Rationale of Spiral-Mode Transitions
Foundation & Evolution
Any is a depiction of a real-world process that takes place within a psychosocial field defined by the associated TET and .
All start with a (: ) that is unavoidable in the area of concern if anything is to exist socially e.g. management in depends on doing things properly in time—without that, an organization or a project would just stop and vanish.
Then additional are added from to in a process describable variously as or .
The cumulation of values occurs in two Cycles—hence a «»— in which the is re-engaged twice more: after (end of Cycle-1) and after (end of Cycle-2).
Each move around the involves a move up or down one of the axes, with minimal change in relation to the other axis. It is therefore possible to abstract the process as shown in the diagram.
Provisional Psycho-Social Axes of the 7 Spirals
Everything Starts in Mode-1
Studies have revealed that the always corresponds to , and it is postulated that has a correspondence to RL1-Action i.e. pressure for performance. This makes a great deal of sense. Unless is given value as the most fundamental aspect of any Primal Means, psychosocial reality does not impinge on the world. Recognizing the value (and power) of action—what can be done, what must be done, what should be done, what is being done—is where everything begins.
An early postulate of THEE was: we are here to do
.
Encouraged by a meaningful correspondence, let us consider the general psychosocial characteristic when adding further regardless of the particular . I will offer examples and evidence from but delay full comparisons to observations to a later Topic.
Cycle-1
Mode-φ1 to Mode-φ2
This is typically the most difficult transition in the whole . Examples:
As the TET reveals, the demand here is to move backwards along the X-axis, i.e. to retreat from focusing on the desired social outcome. Yet represents what everything depends on. Its values are so obvious that a strong preference to intensify them is common, even if it ultimately proves self-defeating.
always derives from , which corresponded to in the initial analysis. It is then apparent why this transition is so difficult. Action is the most concrete level and Willingness is the most abstract. In addition, the relevant psychosocial pressure is selflessness, which is notoriously difficult for most people.
More specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular corresponds with Willingness-RL7.
Mode-φ2 to Mode-φ3
The transition to is provoked by the problems of success in , as well its inherent limitations. The vertical move up the Y-axis demands an increased focus on psychological requirements. What that means varies according to the particular , but it must involve enhanced, subjectivity, greater significance of individual persons, and a greater valuation assigned to the mental state. One consequence of this is that transition may call for some self-development, which is inherently unique and unpredictable.
Inevitably these features emphasize differences between people, or conflicts within a person, that cannot be ignored and must be reconciled. The only possibility for handling such differences is by thought, discussion, explanation, debate, argument. So the natural Root correspondence should be Communication-RL5.
is always derived from whose correspondence was initially proposed as Communication-RL5. That appears to fit perfectly. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular corresponds in this way.
Mode-φ3 to Mode-φ4
The context is now much stronger, but the underlying rationale (i.e. serving the Primal Need), has been put to one side for two . The next transition to moves horizontally to the upper half of the X-axis and so brings the focus back to the social output. This typically demands an greater responsibility, which fits with a correspondence to Purpose-RL6.
is always derived from whose Root correspondence was initially proposed as Purpose-RL6. That appears to fit perfectly. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular corresponds in this way.
is typically viewed as a watershed development. The Spiral can now spontaneously re-enter in a more developed fashion. Or, in practice, re-positions in the ellipse because Cycle-1 values enable greater focus on output. There is no special psychological difficulty when the move is down the Y-axis rather than up; nor is there social difficulty of pressure or resistance when there is no change on the X-axis.
Cycle-1 to Cycle-2
The next transition requires an even larger move back along the X-Axis, to its lowest value. This is difficult and requires self-discipline. But unlike in Cycle-1, there is no problem about the foundation, because it is firmly established and anchored by three Modes.
Instead, Cycle-2 starts here and the values to be introduced are invariably geared to enhancing the use of as a set. This is possible because Cycle-2 activates a higher than that governing Cycle-1.
In the , Cycle-1 is about contextual control of the use of a particular (via its ), so Cycle-2 is about use of the next higher (via its ).
Cycle-2 in Other Typology Forms
Mode-φ5, Mode-φ6, Mode-φ7
The three final are all in extreme positions vis a vis the TET axes; and there are three possible correspondences:
• Inquiry-RL2
• Experience-RL3
• Change-RL4.
It is evident from their position that and proceed with minimal concern for the social result, while has a high concern for it.
It seems rather obvious that Change-RL3 is about the social output. The maximum feasible outcome involves both stability and improvement or transformation. It may also be expected to be associated with attention to the mental state or personal requirement. So likely corresponds to Change-RL3.
is derived from which was previously associated with Change-RL3. This provides some confirmation. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular corresponds in this way.
is very high on the Y-axis and so demands high self-awareness or subjectivity or personal involvement. The correspondence to Experience-RL3 seems obvious.
is derived from which was previously associated with Experience-RL4. This provides some confirmation. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular corresponds in this way.
is very low on the Y-axis and so is inherently impersonal. Inquiry-RL2 needs to be dispassionate, impartial and independent of a particular person. It is therefore the obvious correspondence.
is derived from which was previously associated with Inquiry-RL2. This provides some confirmation. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular corresponds in this way.
Looking now at the Transitions
goes back along the X-Axis and so calls for a retreat from the concern with outputs, which, being antithetical to the object of the exercise, demands self-discipline. A correspondence of to Inquiry-RL2 would suit that requirement.
calls for a move up the Y-Axis which means an effort of self-development, or much increased awareness, or total inner attention, or intense focus on the feelings of others. A correspondence of to Experience-RL4 would suit that requirement.
stays high on the Y-Axis but moves far along the X-Axis. So it calls for a re-orientation back to the social output without neglecting personal or subjective factors. A correspondence of to Change-RL3 would suit that requirement.
Summary
Taken together, the findings here are strongly confirmatory for the correspondence as previously conjectured. In this case, however, the analysis
- does not depend on evidence from one particular ;
- focuses on psychosocial factors that makes correspondence understandable.
- These generalized findings can now be applied to all 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.