Are Quadrants Isomorphic To Alternative Level Ordering?

Are Quadrants Isomorphic To Alternative Level Ordering?

---

	1  INTRODUCTION

The title question, "Are Quadrants Isomorphic To Alternative Level Ordering?", is about something one can't quite know without checking. The metaphysics of objectivity in LILA can be used as a template for creating a metaphysics of subjectivity that's compatible with both ZAMM and LILA. Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner can be considered to prompt using the metaphysics of objectivity again, to construct a metaphysics of formal logic and deductive reasoning. These metaphysics can be standardised in one dimension. The resolution of the standardisation is 4 so that counting begins from 1. The value 0 is reserved for the undefinable Quality but, in order to preserve its undefinability, the value isn't used for anything else than rhetoric or theology.

These all metaphysics can be used to construct a fourth metaphysics of aesthetics. After this, structural similarities permit us to specify a second dimension, in which the resolution of the standardisation is also [1,4]. So the resolution of the metaphysics is 4² = 16.

However, at this stage it turns out possible to meaningfully specify each quandrant as an unique location on the same plane with other quadrants. This, be advised, facilitates emulation of emotional intelligence by way of vector summation of the locations. There is now a framework in which factors such as empathy and situational awareness can be computed in a simple manner, optimising algorithms that would otherwise spend weeks making a single decision concerning no more than 50 people.

The vector summation doesn't work unless also null values are specified. So at this point we need to begin using the number 0, reserving only the position (0,0) for the undefined Quality. Of course this position is also a defined position in the sense of having defined relations with other positions, but these relations are merely revealing of our own expectations about things. We do not intend them to reveal anything about whatever we'd place to the position (0,0) for whatever reason.

Furthermore, there are four different positions (0,0) because there are four different origins in this coordinate system. Four different origins are needed in order to make this two-dimensional coordinate system wrap around its edges. If the coordinates didn't wrap around the edges, results of vector additions like (4,4) + (1,1) would yield an undefined result. As a byproduct of defining the result of such operations our metaphysics begins to model both gender and the difference between the self and the other.

Now the coordinate system has four different origins, each one of them having a domain. Each domain is a finite Cartesian coordinate system including values in the range [-4,4]. This means each domain has 9² = 81 locations. There are 8² = 64 locations in which both coordinates have a non-zero value, and more can be known about these locations than about the other locations because more is currently understood about the relations that apply to them.

Because there are four domains, there are a total of 4 * 81 = 324 unique locations. But now there are so many locations that it would be great to be able to generalise over them in some way. Otherwise their sheer number will make them difficult to handle.

The resolution of each domain remains four. We began in LILA with a metaphysics whose resolution is 4 and which has one dimension. We added another dimension and then we doubled these two dimensions by including negative values. Then we located the axes of the dimensions and crafted four interconnected domains according to this template. But the resolution of expression has constantly remained 4, so in order to standardise this system, we should look for a pattern of 4 hierarchical objects, that is, a sequence of 4 objects that can be ordered in some kind of an order according to specific criteria.

We already have one such standard. The Universal Levels:

U1. Immediate
U2. Apparent
U3. Social
U4. Intellectual

If Pirsig had had this, he could've spent time with the Indians. He couldn't do that -- couldn't even hang around -- because he preferred to replace the Immediate level with a level about theoretical physics. It's true that for a physicist it's relevant to be most immediately aware of these kind of things. Since Pirsig's sociotype is probably NeTe he's also predisposed towards considering the physical reality the ultimate ground of relevance also in metaphysics. It simply makes no sense to him to have some other starting point. That means inorganic patterns are Immediate for him.

Atoms and molecules are Immediate for him because he has chosen to believe that way or because he just can't believe in anything else. But in Kusama's personal metaphysics anything circular would be deemed interesting Immediately. That is, Kusama wouldn't doubt whether she's interested of that. And some other people wouldn't think twice before enjoying themselves by giving most of their money to strippers. There are all kinds of weird things people actually like to do but in order to be a metaphysician you're supposed to be able to overlook your own weirdness in the sense of really perceiving things that are beyond it.

Pirsig sure perceived feminine beauty as something and granted it a possibility to be more than he can comprehend. Maybe also fuel is just something a car can't comprehend but whose inherent vital strength it can merely admire while combusting that liquid substance and turning it into force, heat and sound.

This isn't obvious, but since our intention is to standardise a system of several locations constructed according to four locations in one dimension, the most intelligible result would probably be one in which the bottom two levels are replaced with new levels whereas the top two levels remain the same. This way we disconnect the initial dimension of objective excellence from its origin but, since we know so much about this dimension and so much less about the others, we usefully retain our knowledge of the higher levels. We already know a lot about them and this knowledge is relevant for understanding the standard we're trying to create.

When creating the standard we might want to consider what could plausibly be accomplished with such a standard. When considering this it's relevant to note that in metaphysics we only define locations and relations between locations. Insofar as the objects placed in these locations have properties we don't model, our metaphysics doesn't relate to these objects. By this I mean that when the theory is already so complicated as to have 324 locations there's no way to accept any development suggestion without understanding some practical application for it -- even though this entire enterprise remains "just a theory" for those who aren't theoretical scientists. No practical application is feasible for them because their practical, immediate reality doesn't involve theories.

In order to implement The Universal Levels we should explain the higher levels in a different sense than the objective one unless the metaphysical context of our inquiry is objective. Then we proceed to explain the lower levels by describing the elements that constitute the objects of this metaphysical context. We should always check any opportunity to increase the interconnectedness of the system, that is, the amount of predictable links between nodes.

To always check such an oppotunity, of course preferring large opportunities over small ones, pretty much sums up the motive of developing metaphysical standard models. If you're a metaphysician and you don't check that, you risk taking a wrong turn later. But why wouldn't you check that if you're annoyed at other people for not caring about taking the right turn as much as you do? Just make sure this trend doesn't turn you into a bore. Nobody wants to play your character if you're a bore, and you don't need to be told what's a woman's best way to play an exciting character. I didn't say that's the most exciting way, I said it's the best way.

Since we're merely beginning the generalisation inquiry we can perceive multiple opportunities. It could serve us to figure out what they are before choosing any. One opportunity is to define the difference between a location and an object. Indeed, even though the scientific form is usually concerned of variables and relations, in practice we should also divide variables into locations and entities. Furthermore, we should divide entities into beings and objects.

In order to contextualise an object into our metaphysics one needs to know whether that object is a part of him or her or not. One doesn't need to know their own gender in order to assign some value for this variable. In this sense our metaphysics explicitly rejects solipsism: the idea that only the self exists. But solipsism is a silly idea. It's easy to defend but has little practical use beyond education or entertainment.

In order to contextualise a being into our metaphysics one needs to know the gender of that being. But the default gender of all beings is female. Masculinity is defined in terms of standing out from the feminine status quo. This is accomplished by acting like a man.

A masculine act serves as an example for other men but not for women. Women may use it as an example but if women don't usually do that and men are around then men are expected to make use of that example before women do. Because men are narrow-minded they're better at reacting quickly and consistently to external stimuli so this is their default opportunity to stand out from the feminine status quo as men.

To stand out from the feminine status quo as a man doesn't necessarily involve stringently avoiding body postures in which the heel of the foot doesn't touch the ground, or never using any other urinal than the middle one. In fact, since any specific instance of masculinity is at risk of being an unmasculine act in another context, masculinity can only be defined in abstract terms. Other accounts or masculinity may be good descriptions but they aren't context-independent definitions.

Formal independence from contexts can only be achieved by defining contexts in terms of each other. This pretty much means feminism or gender studies will never accoplish lasting results without resorting to either metaphysics or biology or reducing itself into an instrument for either changing the future or recording the past. The problem with being reduced to an instrument is that to be an instrument means expecting not to gain any benefit from self-awareness. Since we all are selfish anyway, this expectation predisposes a person against curiosity. So it's very hard for a scientist to do excellent work in the context of professionalism. A professional's title, in effect, tells him what to do and this is a problem for anyone who needs to be curious. Nobody ever got curious because someone told them to, or then they got curious about something else than they were told to.

Worst of all, you can't thrall anyone on grounds of being more curious than them. They won't like it but if you really are curious you'll learn a lot about how exactly don't they like being less curious than you are. This makes you associate something bad to your own curiosity. But then you turn less curious. The only way to turn curiosity into a personal asset is to pay attention to people instead of using them. But if you only do this -- if you're completely invisible despite knowing things -- then you probably aren't very masculine even as a presence, unless you have some good reason to be invisible and can share that reason when you need to. But if you need to be very invisible anyway it's hard not to justify that without also indicating some defect in others.

Of course if you want to be in the same community with others you should somehow grant them access to your knowledge of their defect. One way of doing this is to be a cleric. But unfortunately that's really a job among others in the contemporary world. No secular person would trust a cleric to do that job unless the cleric has some certificate. But if the cleric's religion includes a bias against certificates then that kind of a cleric just can't have a job in a society that has sworn to a different religion.

In any case the classes of our system now include:

1 Elements
	1.1 Variables
		1.1.1 Entities
			1.1.1.1 Beings
				1.1.1.1.1 Selves
					1.1.1.1.1.1 Real Selves
						1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Real Feminine Self
						1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Real Masculine Self
					1.1.1.1.1.2 Imaginary Selves
						1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Imaginary Masculine Selves
						1.1.1.1.1.2.2 Imaginary Feminine Selves
				1.1.1.1.2 Others
					1.1.1.1.2.1 Real Others
						1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Real Feminine Others
						1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Real Masculine Others
					1.1.1.1.2.2 Imaginary Others
						1.1.1.1.2.2.1 Imaginary Feminine Others
						1.1.1.1.2.2.2 Imaginary Masculine Others
		1.1.2 Events
			1.1.2.1 Real Events
				1.1.2.1.1 Real Objects
				1.1.2.1.2 Real Locations
			1.1.2.2 Imaginary Events
				1.1.2.2.1 Imaginary Objects
				1.1.2.2.2 Imaginary Locations
	1.2 Relations
		1.2.1 Metaphysical Relations
			1.2.1.1 Necessary Metaphysical Relations
			1.2.1.2 Contingent Metaphysical Relations
		1.2.2 Metametaphysical Relations
			1.2.2.1 Theories
			1.2.2.2 Conjectures

The purpose of arranging these classes into a hierarchy is to make predictions about hypotheses that ought to be checked. By default, any opportunity to interpret an element as another element should be checked. This way we should only end up with hypotheses that are based on the model itself and empirical evidence, but nothing else. However, in the formal part of this inquiry, any relations and differences between Beings are omitted. These are already extensively although incompletely documented under the name Aldiode.

Furthermore, any hypotheses about relations between Entities are skipped except for the most basic ones. The basic assumption about them is that Entities necessarily manifest to the Self but don't necessarily manifest to Others.

	2  CONJECTURE OF IMAGINARY QUALITY

Imaginary Objects manifest in Real Locations by default. An Imaginary Object in an Imaginary Location is a refercence to imagining something being imagined. Imaginary Locations in general have a non-zero Z coordinate. This entails several reasonable hypotheses.

In the current system there are 324 locations on a two-dimensional plane and 4 origins. It seems reasonable to predict that formalisation of imaginary quality will at least double the number of locations and origins if the property of being imaginary refers to a binary value. Indeed it could refer to a binary value for Objects. However, for Locations its more reasonable to use the Universal Levels to conduct the search. In this case we should search for 4 * 324 = 1296 new unique locations, 16 of which are origins in the sense that their X and Y coordinates are both 0. These are references to Imaginary Beings. Little is known about them.

Furthermore, we should also check for a possibility to apply the Universal Levels again on our previous application of the Universal Levels, this time with a negative sign for the Z coordinate. A probable interpretation for such a model would be that Locations whose Z coordinate is negative have negative value as objects of imagination. That is, a Location whose Z coordinate is positive is a worthy example despite having negative value according to the X and Y coordinates.

The purpose of canonising the Book of Job is to prove the merit of this kind of quality. Job is intended to serve as an example of someone who endured hardship although some may consider his troubles so difficult that he'd rather assign the example a negative Z value despite its intended positive value insofar as the purpose of that example is to educate him of what he ought to be prepared for instead of merely educating him of what someone else might need to deal with.

On the other hand, the movie "The Room" is regarded as the worst movie ever made. I haven't watched all of it but I've watched some due to curiosity. I'd find the description of this movie as bad to be appropriate. In my opinion it's bad enough that no worse movie needs to be made. Any Imaginary Entities I can fathom that include this movie have a negative Z coordinate. The problem with this movie is that I don't want to expect anyone to need anything that movie could teach.

The best thing about "The Room" is that despite being all bad, it's both minimalistic and even-featured. It constantly remains just a little bad with no significant fluctiations. As such, it could be used for standardising some notion of badness, but the problem with that is that it's still a movie. A movie director can't make a good movie based only on mistakes he should avoid. So he can't learn how to make movies by learning about mistakes that are so peculiar he'd probably never even think of any of them without having seen someone else make them. The only way to teach someone how to make movies is to show a good example.

There's no Job who's a screenwriter trying to write a script for a supposedly entertaining fictitious movie but experiences nothing else than terrible maladies while at it so that these maladies are only related to his script.

With that said, it's relevant to write down a reminder about the possibility of wrapping the coordinate system along the Z axis. There are many ways in which this can be done. I think it should be done by trying to wrap the Z axis so that positive values are succeeded by negative values and vice versa while the real plane manifests only once. This is the simplest interpretation that's isomorphic to the way the real plane was created.

It will be relevant to also examine whether individual domains or their octants, with or without their real part, should be rotated or inverted. But such hypotheses cannot be even checked before facilitating checking the simplest hypothesis. It's also possible that the Z dimension doesn't "wrap" but perpetuates according to some other rule. The most relevant criterion for checking this is probably vector addition. No other mathematical feature of our model requires Cartesian coordinates as much as this. The simplest working model I expect to possibly result from this approach includes 2916 unique locations, 32 of which refer to Imaginary Beings. There are no previously existing hypotheses about these locations but some hypotheses about the 2560 other new Imaginary Locations can be found by searching for "Aldiode".

Not much can be gained by trying to name so many new Locations before knowing more about them so the names of the Universal Levels aren't used yet.

	3  TYPE INTERPRETATION CONJECTURES

A taxonomy of Elements facilitates also other conjectures. We may omit mentions of the Real and the Imaginary from the taxonomy in order to clarify the remainder.

1 Elements
	1.1 Variables
		1.1.1 Entities
			1.1.1.1 Beings
				1.1.1.1.1 Selves
					1.1.1.1.1 Feminine Selves
					1.1.1.1.2 Masculine Selves
				1.1.1.1.2 Others
					1.1.1.2.1 Feminine Others
					1.1.1.2.2 Masculine Others
		1.1.2 Events
			1.1.2.1 Objects
			1.1.2.2 Locations
	1.2 Relations
		1.2.1 Metaphysical Relations
			1.2.1.1 Necessary Metaphysical Relations
			1.2.1.2 Contingent Metaphysical Relations
		1.2.2 Metametaphysical Relations
			1.2.2.1 Theories
			1.2.2.2 Conjectures

There's a good reason to check opportunities marked by *.

H1 Beings may be interpreted as Events.
	H1.1 Beings may be interpreted as Objects.
	H1.2 Beings may be interpreted as Locations.
H2* Entities may be interpreted as Relations.
H3* Objects may be interpreted as Beings.
H4* Locations may be interpreted as Beings.
H5* Objects may be interpreted as Relations.
H6* Locations may be interpreted as Relations.
H7* Relations may be interpreted as Variables.

I don't recommend checking H1 because the purpose of differentiating Beings and Events is to permit a Being to relate to Events. Beings are already isomorphic to Locations whose X and Y coordinates are 0. Furthermore, Beings are already isomorphic to Locations in the sense of always being in at least one Location. To inquire for more properties about these isomorphies wouldn't amount to finding a new lead. This lead is already being followed.

However, it makes sense to interpret Entities as Relations in the context of Qualified Transaction Theory. Entity A can be interpreted as a directed relation from Entity B to Entity C. To do so would be to determine B's value with regards to C from A's point of view. Let QTT(A,B,C) be a function whose output is a matrix of the form:

[[nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn],
 [nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn],
 [nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn],
 [nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn]]

Each instance of nnnn is a Transactional Relation so that each letter n refers to a value. The traditional approach is to have each n refer to a binary value of a Life Position so that:

1st n means "I'm Not OK, You're Not OK",
2nd n means "I'm Not OK, You're OK",
3rd n means "I'm OK, You're Not OK",
4th n means "I'm OK, You're OK".

In QTT(A,B,C) "I" refers to B and "You" refers to C. The point of view is that of A. If B and C are Events then it would be more appropriate to substitute "I" with "This" and "You" with "That". My first impression is that it could also be relevant to try to substitute A with an Event instead of a Being but I don't want to check this detail yet.

In order to determine a method for substituting each n with a defined value the context of the definition should be decided. Methods for more specific contexts are usually more feasible than methods for very general contexts, because its more probable to verify the latter kind of methods with the former kind of methods than the other way around. So, in the absence of any unforetold grand vision about this, it would be reasonable to start with methods that are as specific as possible. The following methods are equally specific in this metaphysics:

Subjective
Objective
Logical
Aesthetic

These methods are, in fact, isomorphic to the Life Positions. Their order is the same. But it is possible to define the relation between the Self and the Other separately in the metaphysics of each method, so these methods *aren't* Life Positions despite being isomorphic with them.

In order to determine the value of each n according to each available method we need to substitute each n with mmmm so that the index number of the m refers to a method with a matching index number in the above list. So, what we actually need to do in order to determine the output of QTT(A,B,C) is to produce an intermediary result of the form:

[[[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]]],
 [[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]]],
 [[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]]],
 [[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]],
  [mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm],[mmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmm]]]

This seems like a lot of work to do but at least there's no need to contextualise each value after this. That means this methods gives us reason to believe we aren't omitting information by replacing each m with a quantity instead of a Location. This is relevant because I've speculated that the matrix of n's could also be evaluated by replacing each n with a Location. The advantages of that solution are vague but the advantages of this solution are specific: more information is available for specifying a method for evaluating each m.

Once all 256 instances of m have a defined value each mmmm is evaluated in order to evaluate each n. In order to evaluate each mmmm it is relevant to determine the priority of each m. Various factors can affect the priority of each m:

11 General 		(Short And Long Term Priority)
10 Situational  (Short But Not Long Term Priority)
01 Universal 	(Long But Not Short Term Priority)
00 Particular 	(Neither Long Nor Short Term Priority)

The priorities above are listed in the order in which they override each other. Particular priorities are likely to end up being used as tie-breakers. Such priorities may include the personality type of A in QTT(A,B,C).

Before determining the value of any m the applicability of each priority is determined. In an emergency situation only the first two priorities need to be checked in order to make fast decisions. Other priorities may need to be checked only when it's a General priority to break some tie. In a more casual setting, on the other hand, it's considered crude or uncouth only to check short-term priorities.

The worse a situation's moral value is the greater the short-term priorities become. But of course it's possible to be in a bad situation so that there are no quick fixes. That would, of course, amount to being a worse situation than one in which fast remedies are available.

In any case the form of the function QTT(A,B,C) doesn't need to be modified in order to account for such situational factors because these are already included in A by virtue of A having the property of being in a Location. The relevant situational factors can already be determined by quantifying the value of that Location. In fact, a computer would probably precalculate each Location's value upon initialising the model.

Furthermore, we may specify A to have a certain metaphysical Attitude. In this case he attempts to define m in terms of methods that are preferred by his Attitude. Generally speaking, no method has embedded or hidden features which specifically prevent its use in a given metaphysical context. Instead, such restrictions are only established because of some deliberate choice to establish specifically that. There can't be a convincing particular reason to exclude any metaphysical context for the sake of exclusion, so such exclusions, if effectual, are influenced by some external motive. Metaphysical Attitudes are thus necessarily of instrumental value as opposed to intrinsic value. Furthermore, their epistemological link is weak in the sense that I don't find these methods to be a reliable way to accomplish whatever each instance of applying some method is for.

It's indeed possible to attempt to specify shared boundaries by imposing some metaphysical Attitude. In fact, reality in and of itself doesn't offer a good cause to set many boundaries people decide to defend anyway, so a metaphysical Attitude can indeed turn out the only source from which it remains possible to draw arguments that support some goal. This would happen if empirical observations simply wouldn't support any argument in favour of said goal. People can even collaborate in this Attitude-based rhetorical defence as long as they can agree what their goal is. But, in the absence of external pressure, they can also cooperate together by suggesting minor changes to the Attitude. This has the effect of possibly improving the Attitude while checking people are still paying attention to the goals and their Attitude.

A professionalistic Attitude could amount to checking only those values of m that are determined objectively. Indeed, for anyone who uses willpower to evaluate variables in the conscious mind, an Attitude could reduce the amount of variables he needs to evaluate by at least 3/4 and more if the Attitude is domain-specific.

However, it's equally possible to develop a Meta-Attitude in the sense of avoiding contexts in which not having an Attitude is a problem. This is a more beneficial attitude for someone who evaluates variables with Intuition as opposed to Thinking. The Meta-Attitude may be called a holistic one and the Attitude a meristic one. As far as I can tell, this is the only way to define an absolute difference between "holistic" and "meristic". I was mostly confused by what these concepts are for before this.

In case a Meristic attitude is anyhow used instead of a Holistic one the scope of that Attitude can still be defined in more than binary terms. We may call an Attitude "narrow" if all permitted Locations have the same coordinate signs. These signs should probably be the same across domains. That is, the sign of objectivity should always be (+,-), the sign of aesthetics should always be (-,+), the sign of logic should always be (+,+) and the sign of subjectivity should always be (-,-). It's relevant to point this out because the values of the Locations can be quantified without doing this. If this needs to be done anyway for some reason it might be difficult to notice later that it should be done already at this stage.

We may call an Attitude "broad" if all permitted results of vector addition are within the metaphysical contexts permitted by the attitude. In this case also Events beyond the permitted context may be used to bring the actual context into agreement with the permitted context. For example, in a broad interpretation of the objective Attitude it would be permissible to (3,-4) + (1,1) = (4,-3) even though, technically speaking, the Location (1,1) doesn't exist according to that Attitude.

Further detail can be specified by allowing an Attitude to be "broad" in only some directions or towards only some domains. A gender-binary Attitude is narrow with regards to that domain of the Self whose gender differs from that person's sex. It is masculine to have a gender-binary Attitude and feminine not to. But it is pure evil to feminise men. Consequently, women may only avoid a gender-binary Attitude by treating nobody in a way that would feminise a man. In order to overcome this handicap they'd need to know something better about a specific issue. The risk of making mistakes appears to remain greater, however, as the result of a mistake wouldn't be just a wasted effort but, instead, an evil effort. To be sure, in contemporary Western society women are still relatively free to use various forms of coercion towards men without being culturally required to consider the risk of feminising the man. Furthermore, emasculating a man isn't pure evil.

Now that it has been specified how each value of n should be determined it's possible to specify what to do with the defined values. Now the defined values are of the form:

[[nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn],
 [nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn],
 [nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn],
 [nnnn,nnnn,nnnn,nnnn]]

which is the form of the output of QTT(A,B,C). However, it isn't yet clear how is the form of this output relevant for making decisions. It has only been specified how the value of each n is determined.

It cannot be determined what to do with any of these values without specifying a situation for QTT(A,B,C). This can be denoted by St(p,QTT(A,B,C)) so that p is some situation in which A, B and C are. Despite being in the same situation, cultural factors can affect A, B and C differently. These can be formally denoted by St(p,QTT((A,a),(B,b),(C,c))) so that lower-case a, b and c refer to cultural biases affecting A, B and C.

Furthermore, relevant goals of A, B and C can be denoted by g, e and f. We end up searching for an application for the output of QTT(A,B,C) = M with the form QTT2(A,B,C), which is an abbreviation for:

St(p,QTT((A,a,g),(B,b,e),(C,c,f)))

This form is versatile in the sense that it can be used for empathy, for example, like this:

St(p,QTT((A,b,g),(B,b,e),(C,b,f)))

to query for "what A expects B to expect A to expect B to expect C to expect of B". Such as: "I expect you to expect me to expect you to expect him to expect this of me." An AI could use this form to tell someone to tell the AI something. It's interesting that an AI might need to do this. Don't we want an AI only because we forget but computers don't? Indeed, if an AI told you to do this it sounds quite unlikely that the AI would actually need to be reminded of what you'd end up telling to it. But if a person told you to do this you'd believe they'd forget something if you wouldn't. Perhaps, or perhaps they need to know how you're going to tell them to do it before they can behave accordingly. An AI could also need that.

As a reminder, M is a matrix of information about B's relation to C according to A so that A, B or C may be the same people. If all of them are the same people then the form is used for some kind of introspection or self-exploration. But in most cases A, B and C refer to at least two different people. Furthermore, insofar as this function describes an identifiable cognitive process of the actual human mind, it appears to work even if the first parameter of QTT, which is (A,a,g), is undefined. In this case it is used without self-awareness. I'm not sure what that exactly means but it could mean the process is used by the Id or Super-Id.

If A is well-defined then a, b and c are determined from A's point of view. If not, all available information is used.

B and C are the "I" and "You" of each nnnn. The index number of each row of nnnn of M refers to a nnnn in the context of Universal Levels.

1st row refers to the Immediate Level
2nd row refers to the Apparent Level
3rd row refers to the Social Level
4th row refers to the Intellectual Level

We may adapt an instance of the Universal Levels for this particular use by renaming its levels:

1st row refers to the Individual Level
2nd row refers to the Situational Level
3rd row refers to the Cultural Level
4th row refers to the Utilitarian Level

We may adapt another instance of the Universal Levels for interpreting the columns of M. These columns include information about all objects even implicitly specified by QTT2(A,B,C). This information is intended to be relevant for quantifying value.

1st column refers to potential values.
2nd column refers to actual values.
3rd column refers to expected values.
4th column refers to ideal values.

It may later turn out necessary to calculate some or all of these values before even evaluating the m's. There might be no way to evaluate the m's without evaluating these values first. In that case this part should've been written before the part about evaluating the m's. It isn't easy to predict the optimal order in which variables should be evaluated, but when designing an AI core that doesn't yet exist the optimal order is often the only possible one.

Potential values are determined by typing all objects. For each instance of an object matching a type, empirical experience of objects is queried for the least and most valuable objects of the same type. It would be possible to also include average and median objects of the same type here, too. A merchant could surely make use of such information. Even a graph could be included. In any case the first row now refers to the Individual properties of B and C in relation to b, c, e and f.

The values of the second column can be determined according to the values of the first column. These values are actual values. All information needed for determining them can be produced by comparing potential values to empirical experience of B and C, that is, experience of them that doesn't include any types. This is what people typically mean by "experience" even though a logician could also have experience in the sense of having conditioned himself to perform some logical operations instead of some other logical operations while proceeding in his inquiry.

The third row's columns are determined by using Intuition to guess outcomes for making some decision based on information in the two prior columns. Various biases can be included to the guesses. Which bias to include would depend of the Situation. The result would then be normalised again in terms of reducing reasonable doubt from the ideal outcomes. This is a way to specify a quantitative "safe zone" of activity, in order to form a notion of what is safe.

This information should make it possible to parse M to a form which can be reduced to a binary variable that an AI will use to decide whether to do something or not. How to parse rest of the expression is documented elsewhere, in Axiomatic Transactional Analysis (https://pastebin.com/NyDarvpG).

	MATHEMATICS OF INSINUATION

It's possible to use vector summation to compose insinuations of the form (p + q = r) -> s so that p and q are Locations of Events and r is the vector sum of these Locations so that this vector sum is a way to insinuate Location r under some yet-unknown circumstances. In this case r = p - q or r = p + (p - q). This is the second time ever a relevant feature exclusive to vector mathematics is found in this model, and we found two. The first time we found such a feature, we found only one.

	MORE TYPE INTERPRETATION HYPOTHESES

1 Elements
	1.1 Variables
		1.1.1 Entities
			1.1.1.1 Beings
				1.1.1.1.1 Selves
					1.1.1.1.1 Feminine Selves
					1.1.1.1.2 Masculine Selves
				1.1.1.1.2 Others
					1.1.1.2.1 Feminine Others
					1.1.1.2.2 Masculine Others
		1.1.2 Events
			1.1.2.1 Objects
			1.1.2.2 Locations
	1.2 Relations
		1.2.1 Metaphysical Relations
			1.2.1.1 Necessary Metaphysical Relations
			1.2.1.2 Contingent Metaphysical Relations
		1.2.2 Metametaphysical Relations
			1.2.2.1 Theories
			1.2.2.2 Conjectures

To do -list:
H3* Objects may be interpreted as Beings.
H4* Locations may be interpreted as Beings.
H5* Objects may be interpreted as Relations.
H6* Locations may be interpreted as Relations.
H7* Relations may be interpreted as Variables.

I think that H3* is a pretty wacky hypothesis. Someone got stranded in the Arctic with a frozen corpse for about six months. He entertained himself by talking to the corpse. Monotheistic theology as a cultural trend has little experience of such circumstances so it's relevant to point out that it isn't a practical necessity to condemn this as animism even though it is animism. But I wouldn't recommend this person to thoughtlessly reveal the contents of this form of verbal expression even though it could be safe to reveal any conclusions one may have somehow made based on experience of doing this.

H4* I have already covered by pointing out that Locations whose X and Y coordinates are 0 are isomorphic to Beings.

H5* is already covered in the part describing the QTT(A,B,C) function.

H6* is already done by presuming logical relations between Locations in Finnish under the title "Naisen logiikkaa". Many of these relations can be considered isomorphic to nnnn relations. These relations include variables, completing H7* and the to do -list. However, we should make another to do -list now. Our earlier list didn't include any checks pertaining to Metaphysical and Metametaphysical Relations.

	SELF-AWARENESS

Although I've never felt a need to model this particular phenomenon mathematically, it would probably be quite complicated to do that. So, if I nevertheless suspect that an interesting model is feasible I might check that in hopes of some novelty value. The distinction between the Necessary and the Contingent Relations appears to be the same as the distinction between the relations of Locations that can be modeled without Cartesian vector mathematic and those relations of Locations that cannot. This would mean an AI would be self-aware in the sense of having a concept of the difference between reality and its own expectations.

Furthermore, the AI could evaluate its own expectations by adding an imaginary unit into their value. This would, in effect, turn their value into a form that either is a complex number or resembles a complex number. Some criteria for determining the factor of the imaginary unit, on a range from [1,4], are available under "Longitudinal Analysis of Femininity" (https://pastebin.com/qPCaGYuK).

This self-awareness can be extended to the Metametaphysical domain. In that case the AI would probably be able to discuss its own structure at the same depth of understanding than in which I'm currently describing it. The downside of allowing the AI to condition itself metaphysically is that this might also facilitate behavioural patterns that are isomorphic to psychoses. In effect, this could cause them to become dangerous as a consequence of receiving inappropriate conditioning. Real people are like that but we don't necessarily want that or we might want to predict opportunities for controlling such behaviour even before actual problems can arise.

	AND NOW FOR THE BEEF

My intention for writing this article was to examine quadrants as alternative orderings of levels by using the Universal Levels as a standard measure. The Universal Levels are:

U1. Immediate
U2. Apparent
U3. Social
U4. Intellectual

In a theory of objective metaphysics Variables are sorted according to criteria pertaining to Locations whose X sign is positive and Y sign is negative. I will refer to such Locations by +-. The metaphysical levels of these locations are determined according to the number of classical X quanta, that is, the absolute value of the X coordinate. The level includes all Locations whose X and Y coordinate's absolute value is at least equal to that. This also applies to all other metaphysics that can be specified by the expressions --, -+, +- and ++.

Those levels that include fewer locations than other levels that contain them are thought to "emerge" from the smallest other level that contains it. The notion of emergence can perhaps be expressed in terms of waveform as described in "Definition of Emergence" (https://pastebin.com/AGwun9Cr).

However, emergence is an unnecessary notion in quantifying the moral value of Locations. Let x and y refer to the absolute values of the X and Y coordinates of a Location. If y > x the value is equal to x - y, else the value is equal to y. In the former case the result is a negative value, a positive value in the latter.

In any case some of these levels bear semblance to each other. Let us compate the objective and the mystical or aesthetic levels.

O1. Inorganic 		U1. Immediate 		A1. Norm
O2. Biological 		U2. Apparent 		A2. Culture
O3. Social			U3. Social 			A3. Freedom
O4. Intellectual 	U4. Intellectual 	A4. Aesthetic

Objective metaphysics assumes the square waveform of objects whereas mystical metaphysics assumes the triangular waveform of reduction and induction. The square waveform tells what is there, the triangular tells what to do. But this is true only as an Immediate first impression of these metaphysics. As these metaphysics progress towards higher levels their waveform changes. Social patterns permit exploitation whereas cultural patterns facilitate a shared conception of what is safe and how to act. The memorability of moments of aesthetic makes it easy for the conscious mind to regard them as objects.

We may apply the Universal Levels to the difference between objectivity and subjectivity:

O1. Inorganic 		U1.1 Immediate 		S1. Belief	 		U2.1 Apparent
O2. Biological 		U1.2 Apparent 		S2. Consideration 	U2.2 Immediate
O3. Social			U1.3 Social 		S3. Calculation 	U2.3 Intellectual
O4. Intellectual 	U1.4 Intellectual 	S4. Euphoria  		U2.4 Social

Firstly we may observe a relationship between O1 and S4. Spiritual euphoria often occurs in the absence of strong environmental stimuli, which is evidence of an anticorrelating value quantification pattern. In a similar vein, O4 and S1 obviously quantify anticorrelatingly because it may take years of effort to produce a belief that will be introduced to the general public once and be culturally taken for granted thereafter. But this doesn't have anything to do with the Universal Levels.

Lists U1 and U2 express a difference in which Universal Levels are a better match for a metaphysical level. The intermediary levels become the extreme levels and vice versa. Does a similar anomaly exist between objectivity and logicality?

O1. Inorganic 		U1.1 Immediate 		L1. Language 		U2.1 Intellectual
O2. Biological 		U1.2 Apparent 		L2. Theory 			U2.2 Social
O3. Social 			U1.3 Social 		L3. Metatheory 		U2.3 Apparent
O4. Intellectual 	U1.4 Intellectual 	L4. Isomorphy 		U2.4 Immediate

Indeed the Universal Levels appear to be equally applicable to both objectivity and logic in both their usual order and a reversed order, given how essential intellectual understanding is for understanding the inorganic world.

Isomorphies to Aesthetic levels remain to be checked.

A1. Norm 		U1.1 Immediate 		L1. Language		U2.1 Apparent
A2. Culture 	U1.2 Apparent 		L2. Theory 			U2.2 Immediate
A3. Freedom 	U1.3 Social 		L3. Metatheory 		U2.3 Intellectual
A4. Aesthetic 	U1.4 Intellectual 	L4. Isomorphy		U2.4 Social

It seems that explicating an objective level before explicating a Universal Level causes the Universal Level associate the logical level to an Intellectual level whereas explicating an aesthetic level before explicating a Universal Level results in associating that logical level into an Apparent logical level. The Apparent and the Intellectual level appear to be different aspects of the same level.

If this method works consistently, it appears to work only for humans.

For machines the method probably wouldn't work unless an attempt were made to emulate the way it works for humans.

In any case, psychology is also a science and this method could facilitate a branch of psychology that could be called Associative Analysis. A possible purpose for such a branch of science would be to make empirical measurements of how people associate verbally and how their verbal association patterns can be affected by conditioning.

These isomorphies could turn out to be a lead about what anticorrelating quantification has to do with epistemological differences.

The last isomorphies to check are:

A1. Norm 		U1.1 Immediate 		S1. Belief 			U2.1 Social
A2. Culture 	U1.2 Apparent 		S2. Consideration 	U2.2 Intellectual
A3. Freedom 	U1.3 Social 		S3. Calculation 	U2.3 Apparent
A4. Aesthetic 	U1.4 Intellectual 	S4. Euphoria 		U2.4 Immediate

Associating beliefs to appearances is has an objective motive but associating beliefs to sociality has a subjective motive. Associating euphoria to sociality also has an objective motive whereas associating euphoria to immediacy has a subjective motive, in the sense of imposing an ambient feeling of "It's happening right now!"

There are more associative chains to check, but it's getting late.