Effects of a Challenge

Everyday Life

When a person settles on a particular PH-taxonomic element in practice, there may well be doubt or disagreement as to its applicability or manifestation. Others then issue a challenge and expect a response. The response takes the form of an appeal to some «final» (higher?) authority, which, inevitably, is one or more elements from a Primary Hierarchy.

Whereas the idea of a «forced reversal» is strange and may even seem artificial, the notion of «a challenge», as suggested below, is surely a matter of everyday experience.

Generalizations

Challenge the L1-Element

PH-L1 elements always entail moving your body and doing something physical i.e. they are derived from Action-RL1.

You may be challenged as to the performance of the action-derived element

Did you move? Did you observe that? Did you introduce the variation? Are you sensing it? Did you produce a stimulus? Are you actually pursuing that tactical objective? Are you really trying?

In every case, the natural response is to do "it" again, perhaps slightly differently, or suggest that the questioner does it themselves i.e. the action-derived element is backed by further Action-RL1.

Alternatives: You may assert (PH5), but assertions will not carry weight. You can't say "see for yourself" (i.e. check PH2) if the action has already happened. To enable a check either you do nothing and the questioner may infer from events, or you do it again or do it in a way that permits checking: i.e. "doing" is the response.

Challenge the L2-Element

PH-L2 elements always entail making some specification which calls for investigation, comparing or checking i.e. they are derived from Inquiry-RL2.

You may be challenged in regard to the quality of your inquiry-derived element.

Did you follow the procedure? Is that concept valid? Is that new form required? Are you focusing the image properly? Was that the signal? Is that a viable strategic objective? Do you really believe that?

In every case, the natural response (assuming initial inquiry has been thorough) is to appeal to your own inner experience-PH4. You will refer to what you recall of the procedure, what you perceived as the signal, your intuition of what deserves belief, your gut-feel for viability in regard to the strategic objective.

Alternatives: You may think more inquiry-PH2 will provide greater confirmation much as further action did for PH-L1 elements. Further inquiry may be instigated, but ultimately a personal judgement is required for these elements. Your use of inquiry, is being questioned and there is no option at some point but to stand your ground and assert yourself.

Challenge the L3-Element

PH-L3 elements always entail a change of state or maintenance of a state, or there is a reference to a state of affairs and how it is different or will be different i.e. they are derived from Change-RL3.

You may be challenged in regard to your handling of the change-derived element.

Should you use that technique? Have you compared properly? Is your improvement viable? Does your emotion have that value? Is it really significant in that way? Are you actually taking that priority seriously now? Are you fostering seeing or deluding yourself?

In every case, the natural response is to refer to the values and goals—purpose-PH6—that led you to that activate that element. You will explain why you used the technique, the goals behind your chosen comparison, the reason for your emotions, the paradigm relevant to significance, the higher values supporting your priorities, and the benefits of seeing clearly.

Alternatives: You may again think inquiry-PH2 could answer the challenge. But in this situation the challenge is not about what happened but about the rationale that is in play. It is this rationale that determines PH-L3 elements.

Challenge the L4-Element

L4-elements always entail a reference to inner feelings or an inner sense of yourself in relation to the situation i.e. Experience-RL4.

You may be challenged in regard to your experience-derived element.

Are you deploying your full repertoire? Do you accept the measurement? Are you maintaining stability? Are you generating useful ideas? Are you appreciating the symbols fully? Do you genuinely own that principal object? Are you serious in your compromise?

In every case, the natural response is to indicate that you are trying your best , that you believe in what you are doing or in your ideas and will continue, that you are ready to take the risk in relation to stability or the principal object, that you are ready to learn more about the symbols i.e. you refer to and emphasize your willingness-PH7.

Alternatives: It is seems evident that neither action-PH1 nor inquiry-PH2 would handle the challenges here. Nor would change-PH3, communication-PH5 or purpose-PH6.

Challenge the L5-Element

L5-elements always entail a demand to understand the relevant situation, which depends on thinking and using language i.e. Communication-RL5.

You may be challenged in regard to your communication-derived element.

Is that way of intervening sensible? Have you set up relations that make sense? Are you structuring management properly? Are your intuitions applicable? are those names agreed? Are you actually sharing a social value? Can you genuinely tolerate that risking?

The appropriate and natural response to a challenge about whether you understand a situation is to investigate it further. That way you can demonstrate that you do indeed have a sound grasp of matters i.e. you can refer here to inquiry-PH2. You can inquire about all the matters mentioned e.g. tolerance of risk by investigating a track record, agreement on names by checking, sharing of a social value by polling,and so on.

Alternatives: There are no obvious alternatives. Perhaps some might wish simply to assert (i.e. use Communication-PH5) or claim Willingness-PH7 regardless. However, these responses simply ignore the challenge: they do not deal with it as Inquiry-PH2 does.

Challenge the L6-Element

L6-elements always achieve the function/goals of the Primary Hierarchy i.e. they are under the domination of Purpose-RL6. They all contain nested hierarchies specifying ways that the Primary Hierarchy ought to be handled. «Ought» is the ethical demand found within Purpose.

You may be challenged in regard to the purpose-derived element.

Your explanation of choice is not credible! Your justification of the judgement is not acceptable! Your standard for representation doesn't work! Your identification is not integrated! Your meaning is not welcomed! You are not following your value system! Your learning is pointless!

It may be that you respond by revisiting your choice, judgement etc and re-thinking. However, once you are certain about what you are aiming for in each case, you may still be challenged. Then the natural response is to refer to the desirability of the state of affairs that you are preserving or that you are attempting to bring about. So the appeal here is to Change-RL3. This might justify the way you handle the value system, or a particular identification, or your standardizing of representations of reality, or what you are learning.

Alternatives: Just reinforcing purposes-PH6 appears insufficient. Taking action-PH1 would seem to deny the challenge. Inquiry-PH2 cannot be used to back or justify a person's values: this is the gulf between 'is' and 'ought'. Appeals to experience-PH4 or to willingness-PH7 seem irrelevant. It is also hard to see how communications-PH5 can deal with the challenge except in relation to explaining the Change-PH3.

Challenge the L7-Element

L7-elements always entail a readiness to trust, and possibly also to see, believe or risk or learn i.e. Willingness-RL7. They are about transcendence and embody the spirit of their hierarchy.

You may be challenged in regard to the willingness-derived element.

Are you being spontaneous? Do you ever wonder about this? Do you allow for the possibility of a transformation? Is your imagination active? Are you really being open? Are you using ultimate values here? Are you indeed extending your trust?

As these are inner experiential and states that reflect potentials, the only possible response is to talk about what is happening within your mind, and asserting your self-state. You have to reflect, explain, explore, persuade and understand. You want your interlocutor to understand as well. So the reference here is to Communication-RL5.

Alternatives: No action-PH1 can prove anything. No inquiry-Ph2 can reveal anything. No change-PH3 is relevant. The element is an experience but you cannot appeal to experience-PH4. Your purposes-PH6 are not relevant. Willingness-PH7 does not demonstrate your willingness-derived elements

Summary & Comparison

The above responses to challenge were developed on a one-by-one basis. This order is identical to the order found in forcing a reversal of the oscillating duality. See below.

Effect of Challenging a Level Specification		Effect of Forcing a Duality Reversal
Level in PH	Response to Challenge	Level in PH	Emergent PH
L7	RL5: Communication	L7	PH5: Communication
L6	RL3: Change	L6	PH3: Change
L5	RL2: Inquiry	L5	PH2: Inquiry
L4	RL7: Willingness	L4	PH7: Willingness
L3	RL6: Purpose	L3	PH6: Purpose
L2	RL4: Experience	L2	PH4: Experience
L1	RL1: Action	L1	PH1: Action

This raises the question, as yet unanswered, as to why there should be this similarity.

Initially posted: 2-Aug-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.