Perspectives, rational flove

WHY

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

Every declaration is just a partial perspective of a reality, andso it’s hiding some polarities of itself. There is something else present underneath of what we say, so we are constantly feeling the need 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, 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…

We can openly declare our perspective andor research about what we have been missing after. We can relate-rate anything to-with something before, after further defining it andor not relating-rating at all and go straight to define it with rethorics. If we relate-rate it before, it will influence the following definition, hence it is worth to call those relates-rates as perspectives. Also, such relate-rate will have its hidden polarity.

One can perspectivize with whatever relates or raters. However, there will be some key categories that match better this purpose of perspectivizing-framing (rating-relating in advance). This page justifies and showcases some of this keypairs (labelled as «perspectives») that could be very easily seen as underlying whatever declaration.

INTENTIONS

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: Intention.

Aprioristic intention

The first polarity of our freest intentions would be an hypothetical determinism underlying them. Thereafter for extending these 2 intentional perspectives we have to go from the theological What into the teleological Whys, which is a very useful thing to do because we more easily can tie-pole the original intention for creation all the universe with our own closer and actual intentions. God(ess) initial intention could be plural as ours are nowadays. This hasn’t been falsified and brings the biggest compatibilism possible falsifiabilty.

INTENTION
Direct	A priori	Declared
Indirect	A posteriori	Analised

If we decide to openly declare our perspective – intention, we will be anyway hiding something else very complementary in the underlying energy of what we more superficially express.

If we rather don’t directly relate-relate apriori and go directly to define something, we will anyway be able to find such r(el)ates by analizing that information aposteriori. Any exaggerated indirectness becomes a bit more direct in a side than if the same information was rather told more directly.

WHAT

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
Moral	Teleologies	Micro	Macro
Bad	Fatal – Random	Void	Chaos
Good	Fine – Experiment	LOVE	ART

CONTINUOS RUPTURE
	Ideal	Abandoned	Experimental	Fatal
Theoretical ARQUITECTURE	Stable	Random	Complicated	Chaotic
	Varied	Lucky	Trivial	Residual
Practical ENGINEERING	Benevolent	Absurd	Exceptional	Terrible
	Dynamic	Boring	Opportunistic	Degradated

Click on the tabs below to see some rethorical examples

[TABS_R id=3394]

[TABS_R id=3400]

Prediction: 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.

Challenge: 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 to plurism (Perfection as lovelier than lovely…).

Accept telolomultiperspectivism more so that fatalism becomes less primarized. 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.

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 biases too. We can convert the part into an own subject. 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).

Dimorphism

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

Women evidence a lot of natural gifts of primarity (embriology…) and we men are very ready to secondarize that, while everyone sees him-herself and his-her gender as primary over the other. Deepening directly in dimorphism helps us seeing our own gifts and other parts (i.e. the 50% of our feminity energy as men and viceversa) and leverages the stress of having to rely in good or bad.

For example, specially for male expressing our pseudoprimarity-femenine energy: Abstract more the form, always primarize the amorphous, Use the perspective of a Cat, Blondie, …

Cat	Primarity	Lesbian	Blondy
Dog	Complementarity	Gay	DarkHair

See how primarity rank is maintained although its different referencing depends on the set’s totals:

1	Femenino	Common
2	Masculino	Femenino
3		Masculino

Dimorphist analogy with broad other pairs:

Primaries	Secundaries
Unknown	Known
Micro	Macro
Past	Future
Feminity	Masculinity

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

Primarity	Complementarity
Feminity	Masculinity
Primarity	Secondarity
Superior	Inferior
Better	Worse
Good	Bad
Woman	Man

See more in: marc.liberada.net/FineFatalFeMale dump

Timed Space

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

Present, Future & Past focus:

Examples:

TOO MUCH
Past	Depresses
Present	Squeezes
Future	Opresses

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

Pasts: Near and Far

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:

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

(In)Formality

INFORMAL	FORMAL
Fictional	Objectivity
Trivial	Importance
Randomized	Tecnification

Informality

Fiction

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

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 avoiding possible damages (that fictional tests minimize…) to novelties to be later implemented more for real or not.

Trivial and Random

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

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 the more trivial. Triviality has an underlying hidden precious link with something else we are more really valueing but we aren’t so confident yet to know it andor express it with a more formal way. Within the topological complexity of such link is maybe where there should be the most interesting information i.e. A more directly trivial intention could help us more in evidencing something important than through a formal intention.

Select (pseudo)random, in the better structure

As trivial has its background, 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 triviality and random will still be there magnifying sinchronicity & mommentual magic.

Example Case: WhiteSnow is as much or less meaningful than ColdSnow . Similarly, BlackSnow will be a limiting axyomoron, but HotSnow would be a more meaningful axyomoronic pair to define.

These words seem quite meaningless because they have little prescriptivity, so they don’t add depth or novelty. 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-through them. More formally said: Why anyone uses What sort of which Buzzy formal hypes andor informalities for hiding which more real intentions there?

Descriptive theory & prescriptive practice: The WISE Mod

INFORMATION INTENTION
DESCRIPTIVE	PRESCRIPTIVE
Evidence	Act
Axiom	Proposal
Prediction	Challenge

HOW

See more

Floves

Fuzzy

Dipedia