"We acknowledge the limitations inherent to all movement and experience, and the futility of any attempt to transcend the boundaries set forth therein. The essential incompleteness of a system should necessitate an adherence, not in order to achieve a given end or be slaves to its course, but rather perchance to glimpse by proxy some hidden exteriority. Existence is enriched if we set about our task as if those limits might be exceeded, for such action unfolds the world."
You keep referring to a "we" which I think most people that met you would not want to be part of, perhaps define who this we is. I'll just guess you mean the people who want to label themselves metamodernists, I guess you're trying to force your definition on the world, and lock up the term as your intellectual "property", in a non legal sense.
You say you ackowledge limitations, and then don't delineate them... That's not acknowledgement at all. then you claim futility, which is also rather presumptious. I guess I can't judge whether what you're talking about is nonfutile or not, because you've so poorly defined what the fuck you're talking about.
Verbose garbage with little meaning. Read fucking elements of style, or the economists style guide before you harm the world with more of this dogshit.
Like, the sentences are getting so bad, its making me want to read fucking you tube comments.
"given end" remove word "given" redundant. ends don't have single courses in 1:1 ratio, so another false presupposition in "slaves to its course," "hidden exteriority" wat? If its hidden are you sure outside? Did you know that you can use the fucking human word "outside" instead of "exteriority" which only patent writers might use.
You also use plurality which I rarely see outside patents. Are you a secret failed lawyer?
I like the weak appeal to, uh, giving it the old college try at the end, but of course, in language no one fucking understands.
