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: "Social Systems and Structures"
Split Justification: All social systems and structures can be fundamentally categorized by whether their rules, roles, and organization are explicitly codified, institutionalized, and formally enforced (formal systems), or are unwritten, emergent, culturally embedded, and maintained through custom, tradition, and implicit social pressure (informal systems). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as a system's primary mode of operation is either formal or informal, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all aspects of collective human organization.
5
From: "Informal Social Systems"
Split Justification: All informal social systems can be fundamentally divided into two mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive categories: those focused on the collective, unwritten understandings, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs that guide behavior (Shared Meaning and Norms), and those focused on the spontaneous, interactional processes and structures of influence, status, reputation, and cohesion that arise within groups (Emergent Social Dynamics). One describes the content and collective interpretation of the informal system, while the other describes the interactive mechanisms and relational outcomes.
6
From: "Shared Meaning and Norms"
Split Justification: The node "Shared Meaning and Norms" encompasses both the collective cognitive frameworks by which a group understands and interprets the world (its 'meaning' and 'beliefs') and the collective evaluative and prescriptive frameworks that guide appropriate action and interaction (its 'values' and 'norms'). This split fundamentally divides these two aspects into a category focused on the descriptive understanding of reality and a category focused on the prescriptive principles and patterns of behavior within that reality.
7
From: "Shared Worldviews and Belief Systems"
Split Justification: Shared Worldviews and Belief Systems fundamentally divide into two core components: those collective cognitive frameworks that describe the observable, verifiable, and causally understood aspects of reality (e.g., scientific principles, historical facts, common knowledge) and those frameworks that interpret the deeper meaning, purpose, and ultimate nature of existence, often extending beyond direct empirical observation (e.g., philosophical tenets, religious doctrines, theories of ultimate reality). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as a belief's primary focus is either on the empirically ascertainable or the transcendent/interpretive, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all facets of how a group cognitively structures its understanding of the world.
8
From: "Shared Metaphysical and Existential Beliefs"
Split Justification: The node "Shared Metaphysical and Existential Beliefs" inherently contains two fundamental conceptual domains: one pertaining to the foundational nature, structure, and origins of existence or the cosmos itself (its ultimate reality), and another concerning the specific place, meaning, purpose, and eventual fate of humanity within that broader reality. This split directly separates collective beliefs about the inherent properties of existence from those focused on the human condition and its teleological aspects, providing a mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive division of the node's scope.
9
From: "Shared Beliefs about Human Purpose and Destiny"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates collective beliefs about the active 'why' and 'how' of human life (its intrinsic meaning, role, and operational purpose) from beliefs concerning its passive 'what' and 'where' in terms of its ultimate outcome, end-state, or future trajectory. One focuses on the journey and role, the other on the destination and culmination. This distinction is mutually exclusive, as a belief primarily addresses either the intrinsic purpose/meaning of existence or its ultimate fate/future, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering both core components of "Human Purpose and Destiny."
10
From: "Shared Beliefs about the Ultimate Fate and Future of Humanity"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally divides collective beliefs about humanity's ultimate fate based on its perceived domain or locus: either involving a transition beyond conventional material existence or earthly bounds (e.g., spiritual ascension, post-physical states, merging with a higher consciousness), or unfolding entirely within the confines of the physical world and immanent earthly existence (e.g., an earthly utopia, ecological collapse, a purely material technological singularity). This distinction is mutually exclusive, as a belief system's primary ultimate endpoint for humanity is either perceived as transcending or remaining within material and earthly reality, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all possible fundamental domains for humanity's ultimate future.
11
From: "Shared Beliefs about a Transcendental or Post-Material Ultimate Future for Humanity"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally divides collective beliefs about a transcendental future based on the ultimate fate of human identity. One category encompasses beliefs where human identity, whether individual or collective, is preserved, maintained, or transformed but remains distinct within the post-material realm. The other category includes beliefs where human identity, individual or collective, is ultimately dissolved, merged, or absorbed into a larger, undifferentiated, or non-personal reality, thereby ceasing to exist in its prior distinct form. This distinction is mutually exclusive, as an ultimate transcendental fate either preserves or dissolves identity, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all fundamental possibilities for human identity in a post-material future.
12
From: "Shared Beliefs about the Preservation of Human Identity in a Transcendental Future"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally divides collective beliefs about the preservation of human identity in a transcendental future based on the temporal nature of its existence. One category encompasses beliefs where identity is preserved through a series of distinct, often successive, re-manifestations or rebirths in new forms or states within the transcendental realm (cyclical). The other category encompasses beliefs where identity is preserved by continuously existing as the same distinct entity in a singular, sustained, and non-cyclical post-material state. This distinction is mutually exclusive, as an identity's primary mode of transcendental preservation is either cyclical or continuous, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all fundamental possibilities for preserved identity in a post-material future.
✓
Topic: "Shared Beliefs about the Preservation of Identity in a Continuous Post-Material State" (W6604)