This page describes Psychosophy relations as hypotheses about the operational organization of joint action: synthesis and analysis dynamics, confidence, pressure, and the allocation of cognitive effort across Logic, Emotion, Will, and Physics. It does not predict the fate of a relationship.
1. Status and Caveat
The existence of 24 permutations and Afanasyev's models in Syntax of Love can be reliably attributed. The names Eros, Philia, Pseudophilia, and Agape have clearer source support than many later extensions. The complete BWB 24×24 matrix is a working structural reconstruction, not an empirically validated classification of outcomes.
2. Theoretical Basis
The positions of the same aspects in two people are compared: L, E, V, and F. The relation belongs to a directed pair (A, B), while a code such as 1324 is a derived signature, not a type of person.
2.1 How the Signature Is Derived
- Read the aspects of A from the first to the fourth position.
- For each aspect, find the position of the same aspect in B.
- Record the positions of B in the order of A.
For LEVF → ELVF, the result is 2134. The reverse signature may differ, so direction matters.
3. Four Classical Models from "Syntax of Love"
| Model | Hypothesized contact | Possible resource | Possible friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eros | cross between 1st and 3rd | strong involvement | pressure on vulnerability |
| Philia | shared 1st and 3rd | recognition of strengths and sensitivities | shared limitations |
| Pseudophilia | cross between 1–2 and 3–4 | surface alignment | deeper divergence |
| Agape | cross between 2nd and 3rd | flexible support for vulnerable function | dependency or unwanted help |
Even classical names are contact hypotheses, not pair recommendations.
3.1 Naming Traditions Beyond the Four Models
The Russian technical extension at Typologies.ru/4X_Pro uses the compositions F (Philia), Q (Quasi-eros), E (Eros), and A (Agape). Attitudinal Psyche uses its own English relation-name system. These traditions must not be silently merged or presented as Afanasyev's terminology.
4. Position-Contact Principles
In the BWB model, intertype contacts are viewed as interactions between different modes of synthesis and analysis across partners: where one partner provides a holistic outcome (synthesis) while the other requires step-by-step verification (analysis), or delegates closure externally.
| Contact | Synthesis and analysis dynamics | Possible resource | Possible friction / what to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1↔1 | collision of two closed syntheses | mutual recognition of sovereign strength | competition over who defines the outcome; imposition of closure |
| 1↔2 | monolithic synthesis and flexible analysis | clear direction with adaptable execution | inequality; whether the first listens to the second's ongoing analysis |
| 1↔3 | uncompromising synthesis meets anxious micro-analysis | high mobilizing intensity | perceived pressure, invalidation of doubts, defensive reactivity |
| 1↔4 | direct delivery of synthesis to a receptive receiver | confident provision; cognitive resource conservation | risk of dependency, subordination, or passivity |
| 2↔2 | open mutual process analysis | comfortable dialogic exploration and co-creation | analysis paralysis, difficulty establishing a firm final closure |
| 2↔3 | calm exploration of doubts and collaborative support toward closure | gentle validation of doubts, collaborative path to synthesis | overprotection, intrusive assistance, or fostering dependency |
| 2↔4 | elaborate analysis offered to a low-involvement receiver | gentle, non-imposing guidance | superfluous detail; the receiver may only want a brief result |
| 3↔3 | resonance between two anxious micro-analyses | deep mutual empathy and shared sensitivity | shared rumination on risks, lack of energy to finalize decisions |
| 3↔4 | anxious detail-checking alongside indifference to process | functional division of labor if boundaries are clear | the 3rd feels unheeded; the 4th feels overwhelmed by unnecessary detail |
| 4↔4 | mutual delegation and minimal personal processing | absence of friction, zero power struggle | inertia; the aspect may be neglected in dyadic daily life |
Rival explanations include skill, experience, attachment, power distribution, stress, role norms, and the specific topic under discussion.
5. Relation Code Legend
| Code | Working name | Signature | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| PH | Philia | 1234 |
classical |
| UPH | Upper Philia | 1243 |
technical extension |
| AG | Processional Agape | 1324 |
classical family / working mapping |
| TMR | Partial Support with Misreading | 1342 |
BWB working label |
| TAT | Asymmetric Support-Attraction | 1423 |
BWB working label |
| NT | Neutrality | 1432 |
extension |
| LPH | Lower Philia | 2134 |
technical extension |
| PPH | Full Pseudophilia / Quasi-eros | 2143 |
classical family / working mapping |
| AG2, ROT, TG, SUP | guidance, rotation, and support chains | 2314, 2341, 2413, 2431 |
BWB working labels |
| OR, RV, RV2, CP | target, wound, and pressure contacts | 3124, 3142, 3214, 3241 |
working/extended |
| ER, EX | Eros / Mutual Damping | 3412, 3421 |
classical label / extension |
| AN, ANW, MX, SW, FC | anchor, pressure, and vulnerability chains | 4123…4312 |
BWB working labels |
| FAG | Full Agape / Full Operational Inversion | 4321 |
technical taxonomy |
5.1 Trilingual Display Names
Codes are identical in all languages. Translated names support navigation and do not resolve conflicts between source traditions. “Full Agape” is a structural name for 4321, not an “ideal pair.”
6. Full 24 × 24 Matrix
The matrix applies the stated algorithm to all 24 types; its cells contain only codes from the legend. It is a computable representation of a hypothesis, not a set of observed outcomes. Use both directed signatures when needed, and do not turn a cell into a score or verdict.
7. How to Use the Matrix
- Find type A and type B.
- Obtain A→B and, when asymmetric, B→A.
- Expand the position contacts.
- State a possible resource and a possible friction.
- Check both against specific episodes and rival explanations.
8. Examples
8.1 LEVF + LVEF
1324, AG: shared 1L and 4F, with reciprocal 2E↔3E and 3V↔2V. Support for expression is possible; check whether it is wanted and whether it becomes dependence.
8.2 LEVF + VFLE
3412, ER: each person's strong Logic and Will touch the other's vulnerable zones. Attraction and defensiveness are both possible; check pressure, boundaries, and alternative causes of the reaction.
8.3 FVEL + LEVF
4321, FAG: full positional inversion. Broad complementarity is possible alongside dependence, submission, or misunderstanding.
In every example, structural confidence is limited and empirical confidence is low.
9. Comparison with Temporistics
Psychosophy and Temporistics each have 24 permutations, but they belong to different levels: the former concerns action organization, while the latter concerns temporal and existential framing. Relation names cannot be transferred between them without separate justification.
10. Validation Needs
Validation requires interviews and longitudinal pair/team data, with comparison against attachment, Big Five, values, and conflict style. Priority tests concern experienced support at 2↔3, pressure at 1↔3, anchoring or control at 1↔4, and the repair capacity of shared third positions. The matrix is a hypothesis generator, not a predictor of success.