Why oxymorons and complementaries are KEYPAIRS

OXYMORONS: THE EASIEST AND MORE CHALLENGING KEYPAIRS

Oxymorons are the more important and difficult keypairs to further define but are too easy to find.

Oxymorons are very famous bipoles for all which are out there and everyone can feel them, either, just uselessly trolling at first sight and or bringing you big wisdom if you dare to digg on them further more calmly than usual. This poling of absurdity along such guessed richness should be proof enough of their big natural value.

Not all oxymorons have the same quality of contradictions within themselves (Hot snow is less meaningful than idealist materialism, etc).

Dare turning your more redundant Dichotomies-Dualisms (Noun-Noun) into equilibred (merged) Bipoles (Adjective+Noun). Doing this won’t deny your choice, it will just frame it better, as a macro choosen (or primary pole) & micro rejected (secondary pole).

Keypairs are more important than keywords…

The same we call keywords to meaningful words, we should call keypairs to meaningful (relational) pairs, where to consider all oxymorons (and not only them) as such, instead of the overpopularized fallacious appeal to an emotional pitty of a hidden and very unconsistent authority (that finally points out to a never visited and really unrespected most official Dictionary). Dictionaries rely on single words and Encyclopedias don’t propose to formally define what many people, specially linguists, despectively call Oxymorons (for antagonist relations) or Poetry (for complementary ones). Not all poetry or oxymorons have the same relational degrees but many people (says my man of straw) prefers to appeal to an authoritarian pitty and rely on Analitical Informatics instead of «also» trying to build up further categorizations themselves, specially within oxymorons, the thoughest issue for Analitical Informatics perhaps.

Oxymoron is a sophisticated word meant to give a posh status to the insulter one who uses it to ridiculize some other person (a lower idiot, for him-her). But because arrogant or most people say that oxymorons are only useful for wishful idiots, perhaps we shouldn’t use the term for proposivistic purposes. With the word (antagonist)Keypair we could avoid to use the word Oxymoron as propositivistic, but i rather propose to keep it as a synonim of AntangonistKeypair andso not to avoid the cultural battle of a positive resignificance for the word Oxymoron because of three useful things mainly:

  1. Oxymoron is very well known word. Significance of words are not written in stone. Despite more official Dictionaries or many people ridiculizing it, we can use it in the other way round and stand proud of it, while whoever who will be willing to take the ridiculizer side, will go slowly but surely getting into a higher ridicule him-herself, by the sole weight of the realer thruth of merged antagonisms to be a possible total length-depth andor constrain (challenge) within polarity (rational) reductioning, and by the increasing weight we could be developing by enhancing Bictiopedia popularity.
  2. Oxymoron could be funnily tweaked and synonimized with FoxyHolon, which is a very cool descriptor of its properties, for the reasons just stated above.
  3. Oxymorons are just one of the two main types of Keypairs, the easiest ones. The other main typeof keypairs are complementary pairs, the opposite of opposites. The antagonist of antagonist relationing. So Oxymorons&Keypairs will fit the overall Bictiopedia message for newbies, while more geeky bictopedians will quickly realize that oxymorons are of the main types of keypairs.

COMPLEMENTARIES: THE MORE DIFFICULT AND PLEASANT KEYPAIRS

Despite Similarity being the core of Semantics, it is very poorly used&developed because of the poor fundamentals of dictionaries relying on poor pre-ordered thessaurus with overrated antonyms, quite useless synonims and undegreed related terms (further than by order of appearance…).

Every word has a favourite word as couple of it for the momment (=more equilibred presence of it in pasts and possible futures) for you (and also the more other people…). There are some of them that we already use very much (Timed Space, True Love, etc), andbut many more of them are to be found and enjoyed.

A small world of complementary bipoles is the resumed target that the bictiopedia project more wants to help in achieving. It could be resumed in two steps:

  1. Find the best couple (not synonim), for any word for the most possible people during the longer possible time.
  2. Create childs to them. Extend them with an inviting phrase (representing those childs) to perform an action within it, edit it, save and/or send it (to a friend, network, etc).

…Words dance even more at platonic solids vertexes…

Oppositely to antagonism (which is a more stable relator where the more broad and positive looking should be ranked first), complementarity relationing brings the gift of implying that ideal orders (ranks..) for sets of keywords get to the more dynamic possible levels. This is quite disliked by most researchers because they normally think they are researching wisdom to get to a more stable point that could be represented with a bigger set of more stablily positioned (ranked) keywords, either through a diagram, linear ontology or in phrased axioms. Me, as an obsessed researcher in this realm of simple and broad taxonomies, diagrams and axioms i can offer you some sets of words within finite geometry that could very consensually represent fields of knowledge where there is a lot of dispute on them (See ideal sets page). But i am aware since long time ago that such complete stability at all or many fields is not my target at all, because it is unachievable and will stress too much whoever would think for himself being capable of doing so so much. For example, Hegel proposed the end of philosophy with its VERY POOR ontological keywords representing the whole, Jung messed Pauli’s more neat one rombus, etc. Others have used better keywords (more complementary to each other) for broader views, but i can very easily recognise their poor quality compared to mine ones, resulting from themselves willing to be kept attached to a self believed authority for trying to present them more stable specially with reinforced rethorics specially, haha.

I have my own sets which i consider very stable, which i don’t think i will ever change them during my life time, but there are others which for sure i will, and all of them i will go improving in various forms (either with rethorics like this, with complementary sets linked to those or more specially, by offering them to anyone reorder them while assuring that if their choices don’t match with my own (proposed natural) order will only mean that they are focusing in another perspective of the same (but complementary to the default natural) reality we are all living in, that such words still represent. That «still» is my target. Any ideal set has to have its ranks more easily conmuted.

Ontologies of complementary relationing are to be more continuously developed, and they are heading to become games for people changing their positions in vertexes of platonic solids, apps core values diagrams and or standards for laws and for fundamental physics particles and models also, and at the same time. If not much directly done by the lazy ones of bottom up inpunters of us, for sure click bait suggestions from top down statistical analysis will incentive us to do so anyway. We are not going to avoid top down analitics to suggest us sexy clicks of words, we could rather collabore with them in such sexy clicks being more enjoyable for us for a longer term and not only for a too short term. We have to do that by developing our own networks of more complementary relations, from open thessaurus extensions and from scratch if needed. This is a sensorial peak similar as when we are inputing forma definitions for oxymorons, which is much harder for any analitical technology to flow with than for us.

Fast data consumption is a similar trend to the fast food one, but fast data doesn’t have to imply less valueable data. We always appreciate fast cooking of healthier food. We can achieve healthier food with a more methodic agricultural planning, which may imply slower growing of plants but more of them, while still decreasing the hassle of investing too much time and physical effort into doing that (see fukuoka, etc). Similar situation ahead we have with the defining of oxymorons and the looking for the more related word of another. It is probably the more simple and deep way to enjoy the cooking with language for kids, adults and machines.

Read more: Trolling trolley page (not recommended, it’s just flameware for Excluded Middle orthodoxians)