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: "Monogamous Adult Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes monogamous adult partnerships based on whether their formal alliance is primarily established and recognized through legal systems (e.g., state marriage, civil union) or through established social customs, community norms, and explicit non-legal agreements. This division is mutually exclusive, as an alliance is either legally binding or it is not, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all forms of formal compacts for adult partnership between two individuals.
9
From: "Legally Constituted Monogamous Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes between legally constituted monogamous partnerships specifically recognized as "marriage" under the law and all other forms of legally recognized, non-marital compacts between two adults (e.g., civil unions, registered partnerships, or domestic partnerships). This division is mutually exclusive, as a partnership is either designated as a marriage or it is not, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all legal forms of monogamous adult alliances recognized by legal systems.
10
From: "Non-Marital Legal Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes between non-marital legal partnerships designed to confer rights and obligations broadly equivalent to marriage (though not bearing the "marriage" designation) and those designed to provide a more restricted or specific set of legal rights, benefits, or responsibilities. This division is mutually exclusive, as an alliance cannot simultaneously be designed for both broad equivalence and limited scope, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all forms of legally recognized, non-marital adult partnerships.
11
From: "Comprehensive Equivalence Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes comprehensive equivalence partnerships based on the eligibility criteria regarding the sex of the partners: either the partnership is legally defined as exclusively for same-sex couples, or it is legally defined as available to couples of any sex composition (including opposite-sex). This division is mutually exclusive, as a legal framework cannot simultaneously be exclusive to one sex composition and open to all, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all possible sex-based eligibility criteria for such partnerships.
12
From: "Comprehensive Equivalence Partnerships Open to All Sex Compositions"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes comprehensive equivalence partnerships open to all sex compositions based on their mode of legal constitution: either requiring a formal public ceremony for their establishment or being constituted solely through an administrative registration process. This provides a mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive division for how such alliances are legally formed.
✓
Topic: "Partnerships Constituted by Administrative Registration" (W7440)