Fuzzy, natural flove

WHY

A lovelier information management as the main personal and social challenge for the 21st century

High sciences main flaw

The more important gets to be more simplified to-in its root, for better scaling its complexity within the underlying wholism

We browse our subjectivities with the outher objects (and viceversa). Numbers are the more objectified objects. We have tools for searching the properties of numbers (which are relations with other numbers…) but we don’t have yet a tool for analizing the coincidences of the relational properties of one number with another i.e. A simple example:

A more complex example:

Same happens (derivated of this) at physics when considering that fundamental particles properties can be gotten beyond their relations with other particles from the different (conmutable…) positions and mommentums we could locate them in (as mirroring numbers themselves too…).

This flaw comes from an interpretation of logic (truth…) that is further extended and easily seen in language with dictionaries interpreting (the thessaurus) antonyms as non-contained in the described object (excluded middle and non-contradictyion principles orthodoxia) instead of interpreting antonyms as working there in the declared object as minimized poles of the object, which both form a pair to further pair with the subject. The subject should also be splitted by his-her bonding intentions categories, they fundamentally being hipothetically teleological intentions which continue up to finally being poled with his-her own mommentual morals.

The case at logic

Relationism, Semantics, FuzzyLogic… remind us that Reality-Truth is always relative, plural and bidirectional between us (our inner) and the outer.

Fuzzy is a cool naming for an appy model while maybe is not a good one for the more Formal Logic…

Fuzzy Logic is the really more formal logic because it takes into account (doesn’t pretend eliminating) uncertainity and subjectivity. But it is rather underrated and bullied by «Formal logic(ians)» (Vanguardists of what is Real – Truth) because of that, as shown by the not getting perspectivism as fundamental and by considering oxymorons with a appeal to authoritarian pitty fallacy instead of as sources. However, the deep flaw allowing this to happen is that the fuzzy logic application referrals are not popularized nor broadened enough. So there we should go..

All consensus is an artificial battle between straw (wo)men to clarify epheremal primary poles

Words don’t mean (explain) anything by themselves. Words, as everything else, need uncertainity for them (keep) being dynamic. We mean something with words by how we relate (link) any word to other words. There are some words, and specially relations of words with other words that seem very open to interpretation, others seem to be more easily consensuated, but not any meaning is completely static or absolute, they are all dynamic.

Indexes andor consensus are just guidances, open to be reviewed and improved. Like this fuzzy metatheory andor any dictionary rethorical reductionism that can’t deny and gets enriched by polysemy… The custom topologies of humans will be uniquely sharp, machines want to learn from that too. They already try doing that with what we call «their hallucinations»

Pure Involutionary continuos evolution

Absolute meassuring is just not possible and higher falsibiality is better than that

Evolution is gifting us with either more complex relationings (continuous math) and also more notorious simplified relationings (purer-discreter math). It happens oppositely within the discret-continuous categorization within Logic.

The broader and so more fundamental relations tend to be everytime more obvious but they are getting more difficult to meassure accurately while we are also having more complex ways for meassuring which tempts us more to declare discret-absolute truths with those. So we tend to rely less in taking the more fundamental relations as the more fundamental basis and backgrounds because we prioritize the outcomes of more complex meassurings.

So we should be pushing us forward andso rather look for and get deeper into the more obvious relations that offer the more falsifiability, despite higher unmeassurabilities (i.e. dimorphism is still simply bipolar but getting more varied and complex…).

All outer as equivalent pole of the inner, as past and future

Any machinistic-technologic advance implies an equivalent evolution of our innerselves

Everything gets complexer and technologies are doing everytime more things that none of us as a single humans could achieve. Objects seem to get more complex than our subjectivities, but we should see this only as an appearance.

The temptation to abandon the simplicity of the equivalence of the outer and the inner comes from different facts. Some of the more complex technologies we build get everytime more depending on the materials and specialized machinery for mining and manufacturing them. These high tech comodities make us in fact a bit dumber because of that dependance. Also, we were always doing some things better in the past than how we are capable of doing them now, specially inner navigations of oneself, but this is only truth in one way of seeing it because we are also capable of further deeper navigation of our own subjectivities too.

We seem to be getting smaller or less smart when comparing our intelligence with what these artifacts are capable of doing by themselves. But what if, in another complementary way, simplicities are also constantly evolving and equivalently to these and other complexities? Technological products can be more complex to design, but they can’t be more complex to use because they have to been able to be consumed by the more comfortable ourselves…

Involve Evolve
Conserve Adapt
Simplify Complexify
We Technology

The equivalence between evolved outer technological complexities and our inner simplifier humanity (andor viceversa) will get harder to see, and so harder to accept too because we will be seeing less what we deeply do while we will be seeing more complex technologies doing more amazing very seeable things compared to the material ones we see ourselves capable of doing. But again, this is only one side of the history, because surely digital words received through a mobile phone message get to interact with deeper sides of our anatomies. If we are not getting into deeper peaks, sure that at least some inner parts of us are being more recalled because of this actual interactive load.

If we want to analise better the past, since our ancestors weren’t so distracted by so many toys as us now, let’s pay additional attention to how they were feeling those constant simplifications too. The best parts we keep from them will still apply, and the better from now on. Our memory widens equivalent as we are able to predict further future possibilities.

Objects relations is an outerness, the sources of meaning, but they are within an infinite innerness loop

Meaning, which is gotten from relations, has the criticality of having to refer by analogy to some bipolarities related more or less indirectly to physical properties of our own internal experience, which we have got them by imitating and integrating properties of the outer environtment. Flight from a (our) bird, Efusivity from a vulcano, Hardness from rocks, flowy from water, etc… .

All this relating of the outer with our innercomes down to Mothercare, finally to our Embryological memory, as matrifocality (its continuation when we are born) is the psychological default base not only for all kids, but also for adults and society too. Note here that matrifocality (the baby-etc & mother relation) is less critical than within embriology. Matrifocality continuation of mothercare enables us to survive well even not having a relation with our mums, but it is still very generally promoted by evolution. These both fetality and matrifocality are a comfortable relationing default we can more easily get to, which implies a certain degree of cultural gynocentrism but all of these are already scaled from the more abstract Primarity within polarization that they preserve and vary. In a further and more edgy example case: Mithologies and astronomy are just a macro analogy that projectively narrate part of our embryonic process experience, that gets everytime more hidden (involution peak) while outer mithologies get more technified (evolved) in exchange…

Abundant scarcity

Flove is asking us for letting it be through our actions

Despite the inmense and abundant loveliness present in nature, we also feel scarcity in our natural limitations. The main ones are:
1) Time scarcity: We are only going to be alive for a while, and after such while, our body will die.
2) Space scarcity: We have inmense potentialities in our molecular complexity, our DNAs have all the necessary information to develop whichever higher sensorial capabilities we see in other animals, but we can’t get to know how to use them.

So there is a pleasant abundance of time and space in nature, but we have to live it under a scarce time and space perspective too. So the question we are trying to reply more adequately than ever here is: What would be the best scarcity we would like to experience in a abundant framework?

All frameworks, whether is a Theory of Everything or whether it is an binary API, bet for a universalization of some adequate mechanics to achieve some planned targets. So we should be able to identify the most lovely and limited targets that some reducted mechanics should be able to automate and in the most beautiful posible way as nature does to us when it reveals us part of its inmense (absolute unknowable) complexities through functional simplicities.

In the minimum operative system necessary for a decent lovely life is where we could better to locate the scarcity feeling in our limited lifetime.

Opposition and Complementarity

Our favourite keypairs deserve better networks

The opposition is the primary parameter for relational meaning making because is the relationing type that more quickly polarizes. Polarization is very useful for us because it quickly either displays both discrete (finitude in the set) and a big space (in the middle of both antagonist poles).

We search for meanings and find their limits of containment-concentration very quickly if the relationship we propose is one of Opposition. All other ways of linking words are by the slower, medium-long term strategy of Complementarity. When we apply opposition to words we more directly connect with our very basic fight or flight biological mechanism: Oppose (figth) and or ignore (flight).

From keywords to Keypairs

Keypairs are greater than the keywords they contain. They are the browsers for the more common and unknwown middleware

The same we call keywords to meaningful words, we should call keypairs to meaningful (relations of) pairs. Any relation is a potential binomial, meaningful relations (all oppositional and favourites) are potential meaningful raters and binomials (keypairs). The most minimal definition for a binomial is to add two different ratings. Key binomials can be considered also into metacategories for relating other (less key) binomials to them (as is the case for perspectives).

The more minimal ground the better stability for whatever is scaling up from it. All sets are reduceable to a bipole and to a triad as a scale of that, that displays its further dynamism (of holisticity – hiperconnectivity).

While everything is uncertain, everything is capable of reflecting the whole too, then the smaller the structure to scale at, the same uncertainity will be but more energy it could concentrate.

2 is the simplest certain and the more complex as well within our impossible oneness. 2s can approach to reflect the common 1relation ground than 3. 3triads just put bipolarities into a further scalability test. Dynamic Bipolar Holism is a better way to (un)known than triads and the repetead and more costy exclussion attempts to get to an impossible oneness.

Novelty is not only coming through developing known complexities further, novelty may also and specially come through further simplifications of experiences that we are constantly interacting and developing informally within our daily livings.

Value and infinity is in the middle of keypairs. Any centroid is as infinite or more as or than any more populated multiverse. From infinite to 2 & from 2 to infinity too…

Instead and along of that much looking for stronger and more complex staticisms for what we call truths, we should more focus in the more simplifiable and deliberately dynamic estructures for the more constrained words and or relations of them, for bringing more subjectivities to a deeper (un)certainity level and feeling more linky – broader wholism. Equilibring the more meaningful bipoles is the more key and win-win simplification nearby.

Formalization of bipoles would make the best thessaurus and the more thrilling encyclopedias

How we relate words is very personal and depends on the mommentum too.

We can feel our keywords entangled in some kind of (key)set, which could and will be unordered overall, but such small whole world can also and will always be able to be experienced through a simple (key)pair.

Considering a word as important for you makes it a keyword. Every relation is a pair, although it may not be a keypair. Every relation-pair is a potential binomial to further define, but it is better to focus in (getting deeper in) what we consider more important (key).

We give importance to things by rating them, normally comparing that rating to how far are their opposite ratings to them. Also note that oppositional relations are not the only possible raters and keypairs. Favourite (key)words relations can also be used as (multi)raters and keypairs, without showing their opposites there, although they will still be there (although more minimized because not that obviously displayed there).

Antagonists need to be colder because they are short termers and complementaries hotter

Despite having their own degrees, the more antagonistic relations, when more conjuncted (also called oxymorons then) more they bring an intense middle, hence all of these are key pairs. Other keypairs heat, the non very antagonist ones, would rely more in how you are ranking them in your life, as you will have some favourited key antagonist relations over others.

Oppositions could be more or less intense. The more intense oppositions will be just a few, easy to find and to agree to them too. There could be more complementarities than oppositions andbut key complementarities will be more difficult to find and they will also be more open and biased.

A favorite pairing in hand is better than a hundred relationships flying

There are words that we use more than others as the best groupers of meaning or as the most complementary to others. This status depends very much on the subject interpreting it. Not everyone share what their favourite words are. We will know when we have reached that critical level of conglomerate significance the more the proposed ‘relation’ is turned into a binomial that is having explanatory enough as monism, a holistic representative with which you can easily draw analogies with any other binomial, specially useful for approaching understanding of the less known ones.

There are some of these complementary couplings that we already use very much (Timed Space, True Love, etc) and many more of them are to be found and enjoyed in such small worlds of complementary bipoles. We have developed a lot of standards for bipolarities and technology for gaining wisdom with words, but we have nothing really close to an operative polysemic binomials encyclopedia which to have more extended rooty joy&wisdom with.

For positivizing looks better and easier to add andor multiply two numbers than multiply two negatives but this second option adds more magic to the operation 

BottomUp Theory & TopDown Practices

The better theory the more simplifiable apps, the better practice the more falsifiable theory

Everyone should be able to more easily relating anything to anything else, qualify (rate…) that relation as (s)he wants. Also, it should be freer to redefine – getting deep in an object, relation, rater andor rating too. When theoretical definitions get just more complex, it is more difficult to relate and create prescriptions for them being more easily falsified.

This Fuzzy model has been evolved by a human focusing very much in the bottom up inputs design (from fields labelling and their relations up to the specification of apps). Floves ontology as its initial wholist prototype for it aims to link more the relation of theory with practice. Someone could get fuzzy diagrams (from deep redefinitions) for coding apps. So similarly could be done by topdown AIs (through a light training program) which will be incentivized to colabore and compete for offering more custom and material rewards in exchange of users data up to the complying of their suggested input recommendations (AIs also as bottom up inputs creators of practices such as types of acts andor habits, etc).

There is not much automated services for open-free polysemy for relations, ratings and definitions, for better finding custom consensus a posteriori

WHAT

Consciouss data sharing

Fuzzy is a model for Relating, Rating and Redefining. RRRs are a reduction for what we do with objects.

Fuzzy model is for now mainly focused in digitalized words because they are quite accesible for everyone and its model development imply mechanistic efforts that are affordable for the few resources available that this project has for now for that… .

Fuzzy is a keyset of categories (to be) standarized as Linked Data, for now mainly focused in giving a more robust background to the Dipedia application and flove.org «Love» definitions aggregation. However, it should be more developed by further abstracting it as much as possible in the future for a more custom, lighter and richer experience of fuzziness.

Also note that Conceptual Structures and Formal Concept Analysis communities (and maybe others…) may have partially evolved some of the features showcased below

Main fuzzy categories

The Fuzzy scope framed within other complementary initiatives:

Note: FreeData standard needs to be evolved and there are other representatives of the other 2 companion scopes shown there beyond GNU/CC & Secushare…

Fuzzy Dipedia and Flove implementations vs Achademia & Wikimedia:

Customize Fuzzy

Decentralization of Fuzzy while enabling it as a service OMNI as a global content aggregation tool:

Import / Export

A boomerang photo in instagram forwarded to facebook, which is reforwarded to a flove app there where it is better shown, stored and crawled

I first downloaded that Instashare lite for sharing things, now that is (i am!) fully entangled in flove apps

Tune Fuzzy

Choose the relationers, raters and redefiner categories-labels that you more feel confident with

HOW

Find and own your web in the web & train your bot with Fuzzy (.)Flove, ()other

RELATIONS: Freer innovation & Enriching the classical ones

One Game to play it with at least two:

1. Get two words
2. People think about some another word related to them
3. When someone founds one, raises his-her hand (and don’t tell what’s that word)
4. When someone else finds another one, raises his-her hand too
5. Start a countdown for both telling their word at the same time
6. Do the same but related to those two words

Additional rules may be:

1. End the game when there is a coincidence of words (either value andor punish that)
2. Don’t let repeating the words already said, and request a reasonable link with the words said (eliminate participants who don’t)
3. Require a(n icreasingly short) countdown for having to tell words
4. Require expressing with other communicating channels

Read more: Oppositional (disjunctive conjunction) relations as keypairs in the Dipedia fuzzy app.

More Quality Raters

Raters as a keypair linear degreed space that is used to relate it with an object (that could be single)

BiRating as the rating of the object(s) twice within the rater 

Examples:

1. Rate one word only once (a binomial and another word to compare to that can be suggested after that)
2. Rating twice but differently within the rater line (BiRating), this way creating a more fuzzy qualification (it is an area-degree not only a more absolute looking point)
3. Within a pair of words, (bi)rate one of them as compared to the other (If the relation is by opposition it can directly considered and turned into a rater)
4. Rank and relate raters between them (andso make your default-favourite raters list)
   

Ranks rating: Important relativity

Natural conmutativity implies relative hierarchies while linearity helps

It’s primarily yin yan, not yan yin, but the more conmutable ranks, the more ideal set (words dance even more at platonic solids vertexes…)

Yin	Yan
Espíritu	Alma
Alma	Consciencia

Ranks are a type of Relational ratings. As more fundamental (higher ranked) a set of keywords is, more complementarity each item has with each other (ranks relativity is more emphasized), so the more they could exchange their position andor rank. Despite that higher relativity that apparently makes hierarchying less important, hierarchical ordering of keywords is as similar and important (if not more) as to find ideal mates for words, because the first appearing ones will be influencing the following ones more obviously than the (an)other way round and also more importantly because the ranks of fundamental keypairs is what we will use as base analogy for bringing meaning to whatever other keypair. 

It’s key to have some keypairs because your more fundamental keypairs are the translators of your outer unknown. The more stable relations for you is where you better practice the other relations you are trying to know more. If we suceed in estabilising so, the main definitions (i.e. Axiom) from the upper could more easily cross-apply to any other lower ones you may want to define but have more difficulties in doing so.

In the other pole of things, one fails in the «correlation implies causation» fallacy when relying too much in their own fundamentals for using them as an analogy for explaining everything else. Everything is correlatable to anything else (because holism), specially our favourite keypairs, but we have to keep evolving, specially fundamentalities through whatever other more difficult things to relate to them despite that by doing so, they could turn upside down our actual views – other more stable relations we already have.

A triad is an example of how bipoles can scale and be viewed more dynamically

Within a bipole, there are only two ways to order their elements: AB, BA, where both of them are perfectly right (ranks relativity). Within a triad there are more ways to order it, that all of them are also perfectly right. For example, the 213 or 231 ways of ordering a triad matches with the viewing of the 2 (middled element) as a link, source and or primarity of the other two, as in the confluent middle (hoft knot – vessica piscis).

The more a set grows the more it explains itself but the harder it gets to consensuate then. Despite and beyond consensus there could be, better is to offer them to anyone to reorder them as (s)he wishes while assuring them that if their reordering choices don’t match with its shown – ideal order, it will only mean that they are focusing in another complementary perspective of the same reality that such set represents.

Neither Fundamentals mean Staticity specially

Fundamentals is a keyword for the premises that are considered higher ranked in a theory. Expressing fundamentals (or principles…) is a useful thing to do because they will permeate and show the possible depth while they can offer big falsifiability for the theory.

Expressing fundamentals with pure axioming with word sets and sentences is possible, but if your fundamentals are meant for a big scope, it’s prefered to create some pure(r) math along, due to its power of simplification.

Everyone could have different keywords at different times for what their consider «broadest-fundamental» and or «higher ranked «. The following lists below 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, which won’t be a problem, it is rather a more transparent stand and focuses a possible debate about updating them more easily.

REDEFINITIONS

A relation andor rating of a word becoming an adjective of it in a binomial to further define

Multimedia redefinitions

Oral

Short:

Long: Hear this audiopresentation (1 hour, peak axiom at minute 57) about a broad justification about the flove.org project, done through well known binomials, hopefully equilibred enough…

Sintactical conjunctivity issues and tricks

Find some keywords and their polarities and define them merged (i.e. as noun+adjective)

The AdjectivizedNoun sintactical setting is the more simplex conjunctive proposition.

The pair will also look more conjunctive if it doesn’t have space in the middle of both words.

New companion words as Titlings & Middles may give an additional child – parent hierarchical relation and a plurality of binomials within the existant one because every third element added to a binomial automatically creates two additional binomials to further define too (3 & 1, 3 & 2)

Prepositions give more depth and customization to the binomial. Adverbs too but less.

Words can be turned into Verbs. They can also function as a middler word and this way do as prepositions and create two additional binomials.

Mind gramatical polarization variation across different languages

Languages have different grammars for ordering and valueing adjectives and nouns, so causing diferent meaning polarization depending the language (default sintaxis) we use, for example:

GRAMMARS AXIOLOGIES
Concentration	Lexic morphology	Noun, subject +2, Adjective, object +1
Position	Sintactic order	First appearing +2	Second appearing +1
CASE STUDY
ENGLISH is more EQUILIBRED		True love	3 points each word
		Thruth of love	4&2 (odd sintaxis)
* But more Polarized at this other case:		John’s Car	4&2
SPANISH is more POLARIZED		Amor verdadero	4&2
		Verdadero amor	3 (odd sintaxis)
* But more Balanced at this other case:		Coche de Juan	3

Visual markup categorization

For an easier and partial categorizing, either when defining andor for later commenting andor archiving

Advanced definitions

Questions are simplex definers

Channels and Multimedia

Oral

Short:

Long: Hear this audiopresentation (1 hour, peak axiom at minute 57) about a broad justification about the flove.org project, done through well known binomials, hopefully equilibred enough…

Gestures and dances (without verbal language)

We have a small problem when we identify «body language» (kinesics) as «non-verbal non-natural language», because we are giving to «verbal» more importance than what is more purely corporal, when more in fact there is much more valuable information and more possible originalities and dialects of body and dance than possible expressions with what is verbalized or written. Just as music is not only generated by the instruments and harmony is not dictated by just a theory, let’s see Dance not only as the most achademic or popular dances and coreographies, but as the art (and/or quality) of body language.

All verbal communication expresses some quantity and quality of body language. Dance, quality-body art

That we can refine it a little more with: How much do your verbs dance? Dance some verbs, let’s see…

Let’s share body language cues. The fact that you especially like it and the fact that you want to share it is what will give much art to that communication. It is not about adding much or being very theoretical, but rather just sharing very precise details of how you like to move your body. Details that you freely choose and or that already have them as charms. With these special body languages ​​we will be proposing a reconnection with our ancestry and communicative roots.

A body language seems more dance-artistic to us when it best imitates an animal in its moment of greatest communicative intensity (See more: Patricia Cardona, The dramaturgy of the dancer).

From definers to prescribers up to apps

Better the description, the easier for its prescription to have modelled interactions in applications

Practices are the better (deeper) way to define something – extend its falsifiability. Prescribers should be free to categorize and to create new, as whichever other definer label.

Applications specifications

The more prescriber information gathered is what is more useful for further modeling more interactive Applications, that could be packed too. I.e. The floves case: Since lovelies sets (favourites) are relative to each other, actions in one layer can be modeled to promote the other lovelies from other layers, starting per the closest neighbours, specially the upper ones, the ones that will need less tech but better specs.

Many possible landing pages

Even more possible features….

See more

Keywords usable as Fuzzy modules andor spinoffs:

Try Mods:

Scope

Rator

Ratree

Relatree

RelateTheWeb

WhyRate

Libraryan

WeNet

WeWeb

TrueWeb

TheMesh

TorusMesh

FineFind

Scope

Webscope

Insider

Soulmate

The Wholer

Omni-

omni(a)

Hyper-

Hyperline

Hyperfine

epi

iso

geo

para

pro

cosm

whole

Whola.te

xplain

yrlt

rrr