Using Formulae
All the various hierarchies, Spirals and other structures that are used to map THEE entities are inter-linked in a highly specific fashion. This makes it possible to label each entity with a unique formula that locates it precisely in the total taxonomic system.
The taxonomic formula system offers several advantages over a natural language system:
- Keeps the focus on real things and avoids debates about words.
- Assists discrimination and discovery of entities with similar formulae.
- Opens up a range of further inquiries and puzzles.
The current system (v4.1: March 2008) with rules and guidance for its use is available here.
Examples
#1: The formula refers to a specific cell-entity, and we know which one because:
| ► indicates a Primary Domain | |
| ► indicates a Structural Hierarchy. | |
| ► following PH or PsH indicates the Hierarchy emanated by the 6th Root Level. | |
| ► specifies a Grouping of adjacent Levels. | |
| ► indicates the Grouping of 5 levels, within which there must be 3 Groups. | |
| ► refers to the 3rd Group in the Grouping (counting from below). | |
| ► refers to the 5th Level in the group (= ). | |
| We verbally describe this entity in the reverse order: refers to the 5th level in the 3rd Group of the 5th Grouping of the 6th Structural Primary Hierarchy. |
|
| Guidance as to Properties: | |
| ► anything in is associated with . | |
| ► structural hierarchies are usually about participation or components. | |
| ► the 5th Grouping contains entities that shape or lead (rather than control). | |
| ► the 3rd or topmost Group in the Grouping is an entity with qualities currently unknown. | |
| ► the 5th Level in the Group is an (i.e. L7), yet it will have a quality derived from (L5). | |
Change Note: Structural hierarchies were originally labeled sPH•, but this has been adjusted to PsH• because it seems preferable to say "primary structural hierarchy" rather than "structural primary hierarchy".
See more in the current TOP Formula System.
#2: The formula refers to a specific cell-entity and we know which one because:
| ► indicates a Principal Typology. | |
| ► refers to the Principal Typology in the Primary Hierarchy emanated by the 2nd Root Level. | |
| ► indicates expansion of the Typology to 28 Levels by application of a Modal Hierarchy to each Type. | |
| ► refers to the domain of the 3rd Q-hierarchy formed by combining 4 Levels of Type-L3 and 3 Levels of Type-L4. | |
| ► indicates the 6th Subsidiary Type in the domain. | |
| We verbally describe this entity in the reverse order: refers to the 6th Subsidiary Type in the 3rd hierarchical domain formed by the Q-expansion of the 2nd Principal Typology. |
|
| Guidance as to Properties: | |
| ► the Secondary Hierarchy is a Principal Typology that is nested within the L6 of the Primary Hierarchy. This is the and L6 is named . The Typology specifies different methodologies or approaches for inquiring and checking the outcomes of inquiry so as to be maximally certain. | |
| ► the Q-complex is defined by application of a 4-level Style Hierarchy which identifies 4 Subtypes within each Principal Type, and then combining 4 of one Type with 3 of the next Type above. | |
| ► the 3rd Grouping contains 7 subsidiary Types and it will show some gradation in quality intermediate between and (if those have been discovered). | |
| ► the 6th subsidiary Type is the 2nd Style within the 4th approach, and this means it has similarities to the 2nd Style within the 3rd approach. The 2nd Style tends to be maximally ordering and controlling—especially when it is in the position of the 6th Level or subsidiary Type. | |
Note: The number following Q may be either before or after the t or H.
See more in the current TOP Formula System.
Resonance
Similarity of formula of entities deep in the system (i.e. further from the Root Cell) may create a sense of similarity of essence. We seem to be dealing with a of some sort that I have labelled .
is equivalent to periodicity in the Periodic Table of the Elements. In THEE, we find that minor differences in formulae may mean similarity of quite distinct phenomena, often leading to confusion in practice.
Many of the natural language labels currently assigned in this website may be arguable, the functions will be poorly specified or wrong in some cases, and the properties will surely contain errors—but the formulae still refer precisely to entities that exist. (Of course, such formulae will be gobbledygook to anyone unfamiliar with the structure of the Taxonomy.)
See two examples of how very closely related notions can be allocated different taxonomic formulae that demand precise formulation clarifying the distinctions.
TOP Note: Changes have been required for new discoveries. The system of TOP formulae is v5.0 as of February 2016. It is provided here with rules and guidance for its use. Formulae on the website in frameworks and architectural analyses completed prior to 2015 may not be fully updated.
Originally posted: August 2009; last updated 15-Jan-2011.