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: "Conceptual and Symbolic Meaning Attribution"
Split Justification: Humans attribute abstract conceptual and symbolic meaning to the non-human world through two fundamentally distinct avenues: either by drawing upon established collective human constructs, narratives, traditions, and historical contexts (sociocultural and historical frameworks), or by engaging in deeper, reflective inquiry into universal aspects of existence, purpose, and the human condition that transcend specific cultural bounds (existential and universal contemplation). These two modes are mutually exclusive, as the primary source and nature of the attributed meaning differ (contingent human constructs vs. transcendent philosophical inquiry), and together they comprehensively cover the full scope of how humans assign abstract conceptual and symbolic significance to the non-human world.
7
From: "Meaning from Existential & Universal Contemplation"
Split Justification: Humans derive meaning from existential and universal contemplation of the non-human world by either focusing on its implications for the human condition, purpose, and experience within the broader cosmic or universal scheme (e.g., mortality, significance, freedom), or by focusing on the non-human world itself as a revelation of ultimate reality, fundamental cosmic laws, or the inherent nature of existence (e.g., universal order, metaphysical truths, cosmic origins). These two approaches are mutually exclusive in their primary focus (anthropocentric vs. cosmocentric/ontological) and comprehensively exhaustive, covering the full spectrum of deriving meaning from existential and universal contemplation.
8
From: "Meaning concerning Ultimate Reality and Cosmic Principles"
Split Justification: Humans derive conceptual and symbolic meaning concerning ultimate reality and cosmic principles either through structured rational inquiry and interpretation of the non-human world's inherent laws and patterns, or through a more direct, often non-discursive, intuitive apprehension of its fundamental nature and ultimate existence which is subsequently conceptualized. These represent distinct cognitive pathways for attributing meaning, one emphasizing logical coherence and the other holistic insight, yet together they comprehensively cover how such meaning is formed from the non-human world.
9
From: "Meaning from Rational Interpretation of Cosmic Principles"
Split Justification: ** Humans rationally interpret cosmic principles either by deriving specific, verifiable laws and patterns from observable phenomena and logical deduction (focusing on how the cosmos operates), or by constructing broader, abstract metaphysical systems that provide an overarching rational explanation for the fundamental nature of existence and ultimate reality (focusing on what the cosmos ultimately is or why it exists). These two modes are mutually exclusive as one primarily focuses on discovering operational rules based on evidence while the other constructs conceptual frameworks to explain ultimate being; yet, together, they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of rational interpretation of cosmic principles.
10
From: "Meaning from Rational Construction of Metaphysical Systems"
Split Justification: Rational metaphysical systems fundamentally construct their explanations of ultimate reality by either positing a single, underlying, unifying principle or substance from which all else derives (monism), or by asserting that ultimate reality is composed of two or more fundamentally distinct and irreducible principles, substances, or categories (dualism/pluralism). These two approaches are mutually exclusive in their core ontological premise and together exhaust the possible rational constructions regarding the numerical constitution of ultimate reality.
11
From: "Metaphysical Systems Positing Multiple Ultimate Realities"
Split Justification: Metaphysical systems that posit multiple ultimate realities (i.e., more than one) can be fundamentally categorized by whether they posit precisely two distinct ultimate principles, substances, or categories (dualism), or more than two such fundamental realities (pluralism). These two approaches are mutually exclusive as a system cannot simultaneously hold to exactly two and more than two ultimate realities; together, they comprehensively cover all possible numerical configurations for "multiple" ultimate realities.
12
From: "Metaphysical Systems Positing More Than Two Ultimate Realities"
Split Justification: Metaphysical systems positing more than two ultimate realities can be fundamentally distinguished by whether these multiple realities are all instances of a single, unifying fundamental kind or category (e.g., many identical atoms), or if they represent genuinely distinct and irreducible types of being (e.g., matter, mind, and spirit as ultimate categories). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as ultimate realities cannot simultaneously be of one fundamental kind and of multiple distinct fundamental kinds; and it is comprehensively exhaustive, covering all ways in which a plurality of ultimate realities can be conceived within a rational metaphysical system.
✓
Topic: "Metaphysical Systems Positing Multiple Ultimate Realities of a Singular Fundamental Type" (W6010)