The fundamentals of Mind-Axes

Mind-Axes is a compass-based typology system that focuses mainly on the internal cognitions of two involved axes. The main goal of this theory is to educate people on cognition through generating an understanding of the power of cognition as well as to create a fluid model that takes neuroplasticity and neuroscience into account in terms of how people think, which implies that in this system, experiences and . This is involving the patterns of the cognition individuals starting from patterns of communication. The typology system is inspired by Neurotyping, which is similar to Mind-Axes in numerous ways such as the Lateral/Linear, Holistic thinking vs Linear thinking, though while Neurotyping explains more external patterns, Mind-Axes is more oriented on one's internal patterns of thought.

The compass acts on two axes. These axes involve Laterality (L)/Verticality (V) (the Y-axis) and Lexicality (Lx)/Impressionism (I) (the X-axis). The dichotomies of the two axes help to create four Quadrants on the graph. Alpha is (I, L), Bravo is (Lx, -L), Charlie is (-Lx, -V), and Delta is (-I, V). 

Each Quadrant has 9 ranges, adding up to a total of 36 possible ranges. These ranges tend to be deemed as specific "types" by typologists. These nine ranges each have its unique archetypes.

There are also ranges for the elements.

There exists:

- Extreme Laterality (B1, B2, B3, A3, A2, A1), Verticality (C1, C2, C3, D3, D2, D1), Lexicality (B1, B4, B7, C7, C4, C1), and Impressionism (A1, A4, A7, D7, D4, D1).
- High Laterality (B4, B5, B6, A6, A5, A4), Verticality (C4, C5, C6, D6, D5, D4), Lexicality (B2, B5, B8, C8, C5, C2), and Impressionism (A2, A5, A8, D8, D5, D2).
- Moderate Laterality (B7, B8, B9, A9, A8, A7), Verticality (C7, C8, C9, D9, D8, C7), Lexicality (B3, B6, B9, C9, C6, C3), and Impressionism (A3, A6, A9, D9, D6, D3).

To ensure that you are not lost, the definitions of the respective axes sourced from the Mind-Axes site itself.

Y-Axes:

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. 

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. 

X-Axes:

Lexicality:

The side that seeks to formulise what is experienced. Think back to the very first cave carvings. A record was made of the experiences, and most importantly, a language was established/relied upon (depending on laterality or verticality) to refer to that experience. A great example of lexicality is the very existence of data itself because considering the bounds of the uncertainty principle, which would suggest the lack of absolutes due to the relative standards. Approximate permanency is what can be deemed as the very core of lexicality - the idea itself. Principles about the manipulation of reality are preferably established. 

Mathematics and music theory would be the biggest examples of lexicality in its typical manifestation, besides the conventional language itself. Geometry, more specifically is the classic example of lexicality's principles resulting more in the focus towards the approximate, instead of towards the absolute, in fact, it can be summed down as the absolution of the approximate. No existence features shapes as perfect as those mainly discussed and quantified in geometry, and the analysis of the shape of existence would be much more complex and devoid of approximation a process, which, is an indication of lexicality, despite its perfect principles, still being a victim of nature's loopholes. Geometrical thinking is also a major proof of lexicality, like every idea to ever exist, manifesting in several ways instead of one, as while it's typically assumed as a medium of words, any structures of the permanent kind, that result in communication and problem-solving, are lexical. Even imagination itself can be considered lexical due to the inevitable possibility of it also featuring extreme clarity and organisation. 

This isn't to say that all minds that have grown into being a person of lexical ways would always need or establish extremely structured, and permanently ordered ways of communicating and problem-solving. People who are mildly in the lexical range would blend in a great deal of spontaneity alongside their way of expression and judgment. The preference of lexicality, in that case, would be seen through their value for still using more technical ways of seeing information and ideas. In fact, the lexicals of the non-extreme kind are even likelier than more lexical thinkers to find those patterns of approximation within purely abstract, raw, and artistic ideas, or rely on them, albeit with lesser order in the codification. The very slight kind of lexical people would find some interestingly universal patterns within the spontaneity of expression. 

Memory, principle, and symbol, are the lexical memory, principle, and symbol that represent lexicality. The approximately absolute ideas, represented in subtly permanent codes and principles, would be the timeless deduction factor of a lexical mind. 

Impressionism:

The side of the impressionists thrives in the most perceptive ways of seeing all existence. It perceives the default chaos of things in the rawest, or the most abstract possible ways (depending on the Y-axis placement). The immediate, spontaneous expression or association that is felt in relation to the observed events is what the impressionistic mind spurs out. It finds the idea of simple codes or symbols permanently representing the ideas inconsistent with its perceptive approach, as, for it, the categorised context is of much less importance than what is subjectively perceived by each sensation or idea. Due to this reason, one would expect the impressionistic mind to associate different, chaotic, and fluid means of expression with what they sense or intuit, and that also results in the extremely impressionistic minds' obliviousness to any permanent forms of communication, as the preference of the spontaneous expression, or art has great prominence within them. 

Freeform and abstract art forms are the manifestation of all that float the impressionistic boat. Randomness and uncertainty guide the impressionistic mind's process of shaping things. Think of a painter who doesn't know the whereabouts of their next stroke, as all that shall guide them are the fluid associations their perception brings forth, without any permanency of principles. Due to the existence of memory, this isn't to say that there's nothing long-lasting, in the impressionistic mind, it is a greater hub of instinctive ideas than its opposites, but the ideas constantly evolve or reshape, at the speed of the perceived immediate itself. This can be seen in the spontaneous, and the devoid of theory kind of an artist of any medium, as the theoretical regulation would, according to the impressionist, limit the fluid uniqueness and absolute novelty in their internal or external approach (lateral vs vertical). 

You wouldn't however, expect everyone in the impressionistic ranges to be exactly like that. Mildly impressionistic minds do codify their raw, or artistic impressions, and they're even likely to follow the lexical codification to a degree, but it should be made clear by their preferred position itself, that they would trust their immediate hunches more, and would at best, try to make them very approachable to the codifying aspects of their minds. And the situation reverses from the non-extreme lexicals, in the case of non-extreme impressionists, as while the former preferred ways to technically address and theorise the spontaneous expression, the latter would find ways to trust their hunches, regarding any detail that they see. And while extreme impressionism may fit the artist that knows no second stroke, as every stroke is the stroke that matters itself, balanced, or slight impressionism would fit the mind of a storyteller, as their subjective worlds or expressions would be turned into a means of being read (not necessarily as a book). 

The impressionistic mind can very well be associated with fluidity and instinct, where the absolutely current idea of the situation is what shall manifest at whatever preferred level. Be it a live performance of an actor, or the spontaneous strokes of an artist, that end up unveiling the universe's secrets, chaotically.