© 2023 by Name of Site. Proudly created with Wix.com



Tetrabenazine is a drug for the symptomatic treatment of hyperkinetic movement disorders. It is marketed under the trade names Nitoman in Canada and Xenazine in New Zealand, some parts of Europe and in the United States as an orphan drug. On August 15, 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of tetrabenazine to treat chorea associated with Huntington's disease. Although other drugs had been used "off label," tetrabenazine was the first approved treatment for Huntington's disease in the U.S.[2] The compound has been known since the 1950s.


Tetrabenazine is used as a treatment, but not as a cure, for hyperkinetic disorders[3][4] such as:


Huntington's disease – specifically, the chorea associated with it

Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders

Tardive dyskinesia,[5] a serious and sometimes irreversible side effect of long-term use of many antipsychotics, mainly typical antipsychotics

Hemiballismus, spontaneous flinging limb movements due to contra-lateral subthalamic nucleus damage



Tetragonia is a genus of about 85 species[1] of flowering plants in the family Aizoaceae, native to temperate and subtropical regions mostly of the Southern Hemisphere, in New Zealand, Australia, southern Africa and South America.


Plants of the Tetragonia genus are herbs or small shrubs. Leaves are alternate and succulent,[2] with flowers typically yellow and small in size. Flowers can be axillary, solitary or fasciculate, greenish or yellowish in colour and mostly bisexual.[1] Fruit are initially succulent but become dry and woody with age. The genus name comes from "tetragonus", meaning "four-angled" and referring to the shape of the plants' fruits.[3]


About 40 species of Tetragonia are found in southern Africa.[1] The species is spread throughout most of southern Australia.[4]



The genus was first formally described by the botanist Carl Linnaeus in 1753 in the work Species Plantarum.[4] Synonyms for the genus include Tetragonocarpos Mill., Demidovia Pall., and Tetragonella Miq.


Human use and cultivation[edit]

The best known species of Tetragonia is the leafy vegetable food crop, Tetragonia tetragonioides ("New Zealand spinach"). New Zealand spinach is widely cultivated as a summer leafy vegetable.


Some of the other species are also eaten locally, such as Tetragonia decumbens ("Dune spinach") which is a local delicacy in its native southern Africa.[5]


The fourth liason is different and there is a three plus two or four plus one- THE FOURTH LAISON IS DIFFERENT THAN THE FIRST THREE




Though there are a host of footnotes one might attach to the life of Georges Dumézil, the one that stands out the most with regard to his tripartite theory is the concept of an additional function. Dumézil himself toyed with the idea of a Fourth Function on many occasions following the publication of his initial theory, but he never published any of his thoughts on the idea because he felt there was simply not enough evidence to support it. However, this did not stop one his disciples, N. J. Allen from musing on the idea as well. Less than a year after Dumézil’s death he published Dumézil and the Idea of the Fourth Function in the Journal of Moral and Social Studies, which offered two breakthrough ideas that were quickly absorbed into what is, currently, considered the Dumézilian canon. The first of Allen’s ideas was the now fashionable system of referring to Dumézil’s three functions and Allen’s extra function as F1, F2, F3, and F4 respectively. The second of these ideas was Allen’s take on the idea of a Fourth Function. Rather than trying to limit the scope of F4 to something similar to concepts of F1, F2, and F3, Allen stated that F4 encompassed everything in Indo-European mythology that did not fit the order of the tripartite structure. He defined anything that was paradoxical, outside the normal order of the first three functions, or distinctly alien as part of the Fourth Function. In Allen’s mind, the Fourth Function could only involve itself with the other functions by disrupting them, throwing them out of balance, and then reordering of the tripartite system would be the only thing capable of eliminating its influence.
While at first one might think that Allen’s use of such a large scope in his definition of F4 might lead to generalizations, cumbersome interpretations of narratives, and the passing off of indefinable material onto F4, it had the exact opposite effect. Suddenly, characters such as Loki and Thesius, recently the central figure in the paper Thesius and the Fourth Function presented by Dean A. Miller at the annual UCLA Indo-European Studies Conference of 2001, have been defined in ways that fit all their given attributes and activities with little or no confusion. A vast gallery of Indo-European trickster characters now have a firm place in the tripartite model as being outsiders that disrupt its very foundations. At the same time, F4 also leads to better understanding of the “otherworlds” of Indo-European mythology such as those found in the Red Branch Cycle and other myths. It is because of this level of completion it brings to Dumézil’s original model that Allen’s Fourth Function is so widely accepted by Dumézil’s followers and their students and it is taught by many as thought its simply one more part of the original model and an excellent addition to the scholar’s own academic legacy.



The four branches of Judaism include Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist.



The word “cult” in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre. Originally denoting a system of ritual practices, the word was introduced into sociological classification in 1932 by American sociologist Howard P. Becker. In the 1930s, cults became the object of sociological study in the context of the study of religious behavior. They have been criticized by mainstream Christians for their unorthodox beliefs.


Becker created four categories by splitting church into “ecclesia” and “denomination”, and sect into “sect” and “cult.” Cults, for Becker, were small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs. Sociologists still maintain that unlike sects, which are products of religious schism that maintain continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, cults arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.



Four Ancient Patriarchates[edit]

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria

Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch

Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem


The four ancient patriarchates are the most senior.



The concept of a "cult" as a sociological classification was introduced in 1932 by American sociologist Howard P. Becker as an expansion of German theologian Ernst Troeltsch's church-sect typology. Troeltsch's aim was to distinguish between three main types of religious behavior: churchly, sectarian and mystical. Becker created four categories out of Troeltsch's first two by splitting church into "ecclesia" and "denomination", and sect into "sect" and "cult".[24] Like Troeltsch's "mystical religion", Becker's cults were small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs.[25] Later sociological formulations built on these characteristics, placing an additional emphasis on cults as deviant religious groups "deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture".[26] This is often thought to lead to a high degree of tension between the group and the more mainstream culture surrounding it, a characteristic shared with religious sects.[27] In this sociological terminology, sects are products of religious schism and therefore maintain a continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, while cults arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.[28]



In The Question Concerning Technology, Martin Heidegger explains the four causes as follows:


causa materialis is the material or matter

causa formalis is the form or shape the material or matter enters

causa finalis is the end

causa efficiens is the effect that is finished.[28]

Upon explaining them in this formal state as well as with the example of a silver chalice, Heidegger raises the questions of why just these four causes, how was it determined that they exclusively go together, what exactly unifies them and what makes causa finalis and causa efficiens different. These are important questions to analyze and attempt to answer or else the definition of technology will remain obscure. He holds that the four causes are necessary to allow, for the material or matter which is not present, a path to become present. Heidegger argues that the ability to create a final product using these four steps is what unifies them as an exclusive group.


This group of causes brings Heidegger to poiesis: the bringing forth of something out of itself.[29] He states that poiesis is the highest form of physis. Heidegger states that the four causes are at play in the bringing forth process of bursting open to the next artisan or creator. This process of bringing forth is revealing truth or aletheia, a key function of technology.[30] Heidegger explains it as thus:


"Whoever builds a house or a ship or forges a sacrificial chalice reveals what is to be brought forth, according to the terms of the four modes of occasioning.[31]"


The word "reveals", instead of manufacturing, is important. Heidegger argues that manufacturing is not what brings forth a material but the actual revealing. Technology is the mode of revealing which gives truth, that is aletheia.


Highlighted is the issue of social and technological progress along with society with the four causes. One of his examples is the words through translation from the language of the Greeks, Romans and to today have created some issues with the definitions of these words. Most notably he emphasizes the need to clarify the difference between words that now have different meaning through these translations. In particular he uses the words responsible and indebted as they relate to the four causes and the creation process. Also used is the term techne which means technology now but it also was the word used for the “revealing which brings forth truth into the splendor of radiant appearance.[32]” Within Greece, techne also meant art as it required the revealing and presenting the appearance of the work of art. The word aletheia was replaced by the Romans with veritas.[30] Another issue arising with progress of technology and society is the techniques. Heidegger presents the argument that even though these Greek ideas work with techniques of handicraftsmen, they are essentially outdated with modern machine powered technology as they are based on modern physics. The problem is the modern physical theory of nature prepares for simple and modern technology. Heidegger uses examples like this to draw readers back to the four causes, proving that they remain relevant in today's world either directly with the newest products or their origination.



In the final chapter, “The Intertwining—The Chiasm”, Merleau-Ponty turns directly to the positive project of describing his ontology of “flesh”. Intertwining [entrelacs] here translates Husserl’s Verflechtung, entanglement or interweaving, like the woof and warp of a fabric. Chiasm has two senses in French and English that are both relevant to Merleau-Ponty’s project: a physiological sense that refers to anatomical or genetic structures with a crossed arrangement (such as the optic nerves), and a literary sense referring to figures of speech that repeat structures in reverse order (AB:BA). For Merleau-Ponty, the chiasm is a structure of mediation that combines the unity-in-difference of its physiological sense with the reversal and circularity of its literary usage (see Toadvine 2012; Saint Aubert 2005). A paradigmatic example of chiasmic structure is the body’s doubling into sensible and sentient aspects during self-touch. Elaborating on Husserl’s descriptions of this phenomenon, Merleau-Ponty emphasizes three consequences: First, the body as sensible-sentient is an “exemplar sensible” that demonstrates the kinship or ontological continuity between subject and object among sensible things in general. Second, this relationship is reversible, like “obverse and reverse” or “two segments of one sole circular course” (V&I: 182/138). Third, the sentient and sensible never strictly coincide but are always separated by a gap or divergence [écart] that defers their unity.

Chiasm is therefore a crisscrossing or a bi-directional becoming or exchange between the body and things that justifies speaking of a “flesh” of things, a kinship between the sensing body and sensed things that makes their communication possible. Flesh in this sense is a “general thing” between the individual and the idea that does not correspond to any traditional philosophical concept, but is closest to the notion of an “element” in the classical sense (V&I: 184/139). Merleau-Ponty denies that this is a subjective or anthropocentric projection: 

carnal being, as a being of depths, of several leaves or several faces, a being in latency, and a presentation of a certain absence, is a prototype of Being, of which our body, the sensible sentient, is a very remarkable variant, but whose constitutive paradox already lies in every visible. (V&I: 179/136) 

The generality of flesh embraces an intercorporeity, an anonymous sensibility shared out among distinct bodies: just as my two hands communicate across the lateral synergy of my body, I can touch the sensibility of another: “The handshake too is reversible” (V&I: 187/142).

Sensible flesh—what Merleau-Ponty calls the “visible”—is not all there is to flesh, since flesh also “sublimates” itself into an “invisible” dimension: the “rarified” or “glorified” flesh of ideas. Taking as his example the “little phrase” from Vinteuil’s sonata (in Swann’s Way), Merleau-Ponty describes literature, music, and the passions as “the exploration of an invisible and the disclosure of a universe of ideas”, although in such cases these ideas “cannot be detached from the sensible appearance and be erected into a second positivity” (V&I: 196/149). Creative language necessarily carries its meaning in a similarly embodied fashion, while the sediments of such expression result in language as a system of formalized relations. What we treat as “pure ideas” are nothing more than a certain divergence and ongoing process of differentiation, now occurring within language rather than sensible things. Ultimately we find a relation of reversibility within language like that holding within sensibility: just as, in order to see, my body must be part of the visible and capable of being seen, so, by speaking, I make myself one who can be spoken to (allocutary) and one who can be spoken about (delocutary). While all of the possibilities of language are already outlined or promised within the sensible world, reciprocally the sensible world itself is unavoidably inscribed with language.

This final chapter of The Visible and the Invisible illustrates chiasmic mediation across a range of relations, including sentient and sensed, touch and vision, body and world, self and other, fact and essence, perception and language. There is not one chiasm but rather various chiasmic structures at different levels. As Renaud Barbaras notes, 

It is necessary … to picture the universe as intuited by Merleau-Ponty as a proliferation of chiasms that integrate themselves according to different levels of generality. (1991, 352/2004, 307) 

The ultimate ontological chiasm, that between the sensible and the intelligible, is matched by an ultimate epistemological chiasm, that of philosophy itself. As Merleau-Ponty writes in a working note from November 1960, 

the idea of chiasm, that is: every relation with being is simultaneously a taking and a being held, the hold is held, it is inscribed and inscribed in the same being that it takes hold of. Starting from there, elaborate an idea of philosophy… . It is the simultaneous experience of the holding and the held in all orders. (V&I: 319/266; see also Saint Aubert 2005: 162–64) 



The life scripts relate to each other with the following dialogue:[14]


Friendly Weakness - I'm not okay, you're okay


Hostile Weakness - I'm not okay, you're not okay


Friendly Strength - I'm okay, you're okay


Hostile Strength - I'm okay, you're not okay

A diversified and holistic guide to the four life scripts was first introduced by Dr. Timothy Leary and three of his colleagues in 1951.[15] Leary suggested there were balanced, healthy forms of behaviour in relation to each of the life scripts and extreme, unhealthy forms of behaviour in relation to each of the scripts.[16][17] By the late 1960s psychologists such as Eric Berne,[18] Thomas Harris[19] and Claude Steiner[20] had changed Leary's holistic guide to one which favoured Friendly Strength over all the other scripts.


The origins of the hypothesis can be traced back to Robert Anton Wilson's book, Prometheus Rising, in which Wilson makes a singular correlation between the symbol of the flower child with the mood of friendly weakness.[4] Spence extended the comment into a study of various youth archetypes and linked in their behaviour to the four atavistic life scripts. The idea of linking pop culture to the solar cycles had been influenced from remarks made by Peter J. Carroll, in his book, Psychonaut.[5] Sekhmet is the Egyptian goddess of the sun.


The four life scripts in relation to atavistic youth trends[edit]


Bilious body language: Crass punk culture, early 1980s.


A typical early example of an atavistic quaternity, from The Book of Kells.

By 2000, Spence had dismissed the solar side of the hypothesis, suggesting it had no scientific basis. He demonstrated how he believed the dates of solar maximum did not correlate with any heightened activity of youth culture.[21] However, he continued with the study of the four life scripts and their possible relationship to cultural youth trends.


The hypothesis suggests that the flower children of the sixties and the mellow side of reggae culture presents a collective mood of "friendly weakness" while punk culture and certain aspects of rap culture present an archetype of 'hostile weakness'. In the late eighties and nineties, rave culture along with early drum and bass supposedly presents a mood based mainly on 'friendly strength'.[22] The hypothesis suggests that most people are not hard wired to any particular life script and likewise young people are generally fluid enough to move between different pop trends with ease and some humour. Grunge for example is viewed as an atavistic hybrid, drawing on elements of both punk and hippie culture.[23]


The social symbolism of the hypothesis is also compared to the archetypal symbolism of Ezekiel's quaternity in the Christian Bible.[23] Ezekiel is said to have had a vision of the winged man (angel), the bull, the lion and the eagle. The same quaternity was later incorporated into illuminated manuscripts such as the Book of Kells. Spence has corresponded flower power and late reggae culture (Bob Marley, cannabis use, dub, dreadlocks) to the gentle angel; the rebellious mood of early rap and punk culture to the sullen bull and the leonine strength of drum and bass and rave culture to the proud lion.[23]


Grant Morrison and Iain Spence have split views on the subject of hostile strength played out through youth culture. Morrison suggests that the trend has come and gone with the film The Matrix (1999) along with commanding symbolism in the nu metal scene. Spence meanwhile suggests that the mood is yet to materialise within pop culture as a major trend but acknowledges that hostile strength symbolism has already emerged through the more commanding aspects of hip hop, gabber and metal sub-cultures. He has criticised Morrison's reference to The Matrix in relation to the hypothesis suggesting the film is not related to any specific youth trend.[23] Morrison already has a link to the film having influenced the story with his mythology of The Invisibles.[24][25][26][27]



The official massoretic text lists 16 large letters in the Torah but there was never full agreement on these as many may have just been the initiative of a single scribe. Many printed texts don't make reference to the full 16 and I have seen seen a number of scrolls with additional letters (particularly kabbalistic ones).



The imams of all four schools are in agreement on the four obligations involved in

ritual ablutions which receive mention in the Qur'an, namely, washing the face,

washing the hands and arms up to the elbows, wiping part or all of the head, and

washing the feet up to the ankles. Among the schools, the Hanafis are the only ones

who add nothing to these four obligations.

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., doing business as SpaceX, is an American aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company headquartered in Hawthorne, California. It was founded in 2002 by entrepreneur Elon Musk with the goal of reducing space transportation costs and enabling the colonization of Mars.[8] SpaceX has since developed the Falcon launch vehicle family and the Dragon spacecraft family, which both currently deliver payloads into Earth orbit.


X-Plane is a flight simulator produced by Laminar Research. A desktop version is available for macOSWindows, and Linux, while a mobile version is available for AndroidiOS, and webOS.[1] X-Plane is packaged with several commercial, military, and other aircraft, as well as basic global scenery which covers most of the Earth. X-Plane also ships with other software to build and customize aircraftand scenery. X-Plane also has a plugin architecture that allows users to create their own modules, extending the functionality of the software by letting users create their own worlds or replicas of places on Earth. This is further enhanced by the Scenery Gateway which allows user to share airports with other users and eventually the airports are included by default in the base product.



Microsoft DirectX is a collection of application programming interfaces (APIs) for handling tasks related to multimedia, especially game programming and video, on Microsoft platforms. Originally, the names of these APIs all began with Direct, such as Direct3D, DirectDraw, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, DirectSound, and so forth. The name DirectX was coined as a shorthand term for all of these APIs (the X standing in for the particular API names) and soon became the name of the collection. When Microsoft later set out to develop a gaming console, the X was used as the basis of the name Xbox to indicate that the console was based on DirectX technology.[1] The X initial has been carried forward in the naming of APIs designed for the Xbox such as XInput and the Cross-platform Audio Creation Tool (XACT), while the DirectX pattern has been continued for Windows APIs such as Direct2D and DirectWrite.




macOS (/ˌmækoʊˈɛs/;[7] previously Mac OS X and later OS X) is the current series of Unix-based graphical operating systems developed and marketed by Apple Inc. designed to run on Apple's Macintosh computers ("Macs"). It has been preinstalled on all Macs since 2002. Within the market of desktop, laptop and home computers, and by web usage, it is the second most widely used desktop OS after Microsoft Windows.[8][9]


Launched in 2001 as Mac OS X, the series is the latest in the family of Macintosh operating systems. Mac OS X succeeded "classic" Mac OS, which was introduced in 1984, and the final release of which was Mac OS 9 in 1999. An initial, early version of the system, Mac OS X Server 1.0, was released in 1999. The first desktop version, Mac OS X 10.0, followed in March 2001. Releases were code named after big cats from the original release up until OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. Beginning in 2013 with OS X 10.9 Mavericks, releases have been named after landmarks in California.[10] Apple changed the original name "Mac OS X" to "OS X" in 2012 and then to "macOS" in 2016, adopting the nomenclature that it uses for their other operating systems, iOS, watchOS, and tvOS. The latest version of macOS is macOS High Sierra, which was publicly released in September 2017.


macOS is based on technologies developed at NeXT between 1985 and 1997, when Apple acquired the company. The "X" in Mac OS X and OS X is the Roman numeral for the number 10 and is pronounced as such. The X was a prominent part of the operating system's brand identity, and was used to showcase its Unix compatibility; UNIX 03 certification was achieved for the Intel version of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard[11] and all releases from Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard up to the current version also have UNIX 03 certification.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] macOS shares its Unix-based core, named Darwin, and many of its frameworks with iOS,[19] tvOS and watchOS. A heavily modified version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger was used for the first-generation Apple TV.[20]


Apple also used to have a separate line of releases of Mac OS X designed for servers. Beginning with Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, the server functions were made available as a separate package on the Mac App Store.


Releases of Mac OS X from 1999 to 2005 can run only on the PowerPC-based Macs from the time period. After Apple announced that they were switching to Intel CPUs from 2006 onwards, a separate version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger was made and distributed exclusively with early Intel-based Macs; it included an emulator known as Rosetta, which allowed users to run most PowerPC applications on Intel-based Macs. Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard was released as a Universal binary, meaning the installer disc supported both Intel and PowerPC processors. In 2009, Apple released Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, which ran exclusively on Intel-based Macs. In 2011, Apple released Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, which no longer supported 32-bit Intel processors and also did not include Rosetta. All versions of the system released since then run exclusively on 64-bit Intel CPUs and do not support PowerPC applications.


The X-planes are a series of experimental United States aircraft and rockets, used to test and evaluate new technologies and aerodynamic concepts. They have an X designator, which indicates the research mission within the US system of aircraft designations.


In rocketry, the Armadillo Aerospace Quad vehicle called Pixel is a computer-controlled VTVL rocket that was used in 2006 to compete in the Lunar Lander Challenge.[1]


There are several ways to characterize Reversal Theory. Apter (2001a; 2001b) introduces it as a theory of motivational style, a “distinctive orientation to the world based on a fundamental psychological value – such as achievement, love or freedom”. These motivational styles (or metamotivational states) are what we refer to in everyday speech when we describe people as cheerful, affectionate, serious, challenging and so on. They are central for any account of our mental lives. Reversal Theory gives a structural-phenomenological account of them, describing them as structures of conscious experience.


At the conceptual centre of Reversal Theory one finds a two-level nested hierarchy that expresses concern structure values in different ways at each level. The base level describes a fairly straightforward particularistic clustering of those values. The second level, describing attitudes taken towards the first, describes a more nuanced combinatorial scattering of those values.


At the particularistic level, Reversal Theory founds itself on the observation that at a certain level of analysis, four domains of subjective experience are “universal and essential to the very nature of experience itself. These are an unavoidable part of everyone’s subjective experience at all times” (Apter, 2001a). The domains, in PAEI order, are:


P – Transactions: We are always involved in interactions with other things, including people, objects, machines, ideas, parts of our own bodies, mental images… Transactions are the concrete exchanges that make interactions tangible: exchanges of words, thoughts, gestures, money, attention, esteem and so on. Transactions are the doing aspect of interactions, and we are

always aware of how we are doing our interactions.


A – Rules: This describes the experience of pressure to behave in certain ways, stemming from the expectations of others, customs, habits, conventions and explicit laws, rules and regulations. Normalizing expectancies (actual or projected) factor into everything that we do, even when our awareness of them is minimal.


E – Means-Ends: Purposive action is a key domain of subjective experience, giving it direction and orientation at all times. We are always aware of goals and intentions, even if the awareness is only a vague and minimal sense of directionality (where one is going and how one is getting there).


I – Relationships: As we interact with other people or groups of people, we are aware of more than the transactions. We are also aware of a more direct relationship that can be structured in various ways, as open or closed, intimate or formal, personal or functional, etc. Distance is a crucial concept here; do we identify with our interaction partners or feel separate from them?


In Reversal Theory, each one of these four domains can be experienced in two opposing ways. The experiences in each pairing are mutually exclusive, so they cannot be experienced simultaneously, but reversals from one to the other are possible, particularly as hedonic tone, arousal and expectancies vary.


The attitudinal pairs for each domain are listed below in PAEI order:


P – Transactions (Mastery/Sympathy): A Mastery orientation to a transaction frames it in terms of contest, power and control, carrying values of hardiness and toughness. The Opposite: A Sympathy (I) orientation frames transactions in terms of affection, proximity, friendliness and graciousness, in the cooperative mode rather than the competitive one.


A – Rules (Conformist/Negativistic): Rules can be a source of selfconfidence, clarifying one’s social standing and role and making correct behaviour clear and unambiguous. Conformism can thus be experienced as a dutiful, virtuous, proper or normal/trustworthy state. The Opposite: Rules can also be seen as traps, restrictions and confinements, motivating a desperate bid for freedom and rebellion. This Negativistic (E) experience of rules can also express itself in mischief, or disruptive and disobedient behaviour.


E – Means-Ends (Telic/Paratelic): Means-ends thinking can be heavily goal oriented, planning-intensive, anxiety avoidant and serious (A). This is described as a Telic state (telos=goal) in Reversal Theory. The Opposite: However, in some goal-directed activity such as games or hobbies, the means themselves are the main source of gratification, and goals simply support the coordination of those means. This is seen as a playful, spontaneous and open mode in Reversal Theory, and called the Paratelic (E) state ( para=alongside, telos=goal).


I – Interactions (Alloic/Autic): In interactions, we can be very other-focused, yielding to the other and giving their feelings precedence. This is the Alloic state (allos=other). The Opposite: One can also be Autic in interactions (auto=self), asserting one’s separateness and assuring good outcomes for the self, giving one’s own feelings precedence, valuing individuality and personal responsibility (P).


The four domains of subjective experience are thus nested within this second layer of pairs of metamotivational states. At this second level, we can describe the PAEI styles as follows:


P: Autic Mastery

A: Telic Conformism

E: Paratelic Negativism

I: Alloic Sympathy


Individuals vary in terms of their key metamotivational states; the one that is currently dominant, the ones they experience frequently and focus upon, the salience of each state to the course of their lives, and also the ease with which they shift between the two states in any domain (i.e. their lability). The same situations will potentiate different metamotivational states for different individuals.


Albert Bandura (2000; 2001) is perhaps the best known analyst of what might be called one’s sense of competency, capability or self-efficacy. His definition of human agency itself is characterized by four core features which form a concern structure pattern:


P – Intentionality: A proactive commitment to bring about a represented future state of events via specific familiar actions (with some improvisation as needed).


A – Forethought: Outcome expectations based on observed conditional relationships that help one set long term goals and anticipate problems, rewards and punishment/costs.


E – Self-Reflectiveness: Metacognitive processing of one’s own thoughts, feelings, actions and motivations, underlying the capacity to change one’s agentive stance.


I – Self-Reactiveness: Self-regulation of motivation, affect and action, guiding performance by personal standards and taking self-directed corrective action. Self-regulatory processes that integrate thought and action.