Observant readers will have noticed that the layout (i.e. ordering) of the Root Typology TET differs from the layout found in Principal Typology TETs and in Subsidiary Typology TETs.
This Table uses a hypothetical Spiral sequence to determine numbering of the TET re-ordering.
TET Order in
(No TET Reorder)
The difference is marked. The only similarity to the Principal Typology ordering is the presence of Type-4 in the 3rd position. There are more similarities to the Subsidiary Typology order: Type-2, Type-6 and Type-7 in the 2nd, 6th & 7th positions respectively. The TET diagrams below show the layout applicable in the three cases.
The discovery of the Root TET developed from first principles. Step 1 requires clarifying (i.e. conjecturing) what the X & Y axes measure: i.e. what do provide for each of us (X-axis), and what do require of each of us (Y-axis).
Using the conjectures of transcendence of current reality (X-axis) and self-detachment (Y-axis), it was not difficult to plot the . The resultant plot shown at right provided corroborative evidence of validity by revealing credible and illuminating:
It is therefore reasonable to accept this TET provisionally. Nevertheless, other possibilities deserve examination.
The Root Typology might have been assumed to have an identical for to that found in a Principal Typology. Placing the first would then mean that the axes would have had to be determined afterwards.
This generalization-based procedure was deemed too risky because the Root System is known to be different in many ways from the Primary Hierarchies.
The result of such a plot is shown at the right. It provides some intuitively appealing parts (e.g.
The Subsidiary Typologies as found in THEE's Q-expansion Frameworks are not re-ordered when plotted. Perhaps this rule might apply to the Root Typology also.
It generates the diagram at right.and are also together but this time in the upper right quadrant. Again, there is the issue of what the X & Y axes measure. There are some possible oddities e.g. as the cornerstone , and plus together. However, different axes might reveal that these findings are not so odd after all.
It is also possible that the TET axes and plotting of are both correct, but the original Root Typology ordering is wrong. In this way of thinking, the likely order would be the standard Principal Typology order. We can work backwards from the TET, starting from the beginning of (hypothetical) Cycle-1 in Stage-1 and continuing through to Stage-7 at the end of Cycle-2.
|because PH'● L3 is always in that position
|because PH'● L6 is always in that position
|would be RH'L-4
|because PH'● L4 is always in that position
|would be RH'L-1
|because PH'● L1 is always in that position
|would be RH'L-2
|because PH'● L2 is always in that position
|would be RH'L-7
|because PH'● L7 is always in that position
|would be RH'L-5
|because PH'● L5 is always in that position
Putting these now in numerical order:
You would then need to explain or justify this new Root Typology order independently i.e. either in terms of the order of the Root Hierarchy or perhaps in some other way. I have not been able to see how that can be done.
In formal terms, there is no other obvious order to try. In practical terms, it is still possible that another order might apply.
In this case, the first step would be to provide conjectures and evidence for specific X & Y axes, and then plot the TET.against those to find the new order. Such an option applies to any
Originally posted: 10-Aug-2012.