The focus is on Principal Typologies (PH'•). These are found nested within the 6th Level of eachPrimary Hierarchy, which means there are 7 Principal Typologies in the taxonomy.
There are at least three other varieties of Typology in the Taxonomy.
The Root Typology is nested within Purpose-RHL6 and contains the Primal Quests (RH') 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 Root Typology.
The present inquiry has encouraged a review of all 7 Principal Typologies as developed to date to ensure taxonomic precision and formal consistency in naming. The actual process of inquiry forced certain changes by bringing incoherence or inconsistency to light.
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 Root Level name.
Example: «Inquiring» is an unsatisfactory name for PH'2 methods because that is the name for the Root Level (RL2). PH'2 has been re-named «testing» However, Typologies never have the same formal name as the PH•L6 entity. So, if PH'2 is named testing, then PH2-L6 cannot be test (as currently proposed). It has been altered to «judgement» on the basis of a variety of criteria.
All Primary Hierarchies and Principal Typologies 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 Types, potentially from a THEETypology, basic scientific questions immediately arise:
Is the relation between Types hierarchical?
What is the ordering of Types?
Is the hierarchy complete?
It is common for observers to identify a few Types belonging to a THEETypology, but they rarely invite hierarchic ordering. The reverse is more likely. Identifying all 7 Types is distinctly unusual.
It is easy to miss or reject hierarchy and suggest that Types just form an empirical list. Often hierarchy is avoided in deference to egalitarian sensitivities: precisely as predicted within this THEE analysis of Typologies.
Nevertheless, taxonomic studies now strongly affirm hierarchical ordering and completeness based on three strands of evidence.
Types appear to emerge from assigning «primacy» to just one of the Levels in the Primary Hierarchy, despite valuing all Levels. The exact nature of this «primacy» is somewhat vague and requires deeper investigation. However, it provides a natural ordering principle i.e. Type-L'1 gives primacy to PH•L1,Type- L'2 to PH•L2 and so on up to Type-L'7 giving primacy to PHL7.
Applying this heuristically is limited by the need for full correct knowledge of the Primary Hierarchy.
Visit The Hub for details of this process with examples.
A dialectic-based unfolding duality was first identified in PH'4-Identity Development methods. The unfolding process is cyclic in that synthesis of the thesis-antithesis duality in Type-L'7 generates the thesis of Type-L'1. Here we have structural evidence for:
Another similar unfolding duality was subsequently identified in PH'6-Ethical Choice methods. This confirms the earlier PH'4 finding. THEE architectural principles predict that all Principal Typologies will possess an unfolding duality that is cyclic.
THEETypologies generate Spirals that define a trajectory of growth through cumulating Modes through time, subject to effort being made to move from Stage to Stage. Spiral Stages/Modes do not have the same order as the Types in a Typology, but the transformation in order is standardized. Spirals appear to be complete. They have been found to form Trees which is also suggestive that they are complete with 7 Levels.
The relation of Typologies to Spirals, their Modes and Trees, will be investigated here in some detail.
.
Primacy