Scripts Page

Unedited Draft – Do Not Quote Or Distribute

“To understand is to experience harmony between what we aim at and what is given, between the intention and the performance – and the body is our anchorage in the world. ”― Maurice Merleau-Ponty

The Quadranym Model of Word-Sensibility (Q): An Ecological Systems Perspective On Word-Level-Concepts & Contextual Unitizations – Non-Mental-Representation Representation Design Before Define Approach.

Q: A method to analyze and cluster words – an ontological alignment system to represent dynamic word relations in unitsscripts and layers.


We explore the dynamic role of words. We begin with the question, how much information about the world does a word pack? Perhaps it’s an odd question but consider that words play a fundamental role in the way we interconnect in the world that we all interact in while conversely our interactive behaviors yields our word sense dynamics. In a basic lexical ontology a link between a concept in the ontology and the meaning of the lexical unit is essentially an analytical mapping between a collection of word senses. Development and change is inherent in how we relate to word meaning. How can our word sense dynamics be better represented in an ontology? An Ecological Systems Perspective is conceptually provided.

The dynamical Context Review

Unpacking words with Q analysis begins with a distinction in the contextualizing of word sense. A Situational Context is the communicative ability to present or understand the objective circumstances in which an event occurs and will sometimes include the appropriate behaviors associated with it. We introduce the idea of a Dynamical Context, it is something different and can be summarized as follows:

  • Dynamical Context: a situation resonates with a preexisting psychology, a predetermined expectation for behavior within that situation, and produces a synergy response, reshaped for the moment.
  • Dynamical Contextual Systems: possibly comprising many dynamics or areas any of which could be subject to a discrete dynamic situation, in which all of them may interpenetrate or interact or relate to one another.

Humans are wired to connect. The focus is on the dynamicity of a word’s specificity. Next, we’ll introduce dynamic frameworks for specified terms.

Model Page: Ecological Systems Perspective

In this approach, what implicates a sensibility are the skills and resources available to address new developments. Environments change behaviors and these changes are represented in Q-units. Ultimately, the process depends on the strategic ability to layer scripts into Contextual Timelines.

Preview: Before we dive into individual systems, here is a general view of the model’s approach. It organizes first on units and then scripts and layers.

The two terms below represent two ways that an agent is do-ing:

  • environmental-ing
  • re-member-ing
  1. environmental-ing refers to the environment driving the organism.
  2. re-member-ing refers to the feedback to the environment.

A reciprocal causation between an organism and the environment.

Smash Slide

  • First, the environment drives the sense.
  • Second, remembering guides the sense.
  1. FROM an active-sense; more experience necessary.
  2. TO a passive-sense; no more experience necessary.

(Active power is the power to use. Passive power is the power being used. This refers to an organisms responsive ability and the resources it has in its response.)

  • Representing environmental-ing resource is a flux.
  • Representing re-member-ing resource is a unit.
  1. flux is double brackets: [b] [a]
  2. unit is single brackets: [a b]
  • flux (::): a dynamic sense driven by the environment.
  • unit (→): how that sense has been driven before.

A flux is like a power source and a unit is like a capacitor.

World (power source) represented as:

  • Actual(potential), i.e., Predicate_Structure(subject_world)

A flux is a transfer of power; FROM world TO self.

Self (power capacitor) represented as:

  • Potential(actual), i.e., Predicate_Function(subject_self)

A unit is a capacity of power; FROM self TO goal.

A flux point lives between units.

  • flux:[Structure(world)]::[Function(self) → find resource]

A unit is a response to a flux point i.e., stimulus → response.

  • unit:[Function(self) → Structure(world)] stop else find

Units constrain coupled relations i.e., probabilities.


Flux Point: motivated by affordance e.g., rock has smash-ability.

Flux points generate units.

Form Procedural Script: (episodic memory, i.e., remembering how.)


  • [Actual_Structure(potential_rock)]::[Potential_Function(actual_rock)]

Notice how rock went from a potential in the world to an actualized attribute of the self; active power with the goal to become passive power.


  • [Potential_Function(actual_rock)Actual_Structure(potential_smash)]

Units form scripts. Units are linked by flux points. Below, 1 flux, 2 units

  • [Potential(tool) → Actual(rock)]::[Potential(rock) → Actual(smash)]

Again, notice how the subject is repeated after a flux and is predicated differently. When in flux, the subject such as Actual(rock) of the world set becomes subject Potential(rock) of the self set and a new unit is initiated.

  • i.e., tool rock initiates a newly predicated unit rock x.

The trajectory of the new unit is queried. Found objective completes unit.

  • [Actual(rock) Potential(x = smash)]

Scripts can run linearly or can be broken into layers and run simultaneously.


  1. layer:[Potential_Function(actual_smash) → Actual_Structure(potential_rock)] else .
  2. layer:[Potential_Function(actual_rock) → Actual_Structure(potential_tool)] else .
  3. layer:[Potential_Function(actual_tool) → Actual_Structure(potential_smash)] stop .

Consider for instance a chimpanzee who smashes small stones with a big rock. Maybe the act continues just for the dynamic sense of it, the impact,  stones fractured into fragments. Now consider the act repurposed to crack nuts. A new motivation, a new system of responsiveness is organized.

Upper scripts constrain lower scripts.

  1. General Layer:[Function(survive) → Structure(goal)]
  2. General Layer:[Function(nutrition) → Structure(goal)]
  3. General Layer:[Function(hunger)] → Structure(food)]
  4. Specific Layer: [Function(food) → Structure(nuts)]
  5. Specific Layer: [Function(nuts) → Structure(rock)]

The primary advantage of layers is the ability to create various hierarchical orders. In this way, an act can be constrained by different motivations.

Hierarchical layers represent contextual timelines. Some layers cycle more generally, others more specifically. The more new units appear in a layer the more specific it is to a task. Strategies may supplement, replace layers or rearrange hierarchical orders. Procedural dynamics are mixed and matched to best describe the occurrent condition of an agents responsiveness.

The Q model is about heuristic processes. It aims to represent episodic memory, intuitive reactions and that which makes deliberations tractable.

The Quadranym Model of Word-Sensibility

Our aim in this section is to bring more clarity to quadranym and polynym processes. It involves unpacking a multi-organizational dynamic system. How the model’s approach helps provide an ecological perspective on how word-sensibilities anchor as responsive units is what we aim to illustrate.

The terms quadranym and polynym when pertaining to system processes form a matrix to represent a general and overarching cognitive framework for a Dynamical Contextual approach for an ontology of commonsense.

  • Quadranyms represent autogenously unitized contextual dimensions.
  • Polynyms represent strategically divided contextual dimensions.

Quadranyms form units. Units are frames. When linked together form scripts. Polynyms refer to each layer of script. Scripts run simultaneously on different contextual timelines. Upper scripts constrain lower scripts.

  1. units = trajectories
  2. scripts = procedures
  3. layers = strategies
  • Sense begins in units. Units become scripts. Scripts become layers.

In the theory, each script layer virtually oscillates between attended and unattended states where lexical content systematically re-aligns through a feedback loop. The feedback is about an agent-environment interaction. An effective description of this process can be illustrated as follows:

Blind people who are experts at navigating with their cane don’t experience their cane, they experience the world at the end of their cane (Merleau-Ponty, 1944).

Units Form Scripts: The cane begins as an object of one’s objective field (slide below), and then when in use, the cane realigns as a zero point of reference becoming categorically actual sense. The zero point cane takes aim at the world point of reference that is categorically potential sense. The cane is no longer true or false. The world begins the attended dimension where truth conditions can populate one’s objective field (i.e., information about the world). In this procedure, roles systematically oscillate between actual and potential states to generate scripts.

  • Self ⇒ navigate :[Actual_self → Potential_world][Actual_world → Potential_navigate][(Actual_navigate → Potential_cane][Actual_cane → Potential_world]<stop> (<find> = find pair relations)

The example above only shows state factors oscillating. Not shown in the example are mode factors. Mode factors are used to modify state factors.

Below, green represents actual state & orange represents potential state. Purple represents the potential & actual modes that represent functions.Slide1

The Prime Q Review:

Utilizing quadranym systems requires familiarity with basic Q dimensions.

Introductory Examples of Prime Dimensional Terms:

  • E: Expansive (mode-potential) term examples: potential, action, unity, group; over, all, new, implicit, big, learning, playing or a kind of child like view of life where the world is constantly unfolding, mystery, sustain, spatial openness.
  • R: Reductive (mode-actual) term examples: actual, actions, plurality, it, that, you , me, fact, in, down, measure, explicit, focus, small, or a kind of adult view of life where the world needs controlling, familiar, deny, spatial closeness.
  • O: Objective (state-potential) term examples: potential, becoming, condition, variant, practice, decide, between, interpersonal, social, temporal endings.
  • S: Subjective (state-actual) term examples: actual, being, coherent, core, constant, perspective, beliefs, desires, intrapersonal, temporal beginnings.

Notice that each dimension is given a basic adjective to describe its class. A term’s role (dimensional position) can vary between systems. Topical interoperability is the ability to reject an orientation of another system or orient with another system by modifying its own dimensional positions.

How to think about Q-Units:

  • Quadranyms populate Q-units.
  • 2 Modes + 2 States = 1 Q-unit
  • [Mode_Selector(State_self) → Mode_Critic(State_world)]
  • The source of any topic represents the constant state of the actual self.
  • The target of any actual self is the variable states of the potential world.

Quadranyms represent the smallest unit of context in the system. Although they are rendered to effectually deal with word sense they are scalable units able to span from word-topics to theme-topics. They are about virtual states of sensibility and represent a responsiveness toward something turned contextual artifact. That is, an orienting context of perception that is dynamically actual and situationally potential, a dynamical context.

In the system, Selector(self) is the source. Critic(world) is the target. This means, self is the subject = constant and world is the subject = variable. In other words, changes in the world are relative to the constancy of the self.

Quadranym Representation:

Q-Unit is represented in quadrant 1
Coordinate Plane (C)

The Q graph for space above illustrates the infinite sense of emptiness where any variable becomes the finite sense of between. This framework represents a dynamical context; a dynamic framework for specified terms representing a sense trajectory. Any variable is of the situational context.

For instance, in theory, as one enters any building the dynamical context is a cued  response used to anticipate and grasp the real spatial situation.

  •  zero point = void.
  • . variable = between.
  • . axes = infinite & finite.

1. FROM an active-sense; more experience necessary i.e., Infinite(void).
2. TO a passive-sense; no more experience necessary i.e., Finite(between).

Q Topic

Template: [-+(- -) ⊇ +-(++)] = x:

  • – – = active-actual (00)
  • -+ = active-potential (01)
  • +- = passive-actual (10)
  • ++ = passive-potential (11)

Q Topic Representation:

Q Topic Template: [-+(- -) ⊇ +-(++)] = Space:

  • (x) space(x) [infinite(void) finite(between)(x)]
  1. Mode: infinite & finite = Predicates, Functions & Action Dynamics.
  2. State: void & between = Subjects, Arguments & Being Dynamics
  • space: active-sense f(x) (function & argument) = Infinite(void).
  • space: passive-sense f(x) (function & argument) = Finite(between).

In Q theory, emptiness is representing unattended sense i.e., active-actual space. Between represents whats attended i.e., passive-potential space.

Below, a term cluster cued up for the condition, navigation → space.

  • Space{locomotion, obstruct, avoid, fit, path, over, on, under, around …}

Cluster = {…}

  • active-actual = source {…} ⊇ passive-potential = target {…}

Any situational context is that which determines the terms. The dynamical context anchors the trajectory or constraint needed to grasp those terms.

In theory, Q-units are a consequence of society. While hubs form for various statistical reasons, Q-units are hubs that emerge from social interaction. A single quadranym can organize many ways of thinking.

For more information: Matrix Page

Consider the image below, the actual node represents the occurrent sum of experience and the potential node represents the area of anticipation for that sum. If the orientation is for the term space, in the way given, then again, active actual is emptiness and the passive potential is between.

  • space_topic = actual_emptiness → potential_between


Clearly, orientational terms will vary between systems. Possessing the same Q-units is not the point. The point is the ability to facilitate for the moment, a skillful exchange of constraint to orient anchors for any term.

Orientational Exchange Conditional: coherent sense → conditional sense

How systems may share orientation is an important aspect of the model. The idea is that by sharing orientation a dynamic sense can be exchanged.

The Image Above From: The Principle of the Orientation of Interactivity

The Q aims to reflect the subjective nature of sensibility. Most of our thoughts are unattended according to cognitive scientists. When sensibility is active most of that activity is unattended (off to awareness). The Q is about the trace between pre-reflective and reflective thoughts. When a thought is passive that means no interactive processing is necessary to use it, it is already positive, it is there or it is that. That is, passive refers to those senses positively identified because they are anticipated by the active-actual sense that anchors them. Active-actual is the power to seek passive potentials and refers to more experience necessary. Passive-potential are powers that can be used and refers to no more experience necessary. This dynamic forms all scripts. Scripts are units of trajectories linked together to identify new trajectories. Scripts then layer to form hierarchical structures and are strategies for prioritizing and constraining contextual dynamics.

New Example: orientation intending bird.

Consider the image below, Say the coherent sense for bird is robin and its conditional sense is bird type; for orientation, robin = active actual role, bird type = passive potential role. Notice that the passive-potential of the first unit (parent) can become the active-actual (child) of the new unit.


  • [Actual Robin → Potential Bird-Type]::[Actual Bird-Type → Potential x]

Parent; robin_actual_sense anchors as a prototype for all birds. Child; bird-type_actual_sense anchors birds as abstract and targets any bird’s details.

The image below Illustrates an impression of quadranym categories..

Q View

Prime Quadranym:

  • Expansive: Mode_Potential
  • Reductive: Mode_Actual
  • Objective: State_Potential
  • Subjective: State_Actual

It’s easy to lose sight of what a mode is and what a state is when engaged in any complex engineering project, for instance when building planes, trains or brains. The Q is a categorical process that keeps modes and states straight thus keeping categorical judgements more tractable in a system of agency. To discern between modes & states, system processing of contents follow this axiom, we introduce, The Q Ontological Axiom of Agency or…

The Q Categorical Axiom:

  • A State is an actual being. An actual being has a becoming; it is always a potential becoming.
  • A Mode is a potential action. A potential action has a difference; it is always an actual difference.

Short Hand Representation:

  • State class: actual ⊇ potential
  • Mode class: potential ⊇ actual

Theoretically, these dimensions exist in time and are only defined when encountered i.e., frames form for the moment. They form at different levels, attended and unattended. Each a self identification opportunity.


The Prime Q is an exemplary set of categories of The Q Categorical Axiom.

The Q Model’s Eight Degrees of Organization

  1. State: the length of a temporal cycle i.e. actual_begin → potential_end.
  2. Mode: the realms of spatial dynamics i.e. potential_out → actual_in.
  3. Active: refers to more experience necessary i.e. actual_ power.
  4. Passive: refers to no more experience necessary i.e. potential_ power.
  5. Subjective: being-in-time i.e. active-actual state_temporal center.
  6. Expansive: acting-in-space i.e. active-potential mode_spatial action.
  7. Objective: becoming-in-time i.e. passive-potential state_Apt Events.
  8. Reductive: measure-in-space i.e. passive-actual mode_spatial difference.

The axiom organizes, for the system’s categorical analyses, metaphysical notions, such as, part/whole, plurality/unity, being/becoming, time and space. The axiom pertains to a cycle of sense making. A temporal length refers to how long a sense making unit takes to complete its cycle, from an active to a passive state. The temporal center is always the active-actual now state (subject), where, spatial factors are the active-potential mode (predicate). Ask yourself what time it is, the answer is always now no matter where you are. Conversely, the answer being, “always here“ no matter what time it is, doesn’t really work. It conflates the explanatory powers of time and space. One being always in the same location is not generally but fundamentally impossible. We transition time in terms of space and not the other way around. The point being, nowness remains the invariable event to any sense of transition. Although space and time are basically designated to modes and states in the manner given, spatial & temporal dynamics become mixed in the process. Primitive modes and states form the source units from which procedural content role units are targeted such that; the analysis is about how dynamic roles are equivocated to satisfy the task of describing a condition. For example, “The story takes place in the near and not in the distant future.” In this sentence, notice how spatial factors describe the temporal condition.

Operationally, cycles represent units of context. Units nest in strategic layers to deal with changing conditions in the world. Quadranyms are given ranks in a matrix. Ranks may form hierarchies. Scripts deal with changes and render the amount of description given to a condition.

Q King Fisher

Consider urge and resolve (state) cycles above, each a unit of context. The amount of detail indicates the number of temporal cycles used to complete a description. Procedures can run linearly on one rank where adding up the length of each unit is its run-time. Or, it can be broken into layers, a time saving strategy, where general-cycles of a procedure runs simultaneously with specific-cycles e.g., hunger would run more generally than dive. To interface with the system, layers are generalized in a heuristic manner of analysis (or intuition) such that, an episodic context is framed in one Q-unit.

  • The Q-unit identifies a central perspective of a topic itself in-so-far as being an episode of that topic.

Consider the Q-unit below. It is representing a metabolic realm of context. The Q-unit is an analytical tool that explores the dynamic variations of a topic. Consider the topic eat. In this variation, notice how Sate(food) are in the world sense and Starve(hungry) are in the self sense. The Q-unit’s various schematics allows quick inferences between content, in this case, food is in world, hungry is in self. Quadranyms are nested notions of this sort.

Q Unit

  • The Q-unit acts as a kind of deictic center for a contextual trace in relation to which a word sense is to be interpreted. 

Counter Factuals: A quadranym aims to provide a general sphere of understanding i.e.,  IF actual_ hungry THEN potential_ sate IF potential_ food ELSE actual_ starve e.g., “That Kingfisher would starve if not for fish.”

Topic: eat

  • active-mode (expansive): potential_sate
  • passive-mode (reductive): actual_starve
  • passive-state (objective): potential_food
  • active-state (subjective): actual_hungry


  • States: the coupler or the response to experience.
  • Modes: the decoupler or the remembered function.

In a script, sate & starve are modes that present iterated functions while states present  input arguments. Functions Re-Member arguments.

  • [Sate(hungry) Starve(food)]<find>[Sate(food) Starve(fish)]<find>[Sate(fish) Starve(catch)]<stop>

Above, the second unit, the target is the subject fish predicated on starve. In the first unit the target is the subject food predicated on starve. This represents a dynamic oscillation between subjects. It all anchors on hungry.

  • Sate(hungry) + Sate(food) + Sate(fish) = Starve(catch)

The Sum of Script:

  1. IF dynamic = Sate(hungry) = Sate(food)
  2. THEN situation = Sate(fish) = Starve(catch)

In the final unit, the subject catch is predicated on Starve and is about the situational context; hungry predicated on sate is about the dynamical context. In this way, the Q-unit is a coupler connecting the two contexts together.

The Coupled Conditional: hungry → catch


Again, Q-units are about dynamical contexts. Polynyms are about situational contexts. The predicates & subjects of situational contexts pertain to grammar levels. Polynyms are predicates that pertain to this communication level. Q-units are subjects of Polynyms.

Below is a polynym set. Each dimension holds a Q-unit variable:

  1. Eat(x)
  2. Dinner(x)
  3. Restaurant(x)
  4. Social(x)
  5. Fun(x)

A Polynym is a set of predicates of any number (usually a small number) that often appear together and outline a situational topic, for instance, eat. 

The situation: “Jan wants to take Stan out to eat!”.

It is a pentanym (Polynym of five dimensions).

(Polynym: Interpersonal & General Granularity)

Quadranyms represent certain topical orientations that may or may not apply to the schema above depending on the polynym (set of predicates). Polynyms are important factors to help trigger which quadranym idea set is best suited. Consider the four quadranyms for eat as fashioned below. Which sense works best and/or how best to layer their hierarchical order.

1. Eat(x)

  1. (x) eat(x) [Sate(hungry) Starve(food)(x)]
  2. (x) eat(x) [Intact(chew) Fragment(substance)(x)]
  3. (x) eat(x) [Available(consume) Deplete(resource)(x)]
  4. (x) eat(x) [Stable(corrode) Disintegrate(material)(x)]

A social quadranym adds a dynamic to the quadranyms above.

  1. (x) social(x) [Together(self) Individual(other)(x)]
  2. (x) social(x) [Gather(self) Organize(other)(x)]

Each quadranym adds more detail to the paradigm’s dynamic.

  • (x) fun(x) [Excite(pleasure) Relax(situation)(x)]

Subjects & predicates of the dynamical context is represented in Q-units. Q-units are about process. Quadranyms are about the terms. There are various ways to process, modify and render quadranyms with Q-units.

The Q Matrix:

  • Consider the question, What does science do?
  • Consider the assertion, Science makes predictions.

Polynyms are any number of topics used to arrange relational sensibilities. Polynyms form a matrix, example below: layers of random or related topics to help make sense of something. For instance, Science: {science, scientific, logic, perception, door, time}. Polynyms layer topics where the dynamicity of dimensions are nested. Like image schemas, polynym topics nest units in various ways to form source and target opportunities. General topics like, time, door, dynamically inform the specific topic in question like, science.

Normal quadranym content (C-roles) are dimensional roles specific to a topic. M-roles are about dynamic contents used for anchoring methods.

Matrix Slide

Notice the M-role columns E.R.O.S., does it seem that each has its own pervading sense? Dispensing pervading sense depends on how units nest and is about how one equivocates, draws inferences and stays satisfied.

Quadranyms are about how deeply a topic is grounded and how quickly it can respond to conditions. Basically, Q-units provide a starting point for a topical response to a condition. Polynym scripts may modify a topic or may move to another sense or might abandon a topic and try another.

Topic Name: Science(x)

For all x, if  x is science, then x is:

  • Mode: E = prediction ⊇ R = test
  • State:  S = hypothesis  ⊇ O = analysis
  1. else: topic is modified
  2. else: topic is other sense
  3. else: topic remains a variable
  • (x) science(x) [Prediction{…}(hypothesis{…}) Test{…}(analysis{…})(x)]

Polynyms layer general units on top of more specific units. There is chance in how a pervading sense might form. If not well formed, then one unit or more may be modified. Otherwise relationships between dimensions are related. This can be done through more deliberative processes involving semantic relationships. To do this, we can incorporate Conceptnet.

Element relationship types (R-types) from ConceptNet.

Screen Shot 2020-02-20 at 9.17.13 AM

(note; Quadranym interface with semantic networks; from M-roles to R-types)

science = CapableOf, PartOf, DerivedFrom:{prediction, fact, law, theory}

Topics nest with other topics. Consider the E dimension in the matrix. Notice the other terms of that dimension. Are there useful relationships?

  • E: prediction RelatedTo {future, proposition, hypothesis, stimuli, open}
  • E: prediction IsA {proposition, hypothesis}
  • E: prediction DerivedFrom {stimuli}
  • E: prediction HasSubevent {future}

The term open has the lowest recursion. Still, without going into detail, spatial type dynamic relations between prediction and open do appear.

Theoretically, the Q is not really about frequency or recursion. The Q depends more on dimensional relationships of dynamical contexts in the moment. These relationships depend on how hierarchical layers form. Source and target relationships can be based on these layers. It is about the dynamic sense of a polynym’s occurrent dimensional relationships.

Consider the idiom:

  • The future is wide open.

Here, open and future combine to mean anything is possible. We can be more certain about the past, in the matrix, past is in the dimension with test, fact, conclusion. In the next idiom, prediction is again inherently fallible.

  • The future is uncertain.

However, the next idiom, suggests that the future is open to prediction.

  • What will the future hold?

Here, prediction holds “unattended” metaphoric dynamics with terms future and open . In the polynym nest, dooropen is a subsumed sense to the topic space. Door provides the spatial sense of crossing a threshold i.e., open becomes a temporal sense of possibilities that prediction is to sort through.

Semantic networks use nodes and directed edges while quadranyms use dimensions. Ultimately, the idea is to bring the two systems together where quadranyms provide attributes of the dynamical context and semantic networks provide attributes of the situational context. Each supplementing the other. Details are beyond the scope of this article however, the quadranym might be thought of as a kind of capacitor between nodes.

The Q is based on a domain general framework. Domains assemble and reassemble to serve a purpose. Scripts modify frames and frames modify scripts. Nested hierarchical systems develop throughout the system and provide basic domain structures. Domains interact in a variety of ways depending on the priority of purpose between hierarchical structures.

Summary: The Q model is a method for a commonsense representation that introduces the idea of motivated dynamical-contexts anchoring word-level concepts, we refer to it as Word-Sensibility. Any word in the system can be considered a motivated dynamical-context. Central to this process is the idea that there is the immanent and what necessarily must transcend the immanent, by which this implicates the skills, volition and resources that one has to cope in the world. Word-sensibility is proposed as a hypothetical construct pertaining to affective and conative components. It is about instincts, habits, emotions and volition reinforced by the environment.

Theoretically, the dynamics between personal motivations and social constraints form word-sensibility units as a means to orient the values people share. See: The Principle of the Orientation of Interactivity