This architectural inquiry is unlike taxonomic inquiries. There are no directly relevant aids: neither social science research, nor practice literature, nor philosophical traditions, not even blogs from self-proclaimed gurus.
The work has been difficult because some of the oscillating dualities unknown.(PHs) were incomplete at the time, and their
The oscillating duality is itself mysterious. Although fairly evident in most cases, it's deeper function and practical implications remain puzzling. Until a taxonomic principle is determined, formulation is difficult because there may be more than one phenomenon that oscillates.
The inquiry method had to grapple with these issues. I will not attempt to replicate and report the twists and turns of my investigations in a posting, because (even if I could remember all details and false trails) it would be tedious. However, here is a summary of how the inquiry progressed and what you can expect.
My underlying assumption was first that THEE is a system—everything must hang together; and second that it is meaningful system—the findings must make sense in human terms.
The validity of level formulation within the oscillating dualities had not been identified. Within the latter four PHs, I was more confident about the nature of some levels than others.varied. I had a reasonable degree of confidence in: , , and . There were approximate but acceptable formulations for and . There was serious uncertainty about and , and so their
The investigative work involved imagining a «forced reversal». I put the phrase in quotes because I mean "forcing myself" to view the element in an opposite way to what is expected, and then to find actual examples to illustrate the reversed polarity and the new element. This was easy to do in some cases and much harder in others.
So I laid out matrices (with blank cells) so I could see allsimultaneously and make quick comparisons in the crucial blank columns headed "Forcing Situation" (i.e. conditions under which the oscillating pole reversed), "New Primary Hierarchy (PH)" (i.e. the new realm of functioning), "Target Level" (i.e. the new element defined by its function). I started with what was developed on the website in . In filling in the blank cells, I focused initially on the easiest levels in my best understood PHs. Levels easier to grasp in one PH differed from these easiest in another.
In this way, I covered most of the levels over several PHs and filled in the matrix progressively. Ideas from one hierarchy were compared and checked against conclusions in another, and this soon led to various general conjectures.
As I progressed, slowly adjusting one feature or another, I reached the point where options became narrow enough to allow proceeding by trial and error. It also became possible to work backwards and adjust my understanding of the least developed PHs i.e. my conjectures regarding the forced reversal had become stronger than my conjectures about levels in those Primary Hierarchies. So, the process helped me complete provisional formulations forand with a greater degree of confidence.
Eventually a full picture emerged over a few weeks and I came to realize that forcibly reversing the oscillating pole in a Primary Hierarchy (PH) results as follows:
I returned to the matrices once or twice over the following months refining some formulations but not making significant changes. The discovery that I had Quarterly Update) was a salutary shock. Other changes required essentially no adjustment e.g. the re-formulation of inand reversed in (& hence had totally misunderstood the oscillation as explained in a
For want of any reason or vehicle to revise and refine further, the analysis remained in a note form until the creation of the Architecture Room.
Once a decision was made to go public with this inquiry, my intensity of focus ramped up sharply. Although I did not believe there would be major changes, there is always a myriad of small but important improvements forced by the need to rethink, re-imagine and communicate clearly with credible examples.
This rewriting was not the time to do more than get some incremental refinement of the PHs themselves. Each is a massive entity and needs its own concentrated attention.
However, I did hope to make theoretical progress in one aspect: their oscillating dualities. After all, this was the focus of the purported discovery. Comparing formulations and explanations might reveal some common thread or a deeper understanding.
The result is certainly not perfect. It is an approximation that seems to be sufficiently developed to be capable of correction and refinement. You may certainly suggest alternative oscillations or theories of oscillation.
Tell me if the formulations and examples make good sense to you. Some of my examples are probably too general. If so, offer more specific illustrations from your own experience. Where you think an example is unconvincing and artificial, you may be right. Leave a comment with your ideas.
But remember that the error might lie more deeply than the example, perhaps in:
• the name/function of the level in the original PH.
• the conception of the oscillation.
• the conception of the reversal process.
• the understanding of levels in the new PH.
Initial draft: 5-May-2013