"Dichotomy: 1. (logic) division into two classes, one positive, the other negative. 2. (botony) a mode of branching by repeated bifurcation."

What is important to note is that a dichotomy is usually in the form of two aspects of a whole. Thus, even the concept of Whole/NotWhole is in fact two aspects of a greater whole. As I have detailed elsewhere (See my "Sense of Dichotomy"), dichotomy is the most 'natural' way in which we make maps. This is due to the 'fact' that all maps that are intended for understanding outside of the originator, require a degree of consensus in their construction, and we achieve this construction by initially using dichotomies of extremes (opposites) to allow for the many subjective individual methods of interpretation and yet still give the same, single, 'objective' result. e.g. X is West of Y.

In these systems, the initial context is the dichotomy of the widest extremes (e..g. land/water, subjective/objective). As we build the map, so we add more dichotomies but within the context of the previous. Ideally we are supposed to attempt to find dichotomies that are 'unique', which is the scientific way of doing things, and thus remove dependence, but there seems to be a 'problem' with this in that often, for every independent dichotomy used, one can find a dependent dichotomy that gives the same result; the independent dichotomy in fact 'hides' the dependent one. Thus it is wholes and their aspects all the way, and here the 'whole' is the map, and the dichotomies the aspects.

So, as our map is built through the layering of dichotomies (note that in a geometric context, a dichotomy is an axis of dimension), the hierarchic nature of the whole is maintained.

Eventually our map is 'complete'. This means that the amount of information encoded in it is enough for the purpose we want; if you want more detail then make different maps of different scales. Simple. Overall, what has happened with the map is it ellicits 'meaning' when used, and the more detail present the more refined these meanings are. (but they can also have too much).

But what is "meaning"? In the context of maps, we seek a 'feeling' as a response where part of 'us' 'agrees' with, or 'disagrees' with, some aspect of the map. Thus, each dichotomy, when combined with the others, is intended to ellicit a response within the individual which is similar to the response of all other individuals. It is this that enables the map to have 'value' beyond just that of a map created by an individual for themselves.

The point here is that ALL map-making is done this way - even the mapping of personalities and 'values'; entities that lack explicit external substance. But as pointed-out in the "wholes and aspects" link, ALL maps are metaphors for wholes and their aspects and so, by applying dichotomous processes to the generic concept of wholes/aspects, what do we get?

In combining dichotomous analysis and wholes/aspects processing, what we get is a template for all metaphors that have dichotomous roots. For example, many of the esoteric typologies (Astrology, Tarot, etc) are based on the dichotomies of fire/water, air/earth; even the I Ching is based on this, and when we put these dichotomies onto the template we find that the descriptive nature of specific positions is invarient. What this means is that our emotive responses to wholes and their aspects are limited; they have a limited set of initial 'feelings' that, even though they can be refined, retain the overall character of the initial feelings irrespective of the 'words' in the metaphor.

For example, a modern personality profiler, the MBTI®, has dichotomous roots which enable it's categorizations to be placed on the template. When we read the descriptions at specific parts of the template, they are in common with the decriptions used in the I Ching; thus the underlaying wholes/aspects 'map' shines through. What this shows is the 'reason' for the ease in which humans can make analogies across disciplines - it is the template that resonates and enables the ease.

The basic template is this:

level 1                           Whole
level 2         Whole               |      Parts
level 3     Whole | Aspects(static) | Parts  | Aspects(Dynamic)

Holding this for a moment, we get back to the I Ching. If I set the symbol for yin as 'whole', and go about creating the trigrams of the I Ching based on the above template then I get:

Whole - The Receptive
Static relational aspects - Keeping Still
Parts - The Abysmal
Dynamic relational aspects - The Penetrating

Now using dichotomy I create a mirror image for yang and get:

Whole - The Creative
Static relational aspects - The Joyous
Parts - The Clinging
Dynamic relational aspects - The Arousing

Now comes the observation that the symbols created are 'mixtures' of yin and yang, except for the pure 'wholes'. This leads to the question of how many ways can we mix two 'things', and the generic answer is four. They are:

Blending - where we combine to make an apparent 'whole'. (wholes)
Bonding - where two elements are related. (static aspects)
Bounding - where one element surrounds the other. (parts)
Binding - where the two elements are entangled linearly. (dynamic aspect)

If I then apply dichotomy, as well as replacing wholes/aspects with mixing terms and making the diagram bottom-up, we have :

    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    | BLEND | BOND  | BOUND | BIND  | BIND  | BOUND | BOND  | BLEND |
    | Whole | aspect| parts | aspect| aspect| parts | aspect| whole | T3
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |               |               |               |               |
    |    BLEND      |    BOUND      |    BOUND      |   BLEND       | T2
    |   (Whole)     |   (Parts)     |    (Parts)    |   (Whole)     |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                               |                               |
    |            BLEND (expand)     |             BLEND (contract)  | T1
    |            (whole)            |            (whole)            |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                               X                               | T0
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    			    The mixing template    

The 'interesting' point is that I can derive emotive expressions for these mixing terms that correlate with the general expressions used to describe the elements of the metaphors that this template is used for. For example, when people talk about wholes and the experience, or lack of, of wholeness - they will use terms like 'blend' and 'mix' to emotively describe the concepts. On the other hand, when people talk about dynamic relationships, these are expressed not as bonds but as binds, as one part is binded to the other through time. (e.g.binding contracts etc). As we add more levels (the hexagrams are at T6) so we add refinements where one mixing state is within the context of another.

We also note the a refined model of the whole emerges horizontally in the form of whole-static aspects-parts-dynamic aspects. What is interesting about this sequence is that it is the sequence followed by most education systems where we start with the whole, and then study the static aspects followed by the 'removable' aspects (parts), followed by the dynamics.
It is also the sequence of analysis we use everyday.

As for the I Ching, here are the trigrams of the I Ching superimposed over the template:

+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ------ | --  -- | ------ | --  -- | ------ | --  -- | ------ | --  -- |
| ------ | ------ | --  -- | --  -- | ------ | ------ | --  -- | --  -- |T3
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | --  -- | --  -- | --  -- | --  -- |
| (blend)| (bond) | (bound)| (bind) | (bind) | (bound)| (bond) | (blend)|
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|      ------     |     --  --      |     ------      |      --  --     |T2
|      ------     |     ------      |     --  --      |      --  --     |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|                                   |                                   |
|               ------              |              --  --               |T1
|              (expand)             |             (contract)            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
|                              (The Whole)                              |T0
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

In this context, the trigrams of the I Ching are linked in meaning to the mixing terms and the concept of wholes and aspects:

The Receptive and the Creative deal with wholeness and blending; they are extremes (pure elements) that seek balance and wholeness through seeking out the other.

Keeping Still and the Joyous deal with static relationships and bonding. The Abysmal and the Clinging deal with the distinction of things (parts), and thus the forming of boundaries. The Gentle and the Arousing deal with dynamic relationships through binding; cyclic and morphic change. The dual trigrams per concept results from the application of opposites in the form of contraction (yin bias) and expansion (yang bias). So for wholeness, yin bias implies wholeness through contraction (pull in) whereas yang bias implies expansion (push out).

The template is the foundation on which dichotomously-derived metaphors are constructed. As a result, all metaphors created this way have a fixed degree of expression in that meaning results from the structure of the template. I can therefore find a I Ching symbol which will express the same 'meaning' as a symbol from Astrology or even Mathematics.

What the template also shows is how we find 'value' in the apparently scientifically 'void' subjects like Astrology etc. ALL metaphors have the same format and share the same responses. As you go deeper in the template so a degree of refinement emerges and subjects can develop specific characteristics - but the overall pattern is the same in that beyond 4 or 5 levels we are dealing with refinements rather than anything 'new' - the intial contexts set the tone for all that follows. But of importance is the 'fact' that these 'values' come from the method of analysis and not necessarily the object under analysis.