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 Dynamic Destructive Processes or Agents"
Split Justification: All experiences of dynamic destructive processes or agents from the non-human world fundamentally derive either from non-living, physical, chemical, or mechanical forces and phenomena (e.g., natural disasters like earthquakes or storms, technological failures), or from living, biological entities (e.g., attacking animals, disease-causing organisms). This dichotomy between inanimate forces and animate agents is mutually exclusive in its fundamental nature and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all sources of dynamic non-human threats.
11
From: "Experiences of Dynamic Destructive Inanimate Forces"
Split Justification: All experiences of dynamic destructive inanimate forces fundamentally arise either from natural phenomena and processes inherent to the non-human world (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions), or from human-engineered systems, technologies, or activities (e.g., structural collapses, industrial explosions, dam failures). This dichotomy distinguishes between forces originating from the inherent workings of the natural world versus those originating from human design, construction, or operation, being mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive.
12
From: "Experiences of Human-Engineered Dynamic Destructive Forces"
Split Justification: Experiences of human-engineered dynamic destructive forces fundamentally derive either from the inherent failures, defects, or progressive degradation within the design, materials, or construction of the engineered system itself, or from misjudgments, errors, or negligence in the real-time operational actions, control, or decision-making by human agents interacting with an engineered system. This dichotomy distinguishes between threats stemming from the intrinsic state or historical development of the engineered artifact versus threats originating from active human engagement with it, being mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive.
✓
Topic: "Experiences of Destructive Forces from Errors in Human Operation or Control" (W7242)