THEE formal names are selected, as far as possible, to evoke and fit with the principal function, to imply other relevant properties and to suggest significant relationships to other psychosocial categories.
No particular choice of formal name is necessarily best for all situations, and certainly not forever. Language changes over time and there is no reason why THEE-Names should not also be altered to accommodate such developments. But, of course, the THEE-formula will not change in the same way. It might change based on a revision forced by new discoveries or for technical reasons (e.g. computer readability).
In choosing a name, we seek appropriateness and try to avoid disruptive associations. It is sensible to check out possibilities with others, compare to existing authorities and look at research findings.
There is no need for absolutism in naming: any agreed name can be applied temporarily by a particular group for a specific discussion or project. But near-absolute clarity is required for the function, properties and relationships of whatever has been named.
The two requisites for good naming are almost opposite to each other:
No single language can combine these, so the taxonomy requires two language systems:
► Quasi-inhuman formulae for absolute precision
—ensures cross-cultural understanding.
► Quasi-natural language terms for evocativeness
—allows practical use in local situations.
Formal names should be specifically developed for every language where THEE might be useful. Suitable names must be determined by examining the function, properties and relationships of the thing to be named. Bias due to idiosyncratic associations is always a danger. So naming is best determined by a permanent group with the goal of unanimous agreement. Alternate names should also be determined where possible; and false synonyms should be clarified.
The examples below are taken from THEE's 6th Primary Hierarchy dealing with . The Tertiary Hierarchy contains and the Tertiary Structural Hierarchy contains that are constituted by these rules in combination. Symbol references are provided here.
Dictionary definition: A basis for comparison.
This term is commonly used to refer to a wide range of psychosocial entities.
Orange highlighting, in the graphic of the Tertiary Structural Hierarchy below, shows the entities named in orange in the list.
|● PH6-L2||Strategic Objective|
|● PH"6-L1||Code of Practice|
|● sPH"6-G2||Ethical Principle|
|● sPH"6-G4||Minimum Standard|
● Strategic objective is an elemental level of the 6th Primary Hierarchy dealing with ; while policy is a Dyad, and ideal is a Triad, both within the 6th Structural Primary Hierarchy dealing with how within a society.
● A code of practice is a set of related prescriptions, and so the formulas are identical.
● Ethical principles (guiding Principle in the diagram) are of 6 distinct types.
● This list is not complete: e.g. there are four types of minimum standard (see graphic), each of which might be termed an «ethical standard».
Better viewing: narrow or close left navigation column; use browser zoom if needed.
Functional definition: A rule that states what is due to or from someone in a social setting, taking the form of a claim or no-claim, liberty/privilege or duty, power or liability, immunity or disability.
The graphic above shows all the formulae below in Structural Tertiary Hierarchy. It is evident that the list below is not complete: because the cells in the graphic highlighted in navy blue also refer to particular sorts of right.. All belong to the 6th
The above assignment of names could be debated, especially where I have used two different names for the one formula.
For example ►
un-named i.e. unnamed within THEEright at the lower end of Legal Responsibility (G341). Perhaps it should be assigned the name Legal Right and we should agree that the name applies to sPH"6-G523. Until this sort of terminological discipline is recognized as necessary, confusion will continue.& : There is currently an
There are also other terms, like fundamental right and natural right, found in philosophical and political writings. These names have not been used as formal names to date, because no formula-entity has been found for which they seem uniquely appropriate. In texts used for researching this issue, they were synonyms for one or more of the entities in the above list.
Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated 21-May-2010.