The New Art of Making Books
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
In other words, mostly nonsense about the form being inherent in the "experience" of conveying understanding. Seems to me to be an objection to clarity of wording. Good thing it didn't catch on (this comes to us from the late 60s and early 70s).
I don't know what this means. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Whatever it means, it's pretentious bullshit. And I'm trained in pretentious bullshit so I can recognize it when I see it.
Skimming through this gave me flashbacks to the weekly newsletters sent out by my children's previous school.
How can we know you are not just a dismisser.
(Similarly to that "writing in parallel" which I am guessing is the context of the quotation proposed.)
"There exist specific Ideas (Platonic sense), which may become some text and then some concrete book, which have a structure consisting in a "development", made of "successions" and "directions": such ideas can be brought from "indetermination" to some decided form through a sequence of signs that follow (in the concrete plane) the said same structure (in the ideal plane)".
Not exactly the most insightful of insights, to my interpretation. It could work as a premise.
Only: where did you find such quotation? It is not in the submitted page as I received it.
Anyway: No, that is not like implementing a complicated algorithm in BASIC.
There is a difference between something written using complicated words (organic chemistry textbook) and something written using ambiguous (many postmodern works) words.