The focus is on. These are found nested within the of each , which means there are in the taxonomy.
There are at least three other varieties of Typology in the Taxonomy.
The Root Typology is nested within and contains the i.e. purposive systems that potentially govern and shape endeavours in general throughout life.
The Subsidiary Typology is formed by applying a 4-Level Modal Hierarchy to a Principal Typology to enable a Q-expansion. (Hence the alternative label of Q-Typology.) The result is to form a set of 7 Subsidiary Typologies each containing 7 Types, with a total of 49 such 7-Type Typologies covering all.
The Tertiary Typology is nested within, or possibly emanated by, the 6th Level of a Principal Typology or the .
For more detail with examples: see The Hub.
The present inquiry has encouraged a review of all 7 naming. The actual process of inquiry forced certain changes by bringing incoherence or inconsistency to light.as developed to date to ensure taxonomic precision and formal consistency in
Some changes are needed, because research done many years ago did not appreciate a wider taxonomy. Precision requires the formal natural language name to be oriented to PH•L6 (where it is nested) and not simply be a repeat of the name.
Example: « » is an unsatisfactory name for because that is the name for the . has been re-named « » However, never have the same formal name as the entity. So, if is named , then cannot be (as currently proposed). It has been altered to « » on the basis of a variety of criteria.
Alland have been reviewed in this way.
The findings and explanations of taxonomic entities belong in the full systematic analyses as posted within Satellites, not in these architectural inquiries. The present inquiry is being conducted now because there is sufficient confident knowledge of taxonomic formulations to do so. A summary of current progress is provided here. While changes in parts will certainly emerge, the overall pattern and broad thrust of the findings seems unlikely to alter.
Following identification of THEE , basic scientific questions immediately arise:, potentially from a
It is common for observers to identify a few THEE , but they rarely invite hierarchic ordering. The reverse is more likely. Identifying all 7 is distinctly unusual.belonging to a
It is easy to miss or reject hierarchy and suggest that THEE analysis of Typologies.just form an empirical list. Often hierarchy is avoided in deference to egalitarian sensitivities: precisely as predicted within this
Nevertheless, taxonomic studies now strongly affirm hierarchical ordering and completeness based on three strands of evidence.
appear to emerge from assigning «primacy» to just one of the in the , despite valuing all . The exact nature of this «primacy» is somewhat vague and requires deeper investigation. However, it provides a natural ordering principle i.e. gives primacy to , to and so on up to giving primacy to .
Applying this heuristically is limited by the need for full correct knowledge of the.
Visit The Hub for details of this process with examples.
A dialectic-based unfolding duality was first identified in . The unfolding process is cyclic in that synthesis of the thesis-antithesis duality in generates the thesis of . Here we have structural evidence for:
• natural hierarchy
• hierarchic ordering, &
Another similar unfolding duality was subsequently identified in . This confirms the earlier finding. THEE architectural principles predict that all will possess an unfolding duality that is cyclic.
THEE generate that define a trajectory of growth through cumulating through time, subject to effort being made to move from to . do not have the same order as the in a , but the transformation in order is standardized. appear to be complete. They have been found to form which is also suggestive that they are complete with .
The relation ofto , their and , will be investigated here in some detail.
Initially posted: 30-Nov-2013