Mad_Larkin said:

tl;dr

---

psi said:

From the title of the thread, my first thought was that your intention was to write something in unnecessarily complex language so that you could feel like it went over everyone's heads. I think you got the response you intended.

---

propensity said:

psi said:

From the title of the thread, my first thought was that your intention was to write something in unnecessarily complex language so that you could feel like it went over everyone's heads. I think you got the response you intended.

---

This. No one wants to participate in your mental masturbation.

I hope you had fun jerking it onto the page tho.

---

psi said:

From the title of the thread, my first thought was that your intention was to write something in unnecessarily complex language so that you could feel like it went over everyone's heads. I think you got the response you intended.

---

morrowasted said:

psi said:

From the title of the thread, my first thought was that your intention was to write something in unnecessarily complex language so that you could feel like it went over everyone's heads. I think you got the response you intended.

---

nah it just goes over peoples heads cuz they are unfamiliar with the wattsian paradigm and metaphyiscal theories that involve linguistic input-output mechanisms

there is nothing intentional at all about it. I am a theorist by trade. my dissertation will argue for the collapse of uniquely identifiable and referential cognitive states according to gundel's hierarchy of the relationship between cognitive states and the choice of a given anaphoric expression. i will argue that gundel has derived her belief in the referential cognitive state from literlly a single anecdote in the English language in her paper in which she sloppily appears to be suggesting that the formal difference between the anaphoras lies in the chomskyan deep structure of the sentence (which she of course tip toes around becauseshe knows linguists hate chomsky now), and that, if we assume the existence of such a hierarchy, its nonexistence as a separate state is supported by (i) the neurolinguistic model of syntactic cohesion via the process whereby microcuits of neural networks called sequence detectors develop into macrocircuits called word webs, and (ii) that since the word webs involved in the anahporas corresponding to Uniquely Identifiable and Referential cognitive states produce are topologically homologous and (iii) since the corresponding anaphoric forms themselves are homonymic and finally (iv) that there are obviously no corresponding uniquely differentiable anaphoric forms corresponding to the referential state in languages other than English (so far I have verified in Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese), that her model needs to be at minimum be altered such that referential is either collapsed into uniquely identifiable or simply eliminated such that referntial anaphorias are considered to be something like a subset or a kind of uniquely identifiable anaphora.

this is just the shit i thnk aboutall day man every once in a while when i get real high i like to talk about. i cant talk to anyone IRL about it, there is literally only one person i have ever met who can understand what the fuck i am saying, but i can say whatever the fuck i want on the internet and i dont reallyGAF if you guys dont like it. its just me venting though, not trying to "look  impressive" or whatever. most of u probably think im a dork more than anything but its whatever,this is the kind of thingi love to think about

im just super high on drugs gimme a break guys but im not making shit up, this is what i study

---

Quote:

This. No one wants to participate in your mental masturbation.

---