The term Semantic Space was, to my knowledge, coined by the psychologist Charles E. Osgood. He used it to indicate the emotive distances between similar terms. I use it quite differently, and one might well say, more pretentiously, to indicate a universe of meanings. I see this Space as determined by six dimensions that separate , at a given moment, the meanings of our responses to problems. This results in Individual and Collective hypercubes each with sixty-four terms for responses to problems at their corners. (Part 4, entitled Isomorphisms, combines the hypercubes for Individuals and for Collectives to show the similarity of their problem-contexts and response-modes..) All languages may be expected to have equivalent responses on the sixty-four corners.

The dimensions of the sixteen cubic representations that follow are similar to the contrasts in activity, strength and valence described in Part One. The eight corner options, each calculated to characterize the combination of six binary variables, begin with their first letters capitalized. I see these sets of prototypes as reflecting the positive versus negative contrasts of the Style Cube shown in Part Two, i. e.,

For the paradigmatic Model of White versus Black, for example, you will see that shifts transform the spontaneity of Hedonism to the domestication of Governance. These dimensions change from:

1. passive / active to protracted / immediate
2. weak / strong to erratic / sustained
3. negative / positive to undesirable / desirable

For individuals, the changes are:

1. to expectations (from arousal)
2. to involvement (from mobilization)
3. to self-rejection / self-acceptance (from 'repelled / attracted')

For collectivities, they are changes:

1. to authority (from force)
2. to control (from influence)
3. to disrespectable / respectable (from vulnerable / safe)

Thus, regarding the Individual hypercube's black of judgmental Governance, Identity combines:

• low versus high expectations
• mild versus salient involvement
• - versus + values

and, for the Collective hypercube, Policy has:

• slight versus great exigency
• loose versus tight control
• bad versus good

Inversely, for the white of situational Hedonism, the Dispositions of Individuals combine:

• uninterested versus demanding
• relaxed versus mobilized
• against versus desired

while Interaction combines:

• static versus dynamic
• dull versus influential
• defensive versus affirmative

I present the sixteen archetypes in sets of four according to the contrasting polar axes of their hypercubes, i. e.,

My pattern of presentation for the archetypes will be the following:

Dimensions Positive versus Negative Active versus Passive Strong versus Weak Three-Dimensional Oppositions Resilient versus Collapsed Yielding versus Tough Flexible versus Rigid Stable versus Brittle Positive vs. Negative Contrasts Resilient versus Tough Yielding versus Collapsed Flexible versus Brittle Stable versus Rigid

Important to recall is that the prototypic responses reflect meeting-points of the three 'zero / one' archetypal variables with those of the three similar bifurcated ones for variations in style.

White vs. Black
The immediacy of arousal, the potency of needs, and the '+/-' evaluations of their hedonistic significance are best illustrated by the response cubes underlying stylistic variations both in our reaction dispositions and in our interactions with others. Their shared dimensionson the Model are:

For the White Cube of Individuals' Hedonistic Reactions, the elements are as follows:

Dimensions For versus Against Aroused (stimulated / irritated) versus Casual (adaptable / unadaptable) Mobilized (motivated / frustrated) versus Relaxed (satisfied / disatisfied) Three-Dimensional Oppositions   Creative versus   Wasting   Consuming versus   Taking   Using versus   Salvaging   Saving versus   Abusing Positive vs. Negative Contrasts Creative versus Taking Consuming versus Wasting Using versus Abusing Saving versus Salvaging

Similarly, for the White Cube of Hedonistic Interaction Among Individuals, the elements are as follows:

Dimensions Affirmative versus Defensive Forceful (stimulated / irritated) versus Low Force (adaptable / unadaptable) Influential (motivated / frustrated) versus Low Influence (satisfied / disatisfied) Three-Dimensional Oppositions   Concerted versus   Mutual Avoidance   Compromising versus   Conflictful   Competitive versus   Confrontational   Cooperative versus   Cutthroat Competition Positive vs. Negative Contrasts Concerted versus Conflictful Compromising versus Mutual Avoidance Competitive versus Cutthroat Competition Cooperative versus Confrontational

The stylistic modes on the corners of these two Black cubes may well remind you of a horoscope or of yhe typologies popularized in the literature of 'management. Here I specify their differing dimensions and their interrelationships.

The next four Figures do for the yellow / violet contrast of the Projective and Maintenance archetypes what Figures 4 and 5 and Figures 6 and 7 have done for the white / black of Hedonism versus Governance.

Thereafter, two more sets of four Figures do the same for the orange / blue Operative versus Expressive axis and the green / red one of Regulative versus Instrumental.

Yellow versus Violet
The Model's dimensions for the Existential Agendas and Ideological Orientations are

and its dimensions for the Maintenance Violet of Character and Community are:

The Yellow for our personal agendas or fleeting projects is the archetype that is the key to the qualities we characterize as 'human' - ones where the subjective 'I' has become an objectified reflective 'me'.

For the Yellow Cube of Existential Orientations, the components are as follows:

Dimensions Resolute versus Unwilling Demanding (stimulated / irritated) versus Low Demand (adaptable / unadaptable) Needful (motivated / frustrated) versus Low Need (satisfied / dissatisfied) Three-Dimensional Oppositions   Affirmative versus   Despairing   Compliant versus   Vengeful   Tolerant versus   Intolerant   Responsible versus   Irrespossible Positive vs. Negative Contrasts Affirmative versus Vengeful Compliant versus Despairing Tolerant versus Irresponsible Responsible versus Intolerant