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 the Human Condition in Universal Context"
Split Justification: ** Humans derive meaning about their condition in a universal context by either focusing on the inherent limitations, vulnerabilities, and burdens of existence (e.g., mortality, finitude, suffering, cosmic insignificance) or by focusing on the capacities, potential, and aspirations that allow for agency, purpose, and transcendence within that same universal scheme (e.g., freedom, meaning-making, ethical responsibility, spiritual growth). These two perspectives are mutually exclusive, representing distinct poles of existential reflection (what constrains us vs. what elevates us), and together they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of meaning derived from contemplating the human condition in its universal context.
9
From: "Meaning concerning Human Vulnerability, Finitude, and Existential Burden"
Split Justification: This split differentiates between the meanings derived from the fundamental limitations of our physical existence (our mortality, the decay of our bodies, and our susceptibility to physical harm and environmental forces) and the meanings derived from the unique challenges of our conscious existence (the confronting of absurdity, the burden of radical freedom, the anguish of responsibility, and the search for meaning in an indifferent cosmos). These two categories are mutually exclusive, representing distinct realms of human limitation, and together they comprehensively cover the full scope of meanings concerning human vulnerability, finitude, and existential burden.
10
From: "Meaning from Conscious Existential Predicaments"
Split Justification: This split differentiates between meanings derived from the fundamental, objective-like characteristics or inherent contradictions that define conscious existential predicaments (such as the structural absurdity of existence, or the burden of radical freedom without predetermined purpose) and meanings derived from the subjective, personal experience and active human engagement with these predicaments (such as the anguish of responsibility, or the deliberate search for meaning in an indifferent cosmos). These two perspectives are mutually exclusive, as one focuses on the given existential condition itself and the other on the individual's dynamic interaction and emotional response to it, and together they comprehensively cover all ways of deriving meaning from conscious existential predicaments.
11
From: "Meaning from the Subjective Experience and Active Engagement with Existence"
Split Justification: ** This split differentiates between meanings derived from the immediate, internal emotional and affective states experienced when confronting existence (e.g., anguish, dread, awe, peace, despair) and meanings derived from the deliberate, volitional, and active choices individuals make in response to these experiences (e.g., choosing a philosophical stance, undertaking a search for meaning, creating personal values, engaging in projects that imbue life with purpose). These two modes are mutually exclusive, as one focuses on the direct internal feeling and the other on conscious external or internal action/attitude, and together they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of how humans derive meaning from their subjective experience and active engagement with existence.
12
From: "Meaning from Active Existential Stance and Purpose-Seeking"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates two distinct modes of active existential stance and purpose-seeking. One mode involves the individual's volitional creation and construction of personal meaning, values, and life projects in a world not perceived as inherently purposeful. The other mode involves the individual's active identification with, commitment to, and pursuit of principles, values, or ultimate ends (telos) that are perceived as universal, transcendent, or pre-existing beyond the self. These two approaches are mutually exclusive in their primary source and nature of meaning (self-generated vs. adopted/aligned), and together they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of how humans actively engage in establishing purpose and existential orientation.
✓
Topic: "Meaning from Adopted Universal Principles and Teleological Commitments" (W7994)