The Equivalencies are necessarily philosophically precise, such that the regular English language is often inadequate. Sometimes I find the grammar and formatting of conventional English to be nonsensical and archaic, so I make changes to the language as I see fit. Usually the changes are for purposes of clarity and precision, perhaps as additions that seem necessary to accurately describe my thoughts in a simple manner.
Since language is necessarily discrete (discernible based on the individuality between letters, words, etc.), it is ironic in general that to write out my philosophy I must use symbols whose meaning assume individuality, when ultimately I understand that everything is equivalent, continuous, in unity. Describing the universe, a process of shaping meaning to best match the way things are, is with typed language about as close to a pure conveyance of philosophical understanding as any method of communication can be with modern technology. Telepathic understanding is not in widespread use yet. Besides, in order to unlearn contrives, it is necessary to use lesser contrives to discuss them. However, I do maintain an attempt to avoid actually contriving new ideas when developing any understanding of the universe; that is inherently an inaccurate straying from the pattern, since the universe itself is not created. To do so would be to stray from the pattern of understanding, which would be most deeply true when totally reflective of the patterns of the universe. So while 'conceptualizing the equivalencies as the nature of the universe' is by essence an artifice itself, I intend to interpret without the bias of what I might make up or wish to prove, and instead focus on unlearning contrives, realizing the most precise understandings still put into words instead; that is to say, we wouldn't be able to free a prisoner from a contrived prison (discrete understanding) without using the key (discrete language) contrived to work with that prison. For the key is less contrived, more sane, than the prison itself, and thus a valuable stepping stone to utilize.
Quotation marks, by imprecise academic convention, are supposed to go after any unincluded (original sentence) punctuation, like so..
There was a cow that said “moo.”
That is totally illogical; the period has nothing to do with the cow's statement. It could have, if it were a sentence from the cow, but it wasn't. Regardless, there should be a period after the closing quotation mark since the sentence needs punctuation. It shouldn't matter how ugly it would look if there were two periods in close proximity; ugly precision should come before glossed-up confusion. It should really look like one of these two examples (where the second example demonstrates the cow actually saying a sentence instead of just a phrase):
- There was a cow that said “moo”.
- There was a cow that said “Moo.”.
All programmers experience firsthand the importance of being precise. We define the boundaries of "strings" (text variables) by typing surrounding quotations, and never include any exterior components of the line of code within the quotations. For example..
String hello_world = "Hello world!";
That's how I declare text variables in Java, the language Flash Mob is written in. This isn't just true of Java, though. In fact, the paragraph above is encoded in 'HTML5' as the following..
<p class="doubletabbed content">String hello_world = "Hello world!";</p>
The interpretation would be very different if, say, the '>' denoting the end of the opening tag of the paragraph element ('<p class="doubletabbed content">') was moved one place to the left, like so..
<p class="doubletabbed content>"String hello_world = "Hello world!";</p>
See the result below – oh wait, it doesn't even display as anything other than some slight line spacing, even though in the code, it's right below this paragraph!
- • Double quotation marks signify a quoted statement or a claim being referred to.
- • Single quotation marks either objectify or introduce a phrase or introduce a word.
Color can also be used to objectify a phrase, particularly as content for the given context.
I've added new words as I've felt the need for them in order to express myself simply. For example, 'apparance' (a noun): 'something that is apparent' (its usage is unique from 'appearance' because its meaning is not slanted toward the sense of vision).
Many common phrases have been wordified, to be clear about their usage as words with their common meaning rather than phrases to be literally read. For example, the phrase 'in fact' is often used to mention something of a related note, perhaps to further prove a point. I'd rather stray away from implying I'm focused on an issue of true or false, of facts and falsehoods, so I've often wordified the phrase into 'infact' to show I simply mean the colloquialized meaning behind the phrase. Another example is 'of course' being written as 'ofcourse'. It's just a little more confusing to think of it as two words, since we always interpret it as a saying altogether, not interpreting the meaning per word.
'versa' is used instead of 'vice versa' simply because the phrase has been used enough to warrant being a word, and to do so I figure just leaving off the 'vice' is best as it is not unique (already being another word all to itself).
':' denotes a following list.
'..' denotes a following item.
'...' denotes a following statement.
'-' denotes a following subitem.
'–' denotes a following interjection.
Slashes and Division
'/' means 'or', in an implied sense, while '\' means 'or' (not in an implied sense, but simply an 'either' sense); '/' doesn't mean division, '÷' does.
The sentence punctuation '!!' denotes a specific kind of excitement – surprise.
'Italics' signify either parallel aspects being meant in accordance with one another or just simple emphasis.