Correlation’s ‘Prime Directive’

Cuc made a good attempt at correlations despite the inconsistencies. For correlations, the ‘prime directive’ is to use antonyms, aligning similar (i.e., pseudo synonyms I guess you’d call them) meaning word down on column with their antonyms down the other. Compare these two sets; first is Cuc’s and then mine below that.

Now, for example, Cuc places ‘yin’ in the YANG column, and ‘yang’ in the YIN column. Doing that turns the ‘correlation’ process in a ‘rationalization’ process. In other words, there is no discipline in thought and you easily end up rationalizing the view to fit what you emotionally wish to see. I put the other inconsistencies, e.g., give-take, love-kill, etc., in italic. Taking and killing, for example are very active relative to their opposites, and so belong in the active YANG column along with the other active words. Death, on the other hand, correlates to YIN. Death is eternal, universal, passive; killing is transitional, particular, active. It may seem ironic at first, but killing and life are both similar and fall on the YANG side of the coin.

I understand Cuc’s putting ‘I’ and ‘nothing’ on one side and ‘you’ and ‘mystery’ on the other. And this order can make sense when viewing just these few in a detached way. Such a detached view becomes harder to entertain as you work toward correlating all the contrasting verbs and adjectives that readily come to mind (that would be hundreds). The more rigorous and comprehensive your initial work to reconcile synonyms and antonyms, the more coherent the view. This helps you better feel the deep  complementary relationship between words. Next you begin to feel the illusion of difference, and this  helps disentangle words from ‘reality‘. I know, that’s a leap, and words are cheap. The proof is in the pudding. Alas, it is a subjective pudding which each mind must make on its own to find the proof. Correlations is just one way to untangle the knots.

Cuc’s version:

My version: