Architecture Room > Emergent Hierarchies > Starting Point

Starting Point

Essential Formal Similarity

In Frameworks-of-Origin, each Tree is different and must be slowly understood in a step-by-step fashion. However, in the present case, all 7 Emergent Tree Frameworks are generated in the same way: by (forced) reversal of the oscillating duality at all levels simultaneously.

As noted in the review of the duality analysis, each Primary Hierarchy presents an identically re-ordered Root Hierarchy (whose levels are KL1 - KL7) as follows:

■ PH•L7 always becomes an element in Communication-RL5, which is then KL7
■ PH•L6 always becomes an element in Change/State-RL3, which is then KL6
■ PH•L5 always becomes an element in Inquiry-RL2, which is then KL5
■ PH•L4 always becomes an element in Willingness-RL7, which is then KL4
■ PH•L3 always becomes an element in Purpose-RL6, which is then KL3
■ PH•L2 always becomes an element in Experience-RL4, which is then KL2
■ PH•L1 always becomes an element in Action-RL1, which is then KL1

The differences amongst the 7 Emergent Frameworks are determined by the particular PH• element that appears. That element is always the same level number within the corresponding PH. So these frameworks are strange composites of diverse entities, and there is no current formula that can be assigned.

■ Emergent Tree Framework #7 consists of all the PH-L7s
■ Emergent Tree Framework #6 consists of all the PH-L6s
■ Emergent Tree Framework #5 consists of all the PH-L5s
■ Emergent Tree Framework #4 consists of all the PH-L4s
■ Emergent Tree Framework #3 consists of all the PH-L3s
■ Emergent Tree Framework #2 consists of all the PH-L2s
■ Emergent Tree Framework #1 consists of all the PH-L1s

Such Tree frameworks must be different versions of the Root Hierarchy because any element in a Primary Hierarchy is simultaneously an element within the corresponding Root Level that emanates it. So all 7 Root Levels are in every emergent framework: just in a different order to what is usual.

So the conclusions are:

Because the fundamentals of forming the hierarchy and its structure are identical in each case, it is conjectured that:

► the dynamic duality will be identical for each emergent Tree
► the internal duality will be identical for each emergent Tree
► the channel names will be similar, if not identical, for each emergent Tree

To gain additional insight before identifying and analyzing each of the new frameworks, a scaffold for inquiry was developed by considering the Root Hierarchy (of endeavour) and its relation to these «Emergent Reordered Root Hierarchies».

Practical Significance

Trees require application of a dynamic duality to determine the Centres used to create the pattern. So that is necessary for the emergent reordered Root Hierarchies.

The dynamic duality creates tension in the hierarchical system. It demands fusion of its two poles in Centres within KL's 1, 2, 4 & 7, and generates polar-opposite Centres at KL's 3, 5 & 6.
More:Closed When there are two Centres at the same level, one dominates and is placed on the right in the diagram. The dominant pole in the higher contextual levels (KL5. KL6) switches in the lower content level (KL3).

In the originating Primary Hierarchy, the dynamic duality appears to be some variant of Personal v Situational/Social, with the personal pole dominating at KL3 and the situational/social pole dominating at KL5 and KL6.
More:Closed By «personal» I mean whoever is choosing or acting: i.e. you or me. Our situation is often primarily social i.e. the group, organization or wider society, but it may be mainly impersonal.

This pattern is one in which you lack control over the context, but can exploit your freedom when acting within the situation.

However, reversal of the oscillating duality appears to require personal force (i.e. creative determination and the associated motivation). So it is likely that the dynamic duality in the emergent Tree will also reverse. That means the personal pole must dominate at KL5 and KL6 where the context is set and actualities are shaped, leaving the situational pole to dominate at KL3 close to what is tangible and practical.

This pattern is one in which you can take control of the context, but must subordinate yourself when acting within the situation.


Last amended: 3-Sep-2013. Updated 15-Jan-2015.




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