Architecture Room > Root Hierarchy Projections > To a Principal Typology > Check Other Typologies

Check Other Principal Typologies

Apply the «Obvious» Correspondence

The discovery of obvious RL correspondences for PH'1-Decision Methods invites application to the 6 other Principal Typologies. An identical correspondence cannot be accepted on faith: I must check to get positive confirmation and, while doing so, look for hints about its nature.

The results, listed below, have not been particularly helpful. It is not practicable to go into details and provide all the evidence for the comments. You can check the relevant publications or posts and conduct an independent investigation.

To PH'2-INQUIRY: Research Methods
(within Justify Judgements-L6)

Method
Type		 THEE-Name
 Proposed Root Correspondence Comments
L'7 Contemplative Experience-RL4 Possible: but other methods like analytic and formal seem to appeal to experience.
L'6 Analytic Willingness-RL7 Not obvious: all methods would seem to require willingness.
L'5 Holistic Change-RL3 Possible in that often used for change situations demanding change
L'4 Dialectic Communication-RL5 Not obvious: most methods required communicating with oneself or others.
L'3 Explanatory Action-RL1 Possible because, aside from empirical, most methods are not about doing.
L'2 Formal Inquiry-RL2 Not obvious: all formal (axiomatic, mathematical) investigation is for inquiry.
L'1 Empirical Purpose-RL6 Not obvious: all inquiries are purposive.

To PH'3-CHANGE: Modeling Methods
(within Standardize Representations-L6)

Method
Type		 THEE-Name
 Proposed Root Correspondence  
L'7 Unitary Experience-RL4 Too little understood to make a comment.
L'6 Structural Willingness-RL7 Too little understood to make a comment.
L'5 Unified Change-RL3 Too little understood to make a comment.
L'4 Dualistic Communication-RL5 Too little understood to make a comment.
L'3 Causal Action-RL1 Too little understood to make a comment.
L'2 Atomistic Inquiry-RL2 Too little understood to make a comment.
L'1 Dynamic Purpose-RL6 Too little understood to make a comment.

To PH'4-EXPERIENCE: Stabilization Methods
(within Integrate Identifications-L6)

Method
Type		 THEE-Name
 Proposed Root Correspondence Comments
L'7 Transpersonal existence Experience-RL4 Possible: but emotional and relational would also seem to fit.
L'6 Social
existence		 Willingness-RL7 Possibly the best correspondence: but could also be to action.
L'5 Relational existence Change-RL3 Not obvious. Change is a significant factor in other methods.
L'4 Individual existence Communication-RL5 Not obvious.
L'3 Emotional existence Action-RL1 Not obvious.
L'2 Vital
existence		 Inquiry-RL2 Not obvious.
L'1 Sensory existence Purpose-RL6 Not obvious.

To PH'5-COMMUNICATION: Language Use Methods
(within Assign Meanings-L6)

Method
Type		 THEE-Name
 Proposed Root Correspondence Comments
L'7 Mythic Experience-RL4 Possible: but might also apply strongly for associative or gestalt.
L'6 Logical Willingness-RL7 Not obvious.
L'5 Gestalt Change-RL3 Not obvious
L'4 Universal Communication-RL5 Not obvious: could be argued to be an illusion of communication.
L'3 Conceptual Action-RL1 Not obvious.
L'2 Associative Inquiry-RL2 Not at all obvious.
L'1 Concrete Purpose-RL6 Obvious, because no-one would ever seek to communicate like this without a purpose.

To PH'6-Purpose: Ethical Choice Methods
(within Adhere to Value Systems-L6)

Method
Type		 THEE-Name
 Proposed Root Correspondence Comments
L'7 Transcendentalist Experience-RL4 Obvious because it is about looking within for guidance.
L'6 Legitimist Willingness-RL7 Possible: but others might also fit.
L'5 Communalist Change-RL3 Not obvious.
L'4 Individualist Communication-RL5 Not at all obvious.
L'3 Pluralist Action-RL1 Possible in that action for benefit is implicit: but this fits the other teleological methods.
L'2 Conventionalist Inquiry-RL2 Not obvious.
L'1 Rationalist Purpose-RL6 Possible but purpose applies to the other three teleological methods by definition.

To PH'7-WILLINGNESS: Capability Enhancement Methods
(within Empower Participation-L6)

Method
Type		 THEE-Name
 Proposed Root Correspondence
Comments
L'7 Identification Experience-RL4 Too provisional to make a comment.
L'6 Education Willingness-RL7 Too provisional to make a comment.
L'5 Experimentation Change-RL3 Too provisional to make a comment.
L'4 Association Communication-RL5 Too provisional to make a comment.
L'3 Preoccupation Action-RL1 Too provisional to make a comment.
L'2 Elucidation Inquiry-RL2 Too provisional to make a comment.
L'1 Iteration Purpose-RL6 Too provisional to make a comment.

Conclusion

Using simple observation, the Root correspondence that seemed so obvious for decision methods (PH'1) does not generalize.

At this point, I do not regard the correspondence as wrong, but I conclude that simple observation is insufficient. There needs to be a deeper understanding of the process.

The notion of projection suggests that Root Level correspondences should be taken as a set. This would produce an emergent hierarchy: in this case, a re-ordered root-related hierarchy in Tree form.

Why "taken as a set"?Closed Because the significance of the projection comes from the use of every Root Level.

Why "in Tree form"?Closed Because that is the only way that it is possible to move from an abstract conception to a framework that is meaningful and used in practice.

However, Principal Typologies are characterized by a lack of interaction and influence amongst their constituent Types. Each Type stands alone, self-sufficient, superior, and often incompatible or antagonistic to others. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the above "obvious" Typology order of Root-Level projections is the emergent Root-related order.

Without abandoning the identified order, a focus on the Spiral may be more productive. It contrasts with the Typology in that its Modes have to cumulate and are expected to be compatible with each other. Observation has already revealed that any Spiral generates a Tree whose levels follow the order of Stages (Modes). Its Centres are essences of the Modes and naturally interact and influence each other. So this may well be the emergent framework referred to here.

So the next step in this investigation requires analysis of the Spirals.

Initially posted: 30-Nov-2013. Last amended 2-Jan-2015.



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.

comments powered by Disqus