The strategic moral-emotional framework of relational analysis is the simple matching function of the brain: does A = B? Any A may be matched to any B, with a resulting perception of the degree of fit between them and the resulting moral-emotional product of that analysis. They may match, producing a sense of satisfaction, or they may not match, producing a sense of disgust.

This can be an extremely complex set of relations, despite the simplicity of the underlying brain process. When understanding a strategic plan, the producers need to match very complex environmental conditions with the correct operational systems. It is a difficult process of comparing many elements and looking for their interplay as a match. Do our products match the competitors’ for quality and price? How do we correctly which components of a new market fit our existing marketing plan and which parts need revision? Or it can be a straightforward match, such as when one asks whether there is the 11”x17” paper for the printer available for the document you wish to produce.

All these comparisons have a moral-emotional component. When we find a match, it feels good. Thus, it is normal to feel good when square pegs fit in square holes merely because they fit. Conversely, is disgust the normal response to finding a set of relationships where a match does not appear when expected?

The essence of the strategic moral-emotion does the possibility of our brain perceive a match. Within our visual cortex, as it does its double duty as the centre of abstract thinking, does one shape appear to be the same as another? This may involve mental rotation in space and other forms of multi-dimensional analysis. It may mean metaphorical transformation as one thing is seen as “like” another along some important line of analysis so it can be compared. The results are then fed through the rest of the brain and end up, along with a series of emotional responses, in the pre-frontal cortex for decision making.

Despite its complexity as a form of analysis, it is relatively simple as a form of brain processing. Using visual-spatial relations as has been the case to this point, the simplest geometric possibility relating multiple shapes is their visual similarity. Human beings appear to seek the correct match between shapes or between shapes and context and then find emotional satisfaction once a match is made. This satisfaction can be found in the context of a child’s play through sophisticated mechanical-operational processes, to the metaphoric and abstract-conceptual. It does not mean this is an easy form of visual processing since the possibility of multiple dimensions of matching in space/time requires high brain energy levels. It is likely the brain looks first for relatively simple, even simplistic and stereotyped, similarities for the sense of match before undertaking the hard work of more complex matches.

Objects may be rotated in space for examination, and the simplest form of examination is between appearance from one perspective and assessment of actuality from other perspectives. The first application of this form of analysis is sorting, categorizing like and unlike in qualitative terms, and consequentially, sorting fit from unfit for specific personal and social uses. At the most pragmatic level, this way of relationally engaging permits one to make gross generalizations about the persons and things one encounters and quickly assess them for their usefulness to oneself or one's group. One sort of seed-stock, widgets, genres, or professionals against standards of type looking for the best fit and the clearest usefulness. A good fit produces a sense of satisfaction and the accomplishment of moral good—a good fit means the world is as it should be or should become.

However, as noted, matches can be metaphoric and quite complex strings of relationships can be developed through matching various characteristics that are part of a person, thing, or process. A match between one aspect and another of two objects might, or might not, be appropriate. If appropriate, they might then lead to linkages between yet another aspect between them or between the two and a third object. Thus parts and whole can be matched independently for complex forms of analysis. Add to this the impact of memory and emotion, which are also matched to the perceptions in ways that feel appropriate. It is already easy to see this as a multi-dimensional tool capable of great sophistication. It is not hard to see why this becomes an important form of human analysis and a core component of most education. Human beings are trained, by each other, to understand why specific forms of similarity are appropriate, and others are not to enable effective responses to specific situations and issues.

It is not hard to see why this should be an important form of moral assessment. A dentist is not a general practice doctor or a physicist, and ensuring one has found the correct type of Dr. is essential to feeling a good outcome when one has a sore tooth. When one finds a good fit, one feels good because the universe has demonstrated excellence in matching itself to one’s needs. Those needs may be both intense and personal, and thus the sense of moral accomplishment may be powerful.

Metaphorically this is the morality of truthful-aptness. There seems to be built into human beings a strong sense that symbolic structures “should” match the objects under analysis and interactions should fit needs. This drive appears to be more emotional than rational, and the sense of betrayal when an appearance fails to match the necessary reality can be profound. This morality may be weighted to the negative, and those using it become more upset about a violation of an expected match than a failure to create a full match. To find that the person working on our teeth is a physicist would be far more upsetting than learning our teeth were in the hands of an accomplished student dentist. While the physicist may be the Dr., the student is the closest fit to our need, and our sense of violation would be far less in the latter case than in the former.

This type of relational evaluation permits significantly more abstract forms of thinking than do the other relational models and richer moral analysis. Strategic thinking, the ability to accomplish long-term goals, arises from examining the fit between short and long-term goals, methods and outcomes, and the various alternate sets of tactics. This might also be the moral framework that leads us to seek matches between signifiers, signified maps and terrains, or even lover and beloved. Marketing campaigns and weigh scales also find their moral place within this metaphoric form of relations. They are all about apt-fit, the closeness of type between promise and reality. By sorting in space, looking for equivalence at both the direct and metaphoric levels, individuals and groups are enabled to make a vast array of important discriminations. Many personal and social goods may be accomplished through strategic evaluation and selection of matches.