Architecture Room > Intriguing Propositions > Emergent Puzzles

Current Meta-THEE Challenges

MTC-#001: Q-expansion of the Root Typology

The Root Hierarchy has various distinctive features. So special caution is advised before imposing structural principles derived from other THEE hierarchies. The Root Hierarchy is unique within THEE in having a Q-expansion that links it to the Principal Typologies that emerge from its own Levels (i.e. the Primary Hierarchies).

Originally posted Jun-2009. Updated 15-Jan-2013.


MTC-#002: Correspondence of the Root Hierarchy Levels with Groupings of the Spiral-derived Structural Hierarchy

This finding occurred fortuitously while developing the Politics Frameworks. Click for details of this special linkage.

Originally posted Sep-2009

Since this observation, the findings has been confirmed in another Spiral-derived Structural Hierarchy (Expectations of Employment), as well as in the Root Structural Hierarchy, itself (Components of Creativity).

However, in the case of the Root Tertiary Hierarchy, Producing Goodness, (not yet posted) there appear to be two different projections.

Added: 22-April-2012.


MTC-#003: Oscillating Duality Specification in a Spiral-derived Hierarchy

During posting of the Interacting for Benefit Framework, an oscillating duality was identified that is spiral/mode-related, not approach/type-related (i.e. it has no relation to the approach duality e.g. the move from Mode-4Mode-5 occurs within the same diagonal.) It seemed to be about control/determination v adaptation/acceptance, but this may be a purely generic conceptual description. More precise specification seems possible because it has now occurred once. In the duality in government handling of the economy, the duality was on communication (expression v attention), which happens to be critical to political work.

In most hierarchies, there are 4 odd-numbered Levels and 3 even-numbered. However, the diamond suggests that Mode-1 (which starts as equivalent to Level-1 i.e. odd-numbered) is re-entered at the end as if it were Level-8 (i.e. even-numbered) and shows the even-numbered quality.

Originally posted Dec-2009; updated Aug-2010.


MTC-#004: Correspondence of Root Hierarchy Levels with Principal Typologies

Sensitised to the influence of the Root Hierarchy following the conjectured correspondence with Structural Hierarchy Groupings (see MTC#002), a correspondence to Principal Typologies may also exist.

Added: The relation of the Root Hierarchy may be primarily to the Spiral rather than the Principal Typology.

Question:   Could this be what is controlling the ubiquitous 7 varieties?

A full exploration is now in progress here.

Originally posted Aug-2010. Revised Jul-2011.


MTC-#005: General Characteristics of Typologies

People are identified with at least a few, but probably several or numerous Typologies. This is because they come into action during different forms of personal commitment. Each Typology seems to function distinctively. Some of these differences in handling may depend on the importance of the Typology’s domain of commitment within a person’s life.

After completing several Typologies within TOP, it should be possible to perform some systematic comparative analyses and post results.

Originally posted Dec-2010.


MTC-#006: Correspondence between the 7 Q-Hierarchy Set and the Root Hierarchy Levels.

There had been an apparent association between the Q-Hierarchies in Domains of Responsible Work in Society (PH5QH1-7), the best developed set. I returned and looked more closely following development of the Deciding and Achieving frameworks (to be posted through 2011). That inquiry had made it reasonably clear that Organizations (PH5QH2) are associated with Action-RL1/PH1. In my notes, I had assumed (or 'best guessed') that the association was with Purpose-RL6. Correcting that left a gap where I had previously put Action-RL1. Using the understanding and logic developed from working out the Deciding and Achieving frameworks, I corrected that correspondence and this then left another gap. In that way, I progressively replaced every assignation. Only one former 'best guess' turned out to be correct in the new arrangement—clearly a chance event. It shows what I have always suspected:Closed intuition and guessing are unreliable tools in THEE investigations. You need logic-reasoning plus painstaking accumulation of formulations.

Originally written: Apr-2011. Posted July-2011


MTC-#007: Oscillating duality in a Primary Hierarchy can be forced to reverse.

In a revision of the Primary Hierarchy of Communication, the oscillating duality looked as if it could be forced to be the opposite to what it naturally is (or seems to be). In examining what happens when a reversal of polarity is forced in this way, each element of communication turned out to be about or subservient to something else. This 'something else' directly implicated a particular Level in a Primary Hierarchy . There was no duplication: each of the 7 elements of Communication corresponded to a different Primary Hierarchy.

Originally posted July-2011. Re-named and revised slightly in Jan-2011.

An investigation has been completed. As well as answering the posed questions, there have been valuable and unexpected findings.
Read more.

 Amended: Jan-2015

MTC-#008: Root Projection to Primary Hierarchy

A simple way to explain Levels of Purpose (avoiding the detailed formulation of the function) was developed for seminars pragmatically. It has now been found useful in investigating the Producing Goodness framework (to be posted in 2012). This explanation now seems to suggest an association with specific Root Levels. This would be a Root projection and a possible answer to the question posted in MTC-#007.

ClosedClick to see

In this projection, it turns out that the Oscillating Duality in the Root Hierarchy has been converted into the Internal Duality i.e. the even levels (internal & private) are all at the top and the odd-numbered levels (external and piublic) are all at the bottom.

An investigation is now in progress here.

Originally posted: Apr-2012


Originally posted: August 2009. Last checked: 2-Feb-2014




All material here is in a draft form. There will be errors and omissions. Nothing should be copied or distributed without express permission. Thank you.Copyright © Warren Kinston 2009-2016. All Rights Reserved.


comments powered by Disqus