1
From: "Human Potential & Development."
Split Justification: Development fundamentally involves both our inner landscape (**Internal World**) and our interaction with everything outside us (**External World**). (Ref: Subject-Object Distinction)..
2
From: "External World (Interaction)"
Split Justification: All external interactions fundamentally involve either other human beings (social, cultural, relational, political) or the non-human aspects of existence (physical environment, objects, technology, natural world). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive.
3
From: "Interaction with the Non-Human World"
Split Justification: All human interaction with the non-human world fundamentally involves either the cognitive process of seeking knowledge, meaning, or appreciation from it (e.g., science, observation, art), or the active, practical process of physically altering, shaping, or making use of it for various purposes (e.g., technology, engineering, resource management). These two modes represent distinct primary intentions and outcomes, yet together comprehensively cover the full scope of how humans engage with the non-human realm.
4
From: "Understanding and Interpreting the Non-Human World"
Split Justification: Humans understand and interpret the non-human world either by objectively observing and analyzing its inherent structures, laws, and phenomena to gain factual knowledge, or by subjectively engaging with it to derive aesthetic value, emotional resonance, or existential meaning. These two modes represent distinct intentions and methodologies, yet together comprehensively cover all ways of understanding and interpreting the non-human world.
5
From: "Interpreting Subjective Significance"
Split Justification: Humans interpret subjective significance from the non-human world in two fundamentally distinct ways: either through direct, immediate sensory and emotional engagement (e.g., experiencing beauty, awe, or comfort from nature or art), or through a more reflective, cognitive process of attributing abstract conceptual meaning, often through symbols, narratives, or existential contemplation (e.g., a landscape symbolizing freedom, an artifact representing heritage, the night sky evoking questions of purpose). These two modes are mutually exclusive in their primary focus (immediate reception versus reflective attribution) and comprehensively exhaustive, covering the full spectrum of subjective engagement.
6
From: "Direct Aesthetic and Emotional Experience"
Split Justification: All direct aesthetic and emotional experiences fundamentally manifest along a spectrum of physiological and psychological arousal. These can be dichotomized into those that are intensely stimulating and activate heightened states (e.g., awe, thrill, fear, overwhelming beauty) and those that are calming, soothing, or lead to states of reduced arousal (e.g., peace, comfort, serenity, gentle beauty, contemplative melancholy). These two categories are mutually exclusive in their primary impact on the human system and comprehensively exhaust the full range of direct aesthetic and emotional responses to the non-human world.
7
From: "Experiences of Heightened Aousal and Intensity"
Split Justification: All experiences of heightened arousal and intensity can be fundamentally differentiated by their hedonic valence: whether they are primarily felt as pleasurable, desirable, or intrinsically good, or as aversive, undesirable, or intrinsically bad. This dichotomy of positive versus negative valence is mutually exclusive and comprehensively covers the full range of intense affective responses to the non-human world.
8
From: "Experiences of Intense Negative Arousal"
Split Justification: Experiences of intense negative arousal from the non-human world fundamentally derive from two distinct qualities: those evoked by the perceived potential for harm, injury, or destruction (Threat and Danger), and those evoked by qualities of the non-human world that are inherently offensive, disgusting, or undesirable in their current state (Repulsion and Aversion). These two categories are mutually exclusive in their primary elicitors (potential for future harm vs. present inherent unpleasantness) and comprehensively exhaust the scope of direct, intense negative arousal from the non-human world.
9
From: "Experiences of Threat and Danger"
Split Justification: All experiences of threat and danger from the non-human world fundamentally stem either from dynamic, unfolding processes or active entities that cause or threaten harm (e.g., storms, earthquakes, attacking animals), or from static, inherent properties, environments, or conditions that pose a risk even without active movement or change (e.g., deep chasms, toxic substances, extreme temperatures). These two categories are mutually exclusive in the temporal and causal nature of the perceived threat and comprehensively exhaust the ways humans experience non-human danger.
10
From: "Experiences of Static Hazardous Conditions or Qualities"
Split Justification: All experiences of static hazardous conditions or qualities are fundamentally differentiated by whether the inherent hazardous property can be directly perceived through human senses (e.g., the visual depth of a chasm, the thermal sensation of extreme cold, the sharp edge of an object) or if the hazardous property is fundamentally imperceptible, requiring indirect knowledge, inference, or specialized tools to recognize the threat (e.g., radiation, invisible toxic gases, hidden structural weaknesses). These two categories are mutually exclusive in their mode of apprehension and comprehensively exhaust the full spectrum of experiencing static non-human dangers.
11
From: "Experiences of Imperceptible Static Hazards"
Split Justification: Imperceptible static hazards fundamentally originate from either natural processes and phenomena inherent to the non-human world (e.g., naturally occurring radiation, radon gas, certain geological instabilities), or from human-created structures, substances, or conditions that are themselves non-human but are a direct consequence of human activity (e.g., hidden industrial pollutants, undetected structural flaws in buildings, artificial radiation sources). This distinction is mutually exclusive, as a hazard cannot be both purely natural and purely man-made in its primary origin, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all fundamental sources of such threats within the non-human realm.
12
From: "Experiences of Anthropogenic Imperceptible Static Hazards"
Split Justification: ** Anthropogenic imperceptible static hazards fundamentally originate either from human actions deliberately designed to create a hidden hazard (e.g., weapons, traps, intentionally concealed dangerous substances), or from human activities that inadvertently generate such hazards as unintended byproducts, failures, or unforeseen consequences (e.g., pollutants, structural defects, legacy waste). This distinction is mutually exclusive, as the presence of deliberate intent is a clear differentiator, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all ways human activity can lead to imperceptible static dangers.
✓
Topic: "Hazards from Deliberate Human Creation" (W5962)