sdi

Actually, I've been thinking about this all night and I think you're actually getting at something very simple—we deal with it in computer programming all the time! For example, at the pure abstract potential end of the spectrum, you might have something like a Universal Turing Machine, which is a theoretical construct that can do literally anything—it is the algorithm that contains all algorithms—but in practice, is useless until you actually make one and write a program for it. At the pure concrete end of the spectrum, you might have a picture of a maze: it's a thing that exists, but it only has one and exactly one form. Somewhere in the middle, you might have a maze-drawing algorithm: it contains the potential for all mazes within it, but it isn't actually a maze, and further it no longer has the potential for all the other things an algorithm might do (like determine if a picture is a cat, or brush teeth, or whatever)—but in exchange, you can follow the algorithm step-by-step and get a picture of a maze! So there's a sliding scale there: from the abstract, undifferentiated, high potential, low efficacy to the concrete, differentiated, low potential, high efficacy.

If so, I think the terminology everyone uses to describe this axis is pretty confusing! Without thinking too carefully about it, I'd call Neptune "abstraction" and Uranus "concretion." I can absolutely see this as being a separate axis from the others, since you can have both concrete conflict and abstract conflict, say, or concrete contraction and abstract contraction, or whatever. In that case I'd put Neptune in the future (unformed potential) and Uranus in the past (unchangeable particulars).

All that said, I think I need to ponder this more, preferably when I'm a bit more awake...