Appendix I: When the Orthodoxy has Supremacy

An Alternative

In developing the framework, it seemed that there might be an alternative to L7-Generalized Applications.

The alternative would be L7-Systematized Essences.

In regard to the Use of Language framework, this fits the requirement for work at L7 which is:  6γ: Systematizing via naming/formulae. But the goal here is not to benefit wider society by illuminating more widely as with L7-Application. Instead the goal is to simplify and solidify the doctrine to enable a tighter hold on adherents, an unambiguous guide to potential converts, and a relatively unchanging foundation for doctrinal developments. In other words, supremacy of the school's orthodox doctrine and allegiance to it are of paramount importance.

Some founders might well think in those terms.

An example of this could be the creation of the Creed (Nicene Creed) by the Roman Catholic Church in its early day to consolidate its power and authority. This Creed is still in use today.

Example: ClosedChristian Doctrine

As the Roman Catholic Church became established in the early 1st Millenia, it had to deal with Stage-6 Revisions, some of which led to formation of heresies and threatened sectarian conflict.

The Nicene Creed was therefore produced to be the defining statement of belief of mainstream Christianity. It was created in 325 AD and modified in 381 AD, and aimed to provide a statement of correct belief so as to resolve controversy.

Being a systematization of essences, the creed is not longLink to external website containing brief items in a few paragraphs.

The creed allows theologians to delve deeper into its core beliefs and generate more nuanced and sophisticated understandings. While there may be theological controversies, all Christians are expected to understand and accept the Creed. It is the ultimate point of reference as to what constitutes orthodox Christian doctrine, and non-Christians recognize creed tenets as markers for Christianity.

Testing for Validity

To check this alternative formulation for Q5H-L7, we need to consider the various frameworks and see if this alternative fits what has been discovered. If it does then it could be considered as valid.

The Typology: Types of Responsibility

In regard to Promulgating the Doctrine, the top level, QH5-t7, would be re-labeled Systematize Essences. Then the Required Activity would change from "Develop the usefulness of key ideas for personal/social issues" to "Systematize the essential ideas to be believed by all current and future adherents".

If you check, you will conclude that this work-definition fits the various analyses.
ClosedDetails

The Spiral: Establishing the School

In regard to the move from Stage-6 to Stage-7 of school establishment, the pressure might still be viewed as a "desire to benefit wider society", but it might be better to change that to a "desire to develop public awareness", or to be more inward looking, a "desire to prevent doctrinal deviation".

Altered labeling of channels to levels 6 ad 4 when level 7 work focuses on doctrinal essences.

The end result (return to μ1) would still be the school becoming embedded in society, not necessarily because doctrinal elements become cultural assumptions used by everyone, but rather as a cultural understanding of the nature of that doctrine and school.

In regard to the example of Science, its essences are captured in text-book systematizations which are used to indoctrinate children at schools from an early age.

The Tree: Dynamics of Orthodoxy

In regard to Tree development, the only difference will be re-labelling the Centre at Q5L7B and the Channels that flow from it. The Q5L7BCentre changes from Doctrinal Applications to Doctrinal Essences. These essences are similarly balanced.

The Channel to Personal Interpretations (Q5L7P) is no longer Intellectual Liberation, but rather Intellectual Constraint because an essential goal of developing L7-essences is to remove controversies that typically arise from personal views and biases.

By contrast, the Channel to Scholarly Revisions (Q5L7S) can remain as Intellectual Stimulation, because essences, when formally clarified, can function as a springboard and foundation for safe exploration. In a similar way, the Channel to the Membership Institution Q5L4B can remain School Validation because the formal organisation upholding the doctrine must validate any systematization and the essences validate that organisation.

The Structural Hierarchy: Functioning of the School

In regard to functioning, there appear to be no surprises or problems with inserting G17-Systematized Essences in place of G17-Generalized Applications.

In Dyads: Societal Liaison (G26) still applies.

In Triads: Pioneers (G35) still applies.

In Tetrads: School Respect (G44) still applies.

In Pentads: Acknowledged Popularizers G53 still applies.

In Hexads: Phenomena Incorporation (G62) still applies.

In Heptad: Doctrine Maintenance (G71) still applies.

So there is no reason to alter the Requirements (top row labels) or the States (bottom row labels).

While there need be no substantial changes to the framework for participation in a School, the picture can be made more recognizable. The upper internal duality can be re-labelled as "controlling the school" (instead of "sustaining ....") and the Centres can be re-labelled to better suit the context. Click on left thumbnail below to see a possible layout.

While the example of the Christian Creed suggests an alternative model, the example of science-as-doctrine suggests that the alternative may operate in parallel within a school. Click on right thumbnail below to see a possible layout for the science alternative.

Dynamics and centre changes for religious orthodoxy. Dynamics and centre changes for science orthodoxy.

Conclusion

The alternative formulation for Q5L7 appears to be valid.


Originally posted: 28-Apr-2022. Last amended:  25-Aug-2025.