E=W
A

In response to 'summarising' suggestions/advice, here and there, I’ve attempted a short summary of the above.
I’m anything but an academic – (in case you didn’t guess!) - so any hints as to improving/clarifying THE SUMMARY, would be very happily received. ("NOTBEOLD"?)

p.s. I’m not interested in DEBATING the points, by the way. It’s all been done before !!
keith

UNDERSTANDING THE UNHAPPENING. (Summary of E=W by A)

THE PERCEIVER
Nothing can be proved to exist without its being, (in some recognizable way), perceived by a ‘provable’ perceiver. Anything otherwise stated as ‘existing’, is creative speculation.

‘IMMORTALITY’
Today consists of the sum total of my perceived existence: tomorrow is no more than a presumption. ‘Not waking up’, [i.e., Death], cannot be experienced by me. I live forever; i.e., indefinitely.

HOMOMAL
I, Homomal, [animal-plus-word], perpetually edit and ‘rewrite’ - to my ultimate satisfaction - what I observe. My own assertion that this is ‘the Here-And-Now’, is the only proof there can ever be of it.

NEVER ‘HAPPILY EVER AFTER’
Being freed of the ‘fairy-tale-like’ expectations of Homo Sapiens bred into me, I now expect far less, (or even nothing), of anyone or anything. Therefore I enjoy all experience to a far more intensive degree.

LIBERTY PLUS
If discontented with my planet ‘as is’, I can decide, (as any “off-gridder” for instance), to abandon my present mode de vie and reconstitute another, consisting of almost all the ingredients of my choosing.

__________________________

This is a discussion forum community.
Why post something if you do not wish to debate it?
Perhaps you should post it to your blog and turn off replies.
Being here, in this community, it is open for discussion.
Your statement (demand) is does not make sense.

Another thing your demand/request implies is that you believe you can dictate others behavior.
This implies that you are a controller or think you are a controller.
The problem is, most people in this site's community have strong aversion to people that attempt to control them.
So again, your statement (deman/request) makes no sense?

Since my response is not debating your posted points but your personality, technically, I am within your stipulations.

I like A&W rootbeer floats.



Any topic that cannot be debated,
isn't worth discussion.

A couple of suggestions for you:

first and foremost, you've made no mention of what E, W, or A refers to. You appear to have typed a formula here, and then appended it with some definitions of your own crafting, which don't appear to have anything to do with the formula.

It's also not even clear what the exact equation is. Did you mean to say that E equals W divided by A?

I also think your definition of "The Perceiver" is logically flawed. You essentially deny all deduction, which requires that you further deny logic and all science.

Thank you IgorFrankensteen.

It is supposed to be:

E=W
A

with a line indicating divided....but I can't post it here!

(Suggestions?)


You: “Did you mean to say that E equals W divided by A?”
Me: Yes. Existence is Word divided by Agreement. (Or one could use 'multiplied' by Agreement)

You: “You essentially deny all deduction, which requires that you further deny logic and all science”.
Me: All deduction is assumption, (by word, without which no deduction/comment/communication, is possible).
If there is no evident perceiver, (i.e., ‘Man’), there is no evidence of anything to perceive.

p.s. I tried again, but can't manage it. (It's OK in other parts of the Net.) Anyway, I'm sure you know what I meant.

A/W=E



W is the dividend
A is the divisor
E is the quotient

Could also write it
A|W=E

E
A|W

E
A/W

W÷A=E

To RockGnome

As said, I’m not looking for debate, but ASSISTANCE with what one might call “the layout” of the summary. I’d like everything to be as clear as possible to the viewer.

If however, I get comments or questions, I’m very happy to respond; but I’m not interested in verbal convulsions coming from those with axes to grind – (or those who are obviously horrified that what they are reading might actually make sense).

Making a little moonshine in that lab of yours, Keith?

That's all fine and dandy, keith.
However, neither of us get to make
special rules on someone else's site.

Okay, I'm beginning to see what you are trying to figure out how to talk about.

"E" is "Existence," "W" stands for "Word," and "A" stands for "Agreement."

Next, if I am to help you express whatever it is, I suggest that you explain what "Word" means in this context. I've come across lots of very religious people who only capitalize "Word" when they are referring to their particular version of the Christian Bible. I also come across very earnest people who use "word" to refer to "giving one's word," or to refer to what people CLAIM to be or to believe. It's not clear here, which meaning you are going for.

"Agreement" also can refer either to "making sure that your words agree with your actions," in the context of "Existence," or it can refer to a more activity-oriented scenario where it is about the act of coming to agreement between people, about how they perceive the world they share.

So perhaps you are are trying to say something along the lines of "Your existence is the result of "What you think you know about yourself," (i.e. your "words"), as modified by how well your perceptions "Agree" with reality itself.

Thanks Igor for going to the trouble of assisting me.

The E=W over A, started off as E=V (vocabulary) over A. I only featured this to give the thing some kind of a logo or icon. I wrote it all by the way, in the first place, as an exercise that I felt would be good for me; (sort-of taking the dogs for a walk….).

I’d love it if you could think of a better ‘heading’ – or I could remove it.

Your last sentence: “Your existence...” etc.

The fact that I know that nothing is here unless I am, and that I agree with myself, (POST-initial indoctrination!), that it is so, has no effect on the way I live – with the exception that, as said in the EW full version, I see the world and everything in it, as PERFECT. (Why? Because, TODAY, I’VE GOT IT!) I couldn’t be saying this, of course, without the availability of words.

Quoting from full version:
“THE FRAME’S THE GAME. (And all the men and women, merely winners.)
Oh yes they are! Just ask anyone, "if you'd been given a choice, would you have missed this particular trip?"!

I can assume that after a meal, if I had no words, I’d simply be satiated and content for a period…...until the next meal, and so on. I would not be comparing, defining, enumerating, etc: there would be no EXISTENCE per se.

(Quoting from full version: “Without Word, there can be neither ‘chair’ nor anything else. To assert that “Existence”, (i.e., ‘chair’), is around in any case, begs this question: “but what proves that the chair is/was there if ‘homo sapiens’ is not?”  Mind you, if you dare[!] to propose that ‘Word’ was around before “the big bang”, (or any other ‘kick-off hypothesis’), you’ll have to ask, ‘then who or what was doing the talking at the time?’!)

keith

P.s. I don’t have to say that blockcaps are mostly in place of what there IS NOT.
p.p.s The full version of EW only takes 4 minutes to read – (about 1500 words).

To IgorFrankensteen

At the end of my last message "...what there IS NOT", was meant to refer to underlining, and so forth.

k

I'm almost certain Rene Descartes summarized it in 3 simple words ...well 5 words in English but " Cogito ergo sum "..says it all

But without words he couldn´t have said it.....could he!

You're suggesting that articulation alone determines our existence. So that deaf , dumb and blind kid who plays a mean pinball could not have existed?

I, (Homomal), can postulate that others exist or that they do not exist should I myself cease to do so; but there is no possibility of verifying this either way! So if I base my final conclusions on my educated beliefs, then Existence just “IS” - with or without me. If I succeeded in freeing myself from the dictates of Word, (a somewhat unachievable task!), I’d comprehend that without an identifiable identifier this cannot possibly be so. I must then conclude that my perceived consciousness is the sole creator of a perceived existence. Identification of what I perceive is only possible with a definement tool: word. It is ‘word’ that proclaims Life and Being: nothing else. No word = no “being”. There is no evidence of anything other than the conclusion of the human that something it calls ‘life’, exists. Remove ‘word’ from humans and their communication is at about the level of dogs, which have no means of rationalising; they have no defining tool. For dogs, there is no ‘existence’........any more than for a pinball.(The former don't 'think' they're awake; the latter doesn't think !)

IGOR - thanks for making some sense of this subject. You are the light under the bushel basket or whatever that saying is. :)

To NATURE LADY: does this summary make it a touch more digestible?

[“n.b”; hopefully unnecessary] - this speaks FOR nobody other than me.*

UNDERSTANDING THE UNHAPPENING
“A rose by any other name….” is not !

What I, (“man”) have been taught to observe, I organise and then manage - with my tool; vocabulary. Only ‘words’ define and proclaim The Existent. Remove ‘word[s]’ from humans, and their mode of communication would be similar to that of, say, dogs. A dog ‘recognises’ what it observes, through emulation and familiarity of encounter. The human mother enunciates “chair”, and points at it, teaching the child to identify it.

TO BE AND NOT TO BE

If I declare that Existence simply “IS”, with or without me* - (or any ‘observer’) - this can only be conjecture. In order to ‘be’, a thing must be perceivable or demonstrably observable in some way. (How can it be here if it is not observed to be here?)

So, ‘Existence’ is my deciding/agreeing that it is so. My [perceived] consciousness is the sole ‘creator' of what I [agree to] call Existence. I can postulate that ‘other’ “exists in any case” if I wish; but unless I myself perceive that to be so, it cannot be so!

HOMOMAL

I, Homomal *, [animal-with-word], perpetually edit and ‘rewrite’, (to my ultimate satisfaction), what I observe and how I see it. My conclusion/acceptance that this is ‘The Here-And-Now’, is the only ‘proof’ I will ever have of it.

“IMMORTALITY”[!]

Today consists of the sum total of my perceived, [including remembered], existence. Tomorrow is not a reality; it is, at most, a presumption. Not waking up, [e.g., “Death”], cannot be experienced by me, so I live “forever”. As I will not be conscious of witnessing any 'ending', (and I can never know when I did not wake up!), my life can be said to ‘terminate’ whenever I next sleep.


‘I THINK THEREFORE I AM’ NOT.

The human creature classifies the sounds he makes, as ‘words’.

That there is no communicating to anyone or anything whatsoever UNLESS AND WHILE I AM ‘CONSCIOUSLY’ DECREEING IT TO BE SO, does not in any way, diminish my respect for, or pleasure in doing so - or in anything I do.* Quite the contrary! Finally released from guilt, doubt, and pointless illusion, I now freely and intensively enjoy all experience, to a far greater degree than previously.

A BETTER STANDING OF THE HAPPENING!

Being delivered of the [‘fairy-tale-like’] expectations of Homo Sapiens, (dotingly bred into me), I now expect far less, (if anything at all), of anyone or of myself.

I, (“Life’s” creator*), CHOOSE to be at least as responsible for and to “Life’s” rules and requirements as I was when I assumed “Life” was here of itself: (until I realised that it conjectured that something ‘other’ is responsible for “Life” being here.)

The source of much of “man’s” misery is rooted in his unease and confusion as to ‘how everything got here in the first place’: but he truly underestimates his powers of invention. Staring straight at him, is the answer to the dilemma.

In the mirror.
___________________________________

The E=W/A full version is on LinkedIn:(a bit of a chuckle.....only 5 mins to read.) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/life-after-death-keith-perreur-lloyd-2c/

p.s. regarding SERIOUS responses.....already-known CUCKOOS and WOODPECKERS are automatically 'pre-wiped'.