Language is either useful for further showing a form of an intention, and for hiding an(other) underlying intention through such form at the same time. More complex language channels magnify us (and-through the object we appeal to), but other ancestor channels of those get refracted for us being able to do so, so we also get to more complexly hide some of the message sources while expressing magnified forms with more complex linguistic channels
INTRODUCTION: WHY WE USE LANGUAGE FOR HIDING TOO
A digitalized word let us magnify and hide our intentions with a lower risk than with a more direct facial wink to someone in the street…
We always get on the edges of natural constraints to test what happens there, as kids very much like to do, in a microscopic way (let’s say). We this way enjoy the novelties gifted by the critical dynamism of nature, and so get clues about its overall stability. We know that certain tests imply more risks than others for being able to keep doing further experimental tests, so we need to do that testing of the natural system stability in the more safe possible ways, as our culture and duty of care about the cautionary principle for experiments tells us more about this, in a more macroscopic way (let’s say).
Fictional grounds are even more useful for the testing of risks before communicating something to someone else. Symbols and or metaphors are further practicalities for better fictional grounds.
We experiment the magnifying of our fundamental purposes-intentions-sensings-subjectivities very safely with words, specially with digital tools for written languages nowadays. Digitalized words have easily recognizable constrains for that, and they magnify some body language root while hide another root part of it too. This thread deserves to be followed up within an involutive evolution one, but here below will be only about linguistics.
Symbols let us refract ourselves for simulating that we are reflecting bigger things than us
When i say an A, i am making bigger than my body&mind the energy container that such A represents. That A biggnes could be either a factual reality or a fictional one created by me. Ignore it.
We use words as an advanced form of symbolism to concentrate energy ourselves. A word representing a broader symbolism will tell about a bigger concentration of energy. So we turn words into concepts for achieving so and we follow this trend up and we call paradigms to the more important concepts for us. Word-Concept-Paradigm are different scales for energy concentration and dissipation limits, but a bigger container doesn’t need to be a more complex word itself, because a word has to be able to be understood by others too and there are momments and personal happenings that would make a more commonly known word more valueable to be used as a more meaningful energy container.
For a word to be a better candidate as paradigm for many, maybe a more simple one will be more useful than a complex one. But perhaps we want to hide that generalization of the energy container we propose, and rather prefer to hide it with a more complex word coming out from a more peculiar and narrow field. Hence we either produce words for achademical experts in some fields and or new jargon dedicated to our closest relatives, both aims for trying to be more original hiding the broadness of the more simplified words we could also explain that with.
We could be creating lots of new expertise words and jargon to further hide the more common ideal sets that we should also show.
All is at least two, so flirty!
Words, as any other substance, need to be seen in relation with at least another one. This relation of two is also necessarily related to another third for the bipole being able to explain its dynamism and scaling. Since we have to rely in relations in a continuos where there aren’t static singularities, we need semantics. Since relations are neither singularities, we need analogies. This is nothing new, it is just a reminder about how we learn. Doing analogies with other words or bipoles we already know more, is how we get most of meaning of any word or its closest relations we yet don’t know much about. Read more fundamentals about uncertainity, here.
SHOWHIDING > EXCLUDED (MIDDLE)
We aren’t eliminating anything that we are giving more attention to.
We should give to Abrakedabra meme (I will create as i will speak), a yet more deep significance by meaning with it: «I will create as i will consider (even if i don’t explicitly say it)».
Abrakedabra meme refers to an explicitness as an awareness of a new implicitness, which was somewhat realized to be more easily achieved with the further formalization of oral language at that time when that meme more originally comes from. A more formal oral language served to give form to a part of our factual sensings andbut also served for hiding some other sensings that before were expressed with further facial or body language. Any linguistic technification give forms as equally further hides some rootier sensing displays. A more formal form of language hides better its lesser formed one: Ex: Written language also helps hiding a part of tonal, facial, body language..
There are things that you don’t say loudly to anyone that are more explicit for you (you feel them more) than other things that you keep more loudly repeating to others without feeling them much.
Advanced forms of language (like lawyers or overcomplex achademical language) mostly serve for such someone thinking (s)he is more smartly hiding something because doesn’t explicitly inform about it. Yet a more clear example: by insisting in the possibility of being excluding the expressions of more grounded linguistic channels like tonal or body language when we use more formal symbolisms such as digitalized alphanumeric data, we are just trying to keep lying to ourselves for being able to lie better to the others, probably to take adavantatges from them for our own purposes, that will still traceable in our body language despite hiding it much more.
Uncertainity can’t be excluded and You will keep trying to include it back for feeling You being a more certain pole
If we get any word or event and try to get to its unicied source for sure we will find a symbol being a title like Universe, Multiverse or Singularity or one more antropomorphic looking such as God(dess), Life or else similar. An alternative search for such absolute source will find something related to Void or Uncertainity. Either case, both singlified (departure) words are not on their own, they act as a complementary reflection of the Uncertain subjectivity of yourself.
A degree of biased referring is and it makes the expression more consistent if it is expressed than if it is hidden. In the other side, a too much subjectivity centered expression hasn’t much outreach, since every other subject the message is communicated to, wants to grow his-her subjectivity as well when (s)he reasons about something that another subject told him-her. The way to better integrate and make the subjectivity bias load to thrive is not by denying or hidding it, but poling it as a 50% of the total while expressing something meaningful for others growing theirs as well, by copying your methodology of dealing with it.
Bipolarity > Exclussion attempt to get to an impossible oneness
We are everytime more tempted to buggily think that something will be really absent by declaring it absent, as if we were gods or magicians, while precisely by focusing in such presence (as absence in this case) we are making it more really present. This formally happens when we declare a truth as an absence of one pole of it.
Saying B is the opposite of A doesn’t mean that B is not included at all in A. B will rather be specially very much included in A, as more strongly B will be used to describe A. The imagination of exclussin of B are just fast emotions, surely related to the fight or flight area of the brain, that uses to take the simplest solution avaliable with the lesser doubts when it is stressed.
Sometimes, we are really considering more B (o making it more really present) by making a bigger (stronger) effort of saying it is not included in A. This situation is similar to when we have left or have been left by a lover, and instead of accepting his-her presence in us and further deal with the damagy split up, we rather «more artificially» reinforce the split up by denying we still love or would like to be loved to or by such ex-lover B. It is known that for such situations is worthier to keep the split up with B with a more friendly negotiating within oneself, specially by reinforcing our relationing with other Bs, and more specially with scales of them both, such as a new C, and or a new C&D, etc… because that build up is what makes us learn better what is the position that such nowadays molesting B needs to reoccupy (be nanotechnologized as..) within our overall attention.
This semantic trickery helps a bit in the process of integrating an opposite pole for it not being too molesty in some further family tree we want to rather feel more present than another. But for having more branches of A with lesser chids of B in them, we have to friendly convince the actual B there is within ourselves for it to more easily allow us so. Friendly, because there is not any brute force capable of eliminating any B.
An antonym of a word is the more unknown pole of that word, and or its more micro and or secondary
When we want to get into meaning of something by opposition, we should consider that we are using the other antagonist pole B as a very micro of the bigger macro that A is being for us. When we say a word we imply a relation with another (more exposed or less). The relation there is between two words is proposing a specific mapping of a length between them. Antagonistic relating displays a very obvious length (that is why we easily get on them) and tries to concentrate all the mommentual observance attention in one of its poles, but it doesn’t eliminate the other pole, the opposite pole is rather working as a nanotech for the other more obvious core part of the expression. Again, just because you have choosen the antagonistic relating rail, the antagonist pole energy will be there in your such definition, and as a nano50%.
We can bring most of our attention to a 50% macro only, but that will not deny that the other 50% is there too. Perhaps, by doing that trick of thinking that we are eliminating-excluding B that way, we are just displaying the ability of being able to cope with a 50% being very silenced (as in very quieted to our DNA ears, do not confuse it with completely silenced either).
If you want to eliminate something you better agree to reallocate it
Eliminativism is a useful word but is only a buzzword for miniaturing a 50%, and it is probably not the best word to keep in mind for more really minimizing something that bothers you. We can only nanoconcentrate regardless of what we declare to be deliberately ignored. There are many outstanding proofs of it. One is Churchland’s antithesis itself. Churchland is the author of the concept Eliminative materialism, and with it proposed the antithesis that emotion or feeling should be taken out of whatever meassuring, for the sake of science. That concept factually helps developing meassuring, but such meassurings are meassures of felt emotions anyway, and more specially as more the concept is present in the meassurer mind and or aim. So finally, by emphasizing bias eliminativism in a more deliberate way, (more popular-centralized consensus of) science are doomed to fall into a fatalist centric perspective of reality. Read more about this, here.
Our custom men of straw is hijacking us to become less spoiled maybe
Churchland’s paradox could be generalized to the more known so called dichotomies in whatever field of knowledge. These more known dichotomies are, paradoxically, the closer ones to tend to be resolved (to be better understood) if considering them as rather having a 50-50 overall presence. The more emphasis to eliminate something, the more sure you can be you rather need to include it better (more equilibratedly in your proposition).
That also happen to any set of words that are not rival, but one wants to give them a higher hierarchical status to one of them in a bipole. Words are relative to each other in their sets. Ranks just (apparently) magnify uppers (which can never exceed a maximum of 50% presence), while other % turns to function (2nd law of thermodynamics…) as a nanotech pole for its whole (represented with the more explicited A macro pole). I.e. The sociologist who deepens in sociology only would end up formulating psychological theories but with more sociological looking words, and the other way round as well. Saying I’m a man man man only won’t deny i am made of 50% of feminity… regardles of the testosterone or else macro degree there will be in my body. My man anatomy, reinforced by my physiological settings, is made in a way that preserves the ability to be able to turn into the physiological settings of a woman in the future, as increasing transexuality cases clearly displays that. Nature design has a critical constrain on the top of the dimorphic extreme variation that won’t let us have more masculine bodies which couldn’t get easily also into transexuality…
El medio excluido es una formula inutil pero un util operador para el efecto de diferenciacion (>separacion) dentro de una axiomatizacion infinita – vivenciar mejores maneras de propia reinclusion. Un vector bipolar difuso (fractaloso) 50% del tiempo de vivo inclusivo, 50% exclusivista donde mas vale exclusivizar partes y buscar el centroide que un centro con exclusion de apartes
Para que queremos presuponernos primariamente excluyendo valores si igualmente vamos a tener que incluirlos en algun rincon si no nos gustan y o en algun tipo de red mayor si si nos gustan? Para que tanto esforzarse en excluir (mas todavia de lo que nos viene dado), si lo que mas cuesta (y consecuentemente deberiamos enfocar en desarrollar mas) es el saber incluir? Es mejor pues, llamar a la primariedad del enfoque (o fundamento proposicional de la logica) como ‘inclusion’ y a su polo secundario complementario diferenciador no como excluyente, sino como exclusivizador.
Toda verdad nos ha de servir para estar mejor, y debemos encontrar la verdad a través de los indicios evidentes de nuestras mejoradas estancias. Lo observado mediante el microscopio o telescopio nos tiene que llegar a hacer entender mas simplémente porque usamos las combinaciones de las palabras que usamos, mas allá de los como fisiológicamente funciona nuestro verbalizarlas, que también es interesante, pero no tan relevante. Unos mejores códigos de la difusividad nos servirán para mejorar
dualismos que no eliminan ni a sus rivales ni mucho menos a lo subjetivo, son códigos que ayudan a priorizar mejor la visualización de todo lo objetivo antes de combinarlo con la subjetividad, para que finálmente de esa última relación se exprese-devuelva un gris mas en armonía con el gris que es base.
Two is the best one, every one is at least two so flirty, three is even better but, as two: it’s also too much already sometimes
1s would be the more consistent unit, but since they don’t show the diversity and the uncertainity we experience, 1 is rather always very (the most) uncertain. Actually, 1s can’t really exist, at least for us, which sets 2s as a better meassurement unit. 2 is the simplest certain and the more complex as well within our no 1ness possibility. The nature where everything emerges from (as in holism) can’t be 1ist, so it has to be at least fuzzily bipolar.
Although 2s can approach to reflect the common 1relation ground than 3 (where there are more than 2 relations), some 2s approach better to reflect it for anyone than triads, but triads put bipolarities into further scalability test.
That is why we keep separing andor adding 1s infrom 2s, for to recombine those triads and re-ensamble them later further for checking if they keep being outstanding scalable bipolar reflections of the basic ground.
In finned relations of 2s is from where can better explain and know. There is more energy in a centroid of a bipole than in a triad or else, although we will tend to don’t accept it because it is too big and we also like more units to come into play. Triads more difficultly explains their sourced centroid than 2, so they are less useful as a unit, but since 3s serves for seeing how 2s can and should get further scaled (i.e. a+b-c=0 ‘always, everytime’), 3s are more consistent than 2s.
Complexity has to come simplified to be experienceable. Simplifiability provides estability for scalability
Read more about a historical review of the excluded middle orthodoxia