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).