Examples of Naming

The two requisites for good naming are almost opposite to each other:

► precision
► evocativeness.

No single language can combine these, so the taxonomy requires two language systems:

► Quasi-inhuman formulae for absolute precision
—ensures cross-cultural understanding.

► Quasi-natural language terms for evocativeness
—allows practical use in local situations.

THEE in Non-English Languages

Formal names should be specifically developed for every language where THEE might be useful. Suitable names must be determined by examining the function, properties and relationships of the thing to be named. Bias due to idiosyncratic associations is always a danger. So naming is best determined by a permanent group with the goal of unanimous agreement. Alternate names should also be determined where possible; and false synonyms should be clarified.

The examples below are taken from THEE's 6^thPrimary Hierarchy dealing with Purpose. The Tertiary Hierarchy contains Ethical Rules and the Tertiary Structural Hierarchy contains Ethical Authorities that are constituted by these rules in combination. Symbol references are provided here.

Example: «Standard»

Dictionary definition:A basis for comparison.

This term is commonly used to refer to a wide range of psychosocial entities.

Orange highlighting, in the graphic of the Tertiary Structural Hierarchy below, shows the entities named in orange in the list.

● PH6-L2	Strategic Objective
● sPH6-G35	Ideal
● sPH6-G22	Policy
● PH"6-L1	Prescription
● PH"6-L1	Code of Practice
● PH"6-L2	Convention
● sPH"6-G2	Ethical Principle
● sPH"6-G4	Minimum Standard

Explanatory Notes

● Strategic objective is an elemental level of the 6th Primary Hierarchy dealing with purpose; while policy is a Dyad, and ideal is a Triad, both within the 6th Structural Primary Hierarchy dealing with how values are realized within a society.
● A code of practice is a set of related prescriptions, and so the formulas are identical.
● Ethical principles (guiding Principle in the diagram) are of 6 distinct types.
● This list is not complete: e.g. there are four types of minimum standard (see graphic), each of which might be termed an «ethical standard».

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

Example: «Right»

Functional definition: A rule that states what is due to or from someone in a social setting, taking the form of a claim or no-claim, liberty/privilege or duty, power or liability, immunity or disability.

The graphic above shows all the formulae below in light blue. All belong to the 6^thStructural Tertiary Hierarchy. It is evident that the list below is not complete: because the cells in the graphic highlighted in navy blue also refer to particular sorts of right.

● PH"6-L4	Right
● PsH"6-G714	Membership Right
● PsH"6-G514	Customary Right
● PsH"6-G523	Legal Right
● PsH"6-G523	Civil Right
● PsH"6-G532	Moral Right
● PsH"6-G441	Universal Right
● PsH"6-G241	Human Right
● PsH"6-G232	Ideological Right

The above assignment of names could be debated, especially where I have used two different names for the one formula.
For example ►

Civil right & Legal right: There is an un-named i.e. unnamed within THEEright at the lower end of Legal Responsibility (G341). Perhaps it should be assigned the name Legal Right as in the above Table, and we could agree that the name Civil Right applies to PsH"6-G523. Until this sort of terminological discipline is recognized as necessary, confusion will continue.

There are also other terms, like fundamental right and natural right, found in philosophical and political writings. These names have not been used as formal names to date, because no formula-entity has been found for which they seem uniquely appropriate. In texts used for researching this issue, they were synonyms for one or more of the entities in the above list.

 Note on Resonance

Resonance, evident in the various forms of «right», is the phenomenon in which entities with similar formulae create an inner sense of their similarity in actuality. The feeling may be so intense that it leads people to falsely assert identity of dissimilar entities. Confusion results if distinct but resonating entities are given identical or too similar names.

---

• Consider an extended example of terminological confusion: policy.

Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated 21-May-2010.