Negative Definitions
Negative and Divergent =+df remarks, implications , theories and affairs that hinder, contradict and/or repudiate affirmative values. Negative and Divergent are umbrella terms for that which deviates from affirmative root values. These terms cover anything from a small pin prick  to radical dialectical revolution. Negative (divergent) circumvents the authentic and confounds the affirmative. There are many ways of being negative and/or divergent.
Plus root theory is designed to address modern conflict between affirmative and counter affirmative propensities. [From Introduction; Problem Essay]
Affirmative and Negative: Affirmative and negative are important terms in plus discourse. 
Affirmative refers to any approach that sufficiently uses the requirements of sound rational thinking. Commitment to affirmative themes increases the scope of civil discourse and advances our abilities to progress in Peace. [See Affirmative]. 
Negative (or divergent) designates procedures that in some manner oppose affirmative development. There are many ways of being negative. Most of the rational divergence we encounter is antithetical. The terms antithetical, polar, oppositional, antagonistic and factional, as used herein, refer to orientations that rely on opposition for gaining and keeping the upper hand. Antithetical power maneuvers, in one way or another, hinder the development of sound rational thinking. Antithetical commitment supports the escalation of  negative oriented philosophy. Negative oriented philosophy encourages antithetical mentalities. 
Negative Essay
In Europe during the time of Hegel, a group of brilliant, talented intellectuals began to develop ideological schemes that deliberately inverted numerous traditional requirements of sound rational thinking. These innovators both kept the requirements of sound rational thinking at one level of thinking and inverted them in another level. Using both affirmative and negative 'reason', they pitted one against the other. They created intellectual games and, by twisting ideas this way and that, engaged in high toned mental gymnastics. Out of these contortions came a new style ideology that swept influential departments of the universities in Europe. Some of the revolution came to the USA. The new ideology rejected core points of classical rational theory. This modern sophistical style introduced a challenge to affirmative thinking that to this day has not been sufficiently appreciated. One of the objectives of plus root theory is to help address this problem.
In addressing the challenges brought into civil society by the development of the inversions of the new style ideology, it would be handy to have appropriate terminology to tackle the issues involved. More than handy, the issue appears at the moment to be urgent.
Difficulty in finding appropriate negative terms.
At this point I'm compelled to intrude with a personal note concerning the difficulties affirmative oriented people encountered in developing appropriate negative terminology. How do we allay the dangers of negative development without sounding negative? 
For the past several years much of my research time has been spent seeking  words to convey negative thoughts and deeds in a non belligerent manner.  This project resulted in numerous long files.  One list of words became so long (about 80 pages) that my computer froze. I had to reboot and divide the file in 3 parts before I could use it again.  
This difficulty is significant. The words we need to refute the most serious difficulties facing us today are elusive. We find it hard to talk about our most pressing problems with the with the degree of intelligibility required because we have to create a language before we address the problem. As things now stand, most of our discourse concerning negative matters blows dust in our face. 
I will not bore you with in depth details of my search for negative terms because the result would be an encyclopedia rather than a essay. I'll mention a few problems. 
To begin, I did not want to use the term 'negative' to indicated 'negative' thinking because it is too negative. Also, those who adopt various 'negative' values do not consider themselves negative. It is not polite to call someone negative who does not want to be called negative. However, since my search for the proper word word  has failed to date (Jan. 2001), the word  'negative' will have to do -- for the time being at least.  [Perhaps one of you can solve the problem. Please let me know the secret solution.]
As things now stand, the terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' have specified meanings throughout this web page unless other wise indicated. 
Affirmative refers to that which adequately affirms the basic requirements of sound rational thinking as specified herein. Negative refers to that which hinders affirmative use and affirmative development. 
Negative by plus definition refers to that which in some manner hinders,  maligns and/or attempts to replace affirmative rational requirements. Since this is a study about root matters, it is primarily concerned with negativity in the areas of epistemology, logic, semantics, linguistics, and other elemental subjects. For example, take the following statement attributed to David Hume (1711-1776) 
"Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions". [C136p6] [eg Neg1] 
From an affirmative point of view, this is a negative statement. In a sentence of 12 words, Hume inverts the affirmative project of Western Civilization. Perhaps Hume is talking tongue in cheek. Let's hope so. This remark of Hume's is like a note from your bank casually mentioning that they have multiplied your assets by zero. 
Hume's statement operates as a universal excuse for proponents to say and do whatever they wish to do according to their personal passion. What if a group of philosophers took this idea to its logical conclusion and sold it to the public. We would end up with leaders like Lenin and Stalin and Mussolini and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot. That could not possibly happen, you say. It's too outrageous. 
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995) suggests that, from a moral point of view, Hume's form of atheism is superior to theism.
"From a moral point of view, at least this one form of atheism is superior to theism." [B615p347]  [egNeg2]
The above is another negative statement connected with those who camp with Hume. It says in effect: "Some forms of atheism are morally superior to all forms of  theism." The author can't possibly know all forms of theism. Some he doesn't understand. Some he doesn't know.  Some haven't been fashioned yet. If he had said, "From a moral point of view, at least this one form of atheism is superior to some forms of theism." then the statement is not totalitarian. It would have negative connotations but it would not be so shamefully conceited.  
Hume's over all arguments are complex. I doubt if he really meant what he said about 'reason' in the above example. Hume made many affirmative remarks and on many occasion engaged in adroit commonsense rational thinking. He often followed the requirements of right reason.  However, in the midst of his upbeat argumentation he committed serious  root errors. These errors, on important issues, sent  his followers in negative directions. Without a doubt, Hume helped set the stage for Kant and Kant prepared the soil for Hegel. Hegel leads use into the problem of the new ideology mentioned in the first paragraph of this essay.
Time and Energy Ratio: Please note in the above examples how quick and easy it is it is to make negative statements versus how time consuming and difficult it is to refute the negative statement once it has been made. I wish some mathematician would figure out the time and energy ratios involved. When occupied in dialectical contests between affirmative and negative, this ratio becomes an important factor. It is one of the problems that confront affirmative thinkers and hinder us from making a case for pleasant consequence of developing our abilities to appreciate and use the rule of right reason. 
Back to the problem of terminology. 
As of Jan 2001, negative terminology in plus root theory is not adequately settled. This, more than anything, slows down the development of this web site. Until this problem is under better control, I will use this "Negative Essay" as a clearing house for negative terminology. 
Remember that plus definitions are stipulated for the occasion of plus root theory and this web site. An effort is made to see that definitions do not uncomfortably violate common usage of the terms in question, but the definitions do not pretend to be universally common. Other writers obviously may stipulate other definitions. Common meanings have other connotations and allusions. 
In plus root theory I  make a concerted effort to use the following terms according to the following definitions. I am trying to become consistent throughout but I have a long way to go.  I would appreciate comments and suggestions. 
Negative =+df remarks, implications , theories and affairs that hinder, contradict and/or repudiate affirmative values. Negative is an umbrella term for that which deviates from the affirmative from a small pin prick to radical dialectical revolution. Negative circumvents the authentic and confounds the affirmative. There are many ways of being negative. 
Divergent. To ease the burden on the word negative, plus root theory introduces the word 'divergent' with the same meaning. Divergent refers to that which diverges from the affirmative. Negative and divergent are umbrella terms that refer to all types of counter affirmative ways, from slight matters to radical determinism. 
Counter Affirmative: Counter Affirmative  is defined the same as 'negative'. It is the more accurate term but it does not carry much force. I use the word counter affirmative sparingly because I feel people reading in a hurry will miss the point. 
Other umbrella terms equivalent to 'negative' are 'deviant', 'errant' and 'aberrant'. I only use these when my hackles are up.
Sub Sets
There are many ways of being negative or divergent. 
Negative opposition:
[to be complete soon]