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: "Internal World (The Self)"
Split Justification: The Internal World involves both mental processes (**Cognitive Sphere**) and physical experiences (**Somatic Sphere**). (Ref: Mind-Body Distinction)
3
From: "Cognitive Sphere"
Split Justification: Cognition operates via deliberate, logical steps (**Analytical Processing**) and faster, intuitive pattern-matching (**Intuitive/Associative Processing**). (Ref: Dual Process Theory)
4
From: "Analytical Processing"
Split Justification: Analytical thought engages distinct symbolic systems: abstract logic and mathematics (**Quantitative/Logical Reasoning**) versus structured language (**Linguistic/Verbal Reasoning**).
5
From: "Linguistic/Verbal Reasoning"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates the receptive aspects of linguistic reasoning, involving the understanding and interpretation of spoken or written language, from the expressive aspects, which involve the formulation and production of spoken or written language. These are distinct, fundamental processes that together encompass all facets of verbal reasoning.
6
From: "Verbal Expression"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates the construction of logically sound arguments (Structuring an Argument) from the use of stylistic and persuasive language to influence an audience (Rhetorical Technique).
7
From: "Rhetorical Technique"
Split Justification: This split distinguishes rhetorical techniques that primarily appeal to reason and clarity (such as explanatory analogies) from those that appeal to emotion, character, and authority (such as ethos and pathos).
8
From: "Using an Explanatory Analogy"
Split Justification: Explanatory analogies fundamentally clarify by comparing either the static arrangement and relationships of components (structure) or the dynamic operation, purpose, and sequence of actions (function or process). These two categories are distinct in what aspect of the concept they primarily illuminate through comparison.
9
From: "Analogies for Explaining Function or Process"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates analogies based on whether they primarily illuminate *what* a function or process achieves or its overall aim (purpose/outcome) versus *how* it operates or unfolds step-by-step (mechanism/operation). This covers the two fundamental ways to understand a function or process.
10
From: "Analogies Explaining Purpose or Outcome"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates the inherent reason for an entity's existence or the natural consequence of its being (intrinsic) from the external goal it serves or its impact on other systems or environments (extrinsic). Together, they comprehensively cover all forms of purpose and outcome.
11
From: "Analogies Explaining Intrinsic Purpose or Outcome"
Split Justification: This split directly divides the parent concept into its two explicit components: explanations focusing on the inherent aim or reason for being ("Purpose") versus explanations focusing on the inherent final state or consequence ("Outcome"). Both children retain the "intrinsic" quality and the "explaining by analogy" context.
12
From: "Analogies Explaining Intrinsic Outcome"
Split Justification: Intrinsic outcomes can be fundamentally understood in two ways: as a final condition, quality, or form achieved (a state), or as an inherent action, process, or capability that manifests (an activity). This dichotomy separates the static "being" of the outcome from its dynamic "doing" or "unfolding," ensuring mutual exclusivity while comprehensively covering the concept of an intrinsic outcome.
✓
Topic: "Analogies for Intrinsic Resultant State" (W5303)