Everything human-experiential can be conceived as emerging from a single entity, which is the Root Cell (or more simply the Root or Origin). It is given the formal-name: (or , as distinct from «being willing»).
Looking closely atas it appears to manifest in everyday life reveals a hierarchy of 7 fundamental domains that are intrinsic to endeavours: , &c. as shown in the diagram at right. Once we see in this way, it no longer seems such an utter mystery.
It may be self-evident that all our functioning requires volition, but it is much less obvious that volition is differentiated and ordered into discrete levels as shown. That proposition is the result of decades of research.
My current (2015) view is that the Root Cell is a fictional unification. Root Hierarchy i.e. as . These Levels generate frameworks for endeavours of all sorts.exists in practice only as the
The componentmay seem rather concrete and distinct. Yet each may also be experienced as vague or mysterious—depending on your inclination to be puzzled and curious. As usual, the harder you look, the more you see. As structures are delineated, vagueness recedes and mystery dissipates once more, but only to re-emerge and invite further inquiry.
The more that is understood, the more wonderful and puzzling it all seems. But one thing is certain: the well-ordered, if complicated patterns discovered in the Taxonomy architecture are surprising. I doubt that they could have been guessed in advance.
See an overview of the architecture and its conceptualization.
Discovery of the Taxonomy did not progress in any orderly way. It was not the result of reasoning but of opportunistic observations. There was no conscious plan to classify because no field was conceptualized. There was certainly no logical development from an origin as the above exposition (and what follows) might suggest. (As noted above, the Root Cell now seems superfluous.)
The Root Hierarchy, the , was only identified at a rather late stage following disparate, piecemeal and often surprising discoveries deep within the taxonomic architecture. (Read the story here, and follow the specific discovery steps here.)
Descriptions of taxonomic elements suffer from the need to appeal to examples or instances. It is impossible to remove all extraneous contingent factors from examples because some are needed to bring the situation to life. Also, interactions amongst the many taxonomic elements in play are so intense that it is difficult to keep focused on what is relevant to the issue.
It is impossible to produce a single diagram of the whole architecture as you can with the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. Despite similarities, this Taxonomy is a larger, more complicated system with an estimated 5000-10000 elements.
While it is possible to represent all of THEE via diagrams of the sort required for its specification in software, this does not enable a single unified image to form in one's mind. Fortunately, it is possible to produce diagrams of each to assist understanding and inquiry.
Every Satellite commences with a pathway Topic showing the taxonomic location of that part of THEE.
Effective use and understanding of any particular taxonomic element or framework does not require awareness or comprehension of all taxonomic elements simultaneously.
Just as a pedestrian in a small city could not cope with a map showing all the streets in a whole continent, so any user of THEE wants access to just a small map relevant to their immediate concerns. Think of THEE like Google Earth: when you can see the whole national highway network of the USA, you cannot see the many streets in your local neighbourhood—and vice versa.
Take a meta-THEE perspective.
Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated: 22-May-2015.