The Origin and the Root Hierarchy were difficult to discover, identify and name for many reasons. These difficulties constitute much of the background to discovering THEE, and they have not all disappeared.
Discovery work commenced deep within THEE and the social environment at the time generated heavy pressure to view those discoveries as «fundamental». My academic environment offered no protection or sympathy. Although little may have changed academically in the succeeding decades, the awareness of the general public appears to have been transformed, if we can believe the evidence of bookshops and the Internet.
There are many fundamentals within THEE: indeed it is a taxonomy of essences. But as to what is fundamental to THEE itself? Well, that is a different and difficult matter to clarify. However, inquiry has recently (2013) commenced within the Architecture Room.
While various disparate Frameworks were being identified and explored, I found it impossible to assume that all the Frameworks were unified. It was just far too great a conjectural leap, given my scientific background and the patchy picture of disparate structural forms.
For a long time, I assumed there was some sort of parallel system in operation with an underlying abstract controller determining similarity of structure. It may sound ridiculous now, but it seemed a reasonable conjecture at the time. You can see more of my mistaken conjectures.
In the initial decades, frameworks were discovered through the pressure of consultancy and a determination to assist rather than impose my latest framework. The result was that I developed a number of rather different architectural structures. Any structure takes time to elaborate and crystallize, so there was much overlap in their emergence. Still, as I recall, the order of discovery was approximately as follows:
The hierarchy was the first structure ( ), but the number of Levels was uncertain…
→ then came the Typology ( ) …
→ then came awareness of two forms of hierarchy ( with nesting in , and without nesting in ) …
→ then came Dualities (oscillating initially, and then the dynamic duality, with other types coming later) …
→ then came the Tree ( ) …
→ then came the Spiral ( ) …
→ then came the Structural Hierarchy ( )…
→ then came the Modal Hierarchy and Q-hierarchy … and so on.
Each of these discoveries generated much checking and many blind alleys. The process of architectural discovery has continued even after having discovered the unification: e.g. the TET was only discovered a few years ago while preparing for posting, and the internal duality only properly firmed up as a major feature recently with the exploration of .
I wish to emphasize is the value of delaying judgement. If I had jumped the gun with some theory about how it all worked, I doubt that I would have been capable of continuing to discover all these distinct forms. As it happened, there was no danger of any breakthrough, as I was mostly bewildered and amazed by what was emerging.
The critical discovery, which eventually led to unification, emerged as I was puzzling over the Spiral trajectory for . For the hundredth time, I noted that some looked a lot like . I had noticed something similar in regard to choices: control over « » was handled by « ». Suddenly I extrapolated: being a discontinuous level above , with some sort of overlap which integrated two disparate realms. It did not take me long to check other frameworks and conclude that other similar patterns probably existed or could be rather easily found.
To re-state this technically: Any Principal Typology can be transformed to become holistic via a Spiral by converting Types to Modes. This Spiral reveals a Hierarchy that possesses an internal dualitywhich condenses to two adjacent Root Hierarchy Levels—whose lower Level spawned the Principal Typology in the first place. The full explanation with diagrams is provided here.
It was reasonably straightforward to determine and name the Root Levels, but there were still many puzzles and errors along the way. After identifying and naming all Levels in the Root Hierarchy, it was necessary to validate via various methods, especially structural corroboration. It took me about 10-12 years to finalize and become confident enough about the Root Hierarchy Framework to go public.
Structural corroboration is relevant to this Satellite because the elaboration of the architecture generated many unexpected and illuminating results. Most recently, there was the unexpected discovery of correspondences with other architectural forms, which opens new vistas of puzzlement.
It is likely that there will be errors of identification and formulation in the material posted to this Satellite.
Expositions are designed to make ideas look rather simple and obvious, but the recognition and naming of the Root Hierarchy Levels was arduous and uncertain for more than 20 years. I frankly doubt it would be possible for anyone to confidently postulate and develop the Root Hierarchy just from observation and reflection.
There have been numerous attempts to do just this in esoteric traditions, philosophy, and psychology. Many have followers. None have stood the twin tests of time and usefulness. More recently, attempts to do something similar using the Internet turned into a disaster for the proponents. I have sought to make the present approach as safe, sensible and scientific as it is possible to be. But, of course, more could be done.
Originally posted: 27-Jan-2011