This page is dedicated to some of the many mistakes and false turnings that have been taken. It serves as a constant warning against over-confidence.
I initially thought there were only 5 Levels in the standard hierarchy, because I was under the influence of Elliott Jaques who was pushing this view. Also I could not see any link between my Typologies (one with 5 Types, the other with 7 or 8) and hierarchies of elements. It was not evident if my one or two Typologies could be labelled as hierarchies. Most of my academic colleagues reacted violently against such an idea.
I regularly wondered whether there might not be an 8th or 9th Level as suggested by some authorities (like Elliott Jaques). It was only when I found that a Typology Hierarchy might lie within a 6th Level, that the situation became clearer. I realized represented the application of reason, while represented the application of imagination. interacted with to organize and control the use of the hierarchy. There could be no higher Level in a hierarchy, but there could be higher Levels in the Subsidiary Typologies and in whatever they represented, socially and psychologically. So EJ was correct to go beyond 5 and then beyond 7 levels: his observations were simply not taken far enough—to 28 Levels.
For a long time, I was extremely puzzled that some hierarchies (e.g. hierarchy of ) have an embedded Typology Hierarchy within their 6th Level, while others did not, or I could not discover one (e.g. hierarchy of ). This difference was resolved following my appreciation that there were many more Levels of than those Jaques wished to focus upon. Finally, the modal expansion of typologies, based on a different observation of Jaques', provided the answer. For more: compare THEE hierarchies.
I assumed that there were only 6 Q-structures and that Level-28 , the 4th Mode of , was on its own and unused for some unknown reason. Eventually, empirical observation generated examples that required the system to be cyclic: linked to , with the 7th Q-structure containing all 4 Modes of plus the lower 3 Modes from .
Being determined to avoid forcing patterns on observations encouraged me to identify several diverse Spiral patterns emerging from Principal Typology Hierarchies. Later, by recognizing some similarity of the Spiral quadrants with those in the Myers-Briggs assessment, it seemed far more likely that Spirals developed in a uniform pattern. This focused attention on how the axes should be identified, and expedited discoveries e.g. in regard to Politics.
I thought that all Primary Hierarchies had Tertiary Hierarchies that generated Structural Hierarchies, in the way that does. My current conjecture (which may be in error) is that holistic Tertiary Hierarchies and their Structural Hierarchies are only to be found in the and the - .
The forms and extent of intra- and inter-Framework relations are not clear. For example, several associations between specific Frameworks and the have been noted; and a matrix arrangement of 49 psychosocial forms has been identified using one set of Q-Hierarchies (7 columns of QHs x 7 rows of QHs). Are these generally applicable? If so, do they spawn Frameworks? The current conjecture in response to both queries is Yes. However, these are not new and fundamental THEE Frameworks so much as new targets for applying Frameworks developed for the originating THEE entities.
Is there anything useful we can learn about the dynamics (if any) and the internal structures of the multi-level entities (Groups) generated within Structural Hierarchies? E.g. the Heptad's internal structure of 7 Levels is superficially identical to the Grouping of 7 Monads, but it deals with something distinct.
Could Structural Hierarchies be usefully subjected to systematic combinations of adjacent Groupings forming second-order Structural Hierarchies? If not, why not?
I recently identified the X and Y axes of Typology Essences Tables (TETs) as social and psychological contexts or the relevant psychosocial field. These axes appear to be needed for the Spiral. However, I still wonder if there might be another rationale for these dimensions. These alternate quadrants and even perhaps spiral patterns would need to be significant in practice and fertile in application.
In the TET, quadrant Groupings align to empirical observations. Combining quadrants with the relevant Tree Centres (formed by application of the relevant dynamic duality) generates a unique pattern of 4 sets containing: 1, 2, 3 and 4 Centres—see diagram. Is there any deeper or practical significance to this process and those numbers?
The analysis of the Spiral in politics and the Spiral in marketing have thrown up an interesting phenomenon. emerges from a Principal Typology, while emerges from a Subsidiary Typology. Yet the derived hierarchies in both cases seem to have a rather similar oscillating duality. Both lie within the , but this is not a factor because something similar has been found in the Spiral for organising work in , and elsewhere in .
This puzzle is in the process of being solved. Knowing common qualities of formally similar cells does help complete blank cells. So generic conceptual labels for formally similar THEE structures were sought as a guide. Initial attempts did not come alive in a useful way and proved that I lacked a deeper understanding of the Taxonomy. More recently (2013-2015), it became possible to revisit the basic conceptions. This has led to generic labels that accord with an overall conceptualization and are scientifically and practically useful. These studies are ongoing and initial results are shown in the architecture overview.
Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated 15-May-2015.