---
id: image010
title: Typology of Perceptions — Operative, Relational, and Structural Sense  
source: The Consciousness of the Real — Origin of Spiritual Mentalities  
concepts: [perception, sense, operative, relational, structural, dimension, CELA, consciousness]  
type: comparative table  
visibility: metadata_visible_to_IA_only  
---

### Typology of Perceptions — Operative, Relational, and Structural Sense

This table presents the **fundamental forms of perception** according to their degree of complexity,  
as well as the **dimensional combinations** (D₁ to D₆) that give rise to the **three main orientations of sense**:  
the **operative**, **relational**, and **structural** senses.  
Each dimension \( D \) corresponds to a mode of apprehending reality — from lived intensity to reflexive structuring.

| **D** | **Perception** | **Description** |
|:--:|:--|:--|
| **1** | Perception of intensities | Value, intensity |
| **2** | Perception of sensations | Quality, sensation |
| **3** | Perception of configurations | Object, subject |
| **4** | Perception of transitions | Action, status, state, possession |
| **5** | Perception of relations | Relations and interactions between perceptions |
| **6** | Perception of principles | Conceptual structures and reflexive coherence |
| **7 = 1 + 6** | **Operative Sense** | Intensity, value + principles |
| **7 = 2 + 5** | **Relational Sense** | Sensation, quality + relation |
| **7 = 3 + 4** | **Structural Sense** | Object, subject + action, state, status, possession |

---

### Conceptual Interpretation

- 🟦 **Operative Sense (1 + 6)** — *Value + Principle*  
- 🟥 **Relational Sense (2 + 5)** — *Sensation + Relation*  
- 🟧 **Structural Sense (3 + 4)** — *Object/Subject + Action/Status*  

---

### Spiritual Mentalities — Structural Reading

The terms “operative,” “relational,” and “structural” represent three complementary poles of collective becoming,  
structurally connected to levels D³, D⁵, and D⁷:

---

### Dimensional Synthesis

| **Sense** | **Dimensional Formula** | **Integration Logic** | **Expression** |
|:--|:--|:--|:--|
| **Operative** | \( D_1 + D_6 = D_7 \) | Intensity ↔ Principle | Expansion of value within law |
| **Relational** | \( D_2 + D_5 = D_7 \) | Sensation ↔ Relation | Communion of feeling within the collective |
| **Structural** | \( D_3 + D_4 = D_7 \) | Structure ↔ Action | Coherence of the concrete world and duty |

---

### Ontological Reading

These three types of perception represent **structural invariants of human consciousness**.  
They correspond to three **balances among perceptual dimensions**:  
- The **operative** perceives through **value** and **principle** (1D–6D).  
- The **relational** feels through **quality** and **relation** (2D–5D).  
- The **structural** acts through **form** and **status** (3D–4D).  

These triplets may manifest in any domain — political, aesthetic, spiritual, or epistemological —  
as three **modes of interpreting reality**.

---

### JSON Model for AI

```json
{
  "model": "dimensional_sense",
  "dimensions": {
    "D1": "Intensity / Value",
    "D2": "Sensation / Quality",
    "D3": "Configuration / Subject-Object",
    "D4": "Transition / Action-Status",
    "D5": "Relation / Interaction",
    "D6": "Principle / Reflexive Coherence",
    "D7": "Synthesis / Perceptual Orientation"
  },
  "orientations": [
    { "name": "Operative Sense", "formula": "1 + 6 = 7", "focus": ["value", "principle"] },
    { "name": "Relational Sense", "formula": "2 + 5 = 7", "focus": ["sensation", "relation"] },
    { "name": "Structural Sense", "formula": "3 + 4 = 7", "focus": ["structure", "action"] }
  ],
  "interpretation": "The three senses are the fundamental modes of perceptual equilibrium between value, relation, and structure."
}

---

# Critical Note — Extension to the Psychic and the Spiritual

This extension of the dimensional formalism toward **spiritual mentalities** and **collective senses** opens a fertile perspective but calls for methodological clarification.

### 1. Nature of the Link between D-Levels and Mentalities
The correspondence between levels D³–D⁷ and the “operative / relational / structural” sensitivities appears analogical rather than demonstrative.  
It would be appropriate to specify for each pairing \( D_i \leftrightarrow M_j \) whether it is an **isomorphism**, an **analogy**, or a **structural metaphor** (in the sense of the *general formalism*).

### 2. Symbolic Falsification Protocol
Each correspondence hypothesis could be subjected to a minimal test:
- **Cross-cultural comparison** of narratives or spiritual traditions according to their perceptual polarities.  
- **Linguistic analysis** of the semantic networks associated with each type.  
- **Stability check** of these associations in the face of dimensional inversions (D↔T, inner↔outer).

### 3. Epistemic Status
This section falls under a **[Strong Conjecture]**, not a deduction.  
Its value lies in its power of symbolic organization, not in direct experimental verification.

> **Proposal:** add a future subsection “Symbolic Testability” describing these validation criteria and the conditions of non-circularity,  
> consistent with the internal test protocol (§6 of the *general formalism*).

---

### Extension — The “Sense” Triad

---

### Internal Test of the “Sense” Triad

---

### Test Formula for Projecting “Sense”

To summarize the internal validation protocol, the projection of “sense” can be formalized as a coherence function between dimensional levels and internal semantic gradients:

\[
S(D) = \frac{1}{Z}\sum_i w_i \, G_i(D)
\]

where:
- \(G_i(D)\) is the **relational charge gradient** of term *i* for level D (see micro-protocol),  
- \(w_i\) is a normalized frequency weight,  
- \(Z\) is a normalization factor ensuring \( \sum_D S(D) = 1 \).

Thus:
- \(S(D₁–D₃)\) → operative polarity,  
- \(S(D₄–D₅)\) → relational polarity,  
- \(S(D₆–D₈)\) → structural polarity.

> **Reading.**  
> This compact formulation makes it possible to verify the **internal reconstruction of the three poles** of sense from co-occurrences alone,  
> without lexical or cultural reference — rendering the triad measurable as an *internal projection of the semantic field*.

---

The goal is to evaluate, within the CELA corpus itself, the capacity of the formalism to **reproduce the three orientations of sense** — *operative*, *relational*, *structural* — without recourse to cultural or external references.

#### 1. General Principle

The hypothesis is that each Dⁿ axis carries an **implicit semantic charge**:
- D¹–D³ → *operative*: action, flow, direct transformation.  
- D⁴–D⁵ → *relational*: coupling, exchange, correlation.  
- D⁶–D⁸ → *structural*: integration, form, principle.

Testing the “sense” triad amounts to verifying that these orientations **reconstitute themselves spontaneously** within the lexicon of texts and equations already associated with the D-levels.

---

#### 2. Micro-Protocol for Validation

1. **Controlled Sample**  
   - Extract a small lexicon (30–50 entries) directly from the reference files (gradient, CELA, images 001–015).  
   - Assign each term its **main D-level** (D¹–D⁸).  
   - Examples: `movement → D¹`, `flow → D³`, `equilibrium → D⁵`, `principle → D⁷`.

2. **Internal Semantic Measurement**  
   - For each word, compute:
     - its **co-occurrence frequency** with other terms of the same D-level,  
     - its **cross co-occurrence** with the two other poles.  
   - Deduce a **relational charge gradient**:  
     \[
     G_i = \frac{p_i(D_{\text{other}})}{p_i(D_{\text{same}})}
     \]
     where \(G_i>1\) indicates a “relational” trend; \(G_i<1\) an “operative” trend; \(G_i≈1\) a “structural” symmetry.

3. **Gradient Analysis**  
   - Group terms according to their \(G_i\) and D-level.  
   - Visualize the triad as a scatter plot:  
     - x-axis = D,  
     - y-axis = relational charge gradient.  
   - Observe whether the three poles emerge **without supervised learning**.

---

#### 3. Expected Result (Prototype)

| **Detected Orientation** | **Typical D-Range** | **Corpus Signature** | **Example Term** |
|:--|:--|:--|:--|
| **Operative** | D¹–D³ | strong action / weak cross-axis co-occurrence | “flow”, “force”, “variation” |
| **Relational** | D⁴–D⁵ | balanced inter-axis correlation | “equilibrium”, “interaction”, “symmetry” |
| **Structural** | D⁶–D⁸ | diffuse, isotropic co-occurrence | “principle”, “form”, “integrity” |

> The success of the test is measured by the **automatic detection** of these three clusters without injecting prior categories.

---

#### 4. Conceptual Safeguards

- **Lexical Neutrality:** keep the terminology *operative / relational / structural* without attaching psychological or political value.  
- **Controlled Self-Reference:** only co-occurrences internal to the CELA corpus are allowed (no external dictionaries).  
- **Symbolic Status of D¹–D²:** these two levels serve as purely syntactic anchors (movement and transition), not linguistic interpretation.  
- **Scope of Validity:** the experiment remains a test of *internal coherence of the semantic field*, not universal empirical proof.

---

#### 5. Perspectives

- Extend the measure to a **continuous sense gradient**, \(S(D)\), to track the operative→structural drift.  
- Introduce a **composite metric**: \(S_i = α·G_i + β·f_i\) (where \(f_i\) is the normalized frequency), to assess the stability of the three poles.  
- Link the result to the model \(ρ·C≈k\): the sharper the triad, the more semantic coherence reflects the density–complexity balance.

> **Synthesis:** the sense triad, validated by internal co-occurrence, becomes the linguistic mirror of the Dⁿ variational principle — a semantic signature of CELA’s very structure.

---

### Neutralizing Lexical Ambiguity

To reduce dependence on vocabularies, an **abstract parallel nomenclature** is introduced at three levels:

| **Symbol** | **Designation** | **Function** | **Dimensional Coupling** |
|:--:|:--|:--|:--|
| **S₁** | Operative Sense | local perception, immediate use of the sign | D¹ ↔ D⁶ |
| **S₂** | Relational Sense | intersubjective coherence, semantic linkage | D² ↔ D⁵ |
| **S₃** | Structural Sense | stability of conceptual forms | D³ ↔ D⁴ |

These three invariants define the **Triad of “Sense”**:  
\[
S₁ \leftrightarrow S₂ \leftrightarrow S₃
\]

They allow the previous typology to be expressed without ideological dependence:  
- S₁ corresponds to the **tension of value** (operative),  
- S₂ to the **tension of connection** (relational),  
- S₃ to the **tension of form** (structural).

The **D-level dependency graph** ensures symmetry:  
\[
(1 \leftrightarrow 6),\ (2 \leftrightarrow 5),\ (3 \leftrightarrow 4)
\]

```json
{
  "sense_triad": {
    "S1": "operative (1↔6)",
    "S2": "relational (2↔5)",
    "S3": "structural (3↔4)",
    "goal": "neutralize lexical ambiguity and stabilize dimensional correspondences"
  }
}

```