Very worthy effort to make big principles simple.
where C stands for the (whole) dividing/ arising from A and B, and
R the connection/relation of A and B.
Such notation is simple, yet
insistent, calling for the articulation of unity C, the relation R and the
"parts" A and B.
Well, it right away reminds me of several similar attempts. Hegelian Dialectics, of course. Thesis and Anti-Thesis produce a Synthesis.
And it reminds me of what some people call Triads. I did some writings on that. They're however for a very specialized audience, so I'm not sure how meaningful they'll be to you. Many years ago I was a scientologist, and one of the fundamental elements of Hubbard's philosophy was different kinds of triangles. Which all mostly add up to that there's one side and another side, and together they produce a third side, and all together, those 3 add up to something else. The most well known is the "ARC" triangle. Affinity (how close one is to somebody, or how much one likes them) and Reality (how much one agrees, or sees the world the same way) will produce Communication (i.e. one has something to talk about, and one feels like talking). All together they three are said to add up to Understanding.
Anyway, if you're interested, you might glance at some things I wrote about it here: http://freezoneamerica.org/funch/te1/te1-5.html#essay41 Which, again, wasn't meant for a general audience, but rather for recovering scientologists, so there are weird words that aren't necessarily explained.
Also, interestingly, there was a german fellow named Nordenholz who in the 1930s wrote a book called "Scientologie", which really is completely unrelated to Hubbard's Scientology, but incidentally he talks a good deal about very similar things, in terms of polarities and their resulting vector. http://www.scientologie.de/scientologie/index.htm Or look here: http://www.scientologie.de/scientologie/e_34c02.htm for some talk about particularly that sort of phenomena.
I know you're not necessarily talking about polarities, and the above references tend to focus on them being opposites.
I also get to thing of this: http://www.worldtrans.org/essay/wholemath.html which I called "Universal Wholeness Math". You take a zero (a wholeness or a nothing) and split it in two. Which still adds up to zero, as it is an equation. But those two can interact, and produce a third, which is the result of their interaction. And together that can add up to more complexity. Which keeps adding up.
Anyway, just some thoughts and connections that might or might not be useful.