The Y-Axis - Laterality vs Verticality:
Imagine a box, containing what is collectively perceived as the absolute, present reality. With the application of relativity, it can be thought of, that there have to be two opposing ways of looking at this box of reality. One is to perceive or judge it in the rawest possible manner, to see what is already established. The opposing method is to see the reality box in its most possibly divided and broken down form (the breakdown is a natural, subconscious process. The more conscious it is, the more vertical it becomes). The Y-axis deals with these two opposing approaches. It is, however, a qualitative dichotomy instead of a quantitative one, in which one side seeks to achieve within what it can sense, and the other effortlessly questions the merits of things, aspects, and ideas as they manifest, exploring alternatives for the sake.
Laterality:
This side of the Y-axis prefers looking at the particles and divisions that exist within, and it should be noted that there is no inherent end to this 'within', as the divided particles and properties can be divided even further. The highest standard of this chain of divisions of the manifested reality, the most ultimate, human possibility of such an approach should be considered the peak of laterality.
The average laterality (within the lateral range) can be summarised as the process of breaking things down to their core fundamentals and essences, and it's often the result of questioning the merits of things as they manifest, thus why the lateral mind prefers looking at the internal principles for the sake of it, or to explore novelty with the combination of the broken down aspects. Not only is the manifestation of things itself questioned, but so is the manifestation of the aspects and ideas behind them, and so on (in cases of higher laterality preference).
But laterality can't only be limited to such examples. As even the very consideration of possibilities and alternatives requires a subscription to at least a grain of tangible and conventional criteria. This is why peak laterality (thus extremely low verticality) may have a different core set of criteria altogether, and will not even value standards like achievement or execution, or even a solution or an answer of any sort, as laterality essentially opposes manifestation, and in higher cases, may prefer being lost in the internal alternatives a little too much to care about any established standards at all, as it may even question the very merits of having a standard itself. The quarks and their different potential combinations are valued much higher by the lateral mind, than the reality that they manifest.
Laterality, can thus, be considered a series of breakdowns of the boxes within the boxes within.............the boxes, and if a manifestation of any level (of ideas, or even the ideas within them), is cared about, the laterality is compromised accordingly to that preference, and such results in the lateral-leaning mind presenting an unconventional combination. And despite there being a variety of commonly associated traits with laterality, the only important trait it consists of is of an internal nature, where the internal novelty is explored for the sake of it.
And due to this clear preference of exploring patterns within patterns, and onwards, the lateral mind may compare things that may not only be different but even categorise in very distinct manners. All of which is a clear example of preferring the vast withins, and increased use of relativity.
Verticality:
Since the core idea has been established, and one of the two sides has already been described, verticality will be easy to think through, as it directly opposes it. But for the sake of the vertical kind, specificity has its importance. The highly vertical mind doesn't seek to multiply or add bits and pieces into a larger image, it sees, and prefers seeing what can be sensed. It'll see things as exactly how it's accustomed to using them, and even if a combination of ideas and definitions is valued by the vertical mind, it'll rely on the pre-established merits of it.
Verticality values all the established forms of criteria, and even a relatively lateral person in the vertical range may seek to exert and execute their ideas. Still, though, the pre-established preference of standards, and the desire for succeeding within them is what characterises the vertical mind. And it is a classical conclusion, that exerting itself is not necessarily a trait of verticality, but the core principles of verticality itself lead all the way to it. Because the vertical mind judges and perceives mainly the established standards, as well as things in their rawest form, they would certainly want their own product to be tangible too, which results in this execution and action.
This is where laterality differs, as it questions the very merits of taking an action or caring about the tangible reality itself. While a lateral mind's ambition may be to become an innovator, the vertical mind's ambition would be to manufacture a specific kind of hardware, with even more specifically adapted methods. Verticality deals in common sense, facts, and tangibility. The common vertical approach is to know and experience as many methods and approaches as possible, and the commonly established criteria, like, efficiency, survival, and achievement, are what'd be valued the most importantly.
And as said above, being in the vertical range isn't an antonym of originality, as relatively more lateral people of the vertical quadrants can still bring forth original ideas. And even most visionary strategists or revolutionaries end up in the vertical range, but this is due to, as essentially said, their care for the conventional and pragmatic criteria. Problems are fundamentally met head-on, and the established forms of motivations are what govern the vertical person. The very existence of common sense summarises verticality enough, as it sees the establishment itself of most standards as reason enough to follow them.
The Fluidity:
No one who's primarily lateral is lateral in all of the contexts that one's mind must fit itself to. For example, a lateral mind may apply a more vertical approach under generally regulated contexts, or contexts that could best be served only by a regulated approach. Academic learning is mostly a very vertical (+ lexical process), and lateral minds too would have to comply with that. Similarly, engaging in sensory enjoyment is common for even the extremely lateral minds. On the other end, an extremely vertical mind may not in all cases be extremely precise about the manifested reality, as there will always be some minor exceptions. It is the individualistic frequency under important and identity-defining contexts that determines if one's lateral or vertical in general.
It can, in a nutshell, be said that the elements that the lateral mind's particles create are the particles that create the vertical mind's elements. - Kashif
Comments
Post a Comment