THEE Typologies are hierarchies formally, but they are not holistic because the Types do not imply each other. Ordering is not obvious, and, superficially, there is no obvious reason why additional Types might not exist. More than one ordering can be envisaged in some cases, and the taxonomically correct order is not obvious. Knowing the correct order enables derivation of further taxonomic frameworks.
It is presumed that there is an underlying rationale for these features within the architecture. This conjecture is currently being explored in the Architecture Room.
Types are complex systems that determine the mindset or approach that we take to issues relevant to the originating Primary Hierarchy. More in the next Topic.
Typologies exist in four or five distinct forms within the Taxonomy. Numbers in brackets show how many are currently discovered or provisionally assumed. Click to go directly.
There is possibly also a Quaternary Hierarchy/Typology.
The Root Typology, like the Root Hierarchy, has unusual features.
It contains apparently incompatible Types, although the degree of incompatibility is not certain at this stage. For example, it proved possible to use the ordering to develop a Tree of Good and Evil that exists universally, at least, in the imagination.
It seems that this Typology is personal rather than organizational or social. It determines 7 different ways to find . These ways appear as over-arching that a person adheres to throughout their life. Read more .
It is not yet known whether this Root Typology is like a Principal Typology in having a Modal Hierarchy that permits a Q-expansion including Q-Hierarchies, Root Subsidiary Typologies and Spirals. However, the current presumption is that it does not.
The 6th Root Type, , contains a further nested Tertiary Hierarchy (Typology), which is holistic. This is similar to the finding in the . See Ch.8 in Working with Values.
For Tertiary Typologies, see below.
The Principal Typologies are Secondary Hierarchies nested within the 6th Level of Primary Hierarchies , as illustrated at right for . These Types are identity-defining methods for handling situations and have overt controlling power, both socially and psychologically i.e.:
• as a doctrine ruling a social group
• as a mentality ruling a person.
The Principal Typology Hierarchy has Levels that are incompatible and incommensurable because of conflicting assumptions. This means that only one Type may be used in any particular situation, and none is «the best» in any absolute sense—despite claims to the contrary by adherents. All Types appear to be necessary and universally present. All define methods that are commonly required within relevant group situations e.g. in an organization or community.
The Type is an entity that seems to be constructed through «assigning primacy» to the corresponding Level in the Primary Hierarchy. That is the current basis for ordering:
organises the operation of by focusing on & valuing primarily;
and so on till …
Reflective individuals articulate their preferred Type with care, so as to provide a coherent explanation of its worth and superiority. This articulation is called «an approach» within THEE. The approach eventually enters textbooks used to indoctrinate newcomers to the field.
The approach may be referred to as a doctrine, ideology, paradigm, theory or simply a distinct perspective. Philosophical and scientific debates take place between proponents of the various approaches within a domain. However, in the nature of things, debates are tribal and cannot lead to any resolution. As with all value-system rivalries, the best to hope for is peaceful co-existence.
The same Type can be independently articulated for diverse fields, domains or disciplines with those involved remaining unaware of any commonality.
There are often efforts by socially dominant ideologies to restrict funding or employment of others with different ideologies/mentalities: an example can be found in a paper I published in Social Science & Medicine (1982).
Read more about the importance of your mentalities and doctrines.
Subsidiary Typologies form when Principal Typologies are differentiated by a 4-Level Modal Hierarchy that contains distinct «styles of operating». The result is 28 Levels/Types (i.e. 7 Levels x 4 styles). This is called a Q-expansion, and it allows a clustering of Subsidiary Types into overlapping Q-domains with Q-Hierarchies and Q-Typologies.
There are 49 of these Subsidiary Typologies, because there are 7 Principal Typologies and each generates 7 Subsidiary Typologies.
Note: Names in the above list are provisional.
Relatively little is known about these Typologies. The current conjectures are as follows:
Tertiary Hierarchy ( ), which is a Typology of society-based .has a holistic
It is possible that there is a Quaternary Typology-Hierarchy nested within (i.e. the rule which is a ). It would deal with different theories about the nature of laws (i.e. jurisprudence).
In the Framework of , generates a Tertiary Hierarchy whose Types/Levels are the of a society.
These institutions determine much of our functioning as social beings. This structure may be holistic because the Levels seem to affect each other. No Quaternary Hierarchy has been identified within the .
Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated 24-Jan-2014.