The page is mainly a re-statement of material already published in The Hub and relevant Satellites or academic papers. It is included here to provide a quick review and clarity about where inquiry has reached because later Topics necessarily treat naming as if it is definite in order to focus on the main concern: what is going on between the Root Hierarchy and the Typology Complex?
A historical perspective is relevant, because early findings influence later findings.
The initial THEE Typology to be developed was in the early 1980's. The work built on the pioneering efforts of a colleague, Jimmy Algie. I was simultaneously working on what was to become the and came across the work of C. West Churchman. He had identified 5 universal systems and I was soon able to add the missing two . However, I only recently (2012) realized that his hierarchic order had a taxonomic error.
By the mid-1980's, I realized that psychoanalytic theoretical disputes were similar to scientific disputes over proper research and managerial disputes over proper decision-making. This led to discovery of the
. Shortly after, I commenced working systematically on , and clarified , drawing heavily on knowledge of the . These two were finalized by the early 1990's and both appear in Working with Values (1995): download Ch.6 and Ch7.In
, the methods for were roughly intuited fairly early on. However, they were only investigated and developed in meaningful detail after 2000, and are posted in the TOP Studio.The final two
are not available due to the level of uncertainty and other issues. I had the good fortune to stumble upon a framework of while reading about political ideologies in the late 1980's. However, continuing misunderstanding of the relevant bogged down progress. Only very recently have I begun considering the required for . Preliminary findings in both these frameworks are used in this inquiry without further explanation.It is now known that every THEE is part of a complex of linked structures. In the case of a , it consists of
The the next Topic.)
, or , is a hierarchical set of , which correspond in practice to specific methods or systems for getting an optimum result in relation to use of in the service of the . (As explained inThese TET, whose axes are an executing duality specifying the relevant features of psychosocial reality when using the . The 7 form two complementary sets lying along the two diagonals: the approach duality.
More on the TET
The TET. The are viewed as i.e. needs rather than methods (or paradigms). It is then possible to observe 7 distinct and two Cycles as progressively cumulate and additional contributions to success are enabled.
, or , is a development process evident from theThe THEE hierarchy with as . This hierarchic relation becomes significant if viewed as a that maps influences in practice between essences of the . The result is a snapshot-map of what determines the Primal Need at any point in time i.e. independent of the of development.
emerges from viewing the as forming aThe
will be examined in more detail in what follows.The quest for certainty, confidence, validity in human action has led thoughtful people over the ages to reflect on their own decision-making, inquiry, communication &c so as to determine what is needed for «the best» outcome.
The result was discovery of core principles and then whole systems for ensuring «the best way». These systems are referred to variously within the literature: methods, systems, doctrines, schools, paradigms, principles, theories. In the Satellite postings I have standardized on two terms: mentalities and approaches.
In this investigation, I will use the term method to emphasize the notion that there is a proper procedure to be followed to get the «best » results.
Experts are typically expert in a THEE as well as being expert in a particular activity or social domain. Teachers have to believe and their students have to became socialized. It is only a small step to argue that any system that is held to give «the best» outcome is also viewed as «the right» way, and therefore obligatory.
As for most people, arcane battles about the basics of human functioning are irrelevant, if not ridiculous. If there is no issue of commitment (for success, for preferment, for peer acceptance), then any of us are likely to use any and every
in an expedient or haphazard way, with a bias to those that feel congenial.Each of the
More
Better viewing: narrow or close left navigation column; use browser zoom if needed.
Primary Hierarchy | Social Concern | Formal Names for Typology, Spiral, Spiral Tree |
*Confidence in Formulations |
---|---|---|---|
PH'7: Willingness |
Enabling selflessness when empowering | Typology: Spiral: Developing Effectiveness Spiral Tree: Determinants of Competence |
Provisional Early conjectures Early conjectures |
PH'6: Purpose |
Enabling autonomy when adhering to a | Typology: Spiral: Maturation of Politics Spiral Tree: Determinants of Governance |
High confidence High confidence Moderate confidence |
PH'5: Communic'n |
Enabling understanding when assigning | Typology: Spiral: Establishing a Shared Reality Spiral Tree: Determinants of Association |
High confidence Provisional Provisional |
PH'4: Experience |
Enabling well-being when integrating an . | Typology: Spiral: Developing of A Sense of Self Spiral Tree: Determinants of Individuality |
High confidence Provisional Provisional |
PH'3: Change |
Enabling acceptability when standardizing a | Typology: Spiral: Advancing a Depiction Spiral Tree: Determinants of Discrimination |
Moderate confidence Provisional Provisional |
PH'2: Inquiry |
Enabling certainty when explaining . | Typology: Spiral: Establishing a Conjecture Spiral Tree: Determinants of Knowledge |
High confidence Moderate confidence Provisional |
PH1: Action |
Enabling performance when determining . | Typology: Spiral: Strengthening Management Spiral Tree: Determinants of Achievement |
High confidence High confidence High confidence |
*Confidence refers to whether the framework naming, basic formulations and hierarchical order are on the right track. It should not be taken to imply full validity or absence of errors.
The initial THEE Typology to be developed dealt with . While the has not been intensively investigated, the has been developed and formulations validated with a high degree of confidence.
While working on what was to become the
I developed the using the findings of C. West Churchman. As part of the present inquiry, the name is changed to . While these are well established and well-understood, the and its are less certain.I have confidence that the
are properly identified, but less confidence in their ordering. Identifying change as a is very recent (2007) and the was only finalized provisionally as part of the present architectural investigations (i.e. 2012-13).Study of intense theoretical conflicts within psychoanalysis over some years led me to identify the
, but not by that name. The systems were re-worked and posted in 2014. The was identified as the same time (late 1980's), but not the complex. More recently (early 2015), the Spiral has been developed in a systematic way.In
, the methods for , roughly intuited in the 1980's. As part of preparing for the website, a variety of frameworks, including the , received preliminary investigations. So there has been considerable structural corroboration.I systematically investigated
, and identified the and many other frameworks following clarification of the . For the website, I investigated and formulated the full . Progress in understanding taxonomic controls and naming of frameworks has led to the need to revise the Structural Hierarchy and its Tree.has not been developed to any depth. The have been undergoing provisional formulation and analysis in recent years. Conjectures have received additional scrutiny as part of the present inquiry.
Initially posted: 30-Nov-2013. Last amended 2-Jun-2015.