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 and retrograde
- 3.4 Aesthetical refinements
- 3.5 Loosing consensus while increasing understanding: Extending layers
- 3.6 Deontology: Floves into layers
- 3.7 Rank axioms
- 3.8 Automating definitions: Flove language
- 3.9 Flove metrics
- 3.10 See also
Whatever keyword we use in our life serve us for expressing-recognizing something we feel-see. The meaning of any keyword is in its relation with the nearer related or more antagonist keywords to the keyword 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 it consensus around it scales, the meaning gets univbersalized 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).
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).
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 constants. But this primary dyad has in it a third component: the observer. So this primarity (nature and universe) besides necesarily having to be a dyad (and not only an absolute -unique- concept or keyword), are (necessarily have to be) also a triad:
Simultaneous and retrograde
In this list (universe, nature, observer) we are assuming an order, which we could call it to be from top to bottom, or natural order. But is it the universe (first element) primary or more important than the observer (third element)?. There could be or What would it be for nature or the universe without a more initial observer?. We may never know the reply to this answer, and our hierarchic-linear views-beliefs look correct while they are also very obviously unsufficiently reasonable... let's try to fix this adding a precious challenge to our natural view by ordering that primary in the inverse way:
The first way of ordering the three primary elements is the positive order as exposed by reason-centered heliocentric science and the second way it is the stand of biocentric geocentric spirituality. This second ordered list, as the one from above, also makes perfect sense to be corretc. 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: Where is common sense then?
The challenging reply is that both processes happen at the time. Simultaneity... A simultaneous retrograde process from top-to-down and from down-to-top is what forms every natural thing we see. It happens at every list of elements you will like to order in a natural way. To our perception is easier to do it from top-to-down, to our mind it is easier to understand it the way back. Both reason and mind work at the same time, with nature or reality being its product... It could look awkard, but it is the most consensual possible view for any and all.
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:
Deontology: Floves into layers
All layers have a descriptive aesthetic that we can complement with a more prescriptive aesthetic. 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
Let's try-test how consensual this sounds: Everything is...
The biological agency of the natural reality in the universal flow...
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 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
Life full set
The following table is a fully triadic life set:
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.
See more: ranks phrases
Automating definitions: Flove language
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
I.e. You can refer to any 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, for testing its rigour or compare them to other lists of 3 you know (i.e. tesling, etc)
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