Perspectivism: Gender, intentions and other masks

This page justifies the two sets of main categories for perspectives for defining anything within the bictiopedia standard.


Subject… bias… sense… show… express… intention…

We approach our expressions sources through deepening in our deeper subjective intentions that underlie them. Intentionalities have also bipolarities. Furthermore, at the highest level, even more surprisingly for some, Human intentions are more obviously directly paired to a teleological plurism too, where we can either see teleology reflected-hidden the lesser (abandoned experiment) or the most reflected (fine fatalism) when we display our intentions the most.

Our intentions bipoles as categories for perspectives, as orthogonalities and graded areas when defining any other Bipoles-Keypairs:

Teleogical synonimizes «hard-super determinism», Biases (unaccuratedly) «soft determinism». Realisms-Compatibilism taxonomy is related, but messier overall.

Teleological purpose refracts as more explicited intentions reflect it

La intencion divina ha de estar cerca de verse en cualquiera de tus intenciones. En nuestra intencionalidad moral es donde mas perfecta se ha de replicar la intencion divina (teleologia). Criba y purifica la tu intencion porque ante lo Todo, todo esta desnudo.

Your body is your subsconcious mind – Candance Perth < (sos)ten en mente que explica(s) el cuerpo

Handle all our inner intentions as coherent mirrors of such foundational source. Teleology is costy to accept andbut link it to our morals because this way it is a very good falsifiability test for teleology itself and by the way urges us seeing all more hyperconnected. Teleology&Intentionality as a keypair is worthier than trying to connecting all through objectivities that try eliminating (or don’t categorize any or enough) the bias parameter for that.

We express more fatalism as less intention&teleology keypair is cared


Biological dimorphism are the two more different dialects possible

We are males and females (or should it be females and males?). We should then, have this perspectivism also (and more rootly than others), for defining anything (bipoles in bictiopedia).

Gender perspectivism is already happening with the rise of the so called feminist and because it is not poled (also abuses the excluded middle orthodoxia) it fails into the default definitions for feminism to embrace a %50 tried to be sided by fatalist glue (antonym, antihesis, evil fatalism…).

Fatalist feminism should only be (a maximum of) a quarter of a whole part of the theory we need for more rigouroulsy being to able to consider we are doing so called gender perspectivism. We also need more about female fine tunning, and more estructured male fatalism & finne tunning, that we can further bipole them into 4(x2 intergender, etc) categories.

One other quarter of that: Male fine tunning seems to have been happening, due to men natural show off gifts, as much as less of The other quarter of it: Male fatalism has been going on.

One way to see it: Male finetunning has been historically overpromoted and fatalism has been bullied, and it is still bullied with the label of shameful misoginy. Many feminists theories (90% of theories imply acceptance of one-sided female fatalism) represent some of the worse intelectual malish show offs. And many men showing off of male fatalism is coward and rude as some of the worse femalish hide ons.

Paradox: Feminism fatalism increase is calling us into the attention of focusing more in Male fatalism. They are lessering male finetunning overpromotion, so we go to focus in the unattended male fatalism.

If we men define what a fatal life women are doing on us, it is factually misoginy. We could do that with neater ways we have show off to be very capable of.

We have to normalize the feel of misoginy among us, as it is normal to feel misandry (and their root from either genders = misantropy), Equalitarian feminism tries to hide misandry but it is misandric by design. We can do better than that, and our malish style is a bit different than that.

«Primer primarity (where all keeps scaling from) had to be Fine..»

Women have a lot of natural gifts of primarity and we men are very ready to secondarize that and can’t really damage that power despite the more factual force we could seem to have. They can and will bullshit us more than the way back, but also less than to themselves. Women bullshiting men is their scape goat from female interbullshitting.

This is somewhat needed to be explained and understood deeper. As a recommended shortcut, focus on broader responsability & opportunity of choosing less stressy bipoles as hide&show than good&bad for associating it with feminity&masculinity and or stronglier with females&males.

It is much needed to digg on, and i am doing it a lot. My own final bipoles research effort is not only explaining the broadest bipoles, but doing so from an increasing male fatalist perspective, for mercy(less:) showing (f)actual misandry that feminism fatalism is so wrongly pushing to hide. I say wrongly because that is just fast emos, that makes the person to become weak when being too regularly given. So if women get weaker, we could expect the rest to be weaker too. They, as us, might and will be getting their minds weaker, some males would like to patch that weak part of the mind, in a more real malish way they are asking for because they know we are gifted for that, for they learning from it for their own harder integender battling.

Read more about dimorphism (+100 pages, in spanish), messily and very related to evolutionary psychology mostly, in a chapter of the .pdf dump (floveria 1.9), here