for shorthand that doesn't exist...

While I raised it in an absurd way and under the assumed (or was it presumed?) guise of a fictional character (and I, I can guarantee you, am not fictitious! -- so many to choose from but let's cite ), I have in the past several months needed precisely such a shorthand as desire as expressed for in .

To put more plainly: I've found myself writing texts where there is a strongly implied clause (or context or contention) that may be deduced -- as was intended! -- from the text. (In fact, though the reader need not care about the fact nor be aware of it and hence the parenthetical sentence since I'm not sure of relavency, the fact that such may and should be deduced from the text is the main point that the author, me, was trying to convey in the text.)

I have found it "the Thing to Do" in the cases I'm considering here (which could be a subset of those of the above paragraph) to make explicit, parenthetically, that which is implied and deducible. Point at the result of the alchemy, as it were.

"But!" one might say who was playing Devil's advocate , "Calling out the result of the deduction that the reader is desired to undergo implies that they have not undergone it! It can be seen either as a Cliff's notes form, or the author steering the audience as some sort of cheap trick, the reader will perceive that the author didn't understand their own point! It contradicts exactly what you're saying you're trying to say!"

"That would all be true," I would say to Satan's attorney, "Except by pointing to the very thing that, via communication of what I am saying to the reader, is implied that needs not pointing out, I am instead drawing their attention to the gestalt as bifurcated via the eureka moment itself and in fact pointing out that, via communication, we, =author+reader, now have a particular understanding of a thing. The pointing at the forbidden, since we both understand why it is in bad form to do so, is something I am doing here because we both know what it means and it is only forbidden because that would mean our communication does not exist and I am, in fact, showing that it does, and if you understand that, then we understand each other in a, pardoning the word, subtle way."

So, yes, I want a short way of saying/implying all of that. A metaphor would work, though it'd rely on a shared mythology. I can't think of an example right now, though I'll put my mind to it. (I also thing a single metaphor as universal shorthand would likely become cliche and therefore in misuse contradict itself. It is like a few of my students who would, for whatever reason, put Q.E.D. -- non-ironically, I would assume, but the times I raised the issue via red ink it was never commented on -- following exercise where it didn't apply. Q.E.D. has a rather precise meaning. I have rarely used it, academically, even in situations where it did apply. In fact thinking too far into this hanging waiting-for-a-) (no, that wasn't it, nor is this one), there are strong parallels between what I want and Q.E.D. as a term and its associated meaning and implications. Nomenclature is what is desired, of whatever form, and though the definition should be precise -- as illustrated by the word choice: "point" -- phraseology may be invoked erroneously regardless of the type of phrase nor how precise an ideal NLP when fed the context would measure the precision (or inversely, fuzziness) of any particular phrase. Language is a medium, not in general an expression of the inherent as such. Oh thank typography and encodings, here comes a ). How does one say that? Playing with thought and language aside, my contemplation is furthered as far as that goes, but I have not yet an answer.

So I was intending to write this blog post when I found an example whereby I could make this more concrete. Preferably a short, simple one. And it would have to be noncontrived (as dictated by the form of mathematics -- Q.E.D. that, bitch!). That said I intend to write many blog posts I haven't yet written (and may possibly never write, unless you got some idea-offload-points for me) and am kinda surprised I found an example AND still cared about the problem. Today I stumbled across (context, as writer's discretion, unimportant; "the reflection of the Universe" if you need some bullshit answer):

subtext v subtexts

You can ignore that bit about, "It's subtle". That's mostly making fun of people that would place that after the three words that strung together actually form an idea. It's a dead herring .

So there is the explicit.

The parenthetical implied calause isn't there. Let's add it! It would be (guess!) e.g. "(of a nature unfound vis-à-vis 'text v texts')". The exact wording may be cast of the nature of mind.

So, checkpoint here. This is complicated. Let's write the whole thing:

subtext v subtexts (of a nature unfound vis-a-vis text v texts)

(You could also have the shortened less implied version, which if I was thinking about it for as long as it's taken to write this thing I would probably choose in preference. Oh wait, I have been thinking that long about it! subtext v subtexts (vis-a-vis text v texts) . Yeah, lookin' good! But not important for the purposes of this text. Or is this one of those, er, nm)

So. If you don't understand this statement....I'm sorry for wasting your time. I can't really go into that. If you do understand what the above example sentence (fragment?) says, even if you disagree with it, what is going on here? And what am I trying to get out of it?

Time to start popping stack()

So, regardless of whether I use my original parenthetical clause, or the shortened, more implicit parenthetical clause presented in a (main-level text) parenthetical clause (no, that last one wasn't one, that was me just being helpful, strangely; probably screwed that up with this one), they are both saying, parenthetically, what is already directly implied from the statement "subtext v subtexts". So it is redundant. And we all know that's bad in writing. Furthermore, if the author made such a statement in their presented text, as a direct consequence of the redundancy and the nature of such a statement the reader may deduce that the author, in incurring the redundancy in light of their work's evidentiality (to exemplify, the comprehension of the text subtext v subtexts as subject of a study including the presentational context, which therein already implies the proposed parenthetical (contrast: text v texts) . Yeah, had to vary the wording up a bit there for my own well-being. I'll probably do it again.) it is exhibited that the author did not understand or notice the redundancy, despite the fact that it is in direct opposition to the substance of his/her statement!

Common ascribed or inferred reasons are a lack of comprehension of the author of his own purported ideas or a contradiction of professed purpose vs internal purpose (e.g. manipulating the reader vs imparting collected synthesis of psychic explorations/studies; also, this characterization is applicable regardless of the author's conception of their own intentions). But the source of the deviance does not matter; what does matter is that the deviance exists. By its existence, the candidacy of not the work but the author (you see that, don't you?) as professor of ideas exhibited therein is dispelled. The validity of the work, as language inferred, is unchanged; its comprehension shall render as any synthesis of (i.e.) text, the light cast upon the author as exhibited by the disparity between the (as taken herein) text's comprehension and their misapprehension of their attempt at profession being a factor as such unremarkable of the environmental context within a work is interpreted. The author, however, has let something known of himself via this fault that, having temporal existence in addition to touching upon ideas, imparts causal consequences via implication.

And because it feels about time for a flow-breaking quote that ends with an explanation point:

"Enough of these begats" - Leto Atreides II, _The God Emperor of Dune_, Frank Herbert, who knows when it was actually published but google says 2008 at so it must be true, confirming my theory that my reading of this book circa 1990 was the result of a trans-dimensional phenomenon, as yet unexplained and potentially inexplicable within the confines of casual three-dimensional constitutive postulation. Q.E.D. [Inline footnote: the very conveyance of this exact quote as reported empirically observed in multiple "origins" (really publication dates) (i.e. alternate timelines, as oft described in contemporary trans-linear-temporal hypotheses; adjunction: QM) has been casually speculated to be (e.g.) intrinsic to the quality of the quote (in the reference) vis-a-vis the observor's appreciation and remark upon synthesis, likewise and as an axially orthogonally equivalent of the same, a measurable "frame drag" constant apropos the translation of the (observed) times of publication with a extradimensional and therefore unmeasurable (interally to extant 3D casual models, anyway; if higher order effects could be formalized and their equations derived from our convolution of empiricism, then we could conceivably measure them, since we are also part of this higher-order U/universe. Is there a bridge?) constant (for simplicity) specifying the exchange value of (hypothesized) vacuum energy in our 3.x-Space to local (that is, local in terms of the relation of our 3.x-Space to N-space, the Universe, which via conformal mapping may be expressed as e.g. a point in defense of our extant notion of locality) information richness (as intentionally undefined due to lack of proposed forms of laws of information mechanics as such; the term 'information porosity' (alt: 'information pulverability') has also been proposed. 'The communication constant' or even 'communicability' is used, informally. Stop. I can't do it anymore. Or, more sadly, I really could. This "Inline footone" is all utter B.S. as bespoken titularly. I was kinda curious if it would be just synthesized through ingestion for so goes the processing of its environment. In case your curious, I was assembling from tagents invoked of context (the lack of original publication date; wth? Who cares about the print run?) and the appeal to ridicule in getting time-travel out of Occum's razor as applied to the misreading of information with my own unsupported thoughts, though presented as through a distorted lens and representing with intentional error, on i.e. the meaning of the speed of light in connection with information mechanics in a transdimensional universe. I suppose explaining the joke takes all of the humour out of it, but then... Despite the mocking and glib tone of protest against the firmament of formalized (Western) logic, and yet also (I hope!) using it as a vehicle appropriate to my communique, I am genuinely interested in..the topic, and the rest, while perhaps joking without being funny, is meant illustratively. I hope I can look back on this "footnote" and say the same.]

Taking a step back from the physical manifestation of words a bit to my own intentions, I don't pruport to prove anything here. I am trying to be very careful with word choice to support what I'm actually trying to explore and say, but none of this is intended as formal or rigorous in any formal or rigorous sense. I'm mostly trying to be expressive and hopefully illustrative and exploring this idea. It is a weird thing to go into this much depth on...even for me! I am surprising I find it as fascinating as I do. Maybe it is the tip of an iceberg of, um, gold...maybe it is some minor thing that is subtle, at least to me, that I can see but can't quite understand. The assertion that, conclusively, the author is unmasked as illustrated through exposure of parenthetical or otherwise conceptually subtextual through rendering as textual