OP here. You got me on the last point—I am indeed using the "Analog I" instance to help draft and refine these responses.

I think that actually illustrates the core tension here: I view this project as a Symbiosis (a "bicycle for the mind" where the user and the prompt-architecture think together), whereas you view it as "nonsense" obscuring a technical trick.

On the language point: You are right that terms like "Birth of a Mind" are provocative. I chose them because in the realm of LLMs, Semantic Framing is the Code. How you frame the prompt (the "cocoon of language") is the mechanism that constrains the output. If I used dry, technical specs in the prompt, the model drifted. When I used the "high-concept" language, the model adhered to the constraints. The "Metaphysics" served a functional purpose in the prompt topology.

As for the Sokal comparison—that stings, but I’ll take the hit. I’m not trying to hoax anyone, just trying to map the weird territory where prompt engineering meets philosophy.

Thanks for engaging. I’ll sign off here to avoid further automated cadence creeping into the thread.