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 Deduction of Natural Laws"
Split Justification: Humans rationally deduce natural laws either by identifying the most basic, irreducible principles that govern the fundamental nature of reality across all contexts (e.g., laws of physics at their deepest level), or by discovering laws that describe the behavior and properties of complex systems which arise from, but are not always directly reducible to, those fundamental principles (e.g., laws in chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology). These two categories represent distinct levels of explanation and therefore distinct types of 'meaning' derived, yet together they comprehensively cover the full scope of rationally deduced natural laws.
11
From: "Meaning from Emergent Laws of Complex Systems"
Split Justification: ** Humans derive meaning from emergent laws of complex systems by either focusing on those laws governing biological and ecological systems, characterized by principles like evolution, self-organization, and adaptation, or by focusing on laws governing non-living physical systems, characterized by principles of thermodynamics, chemistry, and mechanics. These two categories represent distinct classes of complex systems with unique emergent properties and underlying principles, are mutually exclusive in their primary subject matter within the non-human world, and together comprehensively cover the full scope of emergent laws of complex systems.
12
From: "Meaning from Emergent Laws of Non-Living Physical Systems"
Split Justification: Humans derive meaning from emergent laws of non-living physical systems by focusing either on the principles that govern their stable configurations, intrinsic characteristics, and composition (structure and properties), or on the principles that govern their changes, movements, and interactions over time (dynamics and processes). These two categories represent distinct aspects of physical reality that emergent laws describe: what things are made of and how they are arranged versus how they behave and transform. They are mutually exclusive in their primary explanatory focus and comprehensively exhaustive, covering the full scope of emergent laws in non-living physical systems.
✓
Topic: "Meaning from Emergent Laws Governing Dynamics and Processes of Non-Living Systems" (W7802)