Level Properties

Previous Conjectures

After developing numerous hierarchies over several decades, I have drawn some general conclusions about the nature of particular levels in holistic hierarchies (i.e. not with a focus on Primary Hierarchies, because most of these were unformulated).

That each level might have its own generic nature seems at least possible, even likely—identifying and formulating the essence of each has however proved difficult. While I make no great claims for my initial inchoate ideas, it seems inappropriate to ignore or reject them out of hand.

Note: I do not deal here yet with findings related to values.

In this topic, I indicate these conjectures, and then link that to the Root Levels (where the conjectures also apply). The goal is to provide some clarification, guidance and even corroboration for the present investigation. The issues of similarity will be explored further once the initial inquiries are sufficient to allow for presentation of a matrix.

Noticed Features of L1 & Action-RL1

At Level-1, there is typically the simplest and most concrete entity that can be viewed as an example of the psychosocial phenomenon. However, this entity is also evidently the means or infrastructure for the operation of that hierarchical domain. It has almost no significance of its own, even though nothing would actually emerge into physical or psychosocial reality without it. L1 gets its significance or value from higher levels.

In the Root Hierarchy, actions are typical in this regard. Action is the means by which endeavour is pursued. While other Root Levels seem optional in simple cases, there can be no endeavour unless you do something. So it is, perhaps, not surprising that action-RL1 should always be required in the 1st level of all PHs.

Action does not of itself reveal the presence of an endeavour. People do things all the time: inadvertently, as a reflex, through habit. To make this distinction clear, I will use the verbal phrase: «taking action» as the dynamic form of RL1.

Noticed Features of L2 & Inquiry-RL2

At Level-2, the form taken by the functioning entity allows for a confident judgement as to its presence. It is an unequivocal tangible example of the phenomenon that the hierarchy unpacks. One might say it confirms the existence of that domain. But how can you be sure that a function is occurring at all or as it should: surely only by inquiring?

In the Root Hierarchy, inquiry differs sharply from action in being a definite marker of endeavour. Action may be inadvertent but inquiry is not. If a person is actively inquiring, then there must be some endeavour afoot or it would be a pointless waste of time. While non-action is a form of action in endeavour, not to inquire is not a form of inquiry. This creative and confirmatory quality suggests a direct relationship with the 2nd level of all PHs .

You can inquire out of curiosity i.e. for the sake of inquiry. However, such inquiry, the precursor of «pure science», is an endeavour in itself. To positively exclude any notion of idle curiosity or inadvertent discovery and to emphasize the creative quality, I will use the verbal phrase: «constructing inquiries» as the dynamic form of RL2.

Noticed Features of L3 & Change-RL3

At Level-3, the function is to place relevant phenomena within some sort of system. The systematization here is practical rather than abstract, and it develops in the service of the higher levels of the encompassing hierarchy. At the same time, the systematization shapes lower level functioning.

In the Root Hierarchy, change is not well understood. It appears to be about a state of affairs that is desired (in line with higher level outputs) and is emerging or should emerge (via inquiry-RL2 and action-RL1). Any perceived or contrived state of affairs has an identity and involves a pattern of many factors and forces—which is the conception of a system. So a direct relationship with the 3rd level of all PHs is not surprising.

To make the holistic-systematic-state and identity quality clearer, I will use the verbal phrase: «instituting change» as the dynamic form of RL3.

Noticed Features of L4 & Experience-RL4

At Level-4, the function involves generalizing, which means crossing many or all systems or domains. Organizing or developing the purpose of the whole hierarchy may also be evident. The function also seems to serve as a mediator between the upper and lower parts of the framework.

In the Root Hierarchy, experience is a dynamic process in which we interact with the world in order to get guidance and a sense of reality (regardless of accuracy). Our inner experience is the natural mediator between ourselves and our situations, and it is the way we develop both. Its function is to evaluate and mediate between what the endeavour is about and how it is being progressed. So it would be reasonable to find a relationship with the 4th level of all PHs.

Explicit awareness is active. To make this clear and avoid implications of passivity or memories of past events, I propose the verbal phrase «using experience» as the dynamic form of RL4.

Noticed Features of L5 & Communication-RL5

At Level-5, the form taken by the entity assumes all lower levels and shapes their overall application and operation in the world as it is taken to be. It provides a practical frame of reference for actual functioning. Functioning at this levels reveals a discontinuity from lower levels. It resembles Level-1 in being a means that is now abstract.

In the Root Hierarchy, communication is the means by which willingness and purpose are brought into social existence so that an endeavour can be pursued. It therefore involves a construction of reality: a world of things in space and events in time which can be altered in part via endeavour. So this is necessarily the frame of reference used for the endeavour. Again, a correspondence with the 5th level of all PHs would not be surprising.

There is a similarity with Action-RL1, in that not to communicate is a form of communication. To make the general function clearer and emphasize the importance of continuity, I will use the verbal phrase «creating communications» as the dynamic form of RL5.

Noticed Features of L6 & Purpose-RL6

At Level-6, the form and functioning of the element shows as a capacity for rational-logical governance of the hierarchy as a whole. This rationale is purely a potential that can only be realized by using the lower levels (L5-L1). It therefore provides some sort of governance of the Primary Hierarchy.

In the Root Hierarchy, purpose is the rationale for endeavour. The lower levels lack meaning with out it, and it floats uselessly without them. A rationale is a purpose and a direct relationship with the 6th level of all PHs is to be expected.

To make the function more explicit and to emphasize the importance of continuity, I propose the verbal phrase: «holding purposes» as the dynamic name for RL6.

Noticed Features of L7 & Willingness-RL7

At Level-7, the functioning of the element is more difficult to describe. It seems to be an experiential and imaginative manifestation of the functioning of the hierarchy-as-a-whole. The element is also an abstract potential and, together with the more concrete potential inherent in the L6 element, it infuses and affects functioning at all lower levels in a positive and energizing way.

In the Root Hierarchy, willingness is readiness for endeavour, a disposition or predisposition that enables an endeavour to occur. Together with purpose-RL6, it provides drive and guidance. It is possible that there is a correspondence with the 7th level of all PHs.

To make the specific meaning clear and to emphasize the dispositional state, I will use the verbal phrase «being willing» as the dynamic form of RL7.

Last amended: 17-Jul-2013

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 2009-2018. All Rights Reserved.