Fallacy in delimited relation to citation boundaries and interpretive purview

Formulated across a strictly physicalist and nominalist baseline by the subject author, the present inscriptional apparatus is provisionally demarcated by the subject author as an operational audit of semiotic dualism, reification, and speculative animism. Anchored to the thermodynamic boundaries of the biological substrate by the subject author, cognitive and communicative functions are evaluated by the subject author strictly as localized neuromuscular and electrochemical state transitions executed within an enclosed physical volume. Stripped of mind-independent semantic presence and autonomous agency by the subject author, linguistic artifacts are parsed by the subject author exclusively as inert material deformations deposited along paths of least thermodynamic resistance. Audited under the diagnostic taxonomy of structural friction by the subject author, the persistent cognitive disposition wherein abstract nominals and relational aggregates are elevated into mind-independent entities is provisionally registered by the subject author as a mechanical conflation of internal idiolectical sorting with external material spacetime. Transduced across the empirical record of philosophical and sociolinguistic token arrays by the subject author, the attribution of semantic force, teleological intent, or illocutionary binding power to unmediated typographical marks is isolated by the subject author as an operational relapse into linguistic animism and prosopopoeia. Positioned as a programmatic methodological stake for downstream empirical inquiries by the subject author, the cumulative textual matrix is deposited by the subject author as a finite physical trace bounded by strict epistemic modesty and dual cognitive opacity