TOP Quarterly Update #17: 18 July-2015

Dear [Subscriber],

When James Clerk Maxwell was developing his famous equations for electromagnetic radiation, physics was part of ‘natural philosophy’. Science, with its observations and experimental testing had not yet wrenched itself free of philosophy, the ancient search for wisdom. In regard to physical reality, that independence has occurred—but we still do not regard someone as a proper scientist until they become a doctor of philosophy—a Ph.D.

However, the non-physical world, metaphysics—so-called according to one apocryphal account because it was a lecture given after Aristotle’s physics lecture—stubbornly remains within philosophy. And the popular issue in metaphysics nowadays is consciousness, our subjective experiences, or «mind» as some like to refer to it.

Neuroscientists love to say they are studying the «mind» or assert that the mind is the brain. That’s enough for philosophers to insert themselves with their metaphysics. However, there is an alternative.

Psychosocial Pressures

As I explained in my April-15 Update, the mind is nothing but personal functioning. So the present taxonomic study of endeavour is now wresting metaphysics from philosophy and placing it firmly in the camp of science. (By the way, I encourage you to re-read the story.)

Galileo in The Sidereal Messenger (1610), wrote

“Philosophy (nature) is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes. I mean the universe, but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. The book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word of it, and without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.”

For the metaphysical realm of personal functioning, I would suggest a restatement as follows:

“Philosophy (nature) is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes. I mean the metaphysical universe, but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the images in which it is written. The book is written in the language of dynamic systems, and the images are hierarchies, trees, dualities and spirals, without whose help it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word of it, and without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.”

The key to this “dark labyrinth” appears to be the psychosocial pressures. These flow from the Root Levels and provide the vital charge intrinsic to personal functioning. It seems possible, even likely that the felt pressure corresponds to affective neural systems, known to lie in the midbrain—as explained in the Jan-15 Update. I suspect that the focus of most brain-mind studies on the cortex is probably a form of misplaced anthropocentrism that exclaims: “I’m so much cleverer than those octopi and rodents, just look at my neocortex!”

Differing standard correspondence patterns between the 7 Root Levels and each of the four main structural forms—Primary Hierarchies, Spirals, Structural Hierarchies, Q-expansions—have been identified and are being investigated in the Architecture Room. Those correspondences, which are architecturally so unifying, make far more sense when viewed as the operation of psychosocial pressures tied to those Root Level Domains.

The improbability that such an extensive and repeated pattern is just a coincidence is great. Science cries out for an underlying cause—which must surely be neurobiological. If not, what other cause would you suggest?

Warning! Stop reading now if you want to avoid entering the labyrinth. (You can safely re-join this letter in the last section which considers implications for the website.)

Psychosocial pressures operate in layers. A principal pressure drives each Domain, and then additional pressures principally associated with other Domains are overlaid. The most superficial pressure is often the most noticeable. To help you keep track of the following example, I will highlight pressures in green.

e.g. Consider the pressures that develop within PH'4CsHK-G2. This is a Tree Centre provisionally named Calibrate your Social Interactions, which is part of a Framework mapping the Adaptation of a Sense of Self.

Research indicates that this functioning is objectively subject to a pressure for understanding (through the Root correspondence), but personally it is subject to a pressure for certainty (because it is in L2 position on the Tree). However, you could easily argue that surely this functioning is subject to a performance pressure, an acceptability pressure, an autonomy pressure—indeed to all of the pressures. You would be right—but not because the research finding is wrong. I doubt that you know why you are right, but here's why you are. G2 implies use of one or more of the 6 Dyads provisionally named: Be Tactful, Be Circumspect, Be Relaxed, Be Sensible, Be Moderate, Be Communicative. Because these cover all 7 Monads (which arise from the Mode essences) they naturally bring into play all seven psychosocial pressures: one for each Mode. In addition, the Groups and Groupings within that Structural Hierarchy are built out of the pressure for well-being which is generally promoted by all the Mode essences. The Modes themselves derive from the mental stabilization methods and a person will have some preference here based on a pressure for autonomy that applies to any identification-PH4L6. This brings us back to the Primary Hierarchy and Domain Fundamentals, which are subject to the principal Domain pressure, which is for well-being.

Complicated? Yes.

Capable of being systematically disentangled through understanding the architecture? Yes indeed.

Capable of being underpinned via neurophysiological circuits? Seems so.

My point is that psychosocial pressures are critical to any coherent understanding of personal functioning (i.e. «mind») simply because they crop up everywhere in the architecture. It seems to me that the subtle interplay of pressures is what makes the mind seem so complicated. It is complicated when we try to understand it and it is complicated when we struggle to get things right in our life or handle other people sensibly.

Given their importance and the apparent neurophysiological connection, psychosocial pressures appear to be the key to extracting our effusive personal experience from philosophy and placing it into the realm of science.

Naming the Domain Controls

Getting a proper fix on these pressures and their correspondences has provided guidance in my current project to name frameworks systematically and meaningfully.

One of my most challenging tasks in framework clarification has been to identify which values constitute the Modes within a Spiral. During the earliest investigation into strengthening management culture, I was so immersed in how decisions are made in organisations and knew the literature so well that I simply intuited what the Mode values had to be while testing the ideas out in long-term OD projects. However, that is simply unsatisfactory from a scientific perspective. Amongst other things, it is no help in new areas, or where consultancy research is impractical.

It also creates great difficulties in naming the Centres of the Spiral-derived Tree. That is where I fell back on referring to “the essence” of the Mode as my choice for a Tree Centre. It’s as dishonest a trick as the discovery of “dark energy” and “dark matter” in physics—because these terms mean that while there is something there to make observations and equations work, no one has the foggiest idea what it is.

It now seems that the Mode values are primarily about three things:

(1) a reassertion of the Domain’s principal psychosocial pressure as the natural way to integrate the disparate Types e.g. in Inquiry, that means promoting certainty; in Willingness, that means promoting selflessness;

(2) handling a social setting where all Types deserve to be valued e.g. in Inquiry that refers to colleagues; in Action that refers to co-workers;

(3) recognition that a particular person (often oneself) must develop and manifest certain qualities e.g. in Action that quality is confidence, in Experience, that quality is self-approval.

So the Mode value-set requires its three sections to be re-labeled:
(a) promoters of the principal psychosocial pressure,
(b) handling the relevant social environment, and
(c) handling oneself.

Within (a), there is an essence, a means, and a benefit that all hang together. For example, in political maturation, promoting autonomy within the Pluralist mode depends on enduring groups as the essence for autonomy. Political leadership is then the means to promote autonomy, and realization of popular ideals is the benefit from politically-led groups. This formulation is slightly different from what is currently posted—so I will have to revise that Satellite in due course.

To continue this example: When these essences are combined in all possible ways within the Spiral Structural Hierarchy, the result is an entity which is nothing but values generating autonomy pressure. So that Control framework ought to be formally named after the pressure, e.g. Exercising Autonomy. Perhaps it can usefully have other descriptive names as well based on the effects of the components. But these effects come from controlling the Domain by continually pressing for more autonomy.

I am currently working to systematize naming of all the Spiral complexes in this way, and you can see the results posted under Framework Naming in the Architecture Room.

Implications for the TOP Website

I was going to continue with recent developments in naming structural hierarchies, but I think this Update is already far too technical and detailed. Perhaps it might encourage you to look for examples on the website. If so, then I am pleased. If that’s too time-consuming, then you will be pleased that I will now broaden my focus and look at what all this means for the TOP website project.

When TOP was first envisaged, my challenge was to explore, formulate and post findings about the Taxonomy. This involved thousands of observations. Observations without much conjecturing. Observations explained and named from the perspective of usefulness. I was not at all clear about what it all meant. My goal then was to offer applications suited to specific needs intrinsic to personal and social achievement.

After about 6-7 years of this work I judged that I had enough observations, enough structures, enough of the architecture, to consider the system as a whole and start exploring for deeper regularities. In other words, I shifted my focus to more purely scientific goals.

This involved bringing together observations defined with similar formulae or within similar structures. Such comparisons were model-based and not necessarily relevant in practice.

I set up the Architecture Room in the TOP Studio to pursue this work. Over the last 2-3 years, it has succeeded beyond my expectations and generated remarkable findings. In the grander scheme of things, it has led to:

A better perspective on what THEE is about: which is now posted in the Hub.
The conjecture of psychosocial pressures to explain the architecture, especially resonance i.e. similarity of entities based on their taxonomic formulae.
A testable theory using current neurophysiological knowledge of whole-animal behaviour.

Together this has led to more meaningful naming of frameworks (as distinct from the elements constituting those frameworks) and a better understanding of their rationale.

It has also led to a deeper understanding of personal functioning. For example, I discovered how we function under severe challenges and how others use this to take advantage of us. This was revealed through investigating the forced reversal of primary hierarchy oscillating dualities.

The considerable knowledge in the Architecture Room could, or perhaps should, be fed back into the observational accounts—improving their precision, clarity, consistency and coherence. However, while taxonomic principles may perhaps be taken for granted, the speculations underpinning those principles cannot so easily be assumed.

I am therefore somewhat reluctant to incorporate my speculations to produce a different picture, even if prettier.

In retrospect, I left the work of applying frameworks to others. The website has been a public inquiry into personal functioning with the goal of eventually developing an understanding that could be linked to current scientific knowledge—mainly by others rather than myself.

I am therefore inclined to think that the website should remain as it is—maintained as a permanent record of a line of inquiry. Like lab notes.

I may still make corrections to faulty descriptions or to ensure satellite consistency. (In any case, there are backups of the website enabling restoration of its past states.) But I think it is not useful or sensible to attempt a more comprehensive re-articulation that incorporates recent understanding (i.e. my speculations).

As I cannot pretend that I do not value my hard-won conjectures, I will need to reflect on how I can best handle the posting of new frameworks.

Because I believe my conjectures have some value, I need to find some new approach to presenting and communicating current Satellites in a more complete way. It’s a big job: I welcome any ideas or assistance.

Meanwhile, take care till next time,

Warren

Return to Newsletter Archive.
You can receive these occasional Bulletins by registering here.