Dynamic refers to the set of functions {Ni, Te, Si, Fe}. Upon perceiving a certain thing one registers a node AND it's relations (comparisons) to previously registered nodes. Repeating the act of perception results in a structure in the form of a graph.

Like a mathematical tuple, a node has an arity number specifying how many internal parts the node contains. It may very well be that each of the internal parts (registers) is linked to a counterpart node with the characteristics of the dual seeking function of the function associated with the former node.

---

On a different topic...

Gulenko links the Process and Result catagories respectively to deduction and induction.

One problem with this correlation is the fact that a being that reasons either exclusively deductively or inductively is not capable of autonomous action. In fact, a form of reasoning that does not employ both deduction AND induction can hardly be called "reasoning" at all. In order to "deduce" there first has to be a general rule to deduce from. Likewise, if a being exclusively induces, it would never end up applying it's generalizations, thus making these gratuitous.

So, Gulenko's position is only tenable if one postulates that people use both the Process and Result kinds of reasoning in alternation.

I propose the alternative view that induction and deduction correlate as follows:

Induction is the process of deriving "Creating" information from "Accepting" information.
Deduction is the process of deriving "Accepting" information from "Creating" information.

Applying interpretation that I have revealed before:
Induction is the process of deriving Lawful information from Accidental information.
Deduction is the process of deriving Accidental information from Lawful information.

Which fits the definition of the terms perfectly.

Induction: Accepting -> Creating
Deduction: Creating -> Accepting

As to the Positivism/Negativism dichotomy...

Defined in the system as:
Postivism: +Empowering, -Limiting
Negativism: +Limiting, -Empowering

To undestand the dichotomy we need an interpretation of +/- and of Empowering/Limiting.

My views on Empowering/Limiting are firmly settled:
Empowering = underdetermined
Limiting = determined

As to +/-...

One interpretation is that - information "gets derived" from + information. In other words, upon having + information at one's disposal, one can get the associated - information as a free ride. Postulate the + and the - follows mechanically.

I was at first enthusiastic about this insight, but then I came to realize what this meant to the interpretation of Positivism/Negativism:

Positivism: given underdetermined you get determined
Negativism: given determined you get underdetermined

Which makes Positivism look like the deterministic one and negativism like the stochastic, contrary to my earlier estimations...