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

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

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

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

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

0754 The implications?

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

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

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

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

The second corner, B, contrasts with A.

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

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

0757 Here is a picture.

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

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

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

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

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

How do I know this?

Since when does geography_2am determine identity_3a?

0760 Here is a picture that answers that question.

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

0762 What does this imply?

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

But, what is geography_2am doing?

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

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

Consider the following three “B”s.

0764 However, the question remains.

How can matter_2am determine normal context_3a?