0195 So, what does the differentiation of Nammu specify?

Let me consider the mythic separation of An (sky) and Ki (earth) (SV_s), appearing in chapter 4.

What are the semiotic arrangements (SO_s) that it stands for?

0196 Here is my initial guess.

An₂ and Ki₂ are two real elements.  They belong in the category of secondness. They are two [contiguous] real elements.  These constitute a content-level actuality_2a and the sign-vehicle of a specifying sign-relation (SV_s).

The embrace of An and Ki has the potential to be fertile_1b.  This situation-level potential_1b plays a role in the specifying sign-interpretant (SI_s) along with a normal context that has to do with cognition_3b (SI_s).  The implicit abstraction of fertility becomes explicit with a conception_2b (SO_s).

0197 The fertility of An and Ki’s embrace_1b produce the child_2b that will separate them into father and mother figures.  The sky and the implicit abstraction of fatherhood are labeled “An”.  The earth and the implicit abstraction of motherhood are labeled “Ki”.  The substance potentiated by that separation is [the air], the domain of Enlil₃.  The domain of the god of the storm, Enlil₃, is the child that separates father and mother.

0198 Formulated in this manner, the Marxist thing no longer applies.  That is expected.

What is not expected?

The resulting sign-relation says that the separation of An and Ki_2a (SV_s) (which occurs after the birth of Enlil) ends up conceiving Enlil_2b (SO_s).

That makes no sense at all.

0199 So, I must step back and concoct a second guess.

0200 If I want to observe a sign-relation within the Sumerian creation story, then I need two levels.

The story starts with Nanna.  Nanna_2a is a pure monad, but still belonging to the realm of actuality.  Of course, this is not possible.  All it takes is a spoken word_1a in order to induce a disturbance in this monad_3a, that supports the differentiation of Nanna_2a.

So, the content-level actuality_2a and the specifying sign-vehicle (SV_s) testify to the instability of pure potential in a world where all that it takes is a spoken word_1a to induce a disturbance in the monad_3a.

Perhaps, this explains why monotheism takes so long to develop in our current Lebenswelt.  On the content level, a single god is a monad that either (1) remains in the category of firstness and therefore does not actualize or (2) enters into the category of secondness and differentiates into a dyadic actuality.

0201 Okay, that is a good start.

Here is a picture of my second guess for the specifying sign-relation.

0202 The sign-relation is apparent.  Nanna differentiating into An (male) and Ki (female)_2a (SV_s) stands for the actuality of the separation of An (sky) and Ki (earth)_2b (SO_s) in regards to Enlil_3b (the child, whose domain is the air) operating on the potential of ‘the fertile embrace of An and Ki_1b (SI_s).

In effect, the birth of a normal context_3b shuts down further expression of the potential_1b that supports it.

Or, does it?

Recalling earlier comments, the potential of ‘the fertile embrace of An and Ki’_1b shifts into ‘separation that may support a substance’_1b in the normal context of Enlil_3b.  In short, the fertility of the embrace between the heavens and the earth_1b sublimates into the separation that supports Enlil’s domain of the [air]_1b.  The [air] is the contiguity between heaven and earth.  Enlil_3b is the god of the storm_2b.

0203 If I compare the sign-vehicle and the sign-object for the two guesses, I get the following.

0204 In the first guess, I start with the same actuality that I conclude with in the second guess.

Each guess produces a specifying sign-relation.

Do these two guesses offer a lesson about semiotic arrangements?

Surely, it is not necessarily obvious how explicit abstractions fit into the empty slots of the two-level interscope of sensible construction.  One of the reasons is that the content and situation two-level interscope embodies a specifying sign-relation.  In other words, the two-level interscope contains a semiotic arrangement.  Associations must comport with the logics of both relations.

0205 The SO_s contributes to the esse_ce of the situation-level actuality_2b, “separation” is an explicit abstraction that does not indicate what fills in between the two real elements.  “Air, Enlil’s domain,” (SO_s) is an explicit abstraction that does indicate what fills in between the two real elements.  What is the implicit abstraction that one must draw?  Enlil’s domain is not a real element.  It is neither heaven nor earth.  Enlil’s domain actualizes a separation that serves as a substance.

0206 A comparison of the two guesses in the realm of possibility is also interesting.

The content-level comparison is evocative.  In the first guess, I choose the potential of ‘a separation that serves as a substance’_1a as the ground for the separation of An and Ki_2a.  In the second guess, the potential of ‘the breath it takes to speak a word’_1a is enough to destabilize the pure monad of everything, Nammu, having entered the realm of actuality_2a.

0207 In sum, the Lotman thing directs the inquirer to consider entering terms of explicit abstraction into interscopes that contain embedded sign-relations.  The discussion here is only an intimation of how extensive this research project will be.  The three types of sign-relation that are integral to the three level interscope is discussed in Razie Mah’s blog for October 2023 titled, Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal”.  A lengthy anthropological application may be found in the four-part e-work, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.