The meaning of high (as well as low, and to a lesser extent also of superior and of inferior) is as broad as the meaning of positive (and of negative). High may mean strong, strict, luxurious, noble, serious, exalted and so on, while it literally, that is, originally, refers to strong positivity in physical space dimensions: elevated, tall (that is, to positively altitude-catenary deep-or-highness predicates). In compounds high may refer to every advanced state: high-born, high-frequency, high-minded, high-spirited, high-tension and so on. Because high is suited for all kinds of purpose, provided that there is talk of an advanced degree of realization, it is used to normatively evaluate things or states of affairs as well. Highness-catenary misassociation is now the process in which normative highness (that is, a high or superior, normative value) is associated with something which is high in a factual-modal sense, or in which a certain form of nonnormative highness (or superiority) is associated with something which is high in a normative sense. It is caused by the homonymy of the terms for the highness-catenary and positively altitude-catenary shallow-or-lowness-catenary predicates in question, or by a factor of which the homonymy itself is a result too.

Catena values are assigned on theoretical grounds, for example, on the basis of their relationship with empirical values, or on the basis of the relationship of the catena concerned with other catenas. In ordinary language values are called "high" when they are positive or very positive, and "higher" when they are more positive or less negative. Therefore the (very) positive empirical values and the positive catenical values may be considered 'high' in a purely empirical or catenical sense. Given the existence of a catenical normative principle, and following traditional language, nothing would, then, appear more 'self-evident' than that a high normative value is to be associated with a high catena value, and that normative highness or superiority is inherent in positivity. Thus those who do not understand that language is not only a product of their thought, but that their thought is also a product of their language, will but too easily, consciously or unconsciously, adopt some normative principle of the form the more positive, the superior. The idea that something is superior in a normative sense, because it is more positive or higher in a factual-modal sense, will then be accepted as 'normal'. On such a reckoning negativity automatically has a low normative value, and neutrality, or perineutrality, falls somewhere in between.

A traditionally common form of highness-catenary misassociation is the assignment of normative highness to objects in a higher state of development or evolution. Examples are a higher evaluation of the human species as compared with other animal species, because this species has reached a higher evolutionary plane; or, a higher evaluation of intelligent people as compared with other people, because intelligent people have a higher intelligence quotient; or, a higher evaluation of technologically advanced societies as compared with so-called 'un-' or 'under-developed societies' which are still on a lower plane of technical development.

Examples where primary things draw their normative highness from their physical highness are mountains, columns or other tall objects adored for their highness or tallness. (In the event that they are relatively long and narrow, there is the additional phallic element in the worship of such objects.) But highness-catenary misassociation works in both directions. Not only can high or tall things become superior in some doxastic, normative sense, things which are superior in such a sense also tend to be conceived of in traditional thought as high or tall in a physical sense. And if not visibly high or tall on Earth, then high in the sky where supernaturalists locate the abode of the god(s). In a one-god setting Mono 'in the highest' is thus said to be attended by angels 'on high'.

Familial exclusivists do not shrink from speaking of "high-born", and from using a title like Highness for people who are believed to be honorable simply because of their family relations. These so-called 'high-born' people can also be higher in a normative-religious sense: they are then 'high' (for example, king or queen) by the grace of Mono, the 'Most High' of the theodemonist religion adhered to. Indeed, it once was, or still is, normal in religionist countries that people who style themselves "high-born" and "highness" (and who were, or still are, styled by collaborators in this way) also held, or still hold, a high political office, such as that of head of state. They even used to be, or --incredible as it may sound-- still are, both head of state and head of the established temple society of their country. Such religionist systems are actuated, among others, by a number of highness-catenary misassociations which substantially diverge from the values of neutral and inclusive thought. Where the antiquated paradigm of highness has not yet ceased to reign, it is high time that the paradigm of equality and relevance be substituted for it.