Perspectives, emotional flove


Subject… perspective… bias… intention… = 25% of perception, 25% of polarity and 50% of unknown

Reality is fuzzy because there is a need of uncertainity for this whole to be maintained (while evolving..) as a stable system, so every declaration is just a partial perspective of such reality. Plurism is mandatory and polarization is what more simply could explain the needed fuzzyness for not failing into the considering anything as absolutely real (andor truth…). A simple polarization is neither absolute, so it comes to scale as an orthogonality. In easier words: 1. For anything what we say there is another (hidden) pole of it (i.e. an antonym). 2. We can merge these two words (i.e. as a line) and interpret what we express as a more or less highlighted area of such line. 3. We can-should add another pair (a vertical perpendicular line to the horizontal one) to further relate that pair to it, hence the area could be expressed within an axis. We can get this additional pair (vertical line) from some list of fundamental keypairs. Such these keypairs will be fundamental because they could very easily used as a polar pair of whatever other expressed polar pair. This page justifies and showcases some of these fundamental keypairs (labelled as «perspectives» metacategories – metapoles – keypoles) that could be very easily seen as underlying whatever other expressed pair – poles. For a more initially pairing – poling any single word, finding its antonyms is the easiest way to go.

We use objects to explain our experience of reality. Reality has always a subjective part in it. One can see reality as a container of all objects that poles with our subjectivity andor Reality as conglomerate of all objects and our single subject, whatever you prefer… for now…

We can’t avoid subjectivity nor fully define it because uncertainity also applies to it, hence we better call it bias andor more accurately said: An aprioristic intention. Intention is aprioristic because it can later be analised and could be proven as being different to what has been declared. Since intentions are neither absolute, they should be further poled (as subject&object, apriori&aposteriori, etc), so we should rather split them in parts – find axial categories for them, where the first polarity of our freest intentions could very easily be an hypothetical determinism underlying them.

For the more broad and fundamental Intentional categories – poles we should get into the more initial ones (deterministic teleologies – the initial divine intention(s) behind the creating of our this reality) and pole them with the more ultimate intentions that we experience closer nowadays (our morals). It may look to complex to do so, but we can pole the hipothesis for the genesis intention with our actual intentions because this hasn’t been falsified and brings the biggest compatibilism possible falsifiabilty. (See more about this in a chapter below).

DirectA prioriDeclared
IndirectA posterioriAnalised

We can openly declare our perspective – intention before or after expressing anything. If we decide to openly declare our perspective – intention, we will not be able to show all of it andso we will be anyway hiding something else very complementary in the underlying energy of what we more superficially express. If we rather decide not to tell anything about our a prioristic perspective, we will anyway be able to find it within the declared information by analizing that information aposteriori: i.e. Any indirect suggestion that exagerates its indirectness becomes a bit more direct in a side than if the same information was rather told more directly.

So besides our more or less openly declared willing – bias, it will only be a primarity within a necessary plurism where from we could after analise the other more complementary polarities of it.

Mommentual polarization bias (the last confluence for all biases) & Confluential will

Consensus is a dispute between mommentual strawest (wo)men for clarifying ephemeral primary poles

We intend to broaden the link between ourselves and the outher world and we use objects for that, specially another similar beings, because they are the ones that let us more assuring and further testing our own beings being real and somewhat bigger.

One of the options for generating a subjective space magnification is directly apply coertion to another one for him-her to have to help you for that objective, which may work for the short term but implies difficulties for the mid and long terms because the other won’t like much being engage in such linking that doesn’t magnify him-her experience of that linking, and will rather look for praising other egolatries instead (starting by his-her own one). Oppositional coertion is lowered as a better mid-long linking strategy.

Opposition is also fictionalized with the mommentual polarizer bias (emotional trigger), which is a trick of both hiding that there is not match at all between both… for the external meaning of a word, while the match is happening more broadly in the inner emotion of the present common and longer distance being experienced. This qucikly makes the confluential will to come to patch it – rescue us from that apparent lack of linking, as greatly evidenced by pleasant sex, poetry, laughter and deep philosophying, among many other arts.

The so called opposition – contradiction is normally just the fast way to quickly display a big total possible length, also for a later finding of a confluential patch to it. With this way of fictionally acting as throwing a stone away for later going to go to pick it up, we both show either our great hability of experiencing something more far away and our capability for a later reliable filling of a gap andor attending of an emergency… .

As a more landed example: We as communicators and our receiver pair both want new egolatry for ourselves, and others empathy for that is what brings the bigger loads of it. We know that it’s not much worth for none of both to talk at the same time, as nor we can express 2 things at the same time. We don’t expect replies or follow ups as a cloned replication to what we have expressed to our pair. We also know there is something else present underneath of what we say, so we are constantly feeling near how to fill the minimized polarities that have been left apart in what has been just expressed by ourselves andor by other near ones. That’s why many times, for a word that is such apparently close in meaning to another, we say that it rather has, NOW, a very opposite meaning to the one that our pair just said or meant. Similarly, we will surely add emotionality to an input that we have considered too rational at some point… andor even our mate could complain to us that (s)he wasn’t meant to be as rational as you indirectly meant (s)he was… while perhaps we are not much emotional with those types of things normally… . Emotion & Rationality are just one more of the popular pairs used for playing the polarization game.


Perspectives as (a fuzzy bundle of) metacategories:

Advanced example: My neck added information about a relation of my skin with my heart categorized as touch, as rated from my pancreas, from my sex perspective (see more below and in the channels page)

Advanced Compatibilism: Fundamental Teleologies poled with Ultimate Morals

The teleological why before and doubling with morals the Whats of teologies and its not God(ess) pole

Simplified Ultimate
Complex Genesis
BadFatal – RandomVoidChaos
GoodFine – ExperimentLOVEART


Click on the tabs below to see some rethorical examples

Do not call malice (fatalism) to what you can justify as stupid (Hanlon Razor)
Aquarius (the 11th sign) would rather this be the penultimate universe than the last one
It’s very fatal that not even a certain God eliminates subjectivity and neither I can
…given our insignificance (Pale bue dot – Carl Sagan)
You always have with you 50% that weighs on you to see it beautiful

Uthopia nirvana any now that so much samsara integrates

A now to improve is better than one that does not need it: If the bad that came later did not seem worse to us than the bad that has already happened, the evil to be purged would already have ended, and that would compromise the incentive of the search for more good.

The end of fetality is the greatest fatality because it certifies that no future will be better
Luckily after an insignificant abandonement, mischievously from nowhere and before the ultimate death from a big crunch, andromeda galaxy collision, the sun extinction, any natural catastrophy, a sudden meteorite crush, alien invasion, technological singularity or a more possible silly selfishly produced extinction through a more destructive war than ever before, the selfish survival of excluded wrong precursor mutations through noncoding copying errors, destabilizes a runaway handicap costy sacrifice in an inert gamed automata zombified non-inteligent trash that, beyond selfreference to mental disorders in its pansychist bias, eliminatively very blindly observes its own issolated sadically cursed intervened problematic simulation of an existential suffering realist consciousness, where unprobable bossonian unentangled entropic gravitational chaos from multiversal dark void that collapses into radiation altered noise interferences mismatchs in a degradational disturbance where parity violation through simetry breaks randomize natural language machine artificial learning as natural selection of formal oppositional logic for ambiguous nihilist vitalist law chunks appliable to marketed parties force correlations standarizing top down policying of proxy punitive crimes, all meassurable to the degree of absolute certainity and ultimate truth with an exclusive vanguardist and expensive apparatus only, despite little bits of deprecable and ridiculously small biased uncertainity …
An example of how these categories could be applied - analogied to other fields, see this page.
The anthropic principle interpretations should be better renamed into a Teleological perspectives axis, where the Dunning-krugger effect being a possible linear and axial region deffault representation of it, this way landing better that psychological theory too, which is left to many possible overbiased connotations too.

Standard Physics is siding mostly by the weakest interpretation of the anthropic principle (This fine tunning because of lucky random...). A very popular byproduct of it it's the concept of entropy, while syntropy could be synonim but seen from another less random perspective. Entropy further scaled becomes “the (chaos) theory”, which directly conflicts with the most known physics aim: The theory of everything. The theory of every chaos (irony here…) can look for how are the more micro quantum or more macro cosmological interactions happening with the more complex technologies available (microscopes and telescopes) but that brings meassure (andor truth) requirements into higher formality needs, which slowly but surely goes deprecating uncertainity and subjectivity excused by the more complex meassuring WoWs resulting from those apparatusses. This way the meassuring - truth experience becomes a less accesible and more expensive practice to experience by any of us. Its deep contradiction here is that such higher formality doesn’t integrate the informality need (our human-deep observational-topological mereological gift...) in that methodology, although purer-informal math is still considered the more fundamental math and pointing to that need with its outstanding not falsified hypothesis that innovations in number theory is what the more fundamental physics try to achieve...

However, this overformality flaw directly points us to consider further important our informal habilities. Informality belongs very much to the realm of the observer him-herself, which will remain an interactive mechanism to have to not only unify to-with such meassuring theories, but pole it with them. All of this it’s also based and reminding us that there is not a known substance without an unknown essence... .

Doing otherwise (not consider us-our bias as a 50% pole of whatever meassure) brings the big missing link of the “hard problem of (the word) conciousness”. The conscious observer is an anthropo-view-nervous system ruppturist centrism buzzword where further flaws scale overlaped from that. Conciousness most of the times implies humanity emergence as a privileged specie that breaks above the laws of physics and from the tree of life with its Free will of a Human Mind, Civilised lineages, societies and Natural languages, flawly implying other lower species aren’t in us nor they are free, mental, lineal, social or natural... . This is just one more effect of the rupturist trend, as the word Life also is. I.e. A virus is not a Life, despite they maybe showed up along alive bacteria in the first place, so this way implying that bacterial conjugation is not a scale-predecessor of our sexual reproduction... despite an increasing ammount of evidences about that...

The more simple hipothesis should be the first one in trying to be falsified – Ockham & me

We haven’t yet tried to use the primes numberline as key rails for anatomical categories for what we call observation or subjectivity. In the primes numberline we find big coincidences with anatomical apparatusses very related to what we call the observation mechanism, each with centroids displaying different simmetries and scales between themselves and their parts, this hinting us to the conservation (of wholism) of-through the smallest numbers themselves (1centroid, 2polarity, 3triangles geometries...) (See more channels flove)
The more difficult and varied consensus the more sustainable possible, the greater perfection

We all have our opinions about the unknown. The existence of God(dess) or not and the supposed intention to generate this reality is the best question and most difficult to raise and approximate.

If i could proof perfection to you, i would be too worried later about not losing it – Kierkegaard. Perfection is a compliment to the most complex or unknowable. The original intention of creating this reality as the highest level of possible perfection (andor complexity). Such intention might be just one, but it will be more perfect if it looks as plural to us. This implies a stable, dynamic and ongrowing number of different possibilities of original plans, a fact that has to generate many disagreements, especially those that could doubt that perfection was plurism.

If finding some kind of evidence about the specific intention of the creation of the universe is what we most want to (un)know, it will be double hard for us to believe the possibility of showing various intentions perfectly and balancedly mixed.

If there is Teleology, is – has to be reflected through our intentions, All personal and scientific research only deals with and will reveal more to teleology

We all have an intention in what we guess, think andor define. We can consider our intentions as just another emotion, reduce them to good andor evil andor consider them as an ultimate part of a wholist continuous. Linking teleologies directly our moralities (intentions…) offers a lot of falsifiability. A view of such divine intention «so simple, open and linked to us» may seem the most disastrous, almost absurd or difficult to accept perception possible, but instead we must come to accept it as the greatest possible perfection.

Sift and purify your intention because in front of god(dess), everything is naked

Prediction: Determinism also appears to us as chaotic because it guarantees its own stability this way (through us not being able to manipulate its underlying order for us) and to maintain our incentive to want to (un)know it(s underlying order) more.

Each one of these four different possibilities of intentions in the design of this universe has to seem to us everytime more and more evident – real. This implies that the increase in rigor in evidences on anyone of the four will try but will never succeed in falsifying any of the others, it should rather increase the disclosure of similar (relatively equivalent) evidences of the other teleologies.

Proposal: We are all compatibilists, we just can’t explain it well enough because getting into that centroid is an increasingly hard rational task. There is no certainty as long as there is the will to observe what happens.

Definition with all the hipothetical universe types: A simulated holography of a fine tuning preferably seen as familiar, infinite and or in cyclic process while also viewable as finite, accidental, processual – experimental, ultimate, abandoned andor fatal.

The fine tunning hipothesis to be synonim with Ideal but better with Lovely, andso perfect referring more plurism (Perfection as lovelier than lovely…).

Accept telolomultiperspectivism more so that fatalism becomes less primarized: Get some ambition so you lose interest every three days, Confidence in yourself because the world will always question you and Intelligence so that you can fuck yourself pretty well too

Challenge: Increase the confluence of freedom to (un)know greater goods and or lesser evils. You will see determinism more and more difficult to touch it, you can maybe only let yourself be touched more.

Fine perspectivation should be promoted more than the others, but more important is the flowing all the sides oneself because total energy should be splitted amongst these perspectives equally and also delivered the more locally and momentually possible. The superdeterministic fine – lovely tuning hypothesis should offer a reason why there was a plan for those who try to deny it to appear, as where is its root in any of the many acts that we value as evil… such as: There is never a complete error in anyone, they just have not been able to find the why, what is its functioning andor how it is being a part of a long chain of events andor related errors that are about to compensate for something greater lovely somewhen near soon.

Anatomical Observational Channels

We think of ourselves as a being with a whole body that ends where our skin and expressses as a representative block of all its parts. It is right to feel so, but each part of us also has a specific role, with its own bias. We can convert the part into an own subject and giving it the possibility of adding some category of subjectivity for it that we (as a whole block) use for describe anything. In the same way, we can put ourselves (andor any anatomical part of ourselves) as if we were in our own past of our own actual body andor in the body perspective of other beings (closer or more distant).


Primarity and secondarity are the ways to get into differentiation (andor polarization… within a perfect underlying equilibrium that let such dynamism to happen). Women evidence a lot of natural gifts of primarity and we men are very ready to complement-secondarize that (specially evidenced within embriological duties… embriology-heredity being what initiates biological dimorphism…).

Deepening directly in dimorpshism pushes us to focus on a broader responsability & opportunity of choosing less stressy bipoles than good&bad, while challenges both of us to both see our other parts (i.e. the 50% of our feminity energy to men and viceversa) while also celebrating our primary gifts (i.e. secondarity gifts – primarities to men…). It is an addon to openly declare you being woman or man (as it is also an addon to hide that…) either it being truth or you using it for projecting yourself there which, beyond fun, it is very useful for training oneself in the more fundamental aspects of life.

Prediction: Despite first, very primer and intense that something is, it’s only a 50% of a something

Proposal: Primarity because this game: Tell 2 words (when first is said, the game suddenly ends…)

Challenge: Abstract more the form, for primarizing the amorphous always

Women are primarity channelers as cats also are, while men channel secondarity, as dogs also do. Cats (and blondes) being primarity channelers doesn’t mean male cats (or dark haired women) are less (primary) than them. Nor female dogs or blondy men are less secondaries and valueable than their counterparts.

See how primarity rank is maintained although its different referencing depending the total of the set:


Dimorphist analogy with the (probably) broadest other pairs:


…but this other analogy chain is what generates a misandric negation of the dimorphic equilibrium:


See more in: (100 pages book)

Timed Space

Poled with psychology:

INNER Stress
PAST NeurosisSkizoFUTURE Psicosis

Paranoia OUTER

…plus Sociology and Anthropology:

Present as the confluent centroid of an equilibred emergence of rooty femalish pasts and abducer malish futures

For a more fundamental (and challenging..) micro-inner & macro-outer space equivalence, see channels


Present, Future & Past focus:



Short, mid, long terms:


Short TermLong Term

Past experiences: Near and Far ones

Bring yourself backwards in time and add information from that place is a very popular technique in for analizing past issues that could be causing present troubles. One can go into own past experiences that (s)he has very direct memories of it, or trying going more far to where direct memory is not that obvious although it will still be somewhat present, as it is the case for child traumas, family constelations andor embryologic philogentic recapitulation. Ypu can also consider these «Far past projectivities» as «Fictions», seemore about them in a chapter below.

Animal traits as hidden -projective offers, colours ones as wants…

How does eagle (hidden – projectivity) smells (projectivity x2) grass (projectivity x3)?

Example of a formal past / informal fictional projectivity analisis

Mas abuelo que mi planta. Bostezo ohyoplanta. Fumo por que planta! -Mira: plumas, -Uy, que planta!

Descriptive (theory) & prescriptive (practice)

These are good for differentiating defining labels – fields, this way we could recommend complementing and Evidence (more descriptive) with an Act (more prescriptive) andor with a (more formal descriptive) Axiom, etc…



…where the ShowHiding popularity is more popular probably




Every novelty had to be a fiction in someone’s mind consensus battle before turning it available to othersI

In a similar sense to the compatibilistic belief, we can either say that our fictions are masks for our realities andor reality is a better masking for our fictions. Either way, by fiction we normally mean «Something that (WE DECLARE) it’s not real (now)».

The fictional grounds we co-live with and develop (words as an extended part of that) allow us to have a more relaxed space for pre-testing possible damages (that fictional tests minimize…) and so filtering novelties to be later implemented more for real or not.

Idea for an easy miniapp


We trivialize for another formality that we hide not being so heavy

We trivialize because we are too stressed of having to give too much importance to things. This is specially evidenced at when postpone issues and dedicate effort to other issues that are apparently less important instead. But this postponing andor triviality focus is rather and inherently telling us that we are being too formal overall and we rather need to give more informality to some very formal thing in us. Banality – Triviality is necessary while too much of it is also dumbing us more than necessary… .

Any expressed thing which is apparently trivial is serving us as much as we more directly intend it being trivial, because intenti

Triviality has an underlying hidden precious link with something else we are more really valueing but we aren’t so confident yet to express it with a more formal way. Within the topological complexity of such link is where there should be the most interesting information maybe. The more directly trivial we will openly be could help us in evidencing such link, while when we are more indirect it could be more difficult to guess… .


Select (pseudo)random, in the better structure

Every random has an underlaying order. In fact, a certain degree of random selection is a basic strategy evidenced at game theory. We can build the most analytical and predictive system, but random will still be there magnifying sinchronicity & mommentum magic.


By technifying, objectifying, or giving a lot of structure andor importance to something, whether through numbers or words, we believe that our own bias decreases because we have given to what we express a greater viewable formality (more or absolutely independent of us). But the-our bias neither goes away this way. The hidden bias of the overformal expression is very obvious in the subject believing that (s)he has a very strong link with the named object. But (s)he just magnifies it very much and makes himself very micro compared to it, normally for opposing – trying to rivalry win something over someone else…

Example Case: WhiteSnow is as much or less meaningful than ColdSnow. Touch-cold as intense(ly sensorial) or more than viewing-white… .

Similarly, BlackSnow will be a limiting axyomoron, but HotSnow would be a more meaningful axyomoronic pair to define. These words relations could look quite original, but they are apparently quite meaningless because the words used have little prescriptivity, so they don’t add novelty – are redundant, as all synonims are. BUT… these examples will bring higher meaning when identifying what is the more real thing that who proposes them is more really trying representing underneath of them (what are their traces there of what they are hiding within). More formally said: Why anyone uses What sort of which Buzzy formal hypes andor informalities for hiding which more real intentions there?


Tune your «perspectives» labels:

A quite complete load:

Get into hidden polarities:

See more