Let’s apply the 2poles=1item P2P way to the more meaningful words
THESSAURUS: [Semantics sources]
Word with 1+2 (not degreed, oversimplistic) categories of relations with some other words
(Some open data ones but there’s not a dynamic P2P platform)
ETYMOLOGIES: [Thessaurus historical reviews]
DICTIONARIES: [Thessaurus extensions] (only geeky categories)
Word with Centralized Rethoric
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: [Dictionaries extensions] (+open categories)
Word(s) with Centralized Rethoric
BICTIOPEDIA.org: [P2P Thessaurus categories & Etymologies, Dictionaries and Encyclopedias complementary extension]
2 Words with Decentralized Rethorics
Scope: Philosophy & Computation applied to (descriptive) Linguistics
This BIpoles diCTIOnary & encycloPEDIA project is for anyone willing to develop better networks for their favourite words (small worlds), but for now it is just a guided explanation for possible adopters, funders, contributors and or endorsers of it, such as:
- Enterprises: For launching it as a complimentary part of their services.
Examples: Wikimedia Foundation, OpenSemanticData, Open thessarus projects (Roget, WordNet, etc) (for easily and very worthily extending them), Organizations related to Open Standards and or Transdisciplinar scholarships, Formal-Educational-Recreational linguistics initiatives, further formalization of YinYang-Mereology-Etc
- Communities: To further showcase and develop their own product
Examples: Projects that want to apply-import bictiopedia standards for improving their values display they buggily already do through dichotomies-dualisms, Software projects interested in featuring them, Biometric use cases (for rating bictiopedia addings), etc.
3: Adventured Experts & Passionated volunteers: To form a new community for bictiopedia thrive by itself. Help me improving this presentation and or implementing any bit of it!
Examples: (Polishing) Philosophers, (Implementing) Coders, (Maintaining) Admins, (Developing) Artists, (Helper) Fans, etc…
Word Bias Word
Node Link Node
Words, like nodes, don’t mean (explain) anything by themselves. We mean something with words by how we relate (link) any word to other words. There are some words, and specially relations of words with others (meanings) that seem very open to interpretation, others seem to be more easily consensuated, but not any meaning is completely static or absolute, they are all dynamic. Words, as everything else, need uncertainity for them (keep) being dynamic. Also, since everything experienced (sensed) is quite certainly unique, there is a subjectivity part in all the uncertainities of any expression (form of language). An I is a candle in the (outer uncertain) shade, and or viceversa, very much depending on who you are talking – balancing this with and when.
Instead of looking for stronger staticisms for what we call truths, bictiopedia invites you to the more simplifiable and deliberately dynamic estructures for the more constrained words and or relations of them, for bringing more subjectivities to a deeper (un)certainity level and so feeling more linky – broader wholism.
For worrying less about the form of a potential consensual definition of a word, we should first enjoy and develop the formalities for decentralizing the expressions of meanings of words. All expressed is going to be uncertain and subjective. Bictiopedia offers a model based in bipoles as items to define.
Read more about what fundamental whys applied to language, here.
You & The Media, vanguard of analytics, really care about semantics
How we relate words is very personal and can depend on the mommentum too. We love a certain increasing ammount of daily poetical (simplified) reading. We may need dictionaries, but they mostly only serve as legalese language sources, so the majority of us don’t really care about them. There are open and wiki thessaurus for checking the sources of dictionaries (the relations of words), you can even play more flexibly with them if you download some of that data and upload it to some other softwares you have to have downloaded in your computer, but these tools are not open games for peers easily freely further relating, categorizing and defining the words in a diversely federated network… yet?.
Most of us we like wikipedia but don’t care about its estructural flaws (poor sourcier thessaurus…) while this words relationing game is anyway being played very messily by each of us quite alone, more joyfully by who dares to dive into poetry and very professionally by Analitical Informatics, the ones who we lazily bet for that will solve our relational problems…
AIs are not new at all. Now there is a trend that tells that since AIs are so advanced with the nowadays technologies, you can rely more on their analysis for «finding meaning». That’s right, as the same was equally doable in the past with some related Oracle technology of the time. However, you may think that AIs & us were less smart in the past, but that wouldn’t either imply that because of nowadays TopDown AIs are very advanced compared to past: You (maybe) should bother less in defining «what is meaningful».
We are constantly listening to a (more popular) Media telling us about some outstanding social consensus about the meaning of some keywords, as we always have been influenced by other Oracles in past times. Just the medium appearance has changed. What we see in faceboogle is very optimized by AIs, but these nowadays AIs oracles (data architects & engineers) are also asking for equivalent «meaning construction-revealing» input from us, as shown by their usability taste aimed to cause in us an increasing (ab)use of digital data tools to further give them more BottomUp input of what we consider meaningful. Sure that AIs can categorize and define some things better than any of us in some way, but it is also sure that we are better than any of them for another types of categorizations and definitions. Also surely, we are pushing each other for each getting into newer horizons.
Read more about Top down & bottom up
Any centroid is as infinite or more
as or than any more populated triad or multiverse
We can see how much complementary arguments are within many debates while both discussers try to show otherwise «also». Specially when they simplify their ideas. There is a famous related meme saying: extremes touch each other. We may rather want to bring more peace to the world by we all taking the road to the centroids where words may help us lots in achieving so, andbut we haven’t develop enough tools for deeper dealing with bipoles.
Read more about Pure(r) ideas rule
The excluded middle orthodoxia happens because we still and basically think that language serves only for showing (and not, never or not mainly or for hiding along), but oral language hides some body language, written forms further symbolizes while also hides other micro poles of it.
We tend to think that by acting emphasizing very much an OR, more we will eliminate the OtheR pole. Polarization and or exclusivism come to us as a fast and unavoidable emotion to handle. We should then rather try to do the lesser overemphasizing of antagonisms that come up (polarization to a corner), and we could instead assume that more humblily as part of a temporary (even maniac) minimizing process of some less fine things than others (polarization to a zentroid).
An OR doesn’t really exist for bipoles of words, it neither exists for different linguistic channels. The «other» pole(s) can just be minimized. You can pretend for your uncertain subjectivity to be the excluded middle of two absolutes nodes, and or even more strongly try with the same force to further exclude one of those two nodes for one of them being more really absolute. But, lol, that is just an explicit way for your fine tunning of some polarized macro of a more minimized micro.
We do this minimizing (refracting) of (some pole of) ourselves for giving a bigger attention (reflection) to some of the (more) outer node(s). That is just the same trickery that a self-believed singularity monopole does to the rest of all, that you would finally implicitly and explicitly pole it with, as i just have done too, even if you didn’t believe that when you have just read me too quick saying it (See more about the teleology&intention bipole).
Your uncertain subjectivity won’t stop growing along with the explicitness of whatever two nodes because of any minimizing of one of them you try to be hiding as unnoticed. So why not more easily assume we beautifully do show offs while we are also always better hiding other things to each other? Some secrets could be too bad but there are many subtle winks that we like them as sexy.
Formalization of bipoles would make the best thessaurus and the more thrilling encyclopedias
There are some people and related attemps that tried to formally define bipolarities and their mechanics already. We have developed a lot of standards and technology for gaining wisdom with words, but we have nothing really close to an operative bipoles dictionary and encyclopedia which to have more extended rooty joy&wisdom with. Read a deeper historical review.
Bi ctio pedia…
Thessaurus are the source codes of estructural meanings (semantics) for the rethorics of Dictionaries. Dictionaries are the sources for legalese, themselves the source for justifying brute force through words.
Thessaurus are offering dictionaries (&legalese..) negative antonyms and positive synonims and bundles of related terms which are not bicategorized nor decentralized further than that. Dictionaries then interpret the «antonyms of a word» with the excluded middle orthodoxia as their base for meaningfulness and «the less but enough related terms» for making more artistical rethorics. Encyclopedias just extend dictionaries in a broader, more flexible and informal categorical & rethorical way.
We have a quite open and luvly wikipedia. There are other wikimedia projects and other nice linguistic related tools but we haven’t patched the semantical rooty bug from thessaurus not further degreeing their oversimplistic categories. The bug comes yet again: we haven’t developed yet tools and places enough focused in defining words bipoles very formally.
Wikipedia has deepened a lot in being a global open platform and in developing more flexible categorization, but we need bictiopedia because the more that wikipedia wants to get into deeper meanings, the more it minds to repair their (poor) semantical rooty flaw, but tries to do it through too outer patching. It looks like that wikipedia is trying to patch such an structural roof problem from the outside of the building only (through more complex and burocratical rethorical editing guidelines) without applying patches from the inside part of the roof (the bipolar standards for semantics and more decentralized estructures for definitions and categorization that bictiopedia proposes as root, and thessauruses keep ignoring).
Wiktionary and open thessauruses categories are not easily extendable. Wiktionary nor wikipedia neither are enough decentralized platforms that would enable multiple definitions for the same titled items. Neither way Conceptual Structures, Formal Concept Analysis, Linked Data comms, Open Semantic Data (SMW), etc haven’t developed a software scratch for a peer to peer game (close to what bictiopedia proposes) initially dumping the Roget, WordNet, etc (open thessaurus) available data.
Read more about related projects flaws and integrative patches
Merged dichotomies & antithesis are foxyholons for bictiopedia
Achademias of all fields of knowledge are also and further tragicomically engaged in the same bug of the excluded middle orthodoxia we can see in all linguistic (and or epistemologic) platforms. Scholars, as dictionaries do, get to the loosing point of overrating dichotomies when willing to get deeper at their fields. They are creatively developing their best StrawMan and false dilemma fallacies for trying to enlarge Dichotomies-Dualisms-Antithesis with more nerdish words aimed to make their studies more difficult to be accesed by others, instead of developing a better relationality with other neighbouring fields of knowledge. they more pop up as a need in theirs as more they digg in.
Some of them are more smart than that and phrase bipolarities as interested (not false) dilemmas (Coke or Pepsi, nudge theory, etc). But there is better way than that: bipolarity rather gets brighter as more fundamental you want to go in any field.
Through this achademized rivalry trend we don’t only elitize research accesibility, we are uglying ontologies very much and also get further lazy for developing interactive practical models for any field of knowledge. It looks like we prefer to incentivate the being praised by an elitized group within a field than to provide more directly our knowledged services to the street.
Read more about scientific fatalism (trend)
Let’s offer some easy and strict rules for defining bipoles (made with two words each), and let’s build some simple prototypal platforms for networking them. Let’s define bipoles there the more privately anyone may want, while also caring of having a global pool that aggregates all of such data that anyone wants to more publickly share.
From such standards for defining bipoles and data pool(s) gathering them, whoever could easily make a simple or more complex third party platform with custom displays and moderation of such data related to bipoles. See some resources and tasks roadmap for standards and softwares.
Fine your keypairs and get to define them deeper with the bictiopedia.org tools, they should give you a clearer viewing of your-the whole, where more easily related fruitful acts will follow, just because theory&practice can’t be really isolated from each other. It is rather the other way round: A finer theorizing should produce finer practices too, because a bad practice for sure has a bad theorizing in-as its root. You can yet see and verify it again: simplifications through equilibring the more meaningful bipoles is a win-win. So let’s (un)know ourselves further through finning merged keypairs!
Read more (for a deeper explanation of WHAT features to achieve and usabilities HOW)
Read a more personal message from the author, here