It is hardly unexpected, when embarking on a project of this field, to first examine the linguistic inventory that will be utilized for it, as so to prevent miconceptual developments of the reader-writer connection. As expected, however, the reader is treated with great respect in the following pages, and it would imprudent to misassume the necessary explanations of the terms. As so, it is determined by the writer to be a genuinely good thing, then, that the terminological output of the text has not failed to consider these measures, and developed a systematic rigoration of itself, such that only the three terms that follow will require explanation:
That attitude (which is most prevalent in today's over-mentality) which holds the belief, the most sincerely held and viciously defended viewpoint, of which mankind's knowing of it's knowing can determine the limits of it's knowing, ignoring that this itself is the knowing of the knowing of the knowing that mankind contains, which is mutatis mutandis from what it holds to capture. It is this attitude that the text (which is itself an active participant in this project) hopes to deconstruct in such a sense as to unconstruct it's very Being, which would prevent reconstruction of the concept without breaking the law of identity, as had been layed out in Bohme's second critique of Kripke. But this is not particular-universal set of governing principles of the principality of the writer's soul- that it, it is but one of the 7 forms of passion, as describe by Joseph J. in his magnum opus "What's a Guy Gotta Do?" in 1925, 7th October. In other words,I don't want to.
2.The Entire Text of Finnegans Wake
Although it is traditionally assumed that a book, especially a work of non-fiction like Finnegans Wake, should be interpreted word by word, sentence by sentence, chapter by chapter, into a cohesive whole of understanding and epistemological surprise (which can be bought in the little cafe down by Hail Street for £9.95, in case you were wondering. Oh, this is not a payed promotion, although I have received a lifetime supply of tea from them, this is on completely unrelated affair, much like the text in these brackets). However, the theory of anti-hermeneutics that I myself proposed in my previous work, which abolishes the hermeneutical circle and replaces it with the non-euclidean equivalent form for my reinterpretation of Dragon Ball Super, which argues it is not completely made of the leftover remains of the people behind Evolution, because I, unlike you heathens, have in the God that is Akira Toriyama (who inspired the animated gospels of Akira that I watch and pray to every day for a better season) and in the anti-existence of Evolution. This would mean that the whole of Finnegans Wake is in fact a single word, and as Wittgenstein pointed out, the meaning of a word is it's use, so then there can only be one interpretation of Finnegans Wake: it means the Obscure. And the Obscure? That is just what academics use to keep their jobs.
What is like to be a Fish, as asked by Nozick in his famous work "The World as Fish and Fishermen", is a question that has plagued mankind since it's inception. What is it, to "Fish"? Is "Fish" a kind of being, or do we exist processually, by which the Fish is always tomorrow and never now, "Becoming"? Well, I'll explain. A fish is an animal that swims, and is not not a fish. There you go, that's the answer, moving on.
Now, with this out of the way, we can really begin to see the full prospects that lay open bare before us. Truly this will be a voyage into territory of great importance, greater joy, and greatest intrigue. I'll be sure, to get back to writing this someday. It's not possible for me to do s