0228 Of course, I am not finished with section four (4).

Why?

At the start of section four, the authors drop a highly technical linguistic term, “semasiology”, in their description of how some logical positivists in the Moscow Linguistic Circle want to build models of poetics based on material modes,such as phonology.

0229 Curiously, “semasiology” has a partner word, “onomasiology”.

Semasiology starts with a spoken word and asks, “What does this word mean?”

Onomasiology starts with a what… a meaning…  and asks for the proper word.

0230 Now, if I were a gambler, I would say that onomasiology studies the ways of the situation-level actuality of the following two-level interscope.

Of course, that means that semasiology studies the ways of the content-level actuality of the above two-level interscope.

0231 Semasiology, operating on the content-level, considers a word from a literary text and asks, “What does this word mean?”.

Given a parole_2af, then what is its proper langue_2am?

Does this apply to the instance where the fundament entangles the derivative?

The potential of meaning_1a underlies the way that the form (or the written words) in a literary text_2af [entangle] the matter of language_2am in the normal context of the Tartu-Moscow School as an expression of the positivist intellect_3a.

0232 On the content level, the contiguity between a literary text as form_2af and a language of aesthetics as matter_2am,is [entangled].

0233 What entity… er, possibility… might associate with [entanglement]?

It seems like the answer would be, “The signifier.”

The signifier conjures a signified, in the form of spoken words in a language_2am of aesthetic (perhaps, “normative”) meaning_1a.

Does this apply to the instance where a fundament entangles its derivative?

Does that make any sense?

Or is this a bridge too far?

0234 What are the words_2am that semasiology takes for given?

Given a positivist_3a language_2am, what do the written words_2af mean?

I thought that what words mean corresponds to… um… langue_2am.

Is that the same as language as matter_2am?

0235 On the situation level, the contiguity between cognition as matter and social interaction as form_2b is [substantiates].

Based on these assignments, language as matter_2am is virtually situated by cognition as matter_2bm.

0236 What does cognition as matter_2bm [substantiate]?

Does social interaction_2bf correspond to something like… ummm…. parole_2af?

0237 Can onomasiology_1b be inquiry into the ways that cognition as matter_2bm [substantiates] cultural interactions as form_2bf?

Especially, when the cultural interaction_2bf involves speech_2af.

If so, then onamasiology recapitulates the content-level of the fundament interscope.

Given a langue_2am, then what is the proper parole_2af?

Does that suggest that the presence_1b underlying the actuality of cognition_2am (in the derivative interscope) offers a cultural avenue to situate the possibility_1a underlying language_2a, as defined by Saussure as two arbitrarily related systems of differences_3a (in the fundament interscope)?

0238 As if to certify that the focus of inquiry shifts from structuralist things to cultural things_2b, consider Aristotle’s hylomorphe and entanglement as exemplars of the Peirce’s category of secondness.

0239 Here is the general configuration.

0240 Here is this application.

0241 The study of cultural interactions_3b virtually situates the science of appreciating the meaning of texts_3a.