Flove.org

All easy loves

Models

MODELS

«Develop any part, any time, for any pack»

Since flove is a holistic theory, it needs of integral practices in all their specific and limited layers of life.

Disclaimer: You should look for loveliness models for each layer of life in the submenu of the Models link here at the top of the page, this page only serves as a general introduction to them. There are also more straight-through models, see MyFlove.

 

INTRODUCTION

Every offer of a sharable thing needs a sharing person behind it

Being a better person also depends on how we offer things.

We can reduce the areas of life to simplify a general explanation and, from it, extract an even more simplified explanation of its more practical parts only, because life, no matter how complex it may seem, can also be enjoyed and explained coherently from its simplicities.

Also all its parts are connected to each other. The rational and the material are connected and there are ways to better recognize this connection. We all want to be better people and have enough things, for that we develop and evolve ways to achieve it.

Any holistic theory needs to arrive at integral action to be rigorous, and any supposed integrality must have a rigorous theory that gives meaning to its action. There is no philosophy or platform that explains and bases human action intertwined in this way as we propose, where we recognize some natural hierarchical categories and some moral expressions of each of them that must be representatives of the concrete practices proposed.

To evolve in any area of life, you need to allow in it or through it to flow loves of greater areas

 

Briefly, on an advanced personal level …

The most important mechanical actions that we propose for the rational personal sphere (the larger scope where we intend to intervene) are those of the daily attitude. That is, on the one hand we want to feel:

It’s good not to use so much machinery to make it up

And at the same time, on the other hand, we want technologies that help us to know ourselves better, and also know better than to say when someone in a conversation doubts about how he could offer something to himself and other people with more love.


(If I know that later I will be able to use it …) I will lend it more


Also, to put another key example, we want not to have shame to ask:


(You are not using it, I am good …) would you lend it to me…?

 

Broadly speaking…

The personal rationality, and the question of specifying which mechanics will facilitate “how to be a better person” is the most difficult and infinite intellectual task that can possibly be carried out. At the same time, the personal is the most ideal space from which to promote functionalities that decisively affect all other minor areas of life.

Speaking more specifically: it is from a deepening in the profiles of users, the best way to build a collaborative social network with artisan production and a market that prioritizes the ecological, giving and sharing before the exchange of disrespectful products. And for sample, a button:

A social network can be developed from the “portfolio as a platform” approach (dapps from ethereum or even fair.coop with the focus on the field of exchange), “messenger as a platform” (wechat in China, status in ethereum with the focus at the local level), “groups as a platform” (activist networks with a local-social focus) … but we only need to look at the reality of today to see who really convinces more users to contribute contents in its platform is twiter and facebook (or snapchat) with its “Profile as a platform” (focus on the personal).

But still, these personal-centric networks have their shortcomings. Both continue spinning their approach from the personal primary to the local secondary (easy friends to follow …), but as they do not want to deepen their relationship in real life (Facebook does not care that the groups are “strong”, twitter does not have, both seem that this does not suit them), they do not reinforce the localities and deliberately lose the link of the local secondary with the social and material tertiary (they do not want to open up as a project either). This is the deep reason why there is very little use of the facebook market (although its usability is quite central) and why both generate the false sense of local development or social impact (the many likes, comments or trending topics affect very little vinculántemente talking to non-virtual reality), beyond as a means of dissemination of the most momentary present, which in the end are the most qualitative.

 

 

 

Briefly, locally and socially advanced …

(Hopefully) there is no conflict of interest, (hopefully) that nobody asks for material guarantees, (hopefully) that less fear in all conversations, (hopefully) that nobody is worth stealing or breaking Nothing on purpose, but we’re not going to be naive either, we’ll need security and we’ll develop it, always with the view that the more valuable the platforms are, the less you will have to create problems in it and less security bureaucracy we will need.

«The greater the trust between people, the easier it is to give»

«With more reputable network, less need for persuasion»

 

 

AXIOLOGIES

Rational> Material

An offer is information to reach an agreement to transfer the use of a material thing, where there are two people looking for minimum (that can be transferred) equivalence of rational value (immaterial) and equivalence of material value in the proposed relationship. We identify the rational agreement search process as more valuable than the search according to the material equivalence.

 

Personal> Local> Social

When a person has a rich self-esteem and personality, they are less subject to being harmed by the emotional attacks of their neighbors. If several people are organized among themselves to supply themselves with many of their basic resources, the state is no longer so necessary for them.

A baby when it is born, a child when he thinks or we adults when we think things with enough patience, we can understand very well that we are beings come from a nature, which end up being reasoned. During the first reason, we see ourselves as people looking inwards, then we study the surrounding environment that can be grasped from the outside (the local), and then we reason on the general (social) organizational model that we want to relate to each other beyond the areas of our person and close environment.

This seems so obvious and simple to understand is complemented by the tendency to believe that the rational, especially the social, is above the natural, the local or the personal. People who place the social over the personal can have all the goodwill in the world to do so because they believe that the “global” precedes the personal. They can also have the tactical vision of sacrificing their personality or their locality to better refine the social because they feel that the social needs more coherence at a general level.

This second case is quite normal that happens, but also has been the shuttle for the other harmful version (Social> Personal> Natural), which has the problem of seeing or not thinking enough about it, that “social is the most global “because they do not consider the natural or the universal as possible” global “, since they believe that the universal or the natural does not influence us in a determined way beyond what a steward would do in our service.

This anti-linguistic belief has generated a myriad of personalist, localist and sociocentric currents, always with many inconsistencies, and its maintenance has extended our disconnection from the natural environment, and this has helped to uproot us from the mental, and the most vital that takes us much more , simply because the universal, natural, biological or mental is more global than the social.

We can see these results not only in the unsustainable material management model they promote, but also in our adversarial ways of reasoning, in our exclusive family models or in the few initiatives of general interest that we manage to build together, compared to the enormous potential rational that we have for it.

 

 

IMPLEMENTATION

We should be integrative while risky enough to propose minimal features that cause lots of love. We are not going to be able to implement all the actions that cause love in life, but we can develop minimal or modular sets of features that should definetely showcase how loves are interconnected across diferent layers of life.

All the proposed standards are a deafult that can evolve through personal feedback or the forum, but we have to model ways for more automatic crowdsourcing of them. We shouldn’t be too afraid of this initial standards being trolled or seen as authoritarian, i.e. we offer a set of family values for what being a member of a family means for any user, based in an arbitrary interpretation of classical family values that everyone could edit this to fit its own views. Once this editing evolves, we will use this crowdsourcing for specifying further a better default set of options that we will be offering to future newcomers.

Full crowdsourcing is the target to achieve, but developing it from the ground is very costy. So we should be also humble with our resources for developing what we finally want, and agree to a initial scalable base, that let us start playing with the idea.

 

ONE USE CASE

We want to improve the culture of lending for people sharing better and more their things. We know that a priority is developing a higher layer (more love in it) and not developing at the lower layer that lending is, but we need lovely lending to be developed too, and that is one of the easiest layers (or loveliness) target to develop, compared to other more difficult ones.

For example, we consider lovely for the lending layer to have some standard conditions for sharing a thing. There is not any platform doing this, so we do it. We first did a minimal module and a theme for a centralised but popular free software platform such as wordpress.

ONE LEARNING EXPERIENCE

We offer people a virtual platform with features that facilitate the description of conditions for sharing real things, but we realized that ooing such an stand-alone effort didn’t produce what we wanted. that lovely sharing by itself not only won’t be enough, it will bring very poor results compared to our expectations. Nevertheless, these are not fresh news, this is the no-integral trend that most, if not all, projects fail into. It doesn’t matter how flashy or full is a platform that let anyone to choose conditions for sharing more securely something. People would still mind more that they are offering things they love in a special way (otherwise they won’t share it and will rather gift or exchange them) to other (unknown) people who they don’t trust “they will bring it back safe after borrowing them”.

At the sharing platform we realized a key thing to resolve the problem:

If you can give a good relationship analisys between a posible lender and a borrower, then it is the borrower who knows which are the default borrowing conditions, without the lender having to choose which conditions to add for lending its thing.

Read full article (in spanish),

THE NEXT AIM

Have a profile for free data storage where any user could gather any data from any other popular sources, stored in a free network storage (retroshare, secushare, zeronet, etc at his choice!) with free analysis facilities in it (personaldata.io, qiyfoundation.nl, digi.me, etc), where (s)he could enable/disable any of our recommended type of contents i.e an own game for managing minimal first own free content called Souls, that helps you choose a nick and describing the “about you” with three words. So, a free data profiler with Souls could recommend profound potential relations to each user, and all data given to the freest pool will serve us as a learning base for AIs (FloveBots) learning and teaching us about i.e. the importance of the fuzzyness of the language of love for i.e. lovely lending anything.

«A boomerang photo in instagram forwarded to facebook, which is reforwarded to Myflove 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 MyFlove»

See also: Challenge

 

…Under construction…

 

Version:

Cosateca compartiva

Red compartiva (V2)

Vida compartiva (V3)

SISTEMA

Intencionalidad

Conversar

Localizar

Tecnificar

Desarrollo

Nuclear

Modular

Nodal

Localización

Crear nodo local

Red de nodos

Confederalismo

Arquitectura

Centralizada

Descentralizada

Distribuida

Aplicación

HTML5 Appeado

Mini Apps

Apps entrelazadas

Datos

Propiedad

Propia

Colectiva

Remunerada

Representación

Multilingüe

Gamificada

Sinestésica

Mineria

Formularios

Subliminalidad

Multimedia

Multipublicación

Externa

Integrada

Infinita

Documentación

Visibilización de flujos

ChatBots

Robótica

Funcionalidades

Personal

Referencia

Actividad

Perfil

Perfiles

Descripción

Texto plano

Exportable

Biometrias

Reputación

Me gustas

Valoraciones

% compartiva

Local

Entidades

Usuarias

Agentes

Arbitraje

Confianzas

Comentario

Aval

Confis

Grupos

Descripción

Familias

Familias libres

Social

Federación:

Mediación

Integrativa

Asistencia

Comunidad:

Autócrata

Secciones

Rentas

Formalización:

Safe creative – DOI

Marca GPL

Institucional

Material

Extracción

Ecológico boleano

Medidores

Compensadores

Manufactura

Artesanía boleano

Proyectos

Crowdcrafting

Oferta

Oferta de cosas

Oferta/demanda de cosas/servicios

Co-oferta, Híbridos y Packs

Regalo

Clausulado

Dar al común

Común redirige rápido

Préstamo

Ofertante elije claúsulas

Claúsulas ideales para cosas y solicitantes

Accesos automatizados

Intercambio

Por otra cosa

Venta en horas, MS, faircoin y bitcoin

Intercambio dirigido incluyendo euros

 

Probably you will find more information in the compartiva.net project (in spanish)

«We may think we are in a mess, but our Natural ground is a Mesh»

«More rational beings tend to need less money for getting the things they need»