The more little the structure, the more energy it concentrates
Bipolarities is what basically & finally anyone needs to define anything
Fuzzy logic units are centroids. Bipolarities are the lesser and also the deeper centroids (see more here). One can express a term by itself and could think a big energy with it because could imagine that has really reduced a something, but that is just a self made trick of magnifying him-herself by (s)he being a hidden pole of that something. So it is rather more healthy for the same person to express the same term framing (reducing) it within a bipole, for more openly getting to the broadest.
We can choose to analyze sets of many elements and relations of many elements, but we can also choose to get deeper in multiple relations of only 2 i.e. words. Perhaps there are quite finite combinations of 2 words, but the depth of some meanings and explanations of some well combined words are not only practically infinite as any other combination, but the more thrilling possible way to take for learning. Anyone could keep saying words or other projects could focus in developing further consistency for rethorical bits, but bictiopedia focuses in getting more consistent in further little structures for whatever and more incentivated rethorics could come on the top of them.
Everything is capable of reflecting the whole, there are impossible (very improbable…) things that are worth to deprecate and we don’t give to everything the same ammount of attentional wow. The closest to imposible is the relation of 1 ‘within itself’ and an attentional 100%. Conceptual contradictions merges are superb and not all of them qualify as the same. Black Snow should sound more meaningless for most than Hotter coldness or Psicological sociology. Perhaps we already found out the Time prefers to be married with Space, but it doesn’t mean that Time or Space are just monogamous to each other, nor that they won’t divorce in the future and remarry others.
We each have to propose and share our words marriages of this kind. We should welcome the more peculiar ones from anyone because as more friendly bipolar sets like these you make further explicit, they further help you suggesting richer and sharper analogies with whatever other more unknown field for you. Also, some very peculiar bits could serve as inspiration for others.
Don’t hesitate looking for the inner essential bipolarities in other more crowded sets to test this proposal for example. We haven’t digg much into this simplicity which could be enough and the more advanced complexity to evolve at the same time. Nests of 2 and 3 are necessary and enough for anything because the more minimal ground assures the better stability for whatever scaling up from it.
With multiple lists of well ordered conceptual pairs, merged as noun+adjective, in a complementary and opposite relation fashion, we can get much deeper into the meanings of life than with triads, more crowded random lists-sets or with rethoric individualities.
You could be getting much better through combining only two of your very favourite words, than by trying to fit more (sophisticated) words in your more rethorical titlings or explanations. Sure your subjectivity will feel greater through the very slight mode of seeing bipoles as a AdjectiveNoun (merged) constant. Such this effort should also help you in better developing more common projects with more related others, because it is worthier a common match with less words overall than a match with the same words but in a more loaded total. Fewer and more meaningful words are more accurately describing the fundamentals of anyone, that will apply to all other meanings of words you personally use, while they also tend to be words that are more shared between more people. There is, really, little to loose by following this rabbit. Just try a bit
For example, the more complex outcomes of life are our male-female dimorphism, which is probably 50-50, as Fisher proposed. A meaningful combination (axiotopology) of noun+adjective is at the root of the lyrical-poetic purpose-effort, the communicational vanguard of alphanumeric relationing. Everyone who is looking for deep meaning (or love and or truth) is looking for it and expressing it with meaningful lists of 2 and 3 concentrated concepts only. So why not start to do it better altogether from this departure point? By getting deep in 2s and 3s we sooner find the boundaries of meaning-seeking with written language, and so we can dedicate more time to explore the higher sensorialities we aim to trigger in a more developed form than with wordied language only or mostly.
If we ignore this focus, we will anyway keep failing in dumb (poor) appeals to opaquely biased estatistical relations, fake news and or being too much parasited by some mommentual buzzy populism, aimed to endure a pole of a dichotomy which we will be using as a weapon for being more violent with and liers to our closer peers.
There are better minimal universal semantic structures and words taxonomies ahead waiting for us to reveal, we’ll see!
Not having implemented yet a project like Bictiopedia wouldn’t imply that it will be a joyful wisdom achievement if we develop a more rigorous bipoling of words that feeds dictionaries and encyclopedias from now on. Whoever could say an argument in the other way round: We never develop such a standard or platform because we didn’t need it (bictiopedia isn’t and it was never a joyful or useful project to develop). Also, as a similar counter argument, one could also say that we neither did a standard, dictionary or strict website for triads! nor experimented deepening in other more simplistic ideas than bipoles than a platform offering just a small line as a common departure point of expression for all! 🙂
But regardless of bictiopedia being or not a very cool project to develop overall, the important point slightly raised in the above paragraph is that there could be a lot of missed joy and wisdom for many and or for all, that we could rather enjoy if we were to implement automatisms for simplistic ideas that we are already very closely dealing with andbut we practice them too informally yet. Novelty is not only coming through developing already working technologies or complexities from very standarized knowledge schemas, great joyful wise novelty may also be at further simplifications that we constantly informally develop within our daily livings but we don’t attend them formally enough, as pure(r) math already demonstrates (& always has demonstrated…).
For sure a simple line is a very cool projective test for anyone expressing his-her world view. Also for sure everyone has already his-her small world (view..) represented by a favourite set of triads. However, these are not the simplistic ideas that bictiopedia wants to implement. It’s not my intention to overload you now with a broader thread andor other more simple&cool ideas besides the bictiopedia one. My apologies, we need to exclude, i mean: we need to fine some tune, i want to influence you to help me in developing a specific simplex tool for the linguistics realm based in bipoles. Despite bipoles have their further source in lines, and they have to show an scalability because they aren’t absolutely static items either due to uncertainity, I am ready to dump lines and triads from the scope of bictiopedia, in favour of practicity and urgency. :).
I, we have to bet where to put our heat in further formalizing some simplification that could potentially work a lot more than what it already does informally, so this is the one that this website welcomes you to embrace further:
Retain and expand the simplicity of «1item=2poles» applied to the (more meaningful) words the more we could (without duplicating what dictionaries and encyclopedias already do).