No.159469[Reply]
My proclivity for articulating myself in what some pejoratively label a “pretentious manner” is, in fact, a deliberate optimization of communicative bandwidth across multidimensional semantic space. Language, when flattened into monosyllabic utilitarianism, fails to encode the fractal complexity of thought vectors oscillating across the cognitive manifold. Much like in quantum chromodynamics, where particles exchange gluons in rich, probabilistic interactions, I exchange ideas using linguistic fermions of maximal elegance and precision, governed by a syntax-symmetry group SU(Etymology,Metaphor)SU(Etymology,Metaphor). To truncate one’s speech for the sake of relatability is to voluntarily collapse into a low-energy epistemic state, devoid of nuance or spectral richness. I do not speak pretentiously to confuse—I do so because clarity, when stretched across higher-dimensional intellectscapes, often requires the tensile strength of ornate verbiage. As string theory posits hidden dimensions beyond human perception, I posit that vocabulary is a projection of those unseen mental dimensions; and to limit language is, in essence, to compactify thought into a trivial manifold of small talk. Thus, my diction isn’t arrogance—it’s an emergent property of high-order introspective turbulence.