Ok, I thought I’d add a new perspective to this topic. So far we established a paradigm for ‘structure and relation’ based on schools of study. We can also split existence into the living and non-living, in this sense ‘realism’ and ‘multisense’. Each category is split into various different segments, and unlike the Venn diagram this categorization accounts for aspects with no sentience as a reference point. It in particular isolates consciousness from its non-existential opposite. This can be seen as shown below:
However, in categorising existence and schools of knowledge in this manner we are still attributing and acknowledging interpretation of its sub-division purely on an interpretative manner from a ‘sentient’ being. The ‘realism’ factors are in effect abstract constructs, whereas in the four main category based Venn diagram they are better associated with divisions in knowledge (still abstract but to a lesser extent since less specific). The existence of AI (from its perspective) would warrant that various facets of the multisense be interpreted as ‘abstract’ concepts – I do not necessarily believe that AI would necessarily abide by emotion, instinct, and intuitive aspects.
I personally like the following (below) trinity in structure of relation, the problem is it perceives sentience as being itemizable and it rules out, to some extent, the aspect of ‘free-will’. But this not altogether as ‘formal systems’ would comprise of the living and hence is a ‘decidable’ factor that can distinguish and process mathematical (scientific or nature intended) parameters with reason (computations). This as shown:
Ok, this diagram was slightly taken out of context, but I believe it acts as a fundamental explanatory block for relations of existence, this where the ‘mathematical structures’ accounts for the abstract, and ‘computations’ account for the non-living.
The following diagram (again taken slightly out of context) functions on the principles of dualities (the thesis and anti-thesis) and everything in between, all of existence, is deemed as the relation component. This as shown:
I would argue that the very aspect of ‘synthesis’ accounts for the ‘living’, and in the above diagram the relation accounts for the abstract, which in turn is attributed meaning given sentient synthesis due to awareness of the two extremes. The problem with the above categorization is that different abstract relations may in turn solicit additional antithesis’ to its comparable thesis. But the thing is that opposing relations will not necessarily lead to synthesis of the other range of relations without consideration of the absolute (existence versus nothingness for instance).
I guess that when examining structure and relation, in regards to existence, we then need to be situational in favourance to the model that best fits a practical situation. It would be erroneous for an engineer to consider the four model approach in his/her specific school, although it may suit a philosopher fine. Physisists may indeed opt for the last two model approach given their rational Occam’s Razor like reasoning.
Your Venn diagram Badger seems fine in representation of the essence, and what is important to, the human spirit so to speak. It is good for exploration of the soul, whereas the three diagrams shown previously would be best suited for, accordingly:
i) Academia related studies of existence, for the common man;
ii) Engineering applications and think-how; and
iii) Scientific itemization of our reality.
Would it be practical to mix all these different relations into one concept? Would such an itemization lead to near-absolute knowledge? Would the existence of AI warrant that it perceives all these relations simultaneously through computations with the additive aspect of a human interpreter?