Unfolding Duality in Depiction Paradigms (PH'3)

The unfolding duality originally developed during investigation of the depiction paradigms (PH'3) focused on confirming the hierarchical taxonomic ordering. Application of a standardized approach has led to some amendments to the original account.

Configuration v Complexification

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

All Principal Typologies are thought to have a dialectical unfolding duality i.e. an intrinsic tension between:

  • a ground state that is basic and unavoidable when the Type is operative; &
  • a developmental force offering potential for that state to be improved or refined.

For the depiction paradigms, this duality is proposed as follows:

The configuration that emerges directly when the depiction paradigm is applied—which is proposed as the ground state of the method.

With effort, the same method can be used at a higher grade. Configurations can be developed by increasing their complexity, so complexification is proposed as the developmental force for each method.

Neither depiction form is better than the other in any absolute sense, but individuals find themselves habitually working with one or the other. The polarized forms can be fused to generate doctrine-based practices that encapsulate the value of both.

Theory vs Practice

The unfolding duality manifests in the form of a different dialectic within each Type/Level. The configuration pole is the thesis and the complexification pole is its antithesis. The tension at each Level is resolved by synthesis to create a new configuration at the next higher Level, which in turn activates a new form of complexification. The system is cyclic because the duality at L'7 is resolved by the configuration (thesis) at L'1.

ClosedMethod details:

The cyclic system of progressive generation in the Typology is a taxonomic method used to develop the framework's structure and confirm its likely validity. While progress through the complete system is not something that occurs in psychosocial reality, individual transitions are sometimes recognizable.

What is visible in situations are polarized identities and doctrine-based practices. The polarized identities produce theoretical controversy and disputes about what is more suitable in the situation. The doctrine-based practices, which emerge from fusion of what is valuable in the two identities, are promoted and applied by more sophisticated actors.

ClosedSee the full picture now.

L'1: Dynamic

Interaction v Entanglement

The configuration produced by the dynamic paradigm-L'1 reveals a system of interacting elements, not themselves systems, and capable of providing each other with feedback to enable a directed evolution of the situation. The basic pattern is therefore interaction, which is the thesis.

Complexity is introduced when components intensify and multiply their interactions, becoming over-involved and enmeshed with each other. This entanglement is the antithesis which makes the system and its evolution ever more difficult to construe.

ClosedPolarization in Practice: The Systemicist v The Insider.

The systemicist sees situations with a bird's-eye view and identifies a set of interacting components that feedback to each other. The insider is enmeshed within the situation and has a partial but intensely committed view about how people are interacting.

The systemicist criticizes the insider for being too close, too biased and too involved to see interactions clearly. The insider criticizes the systemicist for being disconnected from the reality of the situation and providing a bloodless abstract and over-tidy account.

The two poles can be fused in participative systemicism as found in action research, whose formulation of the situation depends on combining participant input with a facilitator who ensures a systems perspective is maintained.

Synthesis:  Entangled interactions become unworkable and drive components to disengage, which naturally gives rise to boundaries between them—which is the thesis at L'2.

L'2: Atomistic

Boundaries v Idiosyncrasy

The configuration produced by the atomistic paradigm-L'2 reveals boundaries that generate and define discrete entities or irreducible particles (the thesis). Each bounded entity is perceived as functioning independently and self-sufficiently. Seen from a higher viewpoint, each is just a number, or sometimes a cog or a pawn.

Complexity develops as those entities individuate uniquely and show increasing idiosyncrasy (the antithesis). Similar entities can be depicted by a generic account and simply counted. Idiosyncratic entities must each be grasped in their own terms and generalization becomes difficult.

ClosedPolarization in Practice: The Particle v The Individual.

The particle position posits a similarity of all bounded entities. The individualist position posits a requirement for distinctiveness of each entity.

The particle position criticizes self-styled individuals for being odd, self-indulgent, pointlessly and unpredictably idiosyncratic and always seeking to be treated as a special case. The individualist position criticizes anyone content to be just another particle for a shallow autonomy that is conventional, undistinguished and anonymous.

The two poles can be fused in egalitarian individualism. Applied to politics, for example, people can be regarded as equal before the law and in terms of their rights and duties, while simultaneously assuming the importance of individual interests and maximizing individual freedom.

Synthesis: Numerous bounded entities that are idiosyncratically individuated naturally result in impacts between at least some of them—which is the thesis at L'3.

L'3: Causal

Using languages methods showing the unfolding duality, oscillating duality, and psychosocial pressure.

Impact v Multiplicity

The configuration produced by the causal paradigm-L'3 reveals particular components of the situation impacting on specific others with predictable effects (the thesis). Such interactions constitute the essence of causation.

Causal models become more complex and sophisticated if a component has multiple influences and if the number of components having or potentially having an influence on others multiplies (the antithesis).

ClosedPolarization in Practice: The Predictor v The Multifactorialist.

The predictor reduces any complicated situation so as to focus on one or few factors that determine impacts of interest. The multifactorialist discerns a large number of factors that bear on the situation, many of which appear to influence outcomes.

The predictor criticizes the multifactorialist for making situations unnecessarily complicated and preventing the discovery of causes that can be usefully managed. The multifactorialist criticizes the predictor for false confidence in an over-reductionist and naive view of the situation.

The two poles can be fused by statistical determinism that insists on causality and ensures appropriate experimental designs that handle any number of factors, as well as providing analyses that rigorously identify the level of confidence in predictions.

Synthesis: Perception of a multiplicity of impacts in a situation becomes overwhelming and eventually incomprehensible, which calls for radical simplification via a binary division—which is the thesis at L'4.

L'4: Dualistic

Division v Polarization

The configuration produced by the dualistic paradigm-L'4 reveals a division that represents a dichotomy and posits or generates opposition between the two sides (the thesis).

Complexification results as the dichotomy becomes increasingly polarized (the antithesis). Polarization amplifies, sharpens and systematizes the differences between the two sides. As the degree of conflict escalates, all components get drawn in and the situation becomes more and more structured around the division.

ClosedPolarization in Practice: The Dichotomist v The Partisan.

The dichotomist sees any situation resolving into two in opposition: "it comes down to X versus Y" and views that as the acme of clarification. The partisan sees two sides irreparably divorced and inevitably in conflict.

The dichotomist criticizes the partisan for inflaming a workable distinction needlessly, distorting and destabilizing the situation. The partisan criticizes the dichotomist for a complacent even-handedness and a refusal to see what is at stake.

The two poles can be fused in institutionalized or regulated adversarialism, as found in courts and parliaments and public debates. This recognizes and upholds genuine divisions based on divergent and irreconcilable values while keeping conflict manageable through conventions and procedures.

Synthesis: The polarization that emerges from division must be resolved to avert a breakdown of the situation. This is made possible by integration of the opposing positions within a whole—which is the thesis at L'5.

L'5: Unified

Integration v Co-evolution

The configuration produced by the unified paradigm-L'5 reveals a fully integrated system of components and the environment, with all the inner complexity, differences, divisions and environmental interactions (the thesis).

The situation becomes ever more complex through unstoppable internal developments co-evolving with an ever-changing environment, and so demanding continuous dynamic re-formulation of all internal and environmental interactions (the antithesis).

ClosedPolarization in Practice: The Ecologist v The Visionary.

The ecologist sees any situation as a web of diverse component systems constantly interacting with the environmental system and seeks to map those connections. The visionary releases the imagination to see how this constantly mutually adapting whole is moving into the future.

The ecologist criticizes the visionary for speculation that moves beyond the evidence and disapproves of the charisma released. The visionary criticizes the ecologist for a pedantic inventory-type approach that fails to address the future that is everyone's main concern.

The two poles can be fused in ecological emergentism that construes the situation as an inter-dependent whole, environment included and discerns in its dynamic relationships the new forms that are already emerging or likely to come into being in due course.

Synthesis: Co-evolution requires integration to be ordered so as to permit monitoring and control, and this leads to definition of a useful stable comprehensive framework—which is the thesis at L'6.

L'6: Structural

Framework v Functioning

The configuration produced by the structural paradigm-L'6 reveals an ordered usable framework (the thesis) that defines components, their functions and how they interact via roles and rules.

This schema can act as a template and be repeatedly applied. However, using any framework develops complexity because actual functioning (the antithesis) reveals errors and omissions that call for tweaks or extensions or incorporation of sub-units.

ClosedPolarization in Practice: The Schematist v The Functionary.

The schematist structures the situation by arranging its elements in a systematic plan or diagram. The functionary uses a given framework to ensure the ongoing operation of the entity.

The schematist criticizes the functionary for being bureaucratic, unwilling to master the framework and nitpicking unhelpfully. The functionary criticizes the schematist for not knowing how things work in the real world and imposing a rigid straitjacket that defies human nature.

The two poles can be fused in an adjustable functionalism that ensures effective operation of an entity on the basis of a framework that is permanently open to necessary alterations based on real-world events.

Synthesis: A powerful framework that repeatedly and effectively functions results in a total grasp of that entity or situation—which is the thesis at L'7.

L'7: Unitary

Totalization v Domination

The configuration produced by the unitary paradigm-L'7 reveals an undifferentiated single whole, a totality (the thesis), that simply stays, or may expand or contract—but without concern for internal contents (individuals) or for the environment.

Complexification occurs as the totalization gets progressively extended and elaborated by the need to suppress alternatives, enforce conformity and extend uniformity through unequivocal domination of all entities (e.g. institutions in a society), which is the antithesis.

ClosedPolarization in Practice: The Totalist v The Dominator.

The totalist sees any situation or group as a single undifferentiated whole with elements or members willingly subordinate and loyal. The dominator sees the same whole as needing forceful control through permissions, thought-reform, and a monopoly of communication.

The totalist criticizes the dominator for needless coercion that inevitably generates pockets of resistance. The dominator criticizes the totalist for a naive complacency, taking homogeneity for granted, and an unrealistic attitude to elements.

The two poles can be fused in a benign paternalism that perceives unity as essential for all and conformity as being necessary for the members' own good.

Synthesis: Totalization and domination generate a rigidity and homogeneity that provides stability at the price of freezing all independent functioning. But total suppression creates countervailing forces, and individuals eventually start asserting themselves leading to emergence of interaction— which is the thesis of dynamic depiction-L'1, making the system cyclic as usual.

Unfolding and Oscillating Dualities

Additional illumination of the depiction paradigms is provided by juxtaposing the dialectical dualities at each level with oscillations between controversial activating and irrefutable resolving depictions.

The odd-numbered controversial levels activate people, but the fusion of the dialectic provides acceptable control of depiction for change: 

at L'1, participative systemicism creates a workable model of interactions;

at L'3, statistical determinism helps ground predictions;

at L'5, ecological emergentism grounds grand visions in observable inter-dependencies;

at L'7, benign paternalism limits the disturbance from domination.

The even-numbered irrefutable levels resolve differences amongst people and the fusion of the dialectic provides further stabilization: 

at L'2, egalitarian individualism ensures justice as well as freedom;
at L'4, regulated adversarialism tempers emotional conflicts;
at L'6, adjustable functionalism integrates variations within the necessary framework.

Originally posted: 1-Aug-2026.