Do love, get love. Let’s use our abstract semantic matches to help each other developing our projects
Whether we look for big or at small thing we will find there uncertainity (can be also called art, infinity or even random) and our own subjectivity that neither can be avoided nor be freed from its environtment.
Words and numbers are tools-excuses to develop bonding with(in) the environtment we are, where specimen mates gives us deeper ones.
We use words to concentrate and dissipate energy about our subjective experience of uncertainity. We load words capabilities by turning them into concepts for achieving better do, and then we follow this trend up and we call paradigms to the more important words-concepts for us.
Words, as any other essence and or substance, need to be seen in relation with at least another one. If you pretend not using words or symbolism, the subjective ecperience would still be s pole of uncertainity. This relation of two is also necessarily related to another third (other pairing) for it being able to stablily 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 the gift of temporary-utilitarian reductioning (heteredox excluded middle use, not abuse).
Since relations are still imaginary but useful singularities, we use pairs of words (concepts-values-paradigms..) that we consider more known, for using them as a base where to compare the new less known pairs we want to deepen in. No new news here, this is just a reminder that 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.
It is evolutionarily mandatory to further customize networks for concentrating and dissipating energy, words do help us lots in achieving so. Words to convey meaning (value, truth, etc) with others in a more mechanical way than with purer symbolism, which requires more difficult consensus on the meanings and so has more limited clarity on expressions.
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 we start improving our practical livings.
Always or sometimes, the best practice to apply to improve anything is to improve a theory about it. How we recognize our values is a mandatory or important step to achieve such practicalities for a better living sooner or later. Our values resume our theorizings.
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 for applying such matching for satisfying both parties need for developing any of their more material projects based in the trust that such highly abstract match has provided them.
Consensuses (Truths..) are formally proposed with the so-called Discrete-Formal logic of the excluded middle principle. But when (ab)using the excluded middle (seen it orthodoxly) as a static dogma instead of as a dynamic refiner (heteorodoxically), their outcomes (proposed consensuses – truths) are falacistic appeals to biased estatistical relations, fake news being too much parasited by biased nudgy techy matching or some other mommentual fuzzy buzzy populism.
Fuzzy sounds buzzy, but it is the so-called formal-discrete logic what is a more oportunistic buzz. Fuzzy logic is rather the more reasonable (so rooty) approach to understand-explain reality within subjectivity and uncertainity, because formal logic rather eliminates both of these at their proposed way of meassuring.
Discrete logic don’t really exist. Continuos logic is where we can set the background (any genesis) of our reasoning. Such abstract continuum of logic (the basis that starts to pursue thruth) (femalish) gets poled (along or just a bit later) with the more concretized symbolisms provided by math. Math (malish) also shows up as a continuum, and when math&logic get bipoled the better, they both try to get the discreter (simplified) possible.
Discrete math is the clearer approach to complex simplificability that we can achieve with our logical pursue of truth. Pure math evidences that the better lesser reduction the deeper its continuum gets.
Logic can’t pretend to be smarter (or more succesful) reductionist than math. That is why most mathy people don’t like social scientist overnamings and ignorance of math. Buth mathers do also have the challenges of metamath modelling and Godel reminder to better structure the continuum axioming, where (well refined-cared semantical networks of) words do help much more in that, that only numbers (as companion physicists wordy ontolgying closely hints them).
Phenomenology, or more technically speaking: epistemology, forces mathy logic to be dynamic (to constantly adapt themselves to psychosocial changes and so further falsibiality tests modeling).
The development of the testability of falsiability thrives better in simplified basis (because overcomplexity difficults appliability).
Purer math is the most difficult and interesting area to do reduction with. Other disciplines like ontology, logic or epistemology just need to known each other relation to better describe their own scopes, because when each want to digg deep in some area of themselves, they will be looking for improving the relation with (or are of) the other field along, so researchers will find themselves practicing a lammer hijacking of another related field with some new buzzily opportunistic (so weak-confusing) terminology within their fields.
For avoiding this flaw, i patch it this way:
Ontology: Flove.org (project Map)
(Mini)Maths: Structure & its process
Logic: Pairing as mandatory condition for adding an epistemologic definition
Semantics: Definer metrics of pair relations
Epistemology: Fields to define pairs with
Phenomenology: Docs&Apps to do
The excluded middle abuse is basically as clear as poor is the (rooty) specification of the semantic raters-links.
The abuse of the Excluded middle principle applied to semantics proposes the Synonim&Antonym as main (and only) rating (at known Thesaurus) for describing relations. Thesauruses also have so called Related terms (that are not further rated), as top down analitical softwares have their rules for producing semantical networks by levels of words repetitions or closeness in appearing.
The bottom up thesaurus way is very poorly limited and the analiser software one is neither much reliable as both could be more if both systems where to have further quality in their bottom up structure (in both senses of further raters implementation to enrich words networks and more decentralizated network for letting more people add their enrichy peculiar bits more easily).
The actual thesaurus poverty problem reflects the excluded middle abuse in the semantics achademia. A synonim doesn’t add almost anything else meaningful to a word. Space is not a synonim of Time, it is rather a very complementary one. This type of relationing, achademically speaking, it is named as similarity instead of Complementarity, but that’s still too close to the conceptual-ontological semantical bug (for a system that tries to overcome this problem) of synonim-as-something-meaningful or not-very-antonym. 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. Alessio Moretti hard debuggs this butwhile he still attaches to the contrariety as a viable standard naming. I rather bet for avoiding such misguider term, for the mentioned reasons.
If you think laws are too centralized or biased, imagine dictionaries…
Consensus around words are based and finally appeal to an unstructured dictionary rant, maybe providing further source of the word with an etimologic explanation of its own historical uses (with more missing links or less).
A thesaurus entry could tell you further about the related words to the word, but won’t have those relations further categorized than with useless synonims and too easy antonyms.
Either dictionaries, etimologies and thesaurus are not being crowsourced as they could. Specially dictionaries have a strong centralization and moderation schema (because «laws» need to use them as a base for what they propose-constrain).
This poor way of structuring meaning-value through words makes their final definitions quite biased and so open to carry many flaws due to their high level of improvisation and centralization.
We don’t look at a dictionary to define the easy and big word that love is, basically because we suspect visiting such entry won’t give us much additional fun nor wisdom about love. Dictionaries seems to exist to mainly serve initial language learners, geeky linguists and lawyers. They are not much meant for language users to have fun and further enrich themselves with the lots of varied uses very common words have.
Looks like etimological traces and semantic networks are as settable on stone as dictionary definitions, which is neither correct for any of the three cases, specially for dictionaries.
It is somewhat sad that we still have to appeal to an unstructured (so quite biased) consensus based on a dictionary rant to define the easy and big word that love is, while some many songs about love define it much better than any dictionary.
Flove (flow+love) word itself has a limit on meaning concentration. But Love is even more apparently limited than flove, but it is not really more limited because love is more meaningful for most people. There will be more people embracing the word love for reflecting their actions than will use the word Flove for that, so more quantity of people potentially could add more details about what the symbol called Love represents.
The more meaningful a word is for the most, the more it can be interpreted in many different ways (Isn’t love a more ambiguous word than car or ethics?). But this fact, in the centralized dictionary actual context, will imply that the nicer the word, the less meaningful entry you will find in the dictionary for it.
We miscare(d) the crowdsourcing of (merged) values…
Dictionaries and vocabularies relate words with their antonyms, synonims and weakly (with not much meaningful networks) with other words (the ones used in the definitory phrase). But they don’t let you even give a like to it, nor let you merge two concepts, nor propose polls for the people voting on more complementary word for another, nor let interpretating antonymed relations in a less rival constant, nor they try to develop an epistemology for getting deeper in the definition of words and its own methodology for it.
Refusing to try to find a bipolar base for any complex ontology is like relying in analitics of unstructured data to explain you their-your semantic networks fully. Data Top-down analitics is very cared, but the structuring of data (Bottom-up analisis or facilitating from own manual analises up to more mechanically complex ones) and the offering of open analitical services is not that much.
A desperate (so risky but perhaps clerare) way of resuming our flaw is the following one: We are arrogantly thinking on the finiteness of words by trying to show them standing alone (in their own). We then act as a damn of their lengths and depths by believing that it’s a shameful contradictory oxymoron to merge opposites and or that it’s stupid to think about words couples marriages.
Better the description, the easier for the prescription to have modelled interactions in apps more easy to design and use
Regardless of whether we ever define Love enough or less, we can develop clearer mechanics for defining it altogether more comfortably.
Whatever super mechanical estructure we could develop for defining Love altogether, it would only incentivate our further structuring it further with our more homemade mechanics, either in the form of a next direct idea to add to the mechanical structurer itself and or in the form of an artistic picture where the semantic networks shown there (that came from the inspirational base grounded with previous mechanistic developments) will be very hard (if not impossible) for whatever mechanical technology that is not a) human and or b) very related human (highly custom bonded because increased complexity in art expressions makes the intended audience to be more exclusivised) to detect or meassure such more customized emission.
We can load pools of data and develop ultra smart top down analytics for that, but there will be areas, specially these so discrete ones proposed here, where the smartest written code could not improvise a better way forward than a child, nor write a more dedicated poem than an adult to another adult (s)he is bonded with. This gives us an indicator for design incentivation of childish improvisation and poems making in whatever (and regardless of more sophisticated or less) medium-technology.
Complexity has to come simplified to be experienceable. Simplicity provides estability for scalability
Simplifiability is in constant emergence (as also complexity equivalently is). 0-9 is less simple-discrete than 0-1 (Mod 2). 0-9 is a good limit to set for getting deeper in how 0-1 scales.
There can be microscopes, telescopes and quantum cryptography, but there is also still much to know by oneself at-from the dynamics of the more simple-discrete 1/7 operation, than probably no other technology could do better.
A conceptual structure that has been useful for the more people, the more accesible and explainative should be for any actuality. Andbut it doesn’t come to you for free, everytime is more loaded. The deeper you get in a bipolarity, the higher sensorialities such consensual mass around it will be triggering more challenging sensorialities in you. Such approached centroid-middle of any very common pair is a massive infinite energetic challenge for you to accept it to transform you with. This implies that there is a lot of truth and love to find in the so-called more popular words or numbers, than in new words or more complexed operations.
If the universe wasn’t also simplifying there wouldn’t be dimorphism. There is same or more to learn between women and men than in whatever more extended cosmopsychosociological theory, that needs exclusive apparatusses for explanations while in this other more discrete way to analise reality with, you only need your curiosity and a commit to get the simplifiability, while not too being oversimplistic either, in a dynamic system where tastes are getting more varied, so challenging the simplifibialities themselves to have to be extended-able as well, by introducing multiperspectivism for example.
There are already many complex ontologies loaded with very wordy terms… andbut we choose the most fundamental ones reducted to 2 or 3 very known terms. This important lists of terms can be self made, but normally are referring to some past or actual theory where they are a bit explained there (implying that best has been present already, just too unnoticed, so there is a lot to innovate by deepening in already knowns and recombining thrm better).
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. 2s can better approach to reflect the common 1relation ground than 3 (because with 3 times there are 3×2 possible relations, compared to the 1×2 when only 2 items), and some 2s approach better to reflect it than others. That is why we keep separing andor adding 1s infrom 2s, for testing recombinations and re-ensamble them later for checking if they are better outstanding bipolar reflections of a longer-deeper ground we try reflecting further.
In finned relations of 2s is from where can better explain and know. 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’), 3s are, in a way, more consistent than 2s.
All words matter andbut flove is looking for plasma.
As a link is to nodes, plasma is for matters, as meaning is for the same unknown infinity found in the middle of any two words.
Any word meaning depends on the others it is compared-networked with. We use words to find matches inbetween them that close relate to our experienced perception of whatever else (our subjective uncertainity continuums, as a more wholist constant).
Flove.org proposes certain fields to analyze bipolarities semantically and epistemologically, scalable and relatable through the more simple discrete (purer) mathematical rails.
Let’s get deep defining pairs and triads only
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 in meanings-explanations of two well combined words are the more practicable infinites.
In the middle of any pair of favourited words, the more words still fit and sensoriality is further and simpler experienced there. Why is so? Easy, because it is easier to agree (and so feel bothself connected to others agreers) at looking together at the infinity of the middle of two words than focus in having to agree to a more loaded and hidden common structure that is trying to chasing such uncertainity-infinity by god-playing with much more limited habilities to do so than the system source (design(er)).
We can’t avoid structuring (as humbling reflecting the structure we are based in), nor be looking for the middles in the words anyway, but we will do it more stressed (due to the higher possibility of deception) when there is lack of a declared structure to both parties look and agree to.
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.
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 entre ellas.
So we should go further in the simplifiability of complex pairings because there will always be way there to sense further. i.e. With multiple lists of somewhat-well ordered conceptual pairs, merged as noun+adjective, we can get much deeper into the meanings of life than with triads or more crowded random lists-sets.
Challenge is well opened to analize further the inner essential bipolarities in whatever other more crowded set. If you want to test this further:
Analogy whatever pair or triad (meaningful for you) with:
1st femenity, 2 masculinity
1st x, 2nd femenity, 3rd masculinity
We haven’t digg much into this simplicity which could be enough and the more advanced complexity to evolve at the same time.
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.
Getting more into the middles of big words will help the improvising or retaining of bigger chains of words, and will expose better natural biases and uncertainities, so it should cause better welfare overall (i should be a proof of that, this metatheory has improved me much).
Oxymoron is the relation of 1 ‘within itself’ and a 100%, conceptual contradictions merges are superb!
Las acciones que reconocemos como amorosas son el techo donde se plasma la esencia primordial mas inconocible.
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 empezador e inconocible, influyen en todo lo contienen.
No va a emerger la misma evolucion semantica en un conjunto titulado como Todo que en otro llamado Flove, Energia, Amor, Vacio o MeDaIgual.
Escoger flove nos (in)tensiona mas hacia la conexion con lo que nosotros llamamos Flujo de Amor en nuestras vidas.
Flove como esencia primaria microscopica desde donde emana nuestra noción de amor, como su polo macroscopico, acercable mediante parientes semanticos cercanos suyos como Encantador o Realmente bueno (o no demasiado malo en realidad), que mas o menos claramente sentimos en la mayoria de nuestras acciones o tiempo de vida.
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 un continuo donde Bien o escalas de ella hubiera.
Love is useful specially because it is semantically close to Intention
La longitud y o profundidad de lo amoroso se ha de buscar al aclarar la a priori intencion, la cual se puede aproximar por valores explicitados mediante palabras (y semanticas..) concretas.
Our use of the word Love incentivizes us much to be mean to ourselves and more trustful to others by more openly displaying more clear bits about the bests out of our intentions.
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 en ello. (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).
Intention is an edge to such apriori declared structure we can very closely experience, as teleology is object of far science and-or spirituality research.
Some times Green Love could be better than True Love
Green love is less meaningful than True love, so defaultly we should incentivate defining more the second. But this is not to be imposed because for a naughty physicist «green love» could trigger him a better mommentual experience of love definition that will enrich us all than if ot was done with True as companion. For sure such physicist would have a high match with someone else who recently favorited Green Truth.
Flovy data is worthier and the freer the more
Inputs to such this newly proposed collaborative BiConceptual encyclopedia are of a potential easily higher worth than other data because they are better expressing Love (or intention) through their proposed methodology.
So more importantly then, the user has to be the more comfortable possible for (s)he deciding to share such higher sensorial peak when adding such worthier data with the proposed technologies (that should also have high usability for increasing such more needed comfort).
It is doable and i can’t see a more coherent estate for analitics that to help us humans (and viceversa) in finding more ideal and practical matches through our deeper and more meaningful abstractive and sensorial capacities.
A deep detail you share with another about your definition of love opens lots of doors to each other, despite all other differences in other things you could have. There is always gain if we see more potential bonding connections, either we make them more really physical or nothing more.
If we want to get really technically sophisticated, the challenge will always be open for the crowdsourcing of evaluations for automatic rewards that incentivates little-but-big matches.
AndBut perhaps we don’t need to reach that much mechanistical top down analitics and we like them just more random, or they instead suggest us more sensorially convincingly pleasant comments to do in someone’s thread that will get you a house for a year through an informal and personal contract out-of-the-formal-system (as most of private contracting evidences so).
Formalities are to help for further informal capacities. An automated decentralized reward system could be seen as an ideal perspective for a formal system. AndBut is (and will) still be more endless also ideal challenge of keep better merging famous pairs. Have yet one more quick test of it: Convert the perspective of a (so called) dichotomy into a constant bipolarity with a 50-50 equilibred presence overall. …
Let’s have this Free BiDictionary online soon to have fun, ahead there is no much risk with this. Instead, find twin souls is an unrejectable uthopy for a living being and hopefully we are already in a way where sooner than later we’ll find machine learning improving how to reward us better with their matchy suggestions to add which contents to which part of this proposed Constant Bipolarities development model
Soon some apps for you not having to read this much. Enjoy 🙂
See also: Why a life view