Appendix I 

Discrimination and Disambiguation Index (DDI):

Lexical Cartography and the Edge of Typal Drift

I. Theme:  A Diagnostic Framework for Evaluating Semantic and Moral Precision in Language

I.A. Origin and Rationale

The theoretical Discrimination and Disambiguation Index (DDI) began as a desire for precision in language—particularly in the disciplined use of words that are too often treated as interchangeable. This reflection quickly turned to the deceptively simple notion of synonyms, as commonly presented in thesauri. Standard usage often assumes that synonyms are functionally equivalent. Yet closer analysis reveals that many so-called “synonyms” are not truly interchangeable: they differ in connotation, scope, agency, moral valence, and ontological precision.

More properly, these should be termed pseudo-synonyms—word pairs or groups that appear functionally similar but in practice convey distinct conceptual or ethical force.

Examples include:

• Avenge vs Revenge

• Freedom vs Liberty

• Penitent vs Repentant vs Contrite

Such distinctions prompted a deeper line of inquiry: how do different languages enable—or suppress—our capacity to discriminate meaning with ontological fidelity?

One of the initial premises of this framework (see Semiotics) is that in the beginning, there was but one original language—divinely given—and that the confusion of tongues at Babel was an act of redemptive judgment. If a tool like the DDI were to be developed further, it would require a point of reference: one would need to ask which language (or system) best preserves conceptual clarity, moral coherence, and typological fidelity. That question remains open—but it is not trivial.

I.B. Conceptual Expansion

Thus, the DDI evolved as a proposal to evaluate languages themselves across multiple axes of semantic resolution.

The following provisional fourteen  axes of analysis were postulated as a diagnostic framework of the original index:

• Transitivity considers whether a verb requires a direct object (e.g., “break” vs. “fall”), revealing agent–patient structure and semantic force.
• Abstraction measures how conceptually general or concrete a term is, distinguishing between universals and instance-bound expressions.
• Agency reflects whether the subject exerts volition or control, exposing implicit moral posture and responsibility.
• Temporal Anchoring examines whether a word expresses an event, a continuous state, or a bounded duration—how and when meaning unfolds in time.
• Emotional Valence evaluates whether a word carries implicit affect—positive, negative, or neutral—and how it may signal approval, disapproval, or rhetorical persuasion.
• Intensity or Force measures the assertiveness or semantic pressure of a term (e.g., “urge” vs. “recommend”), which often affects perceived urgency or authority.
• Epistemic Commitment identifies how strongly a word implies belief, knowledge, doubt, or certainty, showing the speaker’s alignment with the proposition.
• Cultural Saturation detects how ideologically loaded or semantically exhausted a word may be—whether it signals overuse, propaganda coding, or symbolic inflation.
• Modal Density focuses on the presence of obligation, permission, or necessity within a term, showing whether it carries coercive or permissive force.
• Register captures the formality or social tier implied by the word—whether it elevates, conceals, or flattens affect (e.g., “terminate” vs. “fire”)
• Semantic Range assesses the contextual flexibility or narrowness of the word’s legitimate usage, identifying generalization, conceptual bleeding, or categorical fuzz.
• Reflexivity notes whether the word implicates the speaker or listener directly, adding dialogical, performative, or confessional weight.
• Typal Proximity considers how closely a term aligns with a real ontological type—flagging whether it reinforces or simulates typological truth
• Referential Orientation (Internal vs. External Reference)  Assesses whether a word refers primarily within the discursive or linguistic system itself (internal reference), or points beyond it to an ontological, typological, or experiential reality (external reference).Function: Helps detect whether a term is self-reinforcing, circular, or ideologically closed—or whether it presumes a world beyond language, anchoring in what is real. Also flags whether meaning is implicitly assumed or explicitly declared, and whether its use functions to impel (draw) or compel (pressure).  This axis helps surface whether a discourse is ontologically open (grounded in reference beyond itself) or closed (self-referential, coded, and circular).

I.C. Scalability, Polarity, and Moral Weight (Optional Extension)

Although originally designed as a qualitative matrix, the DDI may be extended using scalar values (e.g., –3 to +3) across each axis. In theory, one could add moral and modal weights, assigning not just what a word does, but what it permits, prohibits, or corrupts. This would effectively convert the DDI from a lexical discernment tool into a moral-ontological evaluator—but such an extension would require grounding in revealed typology and relational ontology, not cultural consensus.

The next natural open question, then, is this: can lexical neutrality exist in a morally ordered universe? Or is every word—like every act-a confession?

This appendix is left as a conceptual provocation for those linguists, theologians, and analytic eccentrics who suspect that language, like the soul, longs to be weighed.