toward the thickest line for each of Childe’s and Braidwood’s material arrangements.

0053 Here is another observation.

In each region, the various horizontal lines do not become thickest at the same time for all material arrangements.  In most regions, maximum thickness is achieved for some arrangements in a first wave, then for all arrangements in a second wave.

0054 Here is a picture of my estimates.

0055 Do I give myself away in the titles of the above figures?

The second and terminal wave marks the start of a new Lebenswelt. This living world fosters unconstrained social complexity.

The first and prophetic wave marks the end of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  The living world exhibits constrained social complexity, but not for long.