Truth is biased and dynamic andbut reduceable to a bipole. Favorites get more robust by lighting their shady sides.
Let’s square definitions, let’s get bipolar processes as minimal units and let’s digg in the more edged pairs the better
how to balance when…
All expands two sides
Exclusivizing (one side) while minimizing (the other)
We can get same or deeper browsing only two items than with a triad, rethoric andor pretending eliminating (excluding…) one of the sides – poles.
Extremes attract each other because the size that expands is bipolar, while a centroid pushes us back to the roots throgh an approach to that middle for what we call equilibirium. Dichotomies do increase, but for expanding their own merging value.
Merging sides serves for enjoying the depths we come from and expand. Let’s stay and go more to centroids, the bigger the better.
What makes BICTIOPEDIA special?
Wikipedia is very cool but not enough decentralized nor sharp. Ratings could be crowdsourced too.
Wiktionary sources are poorly evolvable and not used at Wikipedia. Antonyms could be rather used as contents raters, so less «discussions guidelines» bottleneck.
(FUZZY) Relate, Rate and Redefine some data, add some opposite side of it and create a new item to define with that merge, that you can easily convert it into a rater for other content
Every relation has a conjunction. A key conjunctions is. a Keypair, all antonyms are keypairs, that we should develop as binomials
Same for remind than for suggest
Existant inner structure allows recurrence, it starts at bipoles and the better it is continued as such, the worthier it gets.
We consider some issues to be broad because they are more easily related to many others. In broad issues it’s easier to accept an underlying 50-50 balance of a bipolarity presence there. When we merge Antonyms, we directly get into a deep and long space, when we merge them less, they conflict but for reminding us that we can rather always broaden those issues further.
Broader oppositions are easier to merge than conflicts
When there is conflict in the surface, there is a reminder for diving further into its fundamentals, for solving it more at its roots. When we get deeper into the Fundamentals of any issue, we may find dilemmas or dichotomies. We’ll then get deeper by merging them, precisely.
.An antonyms conjunction – keypair – (was «oxymoron») is a very clear total of possible rational length
AndOr Bring any Rate straight to infinite
Redefine opposites merged
We are all the time rating. Our ratings tend to be simple type-of-like clicks and our more open ratings tend to be more positive. In the other side, criticisms (open negative ratings) is what makes more robust our positive values.
We want to deepen in ratings definitions by incentivizing aggregating opposite ratings to the main positive ones. From there, specially if rethorics are given with the ratings, we could already remix both into a single rant, so makes sense to more formally extend both opposite concepts merged as a binomial item to be further defined itself.
You could define it freely with FUZZY labels and use default bundles of them that makes the deepening more sharp and customized.
Dare to redefine merged opposites with dances?
Who is BICTIOPEDIA for?
Digg in your own favourite dichotomies and contradictions and share that gold with near ones and or the whole world.
Let further creativity coming into your project by integrating critical ideas from members better in.
A more clear way to get into the little details from people’s more cared qualifications
Looking for a big exciting project where to give some of your art in?