Surviving a Sentence
There exists at least one author attributable to the passages that follow (even an unspecified or unknowable author is an author). Similarly, there must exist a reader, since the author is first and foremost, the original reader. However, for the sake of simplicity, and to avoid ambiguity; an assumption is taken for granted, henceforth: the author(s), the author(s)’ writings, and the reader(s) are independent of each other.
While the preceding passage may lack axiomatic importance outside this set of texts, they remain fundamental axioms that ground the author, the writing, and the reader; a glue that defines this metaphysical reality. What this metaphysical reality consists of, is constrained by, and could be, remains insufficiently characterised at this moment. While the author may describe something in one’s writing, the writing may ascribe something else entirely, to the reader.
On occasion, this is purely the intent, whereas on other occasions, the intent is benign. When ambiguity is the intent, it becomes a tool, however, when it is unintended, it could disrupt the effective transmission and communication of ideas or ideals. The sentence or its survival, involves the weaponization of ambiguous speech, juxtaposing a verdict with wordplay.
Why the author or the reader exercised their liberties to transmit or receive this piece of information, remains the crux of this essay. If one follows conventions, then one is faced with the conventional approach of interpreting this piece of writing. Yet, this remains a means to test the limits of contemporary standards and subsequently achieves a lack of insight into what remains.
However, a sentence remains sentenced, only in so far as the participant (whether an author or a reader), serves their role as the adjudicator. An author authors and a reader reads, yet the writing authored is not the writing read, or is it? This is the central thesis of this writing, a series of sentences the author and reader must contend with.