Ontology has its meaning very disputed. Let’s say that Ontology is an ambituous attempt to describe «what there is», because «always there has been» within a certain scope. If we propose an ontology for the most general-broad possible scope, ontology gets to be very similar with (so more friendly expressed as) Fundamentals.
Exposing fundamentals is a useful thing to do because every broadest ontology (or fundamentals) will somehow permeate other less broader ontologies-scopes.
This analogy influence could be also established directly within similar ranks from the different ontologies. For example: Rank1 in a default linear hierarchy (despite the implicit conmutative relativity it will have) for the fundamental triad, can be analogized with rank1 at whichever other triads.
Everyone could have different keywords at different times for what their consider «broadest-fundamental» and or «higher ranked «. The following lists have had that into consideration and have been made trying to balance different aesthetics for those mommentums variance, which is the most difficult thing to achieve, so anyone can finally also very easily disagree with them: You will probably have some mommentum when you will not consider them «the broadest» and or «the finest» and so it could awake in you a stronger will to edit them.
Probably paradoxically to you, your disagreement with them is intended, for easier incentivating your own fundamentals description task. See other more practical more purely taxonomic ones called floves here, where axioms are completely automatized (in the list below are rather more artisted, as more concrete apps for extending floves also are).
Below there are also some different reductions of a same set of principles. The first 2 are expanded at other more populated sets. Extensions could be stricter for a better recognizing of scalability, but in this case some keywords have been slightly changed (adapted through their semantic network), for showing further flexibility because: «Fundamentals don’t mean Staticity»
3, 2, 2, 2
Hard test: All sets are reduceable to a bipole, and then also to a triad where one of them is the scale of that bipolarity for displaying further overall dynamism, and you will describing your view of feminity &masculinity with those in this following default linear way:
And also the properties of first element in the linear display (the up and or down scale of the bipole) (pic above) being moved to the middle one as in the equilibred Vessica Piscis confluence (pic below):
While also the default linear order (1, 2, 3: first pic) and the confluencing order (second pic, here above) could be seen through its complementary retrogradity (3, 2, 1 –> Masculing default viewing: from future-end to present and else…).
Natural conmutativity implies relative hierarchies but linearity helps
4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, …
This (pic above) is a more direct extension of the 2, 2 first estructure-pic, with words slightly changed-adapted, which are further changed-adapted in the following 5, … estructure below.
Somethings better than nothings imply (un)knowing more to further fine the most with the less enough
1. INTENTIONAL: Ambituous resistance
Something bipolar is better than nothing and or some, a lot of and or a fullth of shit or joy only
Prediction: No any more experiencing also less disgusting than this benevolence perfectioner one
Proposal: Omnipotence is our perception of its distribution through the bifurcation of observation
Challenge: We reflect the more source refraction by how we resist eliminating possible experiencies
2. SHARED: Uniqueness Multiplicity
The more source of this something is the intention put on the designed limits of diversity
Prediction: A common unicity is magnified by different parts that imitate others for including them in
Proposal: Each part serves for and enjoys a partially different concentrated experience of the whole
Challenge: The more differences between unicities and links, the more multipliable and magnified each
3. VARIED: Estable Dynamism
An amazingly stable continuum also with the more possible but sustainable unstabilities in
Prediction: Every part is dynamic but no any cluster of them can’t add any unestability to whole
Proposal: More freedom perception when an equilibred personal and totals of unstability & stability
Challenge: Bigger unestabilities is a perceptional effect to be further experienced and shared
4. INCENTIVATED: Uncertain certainity
The less you move and or perceive, the more you could certainly hear (& viceversa) – by KaliLinux&Me
Prediction: Unknow is a constant process along knowing because always increases but never too much
Proposal: Certain subjective uncertainity can’t be excluded, more truth as more you include them in
Challenge: A node is one of the two dissipation limits for the possible concentration of you(r) link
5. USABLE: Simplifiable complexity
Experience and try to share with the most others the more parts more connectable with the less enough
Prediction: The more maximality an explanation tries, the better minimality its departure point has to be
Proposal: 2 is the best one. Every 1 is at least 2, so flirty! A third is a scale of both, too much also!
Challenge: Primarily apply continuos logic to the more discrete math for the closer to the better sources
See these fundamentals applied for the linguistics field only, with further and more specific rethoric, here. That page aims to serve as a justification (etiology) for the bictiopedia.org project (which is only about linguistics) not having to create another specific fundamentals for it, so provides an example for other possible thematic projects.
For winter 2021: Further broad rethorics about these last five, in a chapter (and or spin off) of the floveria (book of bipoles by marc).