since writing is a way of expressing ideas, beliefs, feelings, situations, etc. and ultimately doesn’t come to any direct conclusions on anything but rather ruminates about them (especially so in the most well-regarded texts) it serves as an anti-theological activity, that is, by refusing to assign it an ultimate meaning, a “secret”, a revolutionary activity that refuses fixed meaning, like reason, science, law, and “God”. however, in trying to decipher a text, one seeks to find the “author”, the voice, the constant, behind the words. by identifying the author, the text has a limit. the time of the author is the time of the critic. “When the author has been found, the ‘text’ has been explained- victory to the critic.” “The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without an of them being lost; a text’s unit lies not in its origin but in its destination…in order to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth; the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.” -Barthes, (Death of the Author)

and in reaction to the above i am further hesitant to quote a singular sentence as a motto or truth to live by, since in surgically removing the words from the greater context in which the author presented them, i’m naively creating my own text by way of my own desire for meaning, and presenting it to the world as my own.but it’s stringing along a bunch of jargon. even if i was in complete agreement with the presented idea, i am destroying it by highlighting a singular sentence as a stand alone phrase, and destroying the hard work of the author in trying to define something which inherently words fail to, no matter how well written, although the chances are greater with more elaboration. generally. maybe. and beyond this the ultimate failure is the reader who reads my stand alone sentence and inherently will be incapable of grasping the entire concept, because they have been robbed the text that comes before and after that sentence.