See free data page for the background standards for development
See love page for abstract crowd-semantics developments
See the apps page (and or the menu) for specific proposed apps descriptions
|Preface: This paper introduces the specifications of features for aplications for the flove.org project.
It describes some lovely whys, whats and hows to manage abstract (loves, theoretical, rational) for suggesting better relations with concrete (material, practical, economical) data specially.
The abstract data is proposed to be developed with flove.org logical-semantical-epistemological model for theorizing (flove as a metatheory), which starts by building up a semantic relation, custom networks of them, up to producing bundled packs of it (flove as theories, see flove.org/theory for one).
At flove.org/theory distribution pack, there should be complementary documents to this such as: mindmaps, diagrams, spreadsheets, presentational documents and audiovideos (some referenced here).
Do love, get love. Let’s use our abstract semantic matches to help each other developing our projects
We use words to concentrate energy ourselves. We turn them into (more valueable) concepts for achieving so, and then we follow this trend up and we call paradigms to the more important concepts for us. All these are different scales for energy concentration and dissipation limits.
All is at least (and at most) two, so flirty
Words, as any other substance, need to be seen in relation with at least another one. This relation of two is also necessarily related to another third for being able to start explaining the dynamism and scaling in their relationing with the rest. Since we have to rely in relations and not on singularities, we need semantics to make dynamic the imaginary but useful singularities achieved through (formal – static excluded middle orthodox) logic. Since relations are still imaginary but useful singularities, for relating relations we (pseudo) estabilize relations in pairs of words that we consider more known, for using them as a base where to compare the new less known words and relations we want to evolve. Doing analogies with other words or bipoles we already know more, is how we get most of meaning of any word or its closest relations we yet don’t know much about.
We can choose to analyze sets of many elements and relations of many elements, but we can also choose to get deeper in multiple relations of only 2 i.e. words. Perhaps there are finite combinations of 2 words, but the depth of some meanings and explanations of some two well combined words are the more practically possible infinites. So we should go further because there will always be way there. i.e. With multiple lists of well ordered conceptual pairs, merged as noun+adjective, with a complementary and opposite relation intentionality, we can get much deeper into the meanings of life than with triads, more crowded random lists-sets. Perhaps we already found out the Time prefers to be married with Space, but that doesn’t mean that Time or Space are just monogamous to each other, nor that they won’t divorce in the future and remarry others. They are both very promiscuous… (and Love is the most).
Como complementariedad a las diadas, las tríadas son la forma más sencilla, dentro de todas las complejas demas y aparte de las diadas, de hacer taxonomías. Ser estrictos haciendo listas solo con pares y triadas nos facilita depurar los limites de concentracion de energia mediante las palabras, y luego nos ayuda a con esos listados hacer mas claras y robustas analogías con cosas mas desconocidas.
Oxymoron is the relation of 1 ‘within itself’ and a 100%, conceptual contradictions merges are superb!
Nests of 2 and 3 are necessary and enough for anything because the more minimal ground assures the better stability for whatever scaling up from it (See: Diversidad critica). Don’t hesitate looking for the inner essential bipolarities in other more crowded sets to test this proposal for example. Another big evidence is that the more complex outcomes of life are our male-female dimorphic mechanism and tunning semantic bipolarities will facilitate the understanding of our (fe)maleness because they could be described with analogies i.e. (1st is femenine, 2 masculine) (1st is both, 2nd is femenine, 3rd is masculine). We haven’t digg much into this simplicity which could be enough and the more advanced complexity to evolve at the same time.
Everyone who is looking for deep meaning (or love and or truth) is looking for it and expressing it with meaningful lists of 2 and 3 concentrated concepts only. So why not start to do it better altogether from this departure point? By getting deep in 2s and 3s we sooner find the boundaries of meaning-seeking with written language, and so we can dedicate more time to explore the higher sensorialities we aim to trigger in a more developed form than with wordied language only or mostly.
It is evolutionarily mandatory to further customize networks for concentrating and dissipating energy, words do help us lots in achieving so. The words broadly representing our actual or historical paradigms or the concepts we use everyday to refer to what we care about are the abstract environtment where to improve our practical livings. Always or sometimes, the best practice is a theorical improvement as to improve how we recognize our values is a mandatory or important step to achieve practicalities for a better living sooner or later. Our values resume all our theories.
More than how much universal could any semantic network be, it matters most to find the values (customized semantic networkings) that people have in common. Such match suggests quality in both interacting based in some task any of them need for developing any of their projects.
1. Try to find the best couple (not synonim), and family, for any word for the most of time.
2. Choose a layer (or lovely keyword), see an inviting phrase (with its childs as complementary words) to perform an action within it, edit it, save and/or send it (to a friend, network, etc).
3. Display escalings and semantic networking matches (for practical offers&wants) and analog geometries i.e. Platonic solids, Pentagon-hexagon relationship (robert edward grant), etc.
|(1)23 Una explicacion adicional complementaria (capitulo de floveria 1.8, ver mas: flove.org/teoria)
Difusamente gradualamos tonos ocultos de equilibrios grisaceos bajo el vórtice arcoiris fractaloso
De la relación de la amorfa inconocible con el Todo de lo (des)conocido emana la conocible forma
3 reconocio a su 2 predecesor y juntos imaginaron al 1 de polo suyo
Two is the best one, every one is at least two so flirty, three is even better but also too much already
1s would be the more consistent unit, but since they don’t show the diversity and the uncertainity we experience, 1 is rather always uncertain. Also, because at the very ground level all 1s definetely need an active 0 along it, 1s doesn’t really exist, which sets 2s as a better meassurement unit. 2 is the simplest certain and the more complex as well within our no 1ness possibility. The nature where everything emerges from (as in holism) can’t be 1ist, so it has to be at least fuzzily bipolar. Simply said, Fuzzy bipolar logic is a more scientific methodology than the searching for single 1s. Although 2s can approach to reflect the common 1relation ground than 3 (where there are more than 2 relations), some 2s approach better to reflect it. That is why we keep separing andor adding 1s infrom 2s, for to recombine them and re-ensamble them later for checking if they are better outstanding bipolar reflections of the basic ground. In finned relations of 2s is from where can better explain and know, although we will tend to don’t accept it because we will like more units to come into play. 3 sets more difficult explains than 2, so they are less useful as a unit, but since 3s serves for seeing how 2s can and should get further scaled (i.e. a+b-c=0 ‘always’, See: Analogia enfatica), 3s are more consistent than 2s.
Complexity has to come simplified to be experienceable. Simplicity provides estability for scalability
Ahora vemos que se ha dado un largo camino (plantas, animales, humanos) para llegar aquí, pero el eje de simplificación de solo dos tipos de cuerpos no ha variado nada. 2Ish Dimorphic biology evolving the observing of symbols crafted as keywords with their semantic patterns are critical containers of simplicity while uncertain reflection of the complexity all has to be in. Hence the importance in how we deal with simplicities of semantic networks (limitations of complexity) and how we cute the numerologies (specific properties) of 1, 2 & 3 (and 0, 4, 5 and else up to 9) (See: Diversidad critica)
There’s Etymonline and Wikietceterapedia but there isn’t a collaborative dictionary of merged concepts
Excluded middle abuse beginning at semantics…
The abuse of the Excluded middle principle applied to semantics proposes the Synonim&Antonym for describing relations. But the problem (hence ‘abuse’) is that a synonim doesn’t add almost anything to a word. Space is not a synonim of Time, it is rather a very complementary one. Achademically speaking, it is named as similarity instead of Complementarity, but that’s still too close to the bug of synonim-as-something-meaningful. Later on, based on this poor background, formal logic uses the Contrariety concept as a not synonim but neither antonym (again, instead of Complementarity) to maintain and diversify the excludded middle abuse flaw (See: Flove.org/teoria for an alternative, Alessio Moretti hard debugging of it, etc). Outcomes are falacistic appeals to estatistical relations, fake news and or being too much parasited by nudge theory or some other mommentual fuzzy buzzy populism.
Bipolarity is demanding…
Miscaring crowdsourcing of (merged) values…
Dictionaries and vocabularies relate words with their antonyms, synonims and weakly (with not much meaningful networks) with other words. Bu they don’t let you merge two concepts, nor they propose polls for the people voting on more complementary word for another, nor they crowdsource the interpretations of complementary or antonymed relations, nor they try to develop an epistemology out og it for further definitions. We are arrogantly thinking on the finiteness of words when they stand alone. That it’s a shameful contradictory oxymoron to merge opposites and we (more shame on us) don’t believe in marrying couples of words.
We should rather develop an alternative to this, it’s a good and easy challenge to face. The poets and mother fuzzy community there is in you should welcome it. Irony: Such this project would turn nudge theory into a (more realistic) science. Sarcasm: All very digital and very easy to automatize words with basic semantics and we are crowdsourcing so poorly our abstract lovings… the source of connection…
Better the description, the easier for the prescription to have modelled interactions in apps easy to use
Miscaring other freedoms ofor data management… see more: Free data
La palabra amor es la mas capaz de enlazar mas rapidamente con ella a todas las demas
Flove es un monismo de entre muchos que pueden haber como por ejemplo es lo conocido como tensión universal, energía del vacio, dios(a), eter, fuente y etcetera parecidos. Tension universal es muy espiriual si lo comparamos con vacio, o al contrario. Pero ambos son terminos muy mecanicistas comparados con Amor. Los monismos o puntos de partida, por ser titulajes para lo mas inconocible, influyen en todo lo contienen por ser titulos empezadores, y son de la mas libre eleccion por tratar de enmarcar a lo inconocible (que al final es cualquier cosa conocida tambien).
No es lo mismo titular a un Todo como Flove que como Energia o MeDaIgual. Escoger flove (in)tensiona hacia la conexion de lo fuente con lo que nosotros llamamos Flujo de Amor en nuestras vidas. Para tomar este punto de partida (Flove=Bien) asumo que la (micro)raiz no puede ser ‘(primariamente o solo) mala’, simplemente porque si asi lo fuera no permitiria escalas de ella.
Al tomar que todo es arriba como es abajo, el monismo (esencia primaria microscopica desde donde emana toda forma) flove, el escala hasta la noción de amor, y sus parientes mas cercanos encantador o realmente bueno (o no demasiado malo en realidad) que mas o menos sentimos en la mayoria de nuestras acciones o tiempo.
Flove intenta fusionar estas dos tendencias en un solo concepto: Flove, el flujo amoroso. Las acciones que reconocemos como amorosas son el techo donde se experimenta la esencia primordial mas inconocible. Toda accion es un a posteriori venido de una intencion a priori.
Lo amoroso se mide por la a priori intencion, la cual se puede medir por valores explicitos en palabras
Las palabras que representan nuestros valores guian nuestras acciones, con ellas declaramos nuestra intencion de accion para que otras personas puedan valorar si quieren asociarse con nosotros o no y o para que. (Las redes semanticas de palabras que reprensenten) Nuestra intencion es pues, el macro mas retante y reconocible donde ver escalada la accion de la microscopica fuente (aka: monismo flove). Si la fuente es amor, al principio y al final de nuestra intencion tambien, por ello entremedio siempre algo de ello ha de haber tambien. En toda intencionalidad hay amor al principio y al final, nos falta ver(nos) mejor desde cada uno como su dinamismo es reflejo de una teleologia al mismo tiempo.
A quick how-to model wholist love
Love at uppest-abstract layers of life only need crowdsourcing of multibitripolar semantic networks
For making love more present at every different layer, we can think in design some key functionalities aimed to automate the generation of more love there. We can make a limited set of categories (floves) representing the whole, which to be very directly relative to the others, so actions in one layer can be modeled by promoting the other loves from other layers along in it, starting per the closest neigbourhs, minding the most posible the more abstract presence of the upper ones in it. So this way we fine the tunes of (wholist) love and don’t fail in saying:
Oh, I don’t care at all about lower barter love, I prefer to focus in getting love from upper layers only
See Navigation front ends chapter for a usability display and debate about featurings and limitations.
Tech for easy semantics for matching is best but it’s harder to be lovely with money3 than with gifting1
The more concrete (lower) layers of life (i.e. rationality, economy, barter), need more technological mechanics to be developed for the modeled lovely expressions to happen. In the other pole of things, the more abstract-broad-upper the layers of life are, the less technical implementations we need to automate love in it. More love at the upper layers of life (i.e. at a universal level) don’t need much modelling of our interactions with it through an apped screen, it only needs deeper and easy explains.
Semantic networks do not need much complicated technical development, although some specifications for how we deal with semantics are of key importance (See Love frontend). Usamos palabras para representar valor. Un valor expresado por una palabra puede parecer no amoroso, pero al final de toda su cadena semantica deber haber un apelo a una interpretacion suya propia de lo que es el amor, con la que algo coincidiras y a la que se le puede aplicar – desarrollar topologias para reducir los demasiados eslabones semanticos que pudiera haber entre lo contradictorio en la accion anti-amor con lo establecido como mas natural para el amor (intencional) (comun). Estos mapas semanticos los podemos digitalizar, y de las diferentes topologias aprendidas para llegar a la micro fuente amor desde cualquiera de sus estas ramas explicitadas se alimentara el aprendizaje maquinario que nos sugerira que las mejoremos mas todavia. Un paso hacia el aprendizaje simbiotico de analizadores de datos y humanada. Nuestras agiles interpretaciones aligeran el trabajo y aprendizaje de la maquina y de su mas agil procesamiento se beneficia nuestro aprendizaje mas limitado en capacidad.
Complejidad no son prosas tecnificadas, sino simplificados versos afilados: topologia poetica hi-tech
Reconocer nuestras topologias compartidas con otros en los caminos de la semantica comun del amor
Con todas las personas tenemos algo potente en comun, que si lo identificamos mejor (mediante el analisis de valores – intenciones) podemos disfrutar de muchos mejores momentos, afilando herramientas que promuevan una cultura de smartmatching. SmartMatch puede parecerte ridiculo porque es un neologismo para el mas viejo y abundante banco que nos da la mayor seguridad financiera, la de potenciales interacciones beneficiosas con otros similares.
See more: Flove army
2. BOOTSTRAP & FORK
If at some layer there is not any other platform that entangles lovelier, there flove.org should go
There are a lot of apps already doing very lovely things, but sometimes their owners don’t want to do some more lovely break-through featurings within them. So, we have to look at what there is already developed, and propose to add the more minimal additional feature to them (either in the existant app itself or in a paralel new fork – prototype).
3. PARTIAL ENTANGLED APPS
I first downloaded that Instashare lite for sharing things, now that is (i am!) fully entangled in Flove
Flove actions can be offered in a simpler or partial version of the whole flove model (or set of apps). Flove minimal apps should be offered stand-alone and as a module at the same time, or with custom bundles that are mixing parts of different models, where anyone could entangle them with the others. The partial apps could be distributed independently, but it also makes more perfect sense for every partial app also to be as a launcher of other partial apps.
A boomerang photo in instagram forwarded to facebook, which is reforwarded to a flove app there where it is better shown, stored and crawled
4. PLATFORM VERSIONING(S)
Develop any part, any time, for any pack.
|Versiones||Stuffary (V1)||Network (V2)||Life (V3)|
|Localization||Create local node||Local nodes network||Confederalism|
|Aplication||Apped HTML5||Mini Apps||Entangled Apps|
|Reputation||Likes||Ratings||% of flove|
|Formalization||Safe creative – DOI||GPL Brand||Institutional|
|OFFER||Offer of things||Offer/request of things/services||Co-offer, Hybrids & Packs|
|Gift||Claused||To commons||Quick Commons redirect|
|Lend||Oferor chooses clauses||Ideal clauses for things and requesters||Automated accesses|
|Exchange||For another thing||Sell in Hours, Social currency and cryptos|
See free data for the background standard for development
See floves page for wholist reducted view and concrete projected apps
See love page for abstract crowd-semantics developments