The Tree form is dynamic, in contrast to the hierarchy form which is static. That means it specifies forces or influences and refers to actual activity, rather than to a schema that floats above actuality.
Trees result from applying the appropriate dynamic duality to the Levels of a holistic 7-Level hierarchy. It is currently conjectured that this duality is some version of the expression of inner autonomy in the face of external (usually social) constraints.
The 7 static hierarchical Levels form 10 Centres of influence. These Centres are determined according to whether poles of the dynamic duality infusing the hierarchy (labeled in this diagram ) polarize the Level, or are fused (labeled ). There is always one Centre in each of the four balanced Levels ( ) and two Centres in each of the three bipolar Levels ( ).
When the Level is polarized, the dominant pole is placed on the right. Note the twist from to via .
The arrowed lines show the 22 Channels of requisite bi-directional influence between the Centres.
Clarity as to why certain Channels are feasible and desirable, while other Channels are impossible, disruptive or harmful (hence missing from the Tree) may help in diagnosing psychosocial malfunction.
Channels are not well understood and naming may therefore be problematic. In naming Channels, I try to avoid using general terms that apply to all Channels in all Trees e.g. influence, shape, control, affect, require, need &c.
In describing a Tree, the bulk of the inquiry is focused on the identification and naming of Channels. Over the years, several methods for explaining the Centres and their interactions have been developed. In all case, as a preliminary, there is a need to move from 7 Levels to 10 Centres as follows:
1. Determine a name for the Tree as a single entity.
2. Identify the dynamic duality intrinsic to operating the static hierarchy.
3. Apply the duality at each Level and determine names for Centres.
4. Determine which Centre dominates in the bipolar Levels.
The next step is to determine the Channels of influence, and there are the following options.
1. Build-up from Below. Starting from the foundation at L1B, each Centre is examined and potential Channels with existing Centres are examined. Each Centre's need for a higher Level input is emphasized here.
2. Build-down from Above. Starting from the top at L7B, each Centre is examined and potential Channels with existing Centres are examined.
3. Build using the Full Structure. Follow these steps:
Note: (a), (b), (c), and (d) refer to the steps in 3. above..
Employment Tensions leads to two Trees because the one person has two distinct perspectives.
As a manager : In this build, (a) stabilizes the organization, (b) provides management, (c)strengthens management, (d) reviews compacts.
As an employee : In this build, (a) integrates yourself, (b) develops your position, (c) strengthens your position, (d) reviews your compact.
4. Reverse Build using the Full Structure.
For reasons that are not currently understood, two Tree Frameworks in the Root Complex are better explained if you reverse the order in (3).
Note: (a), (b), (c), and (d) refer to the steps in 4. above.
Thriving in Your Community . In this build: (a) forms the group by ensuring unity with others (b) leads to storms as you stabilize yourself (c) reveals norms so to thrive with others (d) lets you assert yourself and perform.
5. Build from a Psychological Perspective
In an Architecture Room investigation, non-taxonomic Trees were discovered. Analysis was handled by putting the person (or self) into focus via and . The steps followed were:
A similar approach is currently being considered for the Trees emerging from a Spiral Structural Hierarchy.
See Picture » [Note: Focus on Channel pattern: Centres are irrelevant/incorrect.]
Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated 14-Feb-2014.