From Wowwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Authorship disclaimer

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 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

Why: Introduction

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

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:

  1. Observer
  2. Nature
  3. Universe


  1. Observer
  2. Universe
  3. Nature

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.

To our mindful perception is easier to see reality from down-to-top, 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.

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