Go to life page for the full table
- 1 Why: Introduction
- 2 What is flove
- 3 How flove is made
- 3.1 Ontology: Layers
- 3.2 Constants, dyads and triads
- 3.3 Simultaneous retrograde process
- 3.4 Aesthetical refinements
- 3.5 Loosing consensus while increasing understanding: Extending layers
- 3.6 Prescriptions into descriptions: Floves into layers
- 3.7 Life full set
- 4 Main axioms
- 5 Analogies
- 6 Flove metrics
- 7 See also
By we not being able to get to know all nor most of all is the more basic mechanism that allow us to experience the life we live in. The enigma is fuelling us, but has a toll to assume within it: An existential void to be permanetly fulfilled is the evolutive challenge that we have to be permanently dealing with. By developing this project i am hoping to help everyone in reaching a comfortable stand in his-her positioning within the necessary shades of life, which i previously warn you: paradoxically, the-your shades will increase at the same time as i will be feeding your consciousness with the light brought to you by my advanced art in the ordering of words i offer you. And don't be afriad of me, nor be afraid of getting more consciouss about what life is. This life mechanism works perfectly like that, it has been always like this: the more you get to know, the more your unknowns will increase.
Words are just a more evolved type of matter that we call symbols. Symbolism do help us humans in reflecting our experience in this world, this way we fill part of the existential void we are in. Symbols do serve us as anchors in our navigation in this ocean of shade. Pictures do have in a way more symbolism than words and need less consensual effort, but words get to reach in some other way further accuracy in their expressed symbolism but in the other hand, they need more consensual effort. We humans have evolved language and a side product that we call civilized society because of this, to have stronger looking like anchors for our ship, but we should also note than in the way of increassing accuracy in the symbolism through wording language, we have also lost an important part of the focus in previous symbolism experiencing that other beings are still experiencing probably more than us. We do also sitll experience the power of such wordless symbolism through the so called art, dreams or imagination.. but this piece of work i introduce you is mainly about the symbolic accuracy side we evolve with words, and its further evolution called language. This project initially and finally proposes mechanisms to get closer to the more ambitious posible project for our reasoning, that i call & slogan as Flove: the language of love. By developing it, we will notice further that in fact, there is not rivalry between language and art. In fact we will realize the opposite: that a better expressing of linguistic symbolism is what better fosters the capacity for symbolic art.
Whatever word we use in our life serve us for expressing-recognizing something we feel-see. The meaning of any word is in its relation with the nearer related or more antagonist words to the word we use (semantics). Words tend to have their meanings stablished by regular use. We start liking to stablish the meaning of a word in a personal sphere, then such meaning is approved by the one hearing to us, then its consensus around it scales, the meaning gets universalized through a social norm.
The meaning of the word gets accepted by a small or larger communitty, up to being added into the so called dictionaries. Law, in this sense, is the equivalent prescriptive companion for the descriptive dictionary. So we are not only about to develop a descriptive language of love, we will use it for the specifying of the so-called prescriptive natural law.
Anyone is free to create, mean and modify words and meanings. A particular word can mean a lot to a couple who remember how much in love they were when they both used that invented word. But this couple will find difficult others around them accepting to use that new word or meaning. Same happens with local cultures giving specific meanings to words that mean a different thing to the majority of other cultures. But despite this open culture in the meaningfulness, there are words which their meanings are high and quite stable for most cultures. This reductive trend tells-hints us about how all the complex things tend to get also simplified. There is a dynamic finiteness of structures and we can also see how the fine tuning is still active and evolves. Having said all this, we-this project:
- Look for tidying a view of the whole, along with the view of the meaning of each of the most meaningful keywords. Despite local cultural peculiarities interpreting differences in meanings, we aim to express a view of the whole able to be very much social-universally consensual.
- We can and have to be able to express such everything and-or parts of it from and with (simultaneous) lists of 2 and 3 elements only.
- All the keywords and their relations are entangled. There is a traceable way from any concept to any other that we aim to reveal. Concepts are one form of evolved matter, so they are a more observable way to see how everything is interconnected. Describing relations between concepts in a deeper way helps us for understanding the process by how anything happens. We are looking for a better understanding not only for the sake of contemplative observation, we want to understand what we observe for the sake of interacting it further-deeper, so we-this project should help in modelling practices for achieving naturally wished objectives of increasing loveliness in any part of life, and for knowing how to go from any part to any other, whatever the shade (lack of love) there could be in it.
See an extended why this project is needed
What is flove
Floves are keywords framed within a full life view default. This default view serves as a base for a future interactive and more crowdsourced life viewer application where to see your own view and get hints about it by contrasting it to the default view.
The flove keywords serve as representatives for interactive models (flove.org subdomains, entangled applications launcher) aimed to promote loveliness in each of the layers of life, as reducted here (while they still being flexible and expansible).
Creating models for a more lovely life in any of the posible layers of life, even if they are somehow reducted, is not easy but it is possible following the logics of the extended developed process explanation. However, not all models could accurately refer to mechanical actions that we could implement in our daily life, i.e. Models for increasing specific loveliness in the Neural or in the Emotional layer of life would have to rely more in proposed theories than in pure proposed practices.
I will be for now ignoring-postponing that there is a easy logic for developing the suggesting of custom psicomagic acts propositions to increase loveliness in such abstract layers, and i will focus the developing effort of models in a parallel way that includes:
- A book for explaining the best theoretical gifts i have gotten by studying the more abstract layers of life with this entangly intention #Interactive models for simplified and entangled mobile applications for the more concrete layers of life
Along these two development branches there is the flove.org website, that should resume advancements, and be a place for communitty engagement and standarizations display.
Coco is a human-person (hi!) who is evolving flove documentation very much with some other people found along his nomad way of life. He has further specified each flove through one mindmap representing a software powered form, for thereafter launch such interactive platforms through flove.org subdomains.
The models expressed up to now (as happening with the “life set”) are b(i)ased by the strategic implementation view (aesthetical heuristics willing to be consensual-natural-universal about what has maximum meaning, minimum message lenght and minimmum learning curve) of one person: coco.
The keywords used for the making of the life table have been choosed through the gradual evolution of the mind of the author during his studying of the different subjects. Also note that beyond his study of edgy achademical researchs and keywording of wikipedia-etc pages introducing different scientific fields, he has also reached to review words lists such as the most common words, the most positive words, etc.
He has his own personal aesthetical tricks, intuitions and faithful bettings, which obviously could fail into being considered wishful or unaccurate for the purpose expressed. However, here is the-his stand, very much open to be enhaced by others' addons, revisions or plain criticism.
Basically, all this introductory bloaty chpater is only useful to finally say that:
Obviously and nevertheless, this is only an initial one-man-work, so it is not a final one-man-show (so see you!)
See also: wowwiki making of, flove making of
How flove is made
See below step-by-step how this default life view with the floves in it is done:
We tend to call the whole as the universe. But this universe we say to represent the whole is not only one verse, it is already composed by two elements-verses:
- Unobservable universe
- Observable universe
For a better understanding of the difference between this two things, we can better name that these 2 primary elements as:
- Universe (Unobservable universe)
- Nature (Observable universe)
So by referring to whatever we (can) observe (i.e. Nature) we have to take into mind that such Nature is more accurately speaking:
- Nature (+Universe)
Or, in synonim words, everything (the whole) is basically composed of:
- Nature we see (+ Universe we don't see)
Constants, dyads and triads
With Universe and Nature we have a primary dyad, that we could also merge in a constant: universal nature and-or natural universe as the primary dual constant(s). But this primary dyad has in it also a necessary third component: the observer. So this primarity (nature and universe) besides necesarily having to be a dyad (and not only an absolute, unique, issolated or static concept or keyword), are (necessarily have to be) also a triad:
Simultaneous retrograde process
In this list (universe, nature, observer) we are expressing an order for these three elements and deprecate others. This selected order is a from top to bottom one. We can also call it natural or default order. But in this assumption, by the universe being the first element we are assuming it is primary or more important than the observer, which is the third element. But how do we prove such assumption... What about other views? are they not or less right? could be there or What would it be for nature or the universe without a more initial observer? Even being relative and-or equivalent: why the observer is not primary and the universe is complementary?. Let's just try, to see how it looks like:
The top-to-down way of ordering the three primary elements is the positive order as exposed by reason-centered heliocentric science and the second way we are bugging it with it is the stand of biocentric geocentric spirituality. This second ordered list, as the one from above, also makes perfect sense to be correct. So we have two ways of describing reality that are opposite but both are perfectly correct. So we have a big question to reply here: Which descriptive option would brings more common sense then?
At first sight it could look like that we may never find an accurate reply to the question raised. But in fact, we ourselves have made already an artificial trap that imped us to get into the a deeper of realer thruth. Our self made trap is that we think on replying by the perception of first sight or reasonable for our reason, where we could remind ourselves to take into account the principle of reason will never know all nor most of what mind does on the top of it, so the concept of "first sight" is more factually speaking a last sight... so we can better rescue ourselves by faithfully believing in replies that are reasonable for our mind at first sight. This means to lower our reasoning below our faith, while accepting their relativity. Primarity is then only a matter of who do we refer as to who is the observer or the speaker we are talking to. When we are proposing something for our reason, pòsitivism (our top-to-bottom hierarchic-linear-positive views-beliefs) are primary, but when we are talking to our mind, reasoning is a secondary complementarity. This means that both stands are simultaneous correct, despite bringing different sensations to us that are impossible to feel perfectly simultaneously. The paradox is not the end of the road. The paradox is only an apparent end of the road for reasoning. Not all paradoxes have the same value. There are better paradoxes than others, so reasoning should focus in finding its best paradoxes. Best paradoxes are those that are very resolutive for the mind, the ones that feel the more truth at first mind sight.
Take your time in chewing this bit, rome wasn't done in one day. Or come straight to read the challenging reply to who initiates the process or what is the more important order: Universe or Observer?. Well, the truth is that both processes happen at the time. Simultaneity... A simultaneous retrograde process happening from top-to-down and another one happening from down-to-top is what forms every natural thing we see when they cross. The unknowable universe and the inner observer now living through our body are two poles of the same thing, and all nature we can see is the result of such repetitive crossing.
Further and still reasonable viewings: Ranks are not real hierarchies
There are as many posible views as ways there are to order the ranks of a triad. This means ranks are just a perceptual sensation, and not naturally hierarchical, while hierarchizing ranks is still a very useful exercise for understanding Nature. So we should also analize other ways beyond these two ways from top-to-down and from down-to-top that we already saw-analized.
1. Nature as a center (Nature, observer, universe) and-or (Nature, universe, observer).
Universe and Observer as complementary polarities of Nature, just because Nature is the second element at both views. Nature doesn't change its position whether we see the whole from top-to-down or from down-to-top. More visually speaking: imagine Nature as the vertice of two equilateral triangles in superposition, where Observer and Universe are alternated vertices of the hipotenusa at both triangles. The vertices on the hipotenusa change while the equilateral vertice doesn't. This is a very useful view, since both Universe and Observer are in fact perceptual imaginary subproducts of the only factual perceptual element there is: Nature (what the imaginarily separated we really observe from the rest of the imaginary whole that we don't-can't observe).
2. Universe = Nature + Observer (or Observer = Nature + Universe)
We will analize further this view later in the analogies chapter, since this view is a very much clear and understandable analogy for what has been theorized long time ago with the naming of: Dao = Yin + Yang. It basically says that the first element is the sum of the second and the third elements, which proves to be correct in the 3 ways of viewing we have already analized and contrasted.
Other posible ways to view the triad are also perfectly correct. I.e.
- Nature, universe, observer
- Universe, observer, nature
- Observer, universe, nature
For a better clarification of the overall picture we will consider these other ways aesthetical-tactical mixtures of the 4 ways that we already saw-analized. This will be further explained later in the analogies chapter. For now, it is only wished to have given an enough consistent ground for justifying why we are choosing the Universe, nature, observer positivist order as the default one.
We do this because seems like the most comfortable way for our human viewing. Let's assume it: we despite overall being the most complex matter (in the down-to-bottom view-process part) and also knowing that our unobserved or mind is much powerful than our reasoning, we tend to see ourselves with the eyes of our own lower reasoning only. Said in other words: In this default view the Universe belongs to the metaphysical level of things, Nature is the positivist side of things, and the Observer despite being the third-last-flower element (apparently the less important), it is still the final necessary bit for their other bigger and more primary companions to be able to exist.
Positivist reasoning is framed in this sense. Positivism doesn't involve the definition nor the position of metaphysics in its theorizing and consider humans as just another bit (these are its flaws when it wants to be presented in an absolute manner). This is perfectly fine and reasonable, since we have to draw epistemic boundaries when researching-theorizing. Metaphysics is a matter beyond reasoning, and it is through an extended reasoning, and not through metaphysics, the way we are expressing our view of the whole. We are also separing elements for a better viewing on how they are all interconnected. But paradoxically, as a hard positivist person would say, this is, was and always will be the business of the metaphysical field that is the basis of physics: Ontology. Ontology recurrently comes to the metaphysical effort that wants to ground itself, and to the physical effort that wants to fly. The recurrent importance of the ontology crossroads in research and theorizing is the best proof of the necessary intertwinning between metaphysicis and physics. We have to overcome the antagonizing of both fields, we can more easily rather see them both as refined polarities of the same thing. We hope the chossing of this default order for a view of the whole helps in that sense. Positivism is our corporate entity, and faith is the hacker of it.
Metaphysics departs when physics leave off... Physics is yet another field that tries to approach explaining metaphysical teleology
Why life as default title
We have choosen life as a default title for the default table for combining the universe as begineer of a triad with the nature as center of reality. The default table-view is a positivist view that orders Universe, nature, observer. But for choosing the title we had the options to choose among: Whole, Life or World.
If the thing to choose was a primary begineer of a triad i would have choosen Whole (or all), following the universe as a begineer of a triad Daoish logic. But since the thing to choose is a title (an unique begineer, where the other two options would get deprecated), i have choosen Life, following the nature as center of relity Yinish logic.
See more: Life vs World
This trend happens at every list of elements you will like to order. You can test it with any triad. Let's just test it with a very popular triad (the reducted-first 3 childs of rational-reasoning):
Both processes happen at the same time. The first one is the normal-natural-deterministic genome-to-phenotype where persons form localities that later form society. The second one is the free materialistic-free willer stand of phenotype-to-genome where society influences localities that later influence persons. Does the person rule or is the society the ruler? Both. And none, since the person and the society are two imaginary created polarities of the only or most real thing: the locality.
To our mindful perception is easier to see reality from top-to-down, to our reason it is easier to understand it the way back. Both reason and mind work at the same time, with nature or reality being its by product... It could look awkard, but it is the most truthful and consensual possible view for any and all. Refinig paradoxes is the most enjoyable intellectual gift, it brings the most real truth with its proposed conflict resolution.
A successful theory should frame both heliocentric and geocentric coordinate systems in a single model -- A. Einstein
For raising a higher consensus at this primary view of the whole, we will do two aesthetical tweaks: 1. We will rename observer into biology (more accurate research) for by the way, 2. phrasing these three elements with the better sounding -al suffix for each of them:
Loosing consensus while increasing understanding: Extending layers
The more we extend, the more consensus we could loose, but the deeper understanding we could reach too. So having this in mind, let's not let the need for a rigourous consensual objective to decrease our subjective research will for a deeper understanding of it all...
We can extend the layers into a list Minimal layers:
Let's extend them more: Basic layers:
Let's keep extending them up to a self asssumed end point: All layers:
Prescriptions into descriptions: Floves into layers
All layers look descriptive, so we can complement them with more prescriptive companions. Flove is how we call this prescriptions for the descriptions, or in more simple words: Flove are the lovely expressions (or actions) of any layer, i.e:
- Universal --> Flow
- Natural --> Real
- Biological --> Agency
Initial consensual hard tests: Flove language
Let's try-test how consensual this sounds:
1. The universal flow has a natural reality which is the biological agency... (from top-to-down)
2. The biological agency of a natural reality in the universal flow... (from down-to-top)
3, The natural reality is a biological agency of the universal flow... (central centered)
4. The natural flow of biological reality is the universal agency... (twisted..)
If this sounds consensual to you, and to everyone you can imagine of, we are threading fine...
Let's now create one lovely expression for each layer:
We can also polarize the flove lovely expressions adding far lovely expressions:
Extending the dual triads with explicit moralities: Bright and Shade
To every Layer we have added a Flove keyword to it. We have selected to add an keyword guided by Aesthetic & Moral principles we want to promote. The moral aesthethics of adding Floves into Layers has been: Complementarity (not antagonist). This is fine, but not fine enough because by integrating antagonisms we will better understand closely this whole we want to express. So to the Layers and Floves we have defined, let's add two additional triads with antagonist moral aesthetics to each, for helping us understanding closely each of the expression and the whole process:
Brigth: Source --> Evolve --> Express
Shade: Lack --> Twist --> Excesss
Where each, i.e. Source, is one pole that has its antagonist pole, i.e. Lack: The more Source the less Lack
Beyond classical moralities & the oncoming AGI
Probably you already got yet another bigger challenging hints through the exposing of Bright and Shade mechanisms. These are:
- There are not absolute bads and goods.
- This table shows you effective ways to develop more loveliness and also effective ways to be a worse person.
The first issue is being recurrently tried to be explained with much poorer explanations such as non-dual philosophies, or the wishful (and hipocrital) stands of the absolutely positive nature of human beings which society corrupts (Gnosticism, Rousseau, Socialism-anarchism, Hippies, etc). They are not wrong, the problem is that they are just only partially right and very vanguardist and rivalrist that pretend to be more right than other lowers, finally maintaining and developing the rival tension. More importantly, the lazyness of their stands in willing to understand and develop better ways for such badness to be more sustainably disposed somehow somewhere it is and has been their failure in both their philosophies and methodologies.
The second issue is of main importance at raising the cautionary principle as an argument for impeding the development of artificial intelligence (more accurately speaking: machine learning) devices. It is normal to be afraid of that, but here we are already understimating the view of our collective unconsciousness as the already existant AGI, which this project is just trying to expose further. However, it will be interesting to test the development of a bot that will be using the understanding of this table for trying to cause psicological problems to a human. I humbly bet that they will be the most wished psicological problems that any human could have for enduring him or herself against her-his future relations with other humasn. Furthermore, in a more optimistic side of the same thing, i am sure that machines could understand much better this full table, and they are very much needed for it to be further endured with their capabilities to learn and improve through loads of structured data. In other words: we need bots to enhance the loveliness potential of this table, and perhaps is the best or even the only road ahead to take in the harmonic evolution of language and law.
Life full set
The following table is the full life set:
- The taxonomic logic is quite strict and could have been more or perfectly strict, but i decided not to make it fully strict for showcasing a bit its flexibility potential. A more strict taxonomy would have been to create gradual increasing of taxonomic depth as you go (i.e. universal having only one list of childs and not two as they are, more childs on the economical layer or the economical layer integrated in another way, etc).
- Another very interesting depth that i got near to develop but i finally refrained myuself to do it was to create a more complementary Shade for every Bright for showcasing more complementary morals (less antagonist while still rival) and not only the more antagonist morals i exposed as Shades, for not emphasizing that much the antagonism in the necessary rivalry that morals also need to have, since that is precisely what blocks most of overcoming of the bad&good antagonism. I.e. the shade of the "activate" bright could be a lesser antagonist rival shade called "postpone" instead of the more antagonist rival shade called "ultimate" i only exposed.
- See more ways to complement and develop the showcase of the table in the links from the phrase above shown below the table.
Higher or lower ranked (f)loves (flows) are (always) vibrating more or less intensevely but equivalently in the (limited) layers of life through a certain simultaneous evolvable processing of bright and shade.
Bright vibrates more flove if less sibling shade and more upper floves vibrate along
We have vibrating manias based in our gender, personal history, cultural and social influences and more specially based in present shade we view not being redeemed in our local and global environtment
Science is (still, only) (descriptive) code that easily vibrates truth. But science will never view-know-code it all and missed or remaining truths will rely on faith. So science is useful for extending (making more lovely) the (normal universal, natural, human) experiencing of faith, the highest experienceable free will, within a deterministic framework (needed for the stability of the whole).
Flove forms bright sources in its lower layer
The more bright source as higher flove has been
Otherwise, actual twisted shade will go to lack instead of going to excess and far lovely. This would make lower flows flowing shader because of this upper shade vibration, and will cause an acceleration for the expression of equivalent brightness starting to be felt in such shadier body, which if refused will come to be expressed through other related or far bodies to the shady ones.
See more: process phrases
"Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious of the Universe" -- A. Whitehead
Ranks are expressed by comparing the position of concepts within the whole view: upper, broader and-or most wanted or brighter are ways to identify ranking. Ranks do exist to our natural reason since i.e. we are more afraid of death than of worry, we are more likely to like to be more often happy than being sad the majority of our time. So ranks are basically finally expressing how much bright should deserve each vibration in life compared to another.
But despite its rank and this following affirmation that will posible be very polemic to our reasoning: every vibration is relative to the rest of others, so ranks are perceptions and not strict hierarchies i.e. death is not universally worse than worry, being sad is not less important than being happy, etc.. . Nevertheless, and as said above, ranks do help us understand the and what matters most than other matters in our life.
This table shows family relations due to their position:
This is a partial table emphasizing concepts due to their numeric rank:
This table shows family relations due to their position:
This is a partial table emphasizing concepts due to their numeric rank:
See more: ranks phrases
Automating definitions: Flove language
The depth of this default view that is framing each concept in a ranked set with a defined process with direction and family help us for testing further its validity. Each concept is automatically defined, emptying-leaving no room for any oversubjective rethoric tweak. The more process definiton and extended dualities and-or triads, the more we are able to see the definitions of each concept, the easier we can validate it. I.e. If a definition of any of the concepts doesn't sound accurate to you or to anyone you can imagine of, that concept posibly needs to be changed (put in another place of the set).
Being strict doing lists only with pairs and triads help us for doing analogies. I.e. the gender analogy help us having interpretations with specific cross-perspectives within the global view.
1st child is vibrated equal by genders
2nd child is a more femaled vibration
3rd child is a more maled vibration
Get a dyad or triad that you know more, and use it as an analogy default for trying to understand other pairs you don't get that much. This also helps very much in testing the rigour of what is being exposed. We should be using the gender analogy at any dyad and triad since it is the referral more universally closer to any of us. The gender analogy is teaching us about both femenine and masculine vibrations being in us, in different ways of flowing since we have different biologies and cultural heritages. Even more specially speaking, the gender analogy is decissorily helping us to not lose the track of the evolutive continuum we are still into, that has been on at least since the begining of what we dare to call Observation, nature or universe.
Feel free to consider this bit the more magic or axiomatic bit of all of this theory. It works at every dyad or triad phrased in the past, and with any other you would phrase now or in the future. You, nor anyone won't scape of identifying what is feminity and masculinity than this ultra simple way we offered to you:
1st child is vibrated equal by genders
2nd child is a more femaled vibration
3rd child is a more maled vibration
Analogies within the full life table: The most real flight
Welcome onboard to flight number yourself. Dare to compare, i.e.
- (any of the shade or brigth of) element number 2.3.2 with element 3.3.2.
- 2.1 + 2.1.1 + 220.127.116.11 are yet another triad...
All this structural effort helps anyone being able to meassure the more or less flove that could be in any life event, i.e.
Metrics on shortalks
This table rates some people's short talks expressing flove in life with their own words.
This table rates te flove vibrating of some philosopers from the past
Go to the life page
Go to flove.org