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.

02/20/26

Looking at Mihhail Lotman’s Article (2017) “History as Geography” (Part 8 of 8)

0827 The next section of the essay is titled, “Russian space”.

Consider the contrasts (B) to Russian identity_3a (A) that have appeared in this examination.

Each of these dyads embody an Aristotelian thing. We encounter things. Things are composed of matter and form. Things can serve as matter for other things. Things can serve as form for other things.

0828 Perhaps, it is no surprise that geography is a thing that serves as matter, allowing me to form the way that I orient myself in Russian space. At the same time, geography is implicated in what I say, especially when I say, “Moscow is first of all, a tsardom, not a city, and that tsardom is oriented to Constantinople, that is Byzantium.” Geography, as a matter of cognition, substantiates “Russian space”, in the form of historic belongings.

No wonder the author describes Russian geography as a mystical historiosophy.

0829 Nothing is quite fixed, because directions are confounded with historical processes and so are… um… borders. Russia, is a form, with an expanse without borders as originating matter. Yet, Russia, as a form, is regarded as a nation.

Here is the geography of Russia, writ-large.

0830 The original thing is Russian space. An expanse without borders [substantiates] Russian space.

From page 274 to 279, the author dwells on the way that Russia, as a civilization, wrestles with Russia, as a nation.

The reason is clear. The Russian space, as form, entangles (through alliances and conflicts) the matter of borders.

Confoundings are dangerous.

0831 In the author’s historical telling, in its infancy, Russian civilization does not so much worry or fixate on borders. East and West offer principles that can be adopted or rejected. The West is logical, blabbering and deceitful. The East is none of these, because the East does not speak, and that can be sort of scary.

0832 The author does not detect a resolution of the entanglement in favor of the Western formulation of nations with borders. And yet, a particular closure is anticipated.

0833 Here is a picture.

0834 What is the promise?

Russia will join the West.

0835 What is the problem?

A nation-child is born at the same time as the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s. This child of the British Empirereaches adolescence. This adolescent breaks free. One orbit of Pluto later, the adult-nation is now a cacophonous grasping, manipulative and technologically savvy minion of oligarchs. The financial manipulators demand total submission as the price of being rewarded as promised. The USCB is now the Union of Socialist-Capitalist Bigilibs.

Please, conform to our empirio-normative domination.

AI guides iron hands within velvet gloves.

0836 So, now Russia, acting as a nation with borders is entangled in another matter, the need to become a nation without borders_2a, through alliances, rather than through lines on a map.

0837 Yes, something is different.

The Russians are now a people.

And, the people advocate for Eurasian convergence (D).

See Comments on Alexander Dugin’s Book (2012) The Fourth Political Theory, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0838 Accordingly, Lotman’s typology of relations of cultural betweenness, depicted in the purely relational structure of the Greimas square, conjures an opportunity.

0839 Take a look at D in the last two figures and wonder, “What type of matter is thus entangled?”

0840 My thanks to the author, Mihhail Lotman, for publishing this article, whose full title is “History as geography: In search of Russian identity”.

02/19/26

Looking at Peeter Torop’s Article (2017) “Semiotics of Cultural History” (Part 1 of 11)

0953 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (volume 45(3/4), 2017, pages 317-334) by Peeter Torop in the Department of Semiotics at Tartu University, Estonia. This particular volume is dedicated to semiotics and history.

0002 Amazingly, this article has no subtitle.

Perhaps, I may add one: An Inquiry into the Chronotope.

0954 At first, I thought that the word, “chronotope”, coined by Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975 AD), was “chronotrope”, where “trope” is a label for a rhetorical trick that belies the complexity of things. Tropes change over time.

0955 For example, the Latin trope, “ens reale“, has been translated as “being that is real”, as well as “mind-independent being”. Add time, and the parole of the chronotrope stays the same, but the matter, the langue, shifts. “Ens reale” migrates from what the scholastics pursue in their philosophical discourses to what?… a being that is mind-independent? Does mind independence (as matter) somehow substantiate a form (that is the elusive goal of philosophical inquiry)?

0956 If I use Aristotle’s hylomorphe as an exemplar of Peirce’s secondness, I can diagram the following “chronotrope”.

0957 Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, the real elements are matter and form. The contiguity, placed in brackets for proper notation, is [substance] or [substantiates]. Either noun or verb is appropriate, because the contiguity can be construed as either.

0958 Does Aristotle’s hylomorphe transmogrify, over time, into mind-independence as a real element and the term, “ens reale” as another real element?

Perhaps, mind-independence could work as matter that substantiates ens reale as form.

Or, maybe, mind-independence could associate to langue and ens reale could go with parole.

0959 I suppose that tropes can shift (in time) in awkward ways.

0960 That leaves me with Bakhtin’s term, “chronotope”.

In chemistry, the nucleus of an element contains protons and neutrons. The word, “element”, precisely labels a fixed number of protons in its nucleus. The number of neutrons may vary, resulting in different atomic masses for two different isotopes of the same element. The word, “isotope” labels a fixed number of protons (characterizing the element) and neutrons (contributing to the isotopic mass). Some isotopes have too few or too many neutrons, making the nucleus unstable and subject to radioactive decay.

0961 Here is a picture.

0962 By analogy, a “chronotope” is the same element, but its placement in time may vary.

Is that correct?

0963 Is time neutronic?

Maybe the analogy of radioactive decay can introduce time into the elemental thing by producing a confounding, in the following manner.

Yes, a confounding labels one form associated with two matters, one originating and one entangled.

0964 The problem is that radioactive decay as matter cannot resolve into a substantiation of the element as form, since it changes the elemental form by altering the miox of neutrons and protons in the atom.

Well, certainly the elemental thing, {protons and neutrons as matter [substantiate] a radioactive isotope}, is subject to decay. But, does decay itself constitute an entangled matter, especially when the occasion of radioactive decay changes the original element into another element plus a radioactive emission?

0965 In other words, if radioactive decay occupies the slot for entangled matter, then the original elemental thingchanges form upon resolution of the confounding.

0966 What a weird analogy.

Nevertheless, allow me to continue.

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.

01/9/26

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.

12/31/25

Looking at Igor Pilshchikov and Mikhail Trunin’s Article (2016) “The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics” (Part 1 of 27)

0001 The article before me is published by Sign System Studies (44(3) (2016) pages 368-401) by two professors, Igor Pilshchikov and Mikhail Trunin, hailing from Tallinn University in Estonia. The title is “The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics”. The subtitle is “A transnational perspective”.

0002 The abstract promises to situate the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics of the 1960s through 1980s. The article delivers more than promised.

How so?

0003 The authors sketch dynamic developments among intellectual circles within the (now former) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

0004 The term, “transnational”, indicates that there are nations within the former Soviet Union.

During this period in history, the governments of Estonia and Russia (along with Czechoslovakia and Poland) owe fealty to an empire with the title, “Socialist”, in its name.

So, “transnational” tells me that the article looks back from the present, into a past era, with the intent of portraying ‘something’ historical, without acknowledging that the “Union” and the “Socialist” descriptors no longer apply (at least, not in the way that they once did).

0005 “Transnational” applies to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, 1918-1989) as well as the upcoming… um… Eurasian convergence?

Here is a picture with three city-sites. Tartu and Moscow belong to the title. Tallinn is the location where the authors write their article. The blue is the Baltic Sea.

0006 “Transnational” steps over the boundaries depicted in black in the above figure.

Never mind the fact that the above territories reside behind, what American pundits once called, “the Iron Curtain”.

0007 Perhaps, one must appreciate an ambiguity to the term, “transnational”, given that there is another transit. This transit is in time. Or, even better, this transit is across a boundary between battles among Enlightenment gods.

Consider where the time period of 1960s to 1980s resides in the following timeline of Western civilization in the twentieth century.

Also consider the year when the article under examination is published.

Notice the boundary.

0008 The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiology constellates within one battle, as a transnational collaboration.

The TMS is remembered during another battle, which is not resolved, and so cannot be objectified as “historical”. I suppose that it can be objectified as “cultural”. Better yet, “theodramatic”.

Already, there is more to this article than meets the eye.

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.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: Positivist’s judgment