We can set a standard for what is a basic single item (here, a bipole of words) , but we have to standarize how that item could aggrupate with other items. In bictiopedia, this can be from very easy to settle to impossible due to an increasingly complex infinity. This page settles a practical limit for the bictiopedia standard (probably too narrow), while also tries to broadly showcase further aggrupations that could continue to be done through other projects.
Note: Very unstable page for now… Perhaps the standard could evolve to integrate a further complexity limit in the future (i don’t know enough math myself) without weakening its actual very strong roots (who knows…).
Bipoles need to relate to other bipoles, but not all relations have the same quality
The basic benefits of hierarchical relationing (scalability) is that content added at the parent could be directly applied to the child
This is how a nested relationing (simple linear hierarchy) of bipoles could look within geosimmetries (old), and could also be used for defining single words (really: external application, faked: Bicentroid with an ignored pole, complex: bicentroid ignoring secondary pole but display child nested primaries rebipoled them into new bipoles) .
A bipole could be scaled with-into a single word, but as an equilibred confluence of both which could be conmutative with the other two.
Confluence on the third: (looks the more normal but is the weirdest)
Confluence on the second: Vessica Piscis and Torus geometries explain them well
Confluence on the first: Easiest to see, for example: Title+Bipole (The sum is greater than the parts)
4s: Bipoled (needs to be) related to another bipole = 4
5s: Very similar to the case of «Triads to bipoles»
Words dance even more at platonic solids vertexes
As there are words that are key pairs of others, there are some sets of 5 that if you choose a certain (bi)centroid for, it makes the position for other nodes-corners very fluid-loopy. I.e. «Hear» as Senses centroid: Result is that you could place whichever of the other four in whatever corner and the whole will display simmetries easily (because of taste&touch and smell&see are «bi micromacros»), while still providing subjectivity & mommentual information.
Other sets of 5 could have an ideal default position for their items but be less moveable perhaps…(?):
An own wholist mini set of keywords is very useful. The bictiopedia project main author wholist mini set (i.e. Floves) is there to serve as a default set to get main keypairs to define and it is also a useful list for contrasting it with yours and have a further interesting debate about them altogether.
See also: This «old» diagram: