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 Humans"
Split Justification: All human interaction can be fundamentally categorized by its primary focus: either on the direct connection and relationship between specific individuals (from intimate bonds to fleeting encounters), or on the individual's engagement within and navigation of larger organized human collectives, their rules, roles, and systems. This dichotomy provides a comprehensive and distinct division between person-to-person dynamics and person-to-society dynamics.
4
From: "Personal Relationships"
Split Justification: Personal relationships can be fundamentally divided based on whether their primary origin is an unchosen, inherent bond (such as family or blood ties) or a volitional, chosen connection based on mutual interests, affection, or shared values. This dichotomy accounts for all personal bonds.
5
From: "Kinship and Familial Relationships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes between family relationships primarily established through shared ancestry or bloodlines (kinship by descent) and those formed through marriage, adoption, or other social and legal compacts (kinship by alliance). This provides a mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive division for all forms of inherent and familial bonds.
6
From: "Kinship by Alliance"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes between alliances that establish a spousal or domestic partnership between adults (e.g., marriage, civil unions) and those that establish a parental or guardianship role for an adult towards a child (e.g., adoption, foster care). These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a single alliance compact cannot simultaneously be both an adult partnership and a new parent-child bond, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all forms of kinship established through formal compacts.
7
From: "Alliances Establishing Adult Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes adult partnership alliances based on the number of primary partners involved in the alliance: either exactly two individuals (monogamous) or more than two individuals (plural). This division is mutually exclusive, as an alliance cannot simultaneously be both, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all possible numerical configurations of adult partners in such alliances, a critical structural element for kinship systems.
8
From: "Plural Adult Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes plural adult partnerships based on the structural connectivity of spousal relationships within the alliance. The first category, "Alliances with a Single Shared Spouse," describes partnerships where multiple individuals are formally allied to a single common partner, who serves as the central spousal link (e.g., polygyny, polyandry), without necessarily forming spousal compacts among the multiple co-spouses themselves. The second category, "Alliances with Reciprocal Spousal Connectivity," describes partnerships where all participating adults are formally allied as spouses to every other adult within the alliance, forming a fully interconnected network of co-spousal relationships (e.g., group marriage). This division is mutually exclusive, as a partnership cannot simultaneously structure itself around a single shared spouse and also comprise fully reciprocal spousal compacts among all members. It is comprehensively exhaustive, as any plural adult partnership, by definition involving more than two individuals, must adopt one of these two fundamental relational topologies for its formal spousal alliances.
9
From: "Alliances with a Single Shared Spouse"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes plural adult partnerships structured around a single shared spouse based on the gender of that central spouse. The first category, "Alliances with a Male Central Spouse" (e.g., polygyny), refers to partnerships where a single male is formally allied as a spouse to multiple female partners. The second category, "Alliances with a Female Central Spouse" (e.g., polyandry), refers to partnerships where a single female is formally allied as a spouse to multiple male partners. These categories are mutually exclusive, as the designated central shared spouse within a specific alliance cannot simultaneously be both male and female. They are comprehensively exhaustive, as any alliance structured around a single shared spouse must have that central spouse be of a particular gender (male or female), thereby covering all primary structural forms of such plural adult partnerships.
10
From: "Alliances with a Female Central Spouse"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes polyandrous alliances based on the presence or absence of a sibling relationship among the multiple male co-spouses. Fraternal polyandry, where the co-husbands are brothers, represents a distinct structural and social form from non-fraternal polyandry, where the co-husbands are not siblings, profoundly influencing economic organization, inheritance patterns, and family dynamics. This division is mutually exclusive, as an alliance cannot simultaneously be both, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all primary structural forms of alliances with a female central spouse.
11
From: "Non-Fraternal Polyandrous Alliances"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes non-fraternal polyandrous alliances based on whether the multiple male co-spouses are formally recognized as a collective entity or unit in their relationship to the central female spouse (e.g., sharing a common legal or social identity as 'the husbands'), or if each male co-spouse maintains a distinct and individual formal status in their alliance with the central female, without a supervening collective compact or recognition among the co-spouses themselves. This division is mutually exclusive, as an alliance cannot simultaneously structure the co-spouses as both a collective and as entirely distinct individuals, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all primary structural forms of formal recognition for non-sibling male partners within such alliances.
12
From: "Alliances with Individual Co-Spousal Recognition"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes non-fraternal polyandrous alliances with individual co-spousal recognition based on the social and legal recognition of paternity for children born to the central female spouse. The first category, "Alliances with Diffuse Parental Recognition for Co-Spouses," refers to partnerships where all or multiple individually recognized male co-spouses share equal or diffuse social/legal recognition as parents to the children of the central female. The second category, "Alliances with Designated Parental Recognition for Co-Spouses," refers to partnerships where, despite multiple individual co-spouses, only one specific male co-spouse (or a selected subset) is formally designated as the social or legal parent of the central female's children. This division is mutually exclusive, as parental recognition cannot simultaneously be both diffuse among all and specifically designated to a subset, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all primary modes of structuring parental roles for children within such alliances.
✓
Topic: "Alliances with Diffuse Parental Recognition for Co-Spouses" (W5968)