Floves old texts

Note: The following text are quite abandoned ones, just kept for past reference and for a possible future recicling bits from it. See the floves page for more updated content

The first part tells about the values and benefits of the floves keyset. The second one justifies the keywords and ranks choosed.

Links below point to an extinct wiki. If you wish to see what was there, copy the urls and check them through the WayBackMachine service from archive.org

This life view with floves in it is easier to debat, adapt and extend than others

This life view is easy to debate because:

It is appliable:

  1. View this default one and develop yours
  2. The mental effort to do so is low, pleasant and worthy
  3. It can-should be further implemented – tested

It is accessible:

  1. It has well known and very abstract keywords with specified semantics for phrasing them further
  2. It has a high acceptability potential and it doesn’t have a critical mass for that
  3. Dynamic commenting: Agree, ignore or modify. Rate, rant or even adapt it to your needs

It is limited:

  1. Has minimalism while it has an easy guides to scale it andor broaden it
  2. Brings hermeneutic metrics for reviewing past, present and future events
  3. Relies in automated axioms, although its fundamentals are unstable (like any other theory)

This life view is easy to adapt because:

Can be viewed in simpler and further:

  1. Basic views i.e. Life set: resumed default, Basic life: simplified default, flove formula
  2. Partial views i.e. using only some parts of it: gender analogy within scopes
  3. Add further triads (or analogies)

You can add coats:

  1. Translations i.e. Languages, gurmukhi, binary, HASH, etc
  2. Sensorial, hormonal, neuronal, etc expressions
    1. Pictured i.e. colours [1], etc
    2. Multimedia i.e. dance: life qi, sounds: life piano, etc
    3. Other i.e. touch: Massage the darks as in acupuncture, etc
  3. Other aesthetics
    1. Lexic games i.e. cut-up theory, transpoetrics, etc
    2. Other cultures semiotics i.e. animals, art, signs
    3. Add gradients i.e. brighter, lovelier, more idealist, antagonist, gaming

It can be networked by:

  1. Comparing personal views i.e. life viewer end, etc
  2. Crowdsourcing this and your own view i.e. see crowdlife
  3. Using it for a local or social purpose i.e. minimum of 50% of flove or life view matching in order to..

It has a lot to improve by extending:

  1. Transcendence i.e. axioms, etiology, talks and faith
  2. Heuristic
    1. Hermeneutic i.e. improve metrics
    2. Modelling (improve the mindmaps
    3. Implementations i.e. improve flove.org, liberada.net, etc
  3. Format
    1. Documentation i.e. whitepaper, wiki, news
    2. Interactivity i.e. API, apps, services
    3. Architecture i.e. make it more decentralised


Vida es el mejor empezador unico posible aunque lo primero que vi(vimos) de Todo fuera Mundo


La palabra «Todo» no nos dice nada sobre lo que contiene. En este caso, «Tao» seria un mejor agrupador porque nos dice que contiene YinYan. Ambas nos sirven para entender una «caja». Pero Tao por si solo, solo nos dice que contiene una bipolaridad en el. Para darle algo mas de significancia al Todo y o al «intocable» Tao y su etereo contenido YinYan, habría que definirle dos polaridades mas tocables, y la que consideremos como primaria de las dos, puede ser un mejor empezador que la otra.

La elección del empezador ontológico (primeros sinonimos del innombrable-inconocible Todo, Tao, Etc) es muy determinante porque esta va a afectar-enfocar a todas las relaciones contenidas (ahijadas) en ello.

En este caso, para tomar al titulador Todo y convertirlo como el primer elemento de una triada, podemos elegir las conocidas polaridades de «Vida» y «Mundo».

El mundo se ve hacia atras, pero la vida se ve para adelante — Kierkegaard

A mechanism with life, or a life mechanism, and then simplier: the Whole as a Life, since from an holistic point of view it is very incoherent to say: We live in a hyperconnected mechanism (or motion, process or world) that is not alive.

Formamos parte de un Todo que tiene un mecanismo que nos entrelaza mas alla de nuestros cuerpos visibles. Como no podemos estar entrelazados a algo no vivo, formar parte de un mecanismo con vida (o «la Vida») parece mas coherente que el decir que somos Vida biologica que formamos parte de un movimiento o mecanicismo inerte, al que se le suele llamar «Mundo». Al aceptar-adaptarse a que la mecánica de la planta naturaleza está viva, diréctamente notamos que nuestra bioquímica se alegra, porqué “Vida” o “mecanismo vital natural y-o universal” nos ofrece mas interactuación con la naturaleza (invisible a nuestros ojos) que “Mecanismo a secas” (o universo, todo, mundo o cosmos).

Para estabilizar esta propuesta de uso de la palabra Vida como contenedor de algo mas que solo lo puramente biologico tal y como está establecido (algo que no nos pasaria si hubieramos tomado a «mundo» como empezador), necesitamos una minima taxonomia de los diferentes tipos de expresiones de la Vida, de las formas no biologicas sobretodo.

Pudiera parecer que con esta propuesta estamos complejizando innecesariamente la triada empezadora, pero es que igualmente, tomando el otro camino seguiriamos teniendo el problema de tener que calificar donde empieza la Vida y considerar a lo no biologico como inerte o con que tipo de agencia.

Primera triada

Universal > Natural > Biological

  1. Universo no observable
  2. Universo observable (a lo que solemos llamar Naturaleza)

  1. Universo
  2. Naturaleza
  3. Observador (Biologia)

Bipolarizar la primera triada

For each of thoses descriptive flows, there will be a prescriptive expression (“lovely” expression), i.e.


Chequeo de consenso de la complementariedad del conjunto y los rangos propuestos:

  1. El flujo universal tiene una realidad natural que es la humanada biológica
  2. La humanada biológica de una realidad natural en el flujo universal (orden de rangos inverso 321)
  3. La realidad natural es una humanada biológica del flujo universal (231… confluente, estilo vesica piscis)
  4. Retorcido: El flujo natural de la realidad biológica es la humanada universal (122331)
Ampliando el conjunto por abajo (con justificación)


¿La persona gobierna o es la sociedad lo gobernante? Ambos, en perfecta simultaneidad confluyente.

Linear: Personal > Local > Social

Idealismo, psicologia, etc…

Personas mas desarrolladas con plenitud de comunidades cercanas sienten menos la autoridad de las normas sociales establecidas. Ypero como predicción, se podria proponer que sentirán querer desarrollar equivalentes libertades (sociales) para todos que acompañen el avanzado nivel de desarrollo de las otras dos, tanto como habra otras de esas mismas personas que se despreocuparan de lo Social y o lo sentiran a lo Social como rival. Poco término medio…

Complementario (inverso al linear): Social→ Local → Personal

Materialismo, sociologia, etc…

Somos el conjunto de mentes humanas las que permitimos el desarrollo personal y local, al desarrollar normas de convivencia con las personas que no nos son directamente locales (de confianza, relacion directa). De lo contrario, una persona muy personal podria imponerse ante el resto de cercanos y demas y o los intereses de un pequeño grupo local podrian imponerse como norma para toda la sociedad.

Cuidado con la tendencia a sinonimizar o proponer Social (=Todo) > Natural – Universal…

Economia servicial

Extraction> Manufacturing> Offer

Material things are taken, then further elaborated for taking advantages of their use and or for being offered to others to gain something from them with it. 

The final satisfactory use of the thing is not only positive because it is used in itself, but because encourages the relations in the production chain to thrive. Things are not infinite, some are very scarce. Every production chain, as the trophic chain themselves, has a critical sustainability point, specially at its extraction origins.

If an offer has a high degree of ecology and crafting, it will easier dignify the production chain through the offer, because the production chain will be more sustainable. Consumerism only becomes a problem when we consume by evading greater reasoning about how much we need that, or if we consume things that harm us as people or society. The consumerism of ecological and craft things is something lovely to promote worrilessly.

Gift > Loan> Exchange

We gift or loan if we calculate a better relational outcome than the possible future scarcity it can bring us

Gifting yourself better when you gift increases the possibilities of you gifting more in the future. But sometimes this selfgifting is not enough (it has to be balanced), specially when you want to donate to mainly feel to help others, not only or specifically yourself «also».

Most of our economic activity is based on the gift and the loan. We are constantly giving away ideas and lending things. When we lend and give away appropriately we avoid the stress for reaching an material equivalence given in exchange. This improves the relation by itself but it can also spoil it.

Exchange tends naturally to swap (an exchange practice closer to the lending one). Lending tends to share (a practice close to the gifting one). Gifting gives more possibilities of active use and ease of equivalence than the loan and lending. Gifting gives more possibilities of active use than the exchange, simply because the material equivalence need is lower (a gift or loan is cheaper than an exchange for the requester).

Everytime we offer to loan or gift instead of exchange, we are doubting whether we are acting strategically and adequately well with respect to our forecasts of future shortages of what we are giving off for free. This is also why for many people the loan seems more cumbersome than an exchange, or why we hesitate not to gift and we rather decided to just lend. These tactical decisions are also the explanation for why there are more lovely trade-offs in some exchanges than in some gifts or loans, as well as there are loans that provide more loveliness than some gifts, despite the default linear ranking of gifting, lending, exchange.

Every offering suits a short term need, but it is also framed within an offeror mid-long term strategy

Giving, lending and exchanging are the three main childs of offering, that are directly relative to each other. When we think about exchanging, the vibration-pressure of (rather..) lending or giving it instead of exchanging is somewhat there. Beyond power games that exchange lovers tend to get into, the vibration of a need of exchange is less active as the offeror has more fulfilled his-her own basic needs and or when the relational (inmaterial) outcome could be better than the material one itself.

For the lender, a lending is an investment for a short term inmaterial benefit and a mid-long term material one, because his-her borrower will be tempted to lend him-her something back later if the offeror needs it in the mid-long term. A borrower doesn’t need to be a lender to his-her lender afterwards (that will already qualify as an exchange instead), but (s)he will be inmaterially very pressed for that, hence the potential benefit mid-long term for the original borrower.

In the other side of things, the borrower will tend to overload the inmaterial equivalence pole with his lender in the short term, just because (s)he is freer to have to give the equivalence than if (s)he had to fulfill a material one (exempted at the lending).

The recipient of a loan does not necessarily need to show strong thanks in response to match or surpass the equivalence of what (s)he has borrowed, but (s)he will try to reach the line of equivalence to its borrower with the rational values (s)he possesses, i.e. at least show sufficient rational gratitude or make an effort in not being disgusting to him-her, specially because of the received lending.

Añadir bipolaridad prescriptiva


1. Personal being

2. Local trust

3. Social freedom

Economical (lovelies)

1. Ecology

2. Craft

3. Offer

3.1 Freed

3.2 Shareful

3.3 Swap

Extensión de la visión

Cuanto más extendemos la visión del todo mas podemos ofrecer una comprensión más profunda de sus partes, aunque los consensos se dificulten mas también. Podemos extenderla desde sus simplificaciones y justificaciones mas basicas y fundamentales y o también por ejemplo, podemos extenderle sus ramas:

  1. Prescriptiva: Añadir una categoria para palabras complementarias a la expresion amorosa ya propuesta (aqui: Far lovely) porqué abrimos la posibilidad de expresión del contenido que mas nos interesa, con lo puede que así encontremos unas de las relaciones mas complementarias posibles.
  2. Descriptiva: Añadir dos tríadas adicionales mas suaves (una complementaria y otra mas antagonista) a las amorosidades para ayudarnos a comprender de cerca cada una de las expresiones y todo el proceso. Ejemplo aquí: triadas añadidas de brillo y sombra):

AmbitoFuenteEvolucionExpresionLovelyFar lovelyExcesoTorceduraFalta

Estas adiciones nos proponen definiciones automaticas y axiomas para cada palabra mas extensas y claras. Por ejemplo:

-Se vibra más amorosidad si menos sombra y mas amorosidades superiores vibran -No podemos vibrar todo lo brillante en todas las dimensiones a la vez y esto hace que haya sombras -Tenemos manías basadas en nuestro género, historia personal, influencias culturales y sociales, y más especialmente en la sombra actual que vemos que no se redime en nuestro entorno. -Brillante va a amorosidad, y deja una huella forma fuentes brillantes en su capa inferior. -Cuanto más brillante sea la fuente, menos sombra de falta y más posible evolución. -Cuanto más brillante sea la evolución, menor será la sombra torcida y mas posible la mayor expresión. -La expresión más brillante, va con la sombra menos excesiva y nos lleva a las expresiones más amorosas posibles. De lo contrario, la sombra retorcida irá hacia la falta en lugar de ir al exceso.  
Intention categories (for Replies): (?) –> break (crack) () (…) —> patch (hack) (!) —> fork (project)

-Love, thruth, void, etc are too big concepts to be approached with words (uuh, i am reading youu…?) (wouldn’t we gain something important by vibrating love with words…) (communicating love is the best thing we can do!)

-Swapping or sharing is wasting time. Emotions, trust or having fun is more important (yeah, and the universe is more important than our emotions, so let’s stop feeling?) (i don’t deny that, everything should have their importance…) (Gift is more important than sharing!)

-You are not entitled to talk about life this broadly and shortly because you didn’t go to university nor dont cite achademically so you can’t be wise enough for doing that. (excuse me, are you the security guard of the achademy of life, how much?) (perhaps you can tell what you don’t like so i could patch it…) (i like all previous efforts made for the future!)

-Life and love has one prophet only (only?) (everyone has one prophet only) (myself is my prophet!)

-Philosophy of mind is a social science (if personal or mental are upper than social, why social science doesn’t become a field of mental science?) (one of the highest social sciences…) (and axiology too!)

-World is basically social (so i care more about my nation law than about my family or myself, right?) (maybe by social, you want to mean natural or universal…) (you can get the base you prefer to explain it up the whole!)

-Money is the real physicalization of love (so using without paying nor stealing is metalove, right?) (are you sure you prefer paying for things…) (and barter, lending, sharing and gifting are metaphysics!)