This page is a broad justification for the Bictiopedia project, through some fundamental (highest ranked) bipoles, here applied only to the bictiopedia scope (descriptive linguistics). These are:
These 4 (above) wordy nodes could be also reduced to other 2 that aggrupate them all:
Out of these two sets, we could phrase the following axiom:
For the ambituous dynamism of this stable continuum, all needs to be initially and finally magnifying and hiding an uncertain subjectivity
- Keypairs & Flaws&Patches pages for more specific whys.
- A videotutorial (28 mins), here. About Semantic hierarchies, here.
- All other pages in this website menu
Listen to this audiopresentation (1 hour… also messier) explaining this diagram:
UNCERTAIN SUBJECTIVITY AT DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS
For the ambituous dynamism of this stable continuum, all needs to be initially and finally magnifying and hiding an uncertain subjectivity
A need of permanent uncertainity for every subject, is a grant for the overall system keep being stable by itself and dynamic for the subjects. A perceived uncertainity is a design that causes a dynamic pursue of certainity for perceiving a part of the overall stability.
We are here to magnify ourselves and there are more natural constants or constraints for that. These last two words refer to the same event, but each one of them have different connotation, specially depending the person who reads them and his-her mommentum. Also, some lonely words could mean very different things for different people at different times. I mention this to directly prove you that you should never expect an absolute objectivity in any expression. We can’t find absolutes, the closest to them would be centroids within bipoles. Bipolar centroids are who more clearly show the objectivity ranges we are in and or could bond within.
Link (= NodeS) > Node
1, such a thing like a single node, can’t be really isolated or static, so we can’t tell it exists by itself independent of something else it is related to. An unit, a 1, some node, the singularity or monopole, any point or similar else word is not a smallest or a discrete possible departure candidate, really. Instead, a bipole is a better (realer) departure or singularity (or however you want to call it) than that. A bipole is realer than a monopole, but a bipole is not completely real (static…) either.
Any very pseudo1 is, always, at least, the unknown middle of a 2 (less pseudo, more real than 1). The middle of a 2 is the more simplifiable uncertainity, so the simplex realer. The 2 pseudonodes are just the easiest helpers for our forced uncertainity tripping through its amorphous form we call «link». Such PseudoBipole (and its more or less ignored middle link) also has to relate to an other third (or to another bipole), because nor any bipole could be really independent, absolute or static (for keeping complying with the natural uncertainity).
Links are necessarily amorphous (the final reduct of uncertainity). Nodes displays a macro, where their link bring us to the micro is another way to see it. One link is an Alice’s dungeon, where nodes just decorate that pathing. When a link is decorated with a node label, at least two more new amorphous links show up at both sides of such new node(d link).
The experiencing of a subjective uncertainity to be a fundamental constant implies many basic things we mor tend to ignore so we need keeping reminding them more (buff, lol). We are not going to be able to settle in stone (see static & forever) the value of the simple sum of 1+1=2 (in bolean algebra is =1, in morphology there are 4, even 5 diferent symbols there, etc: the equal sign will be always under dispute within category theory, etc), nor we can rely that such 1s will take another meaning or form in the future for us, either at a individual or a more collective level. The same and more exagerated reality happens to the meaning of words: We are never going to have a completely fixed meaning for any word, thruth will be dynamic there too, and even more.
Numbers are apparently more simple forms than letters, so any simple word is a more complex form than any simple operation with numbers. That is why we represent high numeric complexities simplified with words (as F=ma, etc). I just have said: «numbers are ‘apparently’ more simple forms than words» and with that sentence i am deliberately hiding a bug because, the higher complexities always come from the biggest simplicities (since this way the holistic entanglement of any unit can be validated or not falsified), so simple numbers and operations with them are too be more finally complex than operations with more complex words or sentences «in the end» (F=ma will not be more simplex than 3v2 + 4v2 = 5v2 or else related, really). We have to ignore this last bit of the thread for now (see more of my numeric experiments at minimaths.net), as i will also ignore the related one about the gematria hipothesis one (words represent very simplifiable numbers), for rather focusing deeper more exclusively in wordy linguistics only.
Within words, as within numbers, there will some words that will be more complex than others. Some of the complexities expressed with words will still be simplifiable (ex: Truth), others will not be that much easily simplifiable (ex: Congruence). So for more truth with words, we should look for the more complex words that could have the easier simplifiable relationings (truth>congruence).
Uncertainity is experienced in varied ways, and all of them are unique. The experiencing of a 1+1 can not be completely equal nor cloned with some other one, nor with any one from yourself from the past or in the future. It can look that some things are and will be completely certain forever or will not depend on anyone experiencing of them, but there will always be a slight change in whatever experience of any pseudo1, bipoles or else forms. This multiple uncertainities fact keeps the ambition up at the experiencing of our continuum. We should rather focus in accepting uncertainity more humblily and digg in its implications, and so be more aware of flaws we are in by not having accepted that enough at our knowledge build ups. Uncertainity is, normally, more difficult to accept than certainity. Both sensations come to us quite equilibratedly equally most of the time, very probably within a completely equilibrated total that has to be the closest in us and or our nearbies. Despite such underlying equilibrium and as a challenge to-from it, it is more enriching (for me to communicate to and influence you now) to see our human talent more (primarily) related to the holding on of further uncertainity than to the enjoying of more certainity.
We could think we are seeing the past more stable than the future, but our memories also have dynamism. Historians are proud of having achieved estability about the past. Something similar happens to the stability that penomenologists partially prove at some outcomes through cause-effect mechanics. Archae… and Pheno.. those long words.. tell about our effort for how much we want to prove nature to be stable through difficult words.
But we aren’t into a matter of if and how stable nature overall really is, the game is more about how much stability can we perceive from its unreacheable total of it, as a fuel for it for displaying its further dynamism through the unequilibriums we see.
Uncertainity may give us the feeling of unstability and we can think that the whole is unstable because we, as holistical parts of it, are reflecting such events in our livings. We can also consider it unstable because of a genesiacal purpose on the design to not necessarily keep a holisticity in it. Both these arguments complain about the same, but from different departure points of view. Perhaps they will both keep trying to prove nature naturally unstable, maybe bictiopedia could give them a more glueish arena either for them being in a micro¯o relationship, and or for them being the pole of the argument who proposes nature to be naturally stable.
We can call subjectivities to any of the unicities that are constantly (re)emerging, more or less aggregated on the top of more or less existant ones. Being a subject of experience doesn’t imply you being less object, it could be also rather the other way round. A solipsistic view doesn’t (or shouldn’t) deny a pan(en)theistic one, they just both see reality from a different departure point, probably more cearly within the same-common bipole as more antagonist they try to show to each other. A vanguardist experiencing of reality is just a possibility of cheering yourself up(per), but it doesn’t imply a continuum rupture or the beginning of any unholistic improvising. Pantheism doesn’t (or shouldn’t) imply subjects being unentangled despite being unique, and panentheism doesn’t (or shouldn’t) imply improvisatory omnipotence over lower subjects either. I personally bet for the god(dess) to have to have their own subjective uncertainities as well, and we (as vanguard humans if you wish) are in the way of reflecting part of them more explicitly.
In an entangled continuum, all realities are reflection of a source (possibly being refracted to achieve so). This so evident continuum increasingly paradoxically looks to us as an improvisative one (as we also more feel like) because that is how it is displaying its further ambition and dynamism. Resuming: Everytime everyone will feel more (un)lucky.
Simplifiability is constantly emerging equilibratedly along the complexization one
Knowing decreases uncertanity in a way, but not really really, because a total of uncertainity can never decrease, it rather has to grow constantly, but equilibratedly along with the knowing. An uncontrolled increase of uncertainity in a subjectivity will lead to an unsustainable fear and or chaos to it-(s)he, which sometimes temporarily happens to all of us and also harder to some of us, but certainly did not happen to the overall system, proven by the fact that i was able to write this for you keep reading it still…
For uncertainity and subjectivity to be further maintained, we experience a ongrowing complexity, which also comes with its own keypair that we can call as the constant gift of simplifiability. If we are to experience a higher uncertainity and paradoxically a higher subjectivity, for this complexity to be stable, we need to be able to constantly simplify it as well, for us and the system to keep stable overall, regardless of how doubly paradoxical this may look to our more pretentious increased subjectivity…
There are overwhelming evidences of simplifiability being constantly emerging along further complexities, so for a better knowing-handling-finning of whatever higher complexity (from a higher uncertain subjectivity), the best strategy is trying to retain the natural simplifiability source that permanently (re)emerges along whatever (bigger or smaller) is being further (quite certainly) known.
This implies that, very probably, the more complexified prediction will probably fail as easy as the more oversimplistic memory recalling attempt will mislead us. We have, as the more possible natural dogma, to look for something in the middle of a both like these 4 nodes. Very really speaking, is as hard to complex further something as to simplify it, but strategically, as many known people said and as a reemphasizer of what i said above about focusing more in accepting uncertainity than enjoying certainity: Simplification is the last step of sophistication.
Weakening the 50% of primarity for strenghtening the 50% of secondarity
If all bipoles are naturally underlyingly equilibred, it shouldn’t matter what poles of them we should focus more in, and the ideal strategy will be to focus in both equally. But nature is smarter than that and wants to showcase to be hard to get to bipoles only, by populating our sets in our heads and also by showing us poles from bipoles with the most differences possible. It wants us to see one of the poles of a bipole to be mostly weakly primary and the other mostly strongly secondary. And it wants to start doing it to the subjectivities being within a bipolarity of destined teleology & personal intentionality, that are seeing the objectifiable realities the opposite way round each of both (biological dimorphism dialects). So finally, a female and a male will each of them see themselves as a primary pole to reality and also primary compared to the other gender because subjectivity wants you to be primer (forces us to selfcenteredness). But regardless of we both seeing ourselves as a joint primary pole compared to outer reality, we can give females the primarity pole between us (due to concentrative reproductive cells) and we males the secondary pole, while increasing awareness that we will be still poling primarities and secondarities in outer objects oppositely to how the other gender does it.
Women will see themselves and simplifiability as primary, and males will see ourselves and complexity as primary as well. Or we will really mean-relate complexity&simplifiability to uncertainity&certainity in a completely different way, specially when we will be discussing that with newbies from us, more specially if they are from the other gender and even more specially if we like them for mating (antagonisms let us show off our emotions more fast…).
The challenge here is to be aware of that, copy and paste from them and exchange roles for both enriching our own weaknesses (not dealing as well as the othr more talented gender for that with the poles that are not primary for us).
& Entangledly (confuent, vessica psicis) speaking:
Bipoles are apparently less complex than Triads, but
Bipoles are more complex than Triads in the end, andso…
Biological dimorphism represent the two more different possible languages within the reached consensuated difference links that define each specie.
If we don’tallow ourselves to issolate anything, we will tend evertything we express to be more entangled, more holistic, which looks to be more complying with a big ambition intentionality on the design of it all. Whatever we experience or express has to represent the whole continuum load as a yet one more original (unique) simplified surface of it all. This fact may look contradictory to the very complicated of us, but just remind that when you or whoever wants to bring your mind to a higher complexity, the more simplified departure point (s)he chooses, the further far deep (in..) you could get to…
We humans seem to be leading the complexization of knowing, but more in fact (equally along..) we are braver to face the further uncertainities of simplifiabilities. Simplifying may look as an easy task at first sight, but retaining simplifiability while being constantly pushed to an increasing complexity is not an easy task at all. So the ambition design setting here seems to be telling us that: when simplifying gets harder, the better gifts will bring when it is achieved.
Uncertainity forces us to relate everything to anything else. 1 looks to be the most certain but it rather has the biggest possible uncertainity, so big that it can’t be really browsed. For that we have 2, the realer smallest departure to browse uncertainity. A lone 1 (and or a lone 0) is too simplex, andso 2 is the more complex (deep, far…) structure we could play (reflcet the underlying refracted holism) with.
Links will be greater (more infinite-far-deep in appearence) as simpler their set would be and more meaningful (key) wordy nodes will represent them. The lesser and more meaningful the (noded) words, the better links (meanings). This implies a bigger responsability for knowing through fining and getting deeper into keypairs (of words, specially) than doing so with more populated sets or rethoric rants.
All sets are reduceable to a bipole (and to a triad as a scale of that that displays its further dynamism), and surely by doing so you will be describing your own view of feminity & masculinity in the following way:
A further uncertain bias… also constantly simplifiable with Values, Laws, Loves, … keypairs (of words) that represent the more concentration of energy (to dissipate) because of the (underlying) entanglement that them as anything else (within this holism), have to (more or less clearly) represent.