Mathematically, there is equal and unequal. That which is not equal... is not equal. Logically, there is true and false. If not true, then false. If not false, then true. Two things can both be true or both false, but the same thing can't be both true and false.
There is a third option, in a sense: a blending. Some true, some false. Some equal, some inequal. However, this comes back to the idea that two things can both be true or both false, or one true and another false. If you have a "thing" that is both true and false, it can be further divided into components that are either true or false. At their essence, then, this third option shows itself not to be its own case, but a subset of the other cases, wholly explainable by and contained within the dichotomy.
Human beings are like this. We all know love, and we all know pride. There are moments of equality and moments of inequality. There are times of oneness, and times of separateness.
There is even a third option to "which is greater" and that is "neither", if they are equal.
I still see the Top Down as inclusive. It allows for all the claims from Bottom Up. I don't even see how Top Down can be disproven. How do disprove something from within a set, something that may or may not exist beyond the set? You can prove that everything within the set could be explained WITHOUT the need for anything to exist beyond the set, then run Occam's Razor across there and presume that the exterior is "not needed" and therefore not probable. This still isn't disproof.
"Because the components of the knowing are not limited to objective components."
Why do you say that?
I explained why. I laid out the components of trust, both objective and subjective. I defined the mechanic in great detail. Trust is something built in cycles and layers. It comes as the reliance succeeds, that what you rely on comes through for you. It is NOT faith, no matter how you may try to insist that it is. You now also seem to be quibbling definitions of objective and subjective. Is that the extent of the rigor here?
Objective: adj - 1. Of or having to do with a material object, as distinguished from a mental concept, idea, or belief. Compare subjective. 2. A. Uninfluenced by emotion, surmise, or personal prejudice. B. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
Subject: adj - 1. Pertaining to the real nature of something; essential. 2. A. Proceeding from or taking place within an individual's mind such as to be unaffected by the external world. B. Particular to a given individual, personal. 3. Existing only in the experiencer's mind and incapable of external verification.
The physical and mental components of trust fit the objective definitions, generally. That which can be senses physically (seen, heard, touched, etc) by one, can be sensed by others in the same forms as well, thus verifiable. Same with thoughts. You express your thoughts and ideas, they can be examined for soundness, reliability. These are objective. Emotion can be described and expressed, related to, understood, but not verified in its essence. Body language can be a good indicator of emotion, but that is a shadow, indirect indication, it is not transferrable. It is subjective, unverifiable, personal to each individual. Soul... we can't even verify there IS a soul. Intuition is even more subjective than emotion.
You have made the assertion of there only being dominion and domniation. Sorry to say, the position has not looked to me airtight enough to exclude all other cases.
Then you haven't understood the nature of relationship, Self to Other, that I have described. It is a matter of equality. Equal relationship spiritually, dominion. Unequal relationship spiritually, domination.
"Not looking airtight to you" is subjective. This is an objective description of concepts. It is either wholly correct or not wholly correct. If you can demonstrate or even conceive of this hypothetical "C", put it forth. I assert that my A and B cover all cases, that any C you construct would be a subset of A or B. I believe, even, that I've proven this much, and that the only question is which is the cause and which the effect.
You mentioned neutrons as an example of C, but in terms of elecromagnetics, neutrons are a nonfactor. They do not represent a "third kind of charge", they are simply absent of charge: the empty set. They hold no bearing on the charged relationships of protons/positrons with electrons. The analogy also breaks down rather quickly, since my assertion of domination/dominion is one of choice, not nature.
Free will brings the possibility of choosing one's relationship to others. Will you seek power over them, to strip them in some way of their free will, to control them (dominate them) or will you grant them total beingness, honor their free will? You honor their free will, or you do not. You treat them as spirit, or you treat them as object. You "set them free" or you try to possess them. You respect their rights or you do not. You give to them WHEN they choose to receive of their free will and you receive from them WHEN they give of free will, or you force upon them against their will and take from them against their will. Where is the third option?
Well, indeed, that is exactly part of The Question. I return again to philosophy being a life's work
That has no bearing. You can spend a lifetime or a hundred lifetimes looking for a meaningful way to come up with a "third option" for a binary bit. When the nature of the bit is binary, your pursuit is vain. When the nature of the bit has been SHOWN to be binary and you refuse to acknowledge this but do not even have a conceptual alternative to offer, well, come back if/when you do. If I'm still here to consider it, then I'll consider it. In the mean time, having a binary bit in my hand and understanding it to be binary, I'll remain content to flick it on and off and work with the results obtained thereby.