Fundamentals is a keyword for the premises that are considered higher ranked in a theory. Expressing fundamentals (or principles…) is a useful thing to do because they will permeate and show the possible depth while they can offer big falsifiability for the theory. Normally is Math what is used for expressing theoretical fundamentals. Although pure axioming with word sets and sentences is also possible, specially if your fundamentals are meant for a big scope, it is maybe prefered to create some pure(r) math along, as this page intends to do that with the little geometries below and or flove.org intends that with more related tools from minimaths.net.
Everyone could have different keywords at different times for what their consider «broadest-fundamental» and or «higher ranked «. The following lists below have had that into consideration and have been made trying to balance different aesthetics for those mommentums variance, which is the most difficult thing to achieve, so anyone can finally also very easily disagree with them. That won’t be a problem, it is rather a more transparent stand and focuses a posible debate about updating them more easily. Probably, your disagreement with (the whole of) them is intended, for easier incentivating your own fundamentals description task, maybe by forking these instead of starting some new ones from scratch?.
In the list below the aesthetic of the keywords combine both descriptivism and prescriptivism along in each of them. They are the more fundamental content needed to give further ground and expand the floves taxonomy. The floves taxonomy aesthetics rather polarizes more clearly descriptivism and prescriptivism. Also, by the way, anyone can see these fundamentals below like the definitions of an universal lovely expression, as expressed and highest ranked within that floves taxonomy.
Below you will find some different titlings for reductions of a same set of fundamentals-principles. The first keypair is expanded with other keywords at other more populated child sets. Keeping the keywords that title a set of 2 when you are describing a child set of 4 could be stricter for a better recognizing of scalability, but in this case it was prefered for keywords to have a slight change (adapted through their semantic network), for showing further flexibility because: «Neither Fundamentals mean Staticity»
3, 2, 2, 2
Hard test: For displaying further overall dynamism within estability, all sets are reduceable to a bipole, and then also to a triad where one of them three is the scale and or a polar couple of the remaining bipolarity. Careful: You will describing your view of feminity&masculinity, the best fundamental bipole to do analogies to other bipoles with:
Linearity doesn’t imply absolutism at hierarchical ranking. All triads can be ranked in all their possible conmutable ways. See below a confluence focused triad, where the starter and higher ranked is the linear two, while the first element becomes a primary pole of the third. Both bipoling themselves the singled 2.
See also the complementary linear retrogradity ranking (3, 2, 1 –> Masculing focused viewing: from future-end to present and else…).
Natural conmutativity implies relative hierarchies while linearity helps
4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, …
This pic above is a more direct extension of the 2, 2 first estructure-pic, with words slightly changed-adapted, which are further changed-adapted in the following 5, … estructure below.
Somethings better than nothings imply (un)knowing more to further fine the most with the less enough
1. INTENTIONAL: Ambituous resistance
Something bipolar is better than nothing and or some, a lot of and or a fullth of shit or joy only
Prediction: No any more experiencing also less disgusting than this benevolence perfectioner one
Proposal: Omnipotence is our perception of its distribution through the bifurcation of observation
Challenge: We reflect the more source refraction by how we resist eliminating possible experiencies
2. SHARED: Uniqueness Multiplicity
The more source of this something is the intention put on the designed limits of diversity
Prediction: A common unicity is magnified by different parts that imitate others for including them in
Proposal: Each part serves for and enjoys a partially different concentrated experience of the whole
Challenge: The more differences between unicities and links, the more multipliable and magnified each
3. VARIED: Estable Dynamism
An amazingly stable continuum also with the more possible but sustainable unstabilities in
Prediction: Every part is dynamic but no any cluster of them can’t add any unestability to whole
Proposal: More freedom perception when an equilibred personal and totals of unstability & stability
Challenge: Bigger unestabilities is a perceptional effect to be further experienced and shared
4. INCENTIVATED: Uncertain certainity
The less you move and or perceive, the more you could certainly hear (& viceversa) – by KaliLinux&Me
Prediction: Unknow is a constant process along knowing because always increases but never too much
Proposal: Certain subjective uncertainity can’t be excluded, more truth as more you include them in
Challenge: A node is one of the two dissipation limits for the possible concentration of you(r) link
5. USABLE: Simplifiable complexity
Experience and try to share with the most others the more parts more connectable with the less enough
Prediction: The more maximality an explanation tries, the better minimality its departure point has to be
Proposal: 2 is the best one. Every 1 is at least 2, so flirty! A third is a scale of both, too much also!
Challenge: Primarily apply continuos logic to the more discrete math for the closer to the better sources
See these fundamentals applied for the linguistics field only, with further and more specific rethoric, here. That page aims to serve as a justification (etiology) for the bictiopedia.org project (which is only about linguistics). So it doesn’t need to propose yet one more set of fundamentals with its implied consensual troubles, so it also provides an example for other possible thematic projects that would like to take these fundamentals as their own ones.