IC ++

[yly2pg1]

CONTEXT

(A)
1. Context is facts oriented
2. Context was facts oriented but now not sure
3. Context is value oriented
4. Context was value oriented but now not sure

(B)
1. Context is proactive
2. Was proactive but now not sure
3. Context is reactive
4. Was reactive but now not sure

(C)
1. Context is about what was/what is/what will be
2. Was the above but now not so sure
3. Context is about what could have been/is NOT/could be
4. Was the above but now not so sure



TEXT

(A)
1. Text is facts oriented
2. Text was facts oriented but now not sure
3. Text is value oriented
4. Text was value oriented but now not sure

(B)
1. Text is proactive
2. Was proactive but now not sure
3. Text is reactive
4. Was reactive but now not sure

(C)
1. Text is about what was/what is/what will be
2. Was the above but now not so sure
3. Text is about what could have been/is NOT/could be
4. Was the above but now not so sure

[yly2pg1]

Seem to me each question phrased in the IC Plus is a recursion of dichotomy?

[lightofdarkness]

You have B and C the wrong way around.

Each question is yin/yang but the ORDER is from GENERAL to PARTICULAR with the most particular being the proactive/reactive focus aimed at the user being proactive or reactive.

We can ask the questions in any order but their format in trigram creation is A-B-C with B being what you have above as C, and C being what you have as B.

Thus fact/values sets the ground. You can use any other set of questions that are yang/yin but here they MUST be so general as setting the context.

WITHIN that we then focus on temporal aspects or some other aspects that operate WITHIN the context set by the first question.

WITHIN that we then focus on proactive/reactive dynamics (and so a 'mediating' role - whether text/context is instigating, being proactive, or responding, being reactive). This again can be any form of yin/yang question but again MUST fall within the bounds of the context set by the previous two questions.

We can stack the Q/A into six lines of questions OR use two trigrams, one as context (bottom tri) one as text (top tri) and so two sets of three questions.

We can also work top-down moving particular-to-general if you want!

Each question CAN be the 'root' question and elicit recursion but then you need to have other questions applied to bring out the 'requirement' of always moving general-to-particular.

I can ask six questions in different orders to the user, as long as they are placed in the general-to-particular order required.

If ALL of the questions are orthogonal then we still have to move general to particular as we do in graphs - X axis, Y axis, Z axis.

X axis sets the context. I CANNOT infer Y or Z from there. Then comes Y axis where I CAN infer X. Then comes Z axis where I can infer Y and X.

IOW we have Z <= Y <= X - this is the IMP operator at work and it functions backwards Z to Y, Y to X.

If I am proactive/reactive about 'something' then if Z = proactive/reactive the something = Y. Given the Y, a temporal element, so it implies X the even occurs in some context and they form a relationship that "I" am then involved with proactively or reactively.

For it all to work, to elicit a 'feeling' that is a 'best fit', so the proper ordering is required.

In the tautology of Z = Y = X there is no 'details' that XOR and IMP can give other than the tautology.