0110 Now back to Peirce and Aristotle and the confounding at hand.

To start, the empirio-schematic judgment_2p is the actuality_2p in the nested form produced when the Positivist’s judgment unfolds.  The empirio-schematic judgment_2p then unfolds into a perspective-level nested form (with subscripts “e”, for now, then “c” for perspective level).

The structuralist model_2e serves as an actuality_2e, within the unfolded empirio-schematic judgment_2e.

Then, the structuralist model_2e virtually contextualizes an actuality_2(2e), consisting of the dyad, {language as matter [substantiates] a literary text as form}_2(2e) (constituting a situation level, the subscript will soon be “2b”).

0111 Do these statements describe the empirio-schematic judgment on the left in the following figure, corresponding to what ought to be (secondness) for the Positivist’s judgment?

0112 According to the triumphalist scientist, models₂ of the literary text as form_2e(2p) should occupy the slot for the noumenon_1p, the literary text itself.   When that happens, then the noumenon-occupying model_1p [can be objectified as] its literary phenomena.

That is one aspect to the substitution.

0113 Another aspect is that the perspective-level model_2e(2p) contextualizes the situation-level literary text as form_2(2e).  This situation-level form_2bf enters into the noumenon_1p, via the model_2e(2p), as anticipated by triumphalist scientists, and entangles matters_2pm salient to a not-religious intellect_3p operating on the potential of the literary text as noumenon_1p [and] its corresponding literary phenomena_1p.

0114 How confounding is that?

When the model_2e(2p) replaces (or overlays) the noumenon_1a, it_2e(2p) does not entangle literary phenomena_1c.  Rather, it_2e(2p) entangles a language_2am of positivist meaning_1a.

It makes me wonder, what matters_2pm are salient to a not-religious intellect_3p operating on the potential of… whatever inspires Kant’s slogan_1p.

Kant’s slogan?

A noumenon cannot be fully objectified as its phenomena.

0115 Okay, if Kant’s slogan is relevant, then I wonder, “What does a noumenon have that its phenomena cannot objectify?”

What words apply?

They cannot be scientific terms.  They must be um… phenomenological labels.

0116 Well, what does any phenomenologist say that any particular noumenon must be?

To start, a noumenon has a meaning that cannot be reduced to its phenomena.

Then, a noumenon has a presence that cannot be fully objectified as its phenomena.

Also, a noumenon may offer a message that cannot be found in the observable and measurable aspects of the thing itself.

0117 As an exercise, replace the term “noumenon” with “the literary text as form”.  Then, ask whether the phenomenological approach is sufficient.

Remember, phenomenology, Russian theory, structuralism and semiology develop in a modernist and science-fixated Zeitgeist during the first half of the twenty-first century.

0118 What does this imply?

If structure or system is the thing where semiology as matter [substantiates] aesthetics as form, and if the structuralist thing pertains to the mother-tongue as matter, and if {the native language as matter [substantiates] a literary text as form}, then an entanglement may occur.

The literary text as form can entangle model-illuminated words as matter, because these words reveal the possibility of aesthetic meaning, presence and message for the literary text as form.

0120 Here is a picture.

0121 I ask, “What does this derivation have to do with the history of the semiotics of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics?”

My answer is freaky.

The members of the Tartu-Moscow School, in their transnational collaborations, embody the derivation rendered in this examination.

0122 How do I know this?

0123 The collaborators are all interested in making academic inquiry into Slavic languages and literature more scientific, in accordance with the “Socialist” title of the USSR, and in accordance to their own expertise as linguists.

This examiner has a model of the scientific enterprise as a Positivist’s judgment, not available to those who lived in the twentieth century.  This model allows me to express their history in terms of later semiotic discoveries in the Peircean tradition.

0124 The examiner does not subtract from the achievements of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics.  Rather, the examination shows how cunning these researchers turn out to be.  They protect their own field of study from reductionists.  They set on finding a path suitable to a not-religious intellect, in accordance with science.

In the process, they unearth concepts that are foundational to Slavic civilization.

They make archaeological discoveries.

0125 The Positivist’s judgment contains two judgments.  The Positivist judgment is a triadic relation that contains the empirio-schematic judgment as one of its elements.  Without the empirio-schematic judgment, the Positivist’s judgment could not function.  So, the empirio-schematic judgment is fundament.  The Positivist’s judgement is derivative.

0126 The confounding leads to a separation of the two judgments.  The empirio-schematic judgment serves as the perspective-level of a fundament three-level interscope.  The Positivist’s judgment serves as the content-level of a derivative three-level interscope.

At the same time, the confounding binds the two interscopes.

0127 Here is a picture.

0128 The semiological and structuralist literary thing entangles an aesthetic (yet not-religious) language of meaning, presence and message.

One form, the literary text, stands in dyadic relation to two matters, one substantiating and one entangled.

0129 The next task of this examiner is to derive the fundament and derivative interscopes.

0130 In the empirio-schematic judgment, a scientific disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mechanical and mathematical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness). 

The collaborators of the Tartu Moscow School, the Prague Linguistic Circle and other scholarly networks arrive at a judgment where the literary text remains the noumenon.  Otherwise, the literary text becomes a phenomenon of reductionist sociological, psychological or communication-based models, posing as noumena.

0131 Here is a diagram.

0132 For relation, the disciplinary language of linguists harbors formal and final causalities within apparent material and efficient causalities.

For what ought to be, Aristotle’s four causes are moored to the reality that each actuality is accompanied by a nested form.  Also, appearances of material and efficacy are anchored to the dyadic (hylomorphic) character of actualities for both structuralism (concerning the structure of the system of differences within a given aesthetic) and semiology(concerning the dyadic relations between each langue and parole).

For what is, phenomena are observable features of a literary text.  Linguists and scholars of literature make the observations, which range from which word is used for a particular passage (the purview of semiology) to how the structure of the entire literary work associates to a particular genre (the purview of structuralism).

0133  The literary scholar’s version of the empirio-schematic judgment constitutes the perspective level of the fundament interscope.

The situation level offers a nested form that conforms to the structuralist model_2c.

0134 The structuralist model_2c puts the entire situation-level nested form into perspective, even though it_2c only virtually contextualizes the actuality_2b, {language_2af as matter [substantiates] the literary text_2bf as form}.  So, it_2c pays attention the situation-level actuality_2b.

The situation-level normal context_3b and potential_1b are not under the spotlight.  They are also not off-stage.

The situation-level nested form has a formal side and a final side.  These are shown in colored regions in the above diagram.

0135 Now, for a semiotic game.

If I replace the perspective-level actuality_2c with the situation-level nested form, then I get a really long nested form containing five items.

The formal side of the five items are subscripted 3c, 3b(2c), and 2b(2c).

The final side of the five items are subscripted 2b(2c), 1b(2c), and 1c.

0136 The formal side roughly corresponds to the following figure.

0137 Here, a formalist and finalist language_3c (a disciplinary language that expresses formal and final causations that are integral to material and efficient causalities) contextualizes the situation-level normal context_3b(2c) and actuality_2b(2c) of a structuralist model_2c.

Oh!  Look at what comes to mind as a parallel!

The parallel resides, not on the situation-level, but on the content-level.

0138 At the start of section four (4), the authors ask, “How does formalism… er… structuralism… or whatever one labels that situation-level normal context_3b… end up combining with semiology_3a… er… semiotics_3a, the study of signs_3a?”

Well, the above figure is one suggestion.

In the realm of formal causalities, structure (or system)_3b virtually situates Saussure’s semiology_3a.

0139 Saussure’s semiology_3a offers a disciplinary language_3e that does what “formalism” nominally accomplishes (that is, conjuring formal and final causes), with respect to crafting thoughts into spoken words.  I suppose that the formalist fixation on literary devices comes as a subtle reaction to the rise and the success of the mechanistic sciences in the West.  Literary devices are like mechanical contrivances that operate according to formalist designs.

0140 Formalist designs?

The structure or the system_3b(2c) characterizes the situation produced with Saussure’s definition of language as two arbitrarily related systems of differences.  Saussure’s definition empowers structuralists to look at the operations withinsystems of differences (generally) and the system of differences built into every spoken language (particularly).

Saussure’s semiology_3a, on the other hand, accounts for how thoughts_2am can serve as matters that substantiate written words as forms_2af.  This is a formal accounting.  The use of a particular word_2af in a text_2bf links a certain situational expression of language_2bm as matter with a certain content-level manifestation of langue_2am as matter.

0141 What are the lessons, from the formalist side_3c and from the point of view of the structuralist model_2c?

The way that language_2bm substantiates the literary text_2bf should be intelligible.

The way that parole_2af is substantiated by langue_2am should be universal, applicable to all within the linguistic community.

0142 The final side corresponds to the following diagram.

0143 I start with the potential of ‘observing phenomena in a literary text’_1c.  According to the collaborators in the TMS,the task of the scholar in linguistics and literature is to realize this potential_1c in two ways.

0144 First, the scholar observes the laws of the system_1b which potentiate the text_2bf.  For example, the laws of a scientific publication_1b are not the same as the laws of a fairy tale_1b.

Of course, a literary text does not come with a label that indicates its genre, style, tradition, and so forth.  So, a scholar has work to do in this regard.  In doing so, the scholar explores efficient and final causalities inherent in an empirio-schematic model_1c.

0145 Second, the scholar senses {the signified [and] the signifier}_1a underlying {langue [and parole}_2a.  Each parole_2afmanifests a particular signifier_1a within a system of different signifiers.

0146 Often enough, an author cannot articulate the signified_1a that potentiates a langue_2am without putting pen to paper.  The author may find that a particular parole_2af is not the correct vessel (form) for a langue_2am as signified_1a(matter).

When this happens, the parole_2af does not do justice to the potential of the signifier_1a.

Indeed, this is one of the great challenges of explicit abstraction.

How often does a scholar realize that what he has written does not correspond to what he was thinking?

0147 Saussure’s semiology_3a offers a potential_1a that conveys how one can observe phenomena in a literary text_1cwhile keeping the challenges of speech-alone talk in mind.  What is the literary text_2bf saying_1c?   It proclaims signifiers_1a that are contiguous with signifieds_1a.

0148 But, is that proclamation true?

Clearly, the terms “parole_2af” and “signifier_1a” do not represent the same element.  And, yet they seem to.  Parole_2a (a speech act) belongs to secondness, the realm of actuality.  Signifier_1a (calling attention to a symbol-word) belongs to firstness, the realm of possibility.  The same goes for langue_2am and signified_1a.

0149 Do I need to add that the logics of secondness include the laws of contradiction and noncontradiction, while the logics of firstness are inclusive and allow contradictions.

0151 Of course, some may disagree with these associations, but to me, the imaginary dyad, {signifier [and] signified}_1aoffers a reason why… um… the relation between parole and langue is not arbitrary.  It only appears to be arbitrary when comparing different spoken languages.

As soon as the content-level dyad, {langue_2am [substantiates] parole_2af}, is grasped by the situation-level potential of ‘laws of the system’_1b, the relation is no longer arbitrary.

0152 In this way, parole_2af as form in a semiological normal context_3a is situated as language_2bm as matter within a structuralist normal context_3b.

0153 Of course, I don’t want to pick a fight with my earlier rendition of Saussure’s dyad, {parole as matter [substantiates] langue as form}.

I only want to suggest that the following hylomorphes are the appropriate actualities that are addressed by the semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c.  

0154 The hylomorphe_2a for Saussure’s semiology_3a is universal, for any spoken language.  It_2a is a subject of inquiry because of the fact that the material causality gets muddled.  Some sort of thought_2am substantiates a speech-alone word or phrase_2af.  At the same time, parole_3af can entangle thought_2am.  But, the entangled thought_2am (as matter) is not the same as the originating thought_2am (as matter).

0155 Here, I pause, in order to ask, “What does the cat say to the telephonic mouse?”

Answer: “May I put you on paws?”

0156 I continue.

The content-level actuality_2a is virtually situated as matter_2bm, language_2bm, that substantiates a literary text_2af.

Both the content- and situation-level actualities₂ are hylomorphes that end up as secondness in category-based nested forms.

0157 So, what is the consequence of the following sensible construction?

It sets the stage for a perspective-level model.

0158 Back in section three (3), the authors print Lotman’s definition of “literary structuralism” commissioned (but unpublished, due to various circumstances) by The Concise Literary Encyclopedia (printed in the late 1960s).  Lotman’s contribution does not mention Aristotle (whose trickery is subtly present) or Saussure (the originator of the concept of sign-systems with the claim that parole and langue emerges from (and situates) signifier and signified).

Every artistic work (or “text”) realizes a particular sign-system that may be discussed as a particular kind of “language”.  This discussion reveals that the structure_3b of genres, literary movements, poetic styles, may all be regarded as “languages sui generis”. 

0159 The perspective-level actuality_2c is a model_2c that brings the intelligibility of the structuralist hylomorphe_2b (and its attendant normal context_3b and potential_1b) into relation with the universality of the semiological hylomorphe_2a (and its attendant normal context_3a and potential_1a).

This_2c reflects the categorical nature of judgment, especially in regards to the way humans think.  For comparison, consider the perspective-level actuality appearing in Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) Semiotic Animal, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for October 2023.

0160 So, the structuralist semiological model_2c serves as some sort of judgment, what else?

The structuralist model_2c (to some degree) stands for the literary text_2af (as the noumenon) in regards to the Literary Positivist’s judgment.

Consequently, the structuralist model_2c of a literary text_2bf may substitute for the noumenon.  Then, the model (standing in for the noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena_1c (when the text is regarded through the lens of signifier and signified_1a and the laws of the system_1b).

0161 The result?

The semiological structuralist model_2c serves as a conduit, shifting the literary text_2bf from a substitute noumenon (in firstness) into something that has been refurnished_2a (within secondness, so to speak) in order to entangle the literary positivist intellect_3a and exploit its potential_1a.

0162 Here is a picture of the embodiment of this confounding.

0163 A quick review is in order.

0164 The literary scholars in the exploratory, transnational collaborations during the so-called “Cold War” attempt to construct paradigms for language and literature compatible with the regime-promoted association between the terms, “socialist” and “scientific”.  These experts do not want their subject of study to be usurped by reductionist paradigms in the “human sciences”.  They do not want literary texts to be regarded as phenomena of a sociological, a psychological or a communication-based noumenon.

0165 They do not have Peirce’s method of diagramming relations by way of category.

So, they adopt the intellectual tools-at-hand, including Saussure’s semiology and its cohort, structuralism.  Structuralism is a thing, where {semiology as matter [substantiates] aesthetics as form}.  The problem, of course, is that aesthetics as form entangles the Marxist thing as matter. The Marxist thing?  Material arrangements as matter [substantiate] human conditions as form.

0166 But, that does not stop them.

They figure that they will have to deal with the confounding as it manifests in real time.

They are fully aware of the danger that their research aiming to satisfy the regime’s intellectual mandates may end up triggering the regime’s not-so-intellectual reactionaries.

They are heroic, in this regard.

0167 Semiotics unfolds in history.

Sign systems develop.

The timeframe has reached the 1960s through the 1980s.

0168 The Tartu-Moscow School unwittingly constellates the fundament interscope, sensibly building from Saussure’s semiology_3a to structuralism_3b, then socially constructing a disciplinary language_3c that supports models_2c that apply to the potential of observations of textual phenomena_1c.

The article under examination is devoted to this period in history.

Yet, only the transnational perspective makes it to the subtitle.

0169 At this point, I would like to go through the fundament interscope.

First, structuralism_3b situates semiology_3a.

Here is a picture.

0170 On the content level, the normal context of Saussure’s sign paradigm_3a brings the actuality of the hylomorphic dyad, {langue as matter_2am [substantiates] parole as form_2af}, into relation with the potential of ‘a signified [and] a signifier’_1a.

On the situation level, the structure (or the system associated with genre, style and so forth)_3b brings the actuality of a hylomorphic dyad, {language as matter_2bm [substantiates] a literary text as form_2bf}, into relation with the potential ‘laws of the system’_1b.

0171 This is a sensible construction.

I now ask, “Does this two-level interscope comport with the slogan that structuralism as a thing is composed of semiology as matter and aesthetics as form?”

0172 The answer must be equivocal.

On one hand, the answer is “Yes, structuralism_3b situates semiology_3b and so I could say that semiology_3a is like matter that enters into an aesthetic system_3b as a form.”

On the other hand, the answer is “No. Where in modern literature does aesthetics as form manifest a structure or system_3b?”

0173 Okay, maybe, the answer might not be equivocal.

0174 The history of literary structuralism, as portrayed in sections one through three (1-3) may be rendered as the embodiment of a three-level interscope.

All I need to do is add a respectable level_3c to put the sensible construction of structuralism_3b and semiology_3a into perspective_3c.

By “respectable”, I mean that it looks a lot like an unfolded empirio-schematic judgment.

After all, science is what the most “socialist” of Soviet academics are looking for.

0175 Here is the resulting social construction.

0176 Well, that was easy.

A perspective level contextualizes the situation level of the fundament interscope.

The normal context of a disciplinary language (that includes formal and final causation, along with material and efficient causation)_3c brings a semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c into relation with the potential of ‘observing phenomena in a literary text’_1c.

0177 Ironically, a complete three-level interscope corresponds to langue, according to Razie Mah’s e-book, Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us? (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0178 Of course, this claim is not obvious.

But, the proposal addresses very important questions, asking, “Is langue a purely relational category-based structure?  Do all humans share this purely relational structure?  Does grammar for all spoken languages assist in filling in the empty slots for a three-level interscope?  Finally, once all the slots are filled in, does that constitute a complete thought?”

0179 If the answers are affirmative, then the three-level interscope diagrammed below constitutes a complete thought,that is, a way of approaching a subject that comports with human intuition.  (And, isn’t that what Aristotle’s tradition does best?)

Once again, here is a diagram of the fundament interscope.

0180 Notably, the perspective level of this three-level interscope derives from the empirio-schematic judgment.  The model_2c cannot be rejected by the guardians of Soviet 
Socialist respectability.  (And, isn’t that necessary in a political system that idealizes itself as “scientific”, as opposed to “superstitious”?) 

0181 The perspective level presents an actuality_2c that will overlay the noumenon, the thing itself, in a category-based nested form that corresponds to the Positivist’s judgment.

0182 The Positivist’s judgment?  Unfolded into a category-based nested form?

The triadic normal context of a not-religious intellect_3a brings an empirio-schematic judgment_2a into relation the possibility of ‘a noumenon [that cannot be objectified as] its phenomena’_1(2e).

Here is a picture for the Literary Positivist.

0184 The thing itself is the literary text_2af.

But, as with triumphalist science, a model_2c is destined to replace the literary text_2af – or at least reconfigure its potential – for the content-level of an interscope that is derivative to the fundament interscope.

0185 In other words, the perspective-level of the fundament interscope grounds the content-level of the derivative interscope, on an adjacent higher level of inquiry.

Why?

0186 The empirio-schematic judgment is what ought to be (secondness) for the Positivist’s judgment.

So, substituting a hylomorphe_2a into the slot for the empirio-schematic judgment_2a significantly alters the Literary Positivist’s judgment.

0187 All in all, a confounding reconfigures the Literary Positivist’s judgment.

0188 To this substitution, I now attend.

0189 A virtual nested form runs down each column in a three-level interscope.

Here is the virtual nested form in secondness for the fundament, along with the hylomorphe_2a that I propose should go into the actuality_2a of a modified Positivist’s judgment.

0190 The virtual normal context of a structuralist model_2c brings the situation-level actuality of {language [substance] literary text}_2b into relation with the potential of the content-level actuality of {langue [substance] parole}_2a.

This virtual nested form supports an entanglement_2a that will replace what ought to be_2a (secondness) and remodel the Positivist’s judgment.

0191 Does this make sense?

A writer puts pen to paper.

In doing so langue_2am (what is going on in one’s head, talking to oneself) as matter [substantiates] written words as form_2af.

This act is virtually situated by {language_2bm [substantiating] the literary text_2bf}, arising from the potential of ‘the laws of the system’_1b.

Then, the literary text_2bf may be contextualized by a structuralist model_2c, formulated by an expert in linguistics and literature.

0192 But, what is a structuralist model_2c?

Perhaps, I can say that a structuralist model_2c encourages an entanglement: {literary text as form [entangling] academic language as matter}_2a.

0193 To start, the semiological structuralist model_2c contextualizes the text_2bf (as a situation-level form) even as it substitutes for the text_2af (that is, the model_2c overlays the noumenon_1a).

Next, the substitution shifts the model_2c overlaying its noumenon_1a out of the realm of possibility₁ and into the realm of actuality₂, as a form_2af that entangles matter_2am.

0194 The above figure portrays what I am trying to convey.

0195 Notably, the empirio-schematic judgment has not disappeared.  Rather, it has take a life of its own, as one might expect when material and efficient causalities are no longer truncated of related formal and final causations.

0196 What about potential_1a for a remodeled Positivist’s judgment?

In the following figure, the virtual nested form in firstness for the fundament supports a content-level potential_1a for the derivative.

0197 The virtual normal context of ‘observing phenomena in a literary text’_1c brings the actuality of ‘laws of the system’_1b into relation with the potential of ‘Saussure’s formulation of signifier and signified’_1a.

0198  Now, the fact that langue and parole_2a (as actuality_2a) belong to the normal context of Saussure’s semiology_3a, means that each spoken word has “closely related placeholders” in two arbitrarily related systems of differences.  The Greimas square turns out to be useful for isolating a particular word or term from nearby words and terms.  But, that does not solve the concern that each instantiation_2a of {a langue as matter [substantiates] a parole as form}_2a sits squarely in a network of arbitrary relations_3a.

The concern is mollified, to a certain extent, by the impression that the dyad, {signifier [and] signified}_1a, is not arbitrary.  It is intuitive and referential.

0199 Why does the human mind generate that impression?

As it turns out, according to Razie Mah’s e-book, The Human Niche, language (as defined by Saussure) evolves in the milieu of hand talk.  Hand talk connects a manual-brachial word-gesture (signifier) to a pre-existing referent (signified) through Peirce’s icons and indexes.  Pantomime is iconic.  Pointing is indexal.  After gestures that pantomime and pointare routinized, they becomes symbols.  From Saussure’s linguistic point of view, language requires symbols in order to operate.  Indeed, grammar consists in symbolic operations within a fixed system of differences.

0200 No one in the 1960s or the 1980s knows this.

However, the literary circles of the USSR intuitively discern the correct potentials.

The potential for ‘laws of any language’_1b virtually situates the potential that the signifier pictures or points to its signified_1a, even when parole_2af and langue_2am are explicit abstractions and the spoken word_2bf cannot picture or point to its… um… 

What was I saying?

0201 While {langue_2am [substantiating] parole_2af} directly situates the potential of ‘signifier and signified’_1a, the potential of ‘laws of the system ‘_1b virtually situates the same potential_1a.  Plus, these laws_1b define the way that the inquirer observes phenomena in a literary text_1c.

0202 Well, maybe the word, “define”, may be inadequate, but the term appears in a nested form that is foundational for Razie Mah’s e-book, How To Define The Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

The normal context of definition₃ brings the actuality of a spoken word₂ into relation with the possibilities of ‘meaning, presence and message’₁.

0203 May I substitute the adjective “written” for “spoken”?

To me, this implies that the possibilities inherent in ‘observing phenomena in the literary text’_1c launches the potential of ‘meanings, presences and messages that underlie the definitions of the entangled language’_1a.

Consult the above figure.

0204 The virtual nested form in the category of thirdness depicts Lotman’s journey during the 1960s through the 1980s.

0205 Lotman’s inquiry stretches the structuralist thing, {semiology [substantiates] aesthetics}, from the content-level of the fundament interscope to the content-level of the derivative interscope.

In terms of normal contexts, a science-inspired language containing formal and final causalities_3c in the fundament interscope leaps to the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics (in its first iteration, from the 1960s through the 1980s) as a literary positivist intellect_3a.

The latter normal context_3a contextualizes a radically transformed Positivist’s judgment, without challenging the de facto primacy of the original Positivist’s judgment.

0206 Indeed, the positivist intellect of the Tartu-Moscow School_3abrings a novel… science-compatible… aesthetic language_2am into relation with the potentials of meaning, presence and message_1a.

0207 At this juncture, Juri Lotman and his collaborators achieve the fundament interscope and are well way on their way to build a new – aesthetic – derivative interscope, founded on a refashioning of the Positivist’s judgment.

The new interscope will exploit the advantages of a complete thought (the three-level fundament interscope) that captures talk about literature.

Indeed, this complete thought offers a a model that presents itself as the noumenon, the literary text itself_2af.

0208 Here is a picture.

0209 Section four (4) offers clues as to where Lotman is heading.

He aims to construct a field of inquiry that… um… capitalizes on the presentation of a novel “noumenon”, resulting in a transformation of the Positivist’s judgment.

0210 Oh, I mean “situates”, instead of “exploits”.

After all, everyone at this time is supposed to be a communist.

Plus, I already know that… since the form of aesthetics entangles the matter of cultural studies, then aesthetics can be a challenging topic.

0211 Here is a picture.

0212 How do I view the authors’ narrative?

Science remains paramount in the Soviet regime, so Lotman’s success at identifying a construct that veils the noumenonremains angled towards science.

Section four mentions how cybernetics emerges as a priority, immediately after the end of the Second World War.  Indeed, research funding goes into cybernetics.  So, I assume that the entangled language_2am in the actuality_2a on the content-level of the derivative interscope situates the potential of cybernetic meanings, presences and messages_1a.

Does that compute?

In this regard, Lotman publishes two works in 1967.  One is titled “The Study of Literature as an Exact Science”.  The other is titled “Exact Methods in Soviet Literary Studies”.

0213 Surely, Lotman is a genius in regards to agenda management.

The Institute of Cybernetics is established at Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia in 1960.

The potential of meaning_1a shifts accordingly, because the entangled language_2am is virtually situated by inquiry into cybernetics_3b.

0214 Here is a picture.

0215 In the realm of possibility, note how the content level retains the possibility of meaning_1a.  Plus, the newly realized situation level offers the possibility of presence_1b.

The potential of ‘codes’_1b is now present, because cybernetics is all about codes and control.  Codes_1b potentiate some sort of matter that may be labeled, “cognition_2bm“, and some sort of form that may be labeled, “interaction_1bf“.

Too bad that humans are not robots.

0216  Semiotics is history.

The article under examination celebrates the third wave of paradigms.  

0217 Plus, the third period exhibits transits in several domains.

Soon after Lotman publishes in 1967, the Zeitgeist shifts.

0218 Of course, the initial advantage offered by a remake of the Positivist’s judgment comes from the fact that inquiry into cybernetics_3b is ready-at-hand to virtually situate the Tartu-Moscow School of Structuralism and Semiology as a positivist intellect_3a.  

0219 However, some scholars in Slavic language and literature are not so interested in codes (or machines, for that matter).

They are eager to pursue inquiries closer to aesthetics, as traditionally understood.

So, during the third paradigm-wave, collaborators in the Tartu-Moscow School propose research projects aiming to expand linguistic and semiotic methods into literary and cultural theory_2b.  Vigorous debate follows.  The authors do not say what really happened.

0220 Section four (4) concludes.

Section (5) begins by mentioning how members of the Tartu-Moscow School work on preserving and cultivating the legacy of the Prague Linguistic Circle (involving both Mukarovsky and Jakobson).

Hmmm.

What was going on in Prague?

Do I anticipate further development of the following two-level interscope?

0221 How about the following guess?

What linguist is interested in cybernetics?

0222 During the 1960s, Lotman labors, along with other academics, on a two-volume edition of Mukarovsky’s writings.  He notes (in a text published after his death) that Mukarovsky’s functionalism (think “doctrines of formal and final causalities”) sounds quite modern.  Mukarovsky moves from contemporary semiology as the science of deciphering texts to a general theory of generation, storage and functioning of information in human society (in short, a study of culture).

Mukarovsky describes every civilization as a hierarchically organized structure of functions.  Some of the functions are performed by texts.  Culture… er… “civilization” is a dialectical unity.

0223 Uh-oh.  Where have I heard the term, “dialectics”, before?

Was the qualifier, “materialist”?

0224 Surely, this paean to Mukarovsky comports with the two-level interscope portrayed above, where cultural phenomena_2b (on the situation level) objectify literature and language_2a.

But, this_2am is not the language_2bm of the literary text_2bf.  This is the language_2am that the literary text_2af (or is it_2af the object_2af that the semiological_3a structuralist_3b model_2c stands for?) entangles_2a.

0225 On the content (or presentation of “the model as the noumenon” level), the triadic normal context of the positivist intellect of the Tartu-Moscow School_3a brings the dyadic actuality, {literary text (as form) [entangles] language (as matter)}_2a into relation with the potential of ‘meaning_1a, presence_1b and message_1c‘.

On the situation (or phenomena level), the triadic normal context of cultural studies_2b brings the dyadic actuality of {cognition [substantiates] societal interactions}_2b into relation with the monadic potential of ‘communication (as the presence virtually situating meaning)’_1b.

Perhaps, the term, “communication_1b” is a label for the process whereby positivist language_2am becomes virtually situated by cognition_2bm.

To me, it seems that “communication” is more culture-friendly than “code”.

0226 surely, the normal context of cultural studies_3b is not the same as the normal context of inquiry into cybernetics_3b.

Indeed, the logics of thirdness includes exclusion, alignment and complement.

The two normal contexts_3b of cultural studies_3b and cybernetics_3b do not align, nor do they complement.

Will the new-fangled “artificial intelligence” change that?

0227 In 1968, a black swan event occurs.  The Soviet Empire suppresses political ferment in Czechoslovakia.  The accelerant for the political exuberance comes from a citizenry jealous of the raucous protests happening on the other side of the Berlin Wall.  Intoxicants and false expectations are provided by wealthy Western political and financial manipulators.  The popular press puts a romantic label on the event: “The Prague Spring”.

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.