Dualities

Classification

Dualities, their nature and their resolution, are presented with examples in The Hub. The focus here is purely on the architectural significance and use of formulae.

Dualities in THEE manifest four qualities:

  1. Polarizing opposition
    • Oscillating duality: see further discussion here.
    • Dynamic duality in a Tree
  2. Dichotomizing a holistic hierarchy
    • Internal duality (context v content) is the standard form
    • but all possible divisions have significance: see details here.
  3. Complementarity
    • Executing duality i.e. the X & Y axes of a TET
    • Approach duality i.e. the diagonal sets in a TET
    • Dynamic Duality that generate a Tree
  4. Dialectical development
    • Unfolding duality in Principal Typologies
    • Unfolding duality in Structural Hierarchies

Property or Element

Oscillating dualities (oD) are defined by odd and even- numbered levels in all THEE hierarchies, and are an expression of the discontinuity generated by levels.

They are therefore properties of levels, and not taxonomic elements.

Dynamic dualities (kD) specify the tension that springs into play whenever a holistic hierarchy is used, and define Trees. Although named variously, and even appearing differently according to level, it seems likely that they all reflect a standard feature of psychosocial reality. This is the unavoidable tension between the agent (e.g. a person, system, self) and the environment (e.g. group, situation, milieu).

If so, they are a general property of human functioning, and not a taxonomic element as such.

Internal dualities (iD) is an example of dichotomizing a hierarchy, usually in its Tree form, into context v content. The upper 3 levels are the context, and the lower 4 levels are the content. However, every other dichotomous split is also possible. These splits help appreciate properties of the various levels and of the whole hierarchical framework, both as perceived and used.

Splits are therefore properties of frameworks, and not taxonomic elements.

Executing dualities (eD)  in TETs name the Axes and define the psychosocial context of the relevant field. One side of the duality, by convention the X-axis, reflects the social, objective, external or shareable output. The other side, the Y-axis, reflects the psychological or personal input required for that output.
Closed2015 Note

Contexts are properties, not elements.

Approach dualities (aD)  are defined by psychosocially-relevant common properties of Types that lie along each diagonal of a TET.

Complementary pairs are properties, that may derive from taxonomic elements. A generic pattern has been identified and labelled:
Apollonian (types on the diagonal from lower left to upper right)
v
Dionysian (types on the diagonal from lower right to upper left).
This framework was originally suggested by Nietzsche to explain the nature of art. It contrasts the force of order and reason with the force of chaos and raw emotion. Focused research is required to clarify this proposition.

Dialectic dualities (uD) are properties of the Types or Groupings. Their cyclic unfolding nature is not understood at this point in time. They appear to represent a human requirement for both a sustaining core and a developmental potential.

The specific dualities will be properties and not taxonomic elements, but sustenance-development may be a general property of mental functioning.

Types are claims about what is best, and so the uD in a Principal Typology is forcing a generative order onto psychosocial entities that are stand-alone and incompatible. In contrast, the Groupings are requirements specifying functioning, and so the uD in a Structural Hierarchy sequences steps that are part of a single inter-linked process.

uDs in Structural Hierarchies generate readily observable practical tensions which get managed and resolved one way or another in everyday life.

uDs in Principal Typologiesare systematically examined and compared elsewhere in the Architecture Room.

Originally posted: 13-May-2013. Last updated: 16-Jul-2026.