Why flove

Because such this continuous worth

A simplex methodology

For crowdsourcing love(s) better

We all view a whole and have a more or less common sense of what is better and or worse for us and all, the more or less ordered.

All what is expressed magnifies (relies in) some underlying and simplifiable network of Values, Principles, Laws, Loves, … . Defining and ordering our main values (laws, loves) may imply a lot of effort of thinking and researching, which finally depends on concepts (meaningful words) and their endless referring to other concepts.

Love and their childs let us order ourselves and the whole much more flexibly than the more rushier bipolarity of Good&Bad.

This flove.org project aims to leverage our difficulties in doing so by simplifying your viewing of how all is hyperconnected, from your more favourite bits to the more unknown ones for you. Worry less about how the big or main picture is ordered. Discover yourself further to get more peace of mind and so be more able to have a more meaningful conversation with someone else andor contribute more efficiently to better society.

All is initially and finally subjective and uncertain

1, such a thing like a single node, does not really exists (is not even small-discrete or a possible departure candidate). 2 is the realer smallest, Pseudo1 is always at least 2 (& an Ï as a scaled pole of both), so flirty!

We are not going to be able to settle in stone (estatic, forever) the meaning of any word or a small list of favourite concepts, not even the value of the simple sum of 1+1=2 (in bolean algebra is =1, etc), nor we can rely that such 1 will take another form in the future for us. Also probably, the more complex a prediction will be, the more chances to fail it will have…

It can look that some things are and will be completely certain forever or will not depend on anyone bias, but we are rather going to get better results if we more humblily assume that:

The harder finning is to retain simplifiability, please…

Trust in, try to retain your faith to the fact that simplification is a constant that emerges along the complexization one we humans seem to be leading. This fact may look contradictory to the very complicated of us, but just remind that when you or whoever wants to bring your mind to a higher complexity, the more simplistic departure point, the further you could get to. This following picture is a straight axiomatic test for that:

All sets are reduceable to a bipole (and to a triad as a scale of that that displays its further dynamism), and you will describing your view of feminity &masculinity with those in the following way:


A further uncertain bias... also constantly simplifiable with Values, Laws, Loves, …  keypairs. Pairs because the smaller (discreter) departure you could get (back) (simplify) to (orthogonal equilibred bipoles), the more concentration of energy (clarity*, flove, etc) (to dissipate) because of the (underlying) entanglement that it, as anything else (holism), has to (more or less clearly) represent.

*Clarity (as pseudosynonim of knowledge) because more clearly proposes a degree while assuming a naturally blurry environtment


Link (= NodeS) > Node

Nodes displays a macro, where their links bring us to the micro. One link is an Alice’s dungeon, where nodes just decorate that pathing.

Links are necessarily amorphous. When a link is decorated with a node label, two more new amorphous links show up at both sides of it.

Links will be greater (more infinite in appearence) as simpler their set would be and more meaningful (key) their wordy nodes.

This reasoning lead us to a responsability we have for fining and getting deeper into keypairs. Let’s (un)know further ourselves through our keypairs. Let’s fine and expand them altogether. Sure your subjectivity will feel greater this way, and such effort should also help in better developing more common projects with more related others.

This departure point gives a clearer viewing of the whole, where more easily related fruitful acts will follow, just because theory&practice can’t be really isolated from each other. It is rather the other way round: A finer theorizing should produce finer practices too, because a bad practice has a bad theorizing as root of it. …




The formal dictionaries are too centralized while overall fuzzyness & cultural prescriptivism are too decentralized… 

See this videotutorial (28 mins) for a philosophical justification and hinted debates, here

See a complementary shorter one (10 mins) about Semantics&Hierarchies, here.



For a further longer (older, also messier) theoretical explanation, in this audiopresentation (1 hour) explaining this diagram:

For a more practical approach, see:

Love page for a demonstration of what are the main features to achieve to make flove more easily and deeply interactive.

Floves: a prototypal simplified list of concepts for describing a whole.


Main Flaws&Patches


Simpler fundamentals



Flove word help us, in a way, to whoever wants to feel it as so, as a closer word to refer to (and bipole) the Universal or unconditional love, monopole tension, primer monad, aetheral BiPantheism, God(dess) messiah, void singularity, the Unknown intention, or however else you want to call the whatever that pumps and gets all relations connected and evolvable from the common ground.

Also, in a very complementary (polarity) sense, more rationally grounded speaking, flove relates the notion of lovely or really good (or not too bad really, a moral aesthetic, scaled from – reflecting a teleology through our intentionality, the more approachable truth – a priorism) seeable in whatever simplified scopes of life.

So the choice of flove as begineer help us in defining further the better (< lovelier) bits that we enjoy in our existence (while also paying attention to their shades), because is at every titling where words matter more, just because titles (primers..) are a big reduction (concentration effort), that very obviously influence the child items they contain.