Varieties of THEE Hierarchy

This webpage brings together details of formulae, contents and inner forms of the main varieties of hierarchies found in THEE. (Click to be taken directly:)

These hierarchies relate to each other in complicated ways so there is no simple diagram: for more detail, visit the Architecture Room. Below is a comparison of the architectural properties of these hierarchies.

ROOT Hierarchy: RH

The Root Hierarchy (RH) is unusual in its complexity: not surprising as it contains, enfolded within itself, all the elements of human endeavour.

Each of the Root Hierarchy Levels both emanates a 7-level Primary Hierarchy and contains a 4-level Style Hierarchy (called Modal in diagram) as shown below.

THEE Note:Closed It would have been exceedingly difficult to have discovered the Root Hierarchy de novo. It could only emerge from discoveries much farther downstream in the taxonomy. Visit the Architecture Room for details of the discovery.

The numerous complex structures associated wtih the Root Hierarchy.

Each of the Root Levels emanates a Primary Hierarchy (PH)

Formulae Noun Names
RL7 = PH7 Willingness
RL6 = PH6 Purpose
RL5 = PH5 Communication
RL4 = PH4 Experience
RL3 = PH3 Change
RL2 = PH2 Inquiry
RL1 = PH1 Action

The Root Hierarchy is also subject to a Q- expansion, via a 4-level Style Hierarchy applicable to each Level. In this expansion, the Q-Hierarchies turn out to be transformed Principal Typology Hierarchies (i.e. Spirals): a most curious and unexpected arrangement.

The Root Hierarchy has been developed and posted in the Endeavour and Your Better Self Satellites.

See below for a note on the Root Typology.

Back to Top

PRIMARY Hierarchy: PH•

Each Primary Hierarchy has 7 Levels which are elemental i.e. not capable of emanating further hierarchies.

In THEE: the 7 Primary Hierarchies emanated by the levels in the Root Hierarchy.

In its 6th Level, a Primary Hierarchy contains a 7-level nested hierarchy that is a Typology: called a Principal Typology. Principal Typologies are of immense practical and taxonomic significance.

Three Primary Hierarchies—Inquiry-PH2, Experience-PH4, Purpose-PH6—have been formally published, and one more, Communication-PH5, is posted in its Satellite. However, they are all provisionally formulated. See details in the Architecture Room together with conjectures about the PH-Levels.

Back to Top

PRINCIPAL TYPOLOGY Hierarchy: PH'•

A Principal Typology is a secondary hierarchy nested within L6 of the Primary Hierarchy. It is identified with a single prime (') or a superscript 2 (2).

Each of the 7 Levels is a Type that is a coherent system built on a core process that operates as a belief. The Types manifest in two closely related ways:

  • psychologically within people as character types, personal styles, mentalities, or mindsets; and
  • socially within authoritative texts as paradigms, doctrines, theories, ideologies, or formalized methods.
Tree showing Centres and Channels for managing an organization of any size.

The function of Types (syn. Levels, Systems, Methods, Approaches, Ways) is to guide the proper or best use of the Primary Hierarchy. It is conjectured that each Type in the Typology derives its characteristic nature from according primacy to the respective Level in the originating Primary Hierarchy, and that is the justification for the ordering.

The hierarchical quality here is formal (or conceptual) rather than practical because the Levels (Types) are incompatible and do not require or imply each other as in holistic hierarchies. (However, their context value-sets do: see Spiral below.)

Visit the Architecture Room for conjectures about the rationale of Principal Typologies.

ClosedCf: Root Typology

Back to Top

SPIRAL-derived Hierarchy: PH'•CH, PH'•CsH

It is possible to re-order the Levels of a Principal Typology in terms of underlying values that are communally recognized and not intrinsically incompatible. 

Type = Content-Actions
Mode = Context-Values.

A standard pattern for this re-ordering has been discovered as follows:

Blank Spiral of Growth (development or maturation) showing X-Axis = Social Output, and Y-Axis = Psychological Requirement
Types   Modes     Modes   Types
1 = 4     1 = 3
2 = 5     2 = 6
3 = 1     3 = 4
4 = 3     4 = 1
5 = 7     5 = 2
6 = 2     6 = 7
7 = 6     7 = 5

If the Types are plotted on a Typology Essences Table (TET), compatible value-sets within each Type can be identified and these are referred to as Modes (μ). The Spiral trajectory describes how the Mode (μ)values may cumulate to evolve a maximally sophisticated context for Types—given appropriate effort and opportunity.

The diagram shows the Spiral trajectory for incorporating Modes (μ) in Stages (Φ). This sequential order becomes the order of hierarchical Levels for content-choices within the context relevant to the Type, irrespective of Stage (Φ).

The Spiral-derived Hierarchy of Levels based on the Modes (μ) is holistic i.e. distinctive features of these Levels interact and influence each other. Because this hierarchy is holistic, its Levels also form a Structural Hierarchy.

More about Spirals.

Back to Top

Principal Typology of Ethical Choices with the Tertiary Hierarchy of Ethical Rules emanated by the Legitimist (6th) Approach.

TERTIARY Hierarchy (RH"•, PH"•)

The 6th Level of the Principal Typology Hierarchy either emanates or contains a nestedhierarchy referred to as a Tertiary Hierarchy and identified by a double prime (") or superscript 3 e.g. L"4 or L34, PH"2 or PH32.

The Tertiary Hierarchy appears to be holistic and emanated in the case of the Tertiary Root Hierarchy (RH"), and the Tertiary Purpose Hierarchy (PH"6). In both of these cases, a structural hierarchy has been developed.

In the other Primary Hierarchies, the Tertiary Hierarchy seems to be a Typology (i.e. non-holistic) and is probably nested. e.g. Divisions of Philosophy within the 6th Research Method, whole Typology lies within L6-Judgement in Inquiry-PH2.

Quaternary Hierarchies: This is the term provided for a hierarchy, nested or emanated, within the 6th Level of a Tertiary Hierarchy. Should these exist, they are presumed to contain Types.

Back to Top

STRUCTURAL Hierarchy (RsH, RsH", PsH•, PsH"6, Q•sH•, CsH•)

Early formulae were: sRH, sRH", sPH etc)_

Whenever a THEE 7-level hierarchy is holistic, adjacent Levels can be combined in all possible combinations to generate new structures (Groupings and Groups) that correspond to further recognizable and important psychosocial entities.

All Groupings include and integrate all Levels in the originating holistic hierarchy, and become Levels in the Structural Hierarchy. Every Grouping and every Group within each Grouping also requires recognition and naming.

In regard to Components of Creativity-RsH shown below, the Groups (green cells) are different sizes according to the number of Levels they include.

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

Structural hierarchy for managing effectively (i.e. organizing management) based on levels of work responsibility.

The Structural Hierarchy is derived from all possible combinations of adjacent Levels in the originating holistic hierarchy. Its Levels, L1-L7, are viewed as Groups of 1 i.e. Monads (G11 - G17). The function of the G1 entities will alter slightly from their originating Levels so as to suit the new context.
ClosedThen other Groupings follow:

6 hierarchical Dyads i.e. Groups of 2
5 hierarchical Triads i.e. Groups of 3
4 hierarchical Tetrads i.e. Groups of 4
3 hierarchical Pentads i.e. Groups of 5
2 hierarchical Hexads i.e. Groups of 6
1 Heptad i.e. the Group of 7 Levels.

ClosedFormulae

ClosedFeatures in Development

Formal names above and below the 7 Groupings appear to drive the entity. With these two aspects named, we can use the natural flow of language to help us understand what is being delineated. For example, using the Creativity framework:

We can start anywhere because the system is cyclic. So we read that ... there are [5] [generators of support] which [shape and sustain] [commitment], which must be [focused] within [4] [amplifiers of capability], which [shape and support] [perseverance], which ... and so on. The phrasing is necessarily formal, but the meaning should flow easily.

Additional useful clarification as well as a validation check is obtained by recognizing that each Level in a Group (whatever the Grouping) has a particular «quality». In other words, the 2nd Level in any Group—whether a Dyad, a Tetrad, a Hexad &c.—always has a similar feel (an example of resonance.) For more explanation, see the Creativity framework and look at the analysis of the validity of the chosen qualifiers.

There are numerous Structural Hierarchies awaiting clarification and development. But many are now available.
ClosedExamples

Creativity in Endeavours (RsH)
Participating in Politics (PH'6CsH)
Organising Doing Work (PH'1CsH)—unusual in having 2 perspectives.
Organising Management (PH'5-sQH2)
Producing Goodness (RsH")

Working with Values: Software of the Mind (1995) contains two Structural Hierarchies worked out in detail. Ch. 9 deals with society's ethical authorities (sPH"6). Ch.10 and Ch. 12 deals with the realization of values in society (sPH6). Download the Chapters.

It has not been determined whether any form of Structural Hierarchy can itself be structured via a second-order Grouping of Groupings.

Back to Top

Style Hierarchy (MH•)

Example of a Style Hierarchy (formerly Modal Hierarchy) appling to using the Will.

The Style Hierarchy (MH because formerly named "Modal" Hierarchy) is a set of 4 Styles applicable to each Level in the Root Hierarchy and each Level/Type in a Principal Typology Hierarchy. The Style determines a particular way of operating the Type i.e. each Type can manifest in a person in one of 4 Styles.

This 4-level hierarchy has implications for personal choice and is required for the formal process called Q-expansion.  The effect of a Q-expansion via a Style Hierarchy is to produce: 7 (Levels/Types) x 4 (Styles) = 28 subsidiary Types.

This process also generates many socially significant Q-complexes.

The Style Hierarchy applied to the Decision-making Typology appears to have the following styles in its Levels:

α:  Generating decisions
β:  Shaping decisions
γ:  Challenging decisions
δ:  Resolving decisions

The names that have been provisionally given to different Styles of the Empiricist decision-mentality-PH'1L2 are:

L'2δ The Evaluator, who uses evidence to resolve situations where decisions have been made.

L'2γ The Investigator, who gets evidence that potentially challenges decisions made by others.

L'2β The Expert, who uses his knowledge as input to shape decisions made by others.

L'2α The Monitor, who obtains information that generates decisions by others.

Back to Top

Q-Expansion (QH•)

Subsidiary Typology within the Decision-making Approaches showing the 4+3 pattern of 7 organizational work styles for goal engagement.

Levels within the Principal Typology Hierarchies can be expanded using a suitable 4-level Style Hierarchy.

The Style Hierarchy reflects the psychosocial reality that a person can choose to operate any Type in one of 4 distinctive Styles. These Styles are socially perceived to be examples of the Type.

The result is a structure containing 28 subsidiary Types. The 28-level structure can be arranged to form 7 overlapping Q-Hierarchies (or Q-Typologies or Subsidiary Typologies).

2 of the 56 Q-Hierarchies in THEE have been clearly formulated through developing insights gleaned from the literature:

Levels of work in Elliott Jaques' A General Theory of Bureaucracy (1993) became THEE’s Levels of Work-Responsibility, identified primarily in terms of expected work output (often more useful and easier to determine than Jaques' «time-span of discretion».)  Visit the satellite.

Levels in Beck & Cowan's Spiral Dynamics (2005) became THEE’s Ways of Interacting-for-Benefit. However, THEE constraints demanded a different order, which then led to a variety of useful and otherwise unexpected applications. Visit the satellite.

The power and great practical importance of these frameworks gave the original discoverers the impression that they had found something fundamental "the theory that explains everything", and unique "the only systematically scientific approach". It was as if each was complete and self-sufficient.

It is now fairly certain that each is just one among many frameworks with an identical architecture; and each emerges as a special case from something more comprehensive. Hence the THEE formula-symbol Q- standing for quasi- e.g. quasi-primary, quasi-fundamental.

More Q-structures have since been discovered, and these appear to be of practical value. See conjectures.

Every Q-expansion specifies numerous important psychosocial phenomena related to the Principal Typology that it expands. There is enough evidence to propose that a Q-expansion produces:

● 7 Subsidiary Typologies
● 7 Spirals of Development (without any transformation of the sequence)
● 7 Q-Hierarchies
● 7 Q-Hierarchy Trees
● 7 Q-Structural Hierarchies
● 7 Q-Structural Hierarchy Trees

Each set is referred to as a Q-Complex. It follows that each Domain has 7 Q-complexes. So there are 49 Q-complexes in THEE, each with 6 frameworks.

More about Q-expansion structures.

Back to Top

Architectural Comparisons

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

Distinguishing Properties
of the Varieties of Taxonomic Hierarchy
  7-Levels Each Level is
a Hierarchy 		Typology
within L6 		Levels cumulate Forms
a •sH
Q-
Expansion 		Forms
a Tree 		Levels are
Mentalities
Root Hierarchy (RH) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ X
Root Typology Hierarchy (RH') √ X √ X X X √ √
Root Tertiary Hierarchy (RH") √ X ? X √ X √ X
Primary Hierarchy (PH•) √ X √ √ √ X √ X
Principal Typology (PH'•) √ X √ X X √ X √
Spiral Hierarchy (PH'•CH) √ X X ? √ X √ X
Q-Hierarchy (PH'•Q◊)
(=Subsidiary Typology) 		√ X X √ √ X √ √
Q-Complex(PH'•Q1-7) √ √ X ? X n/a X √
Structural Hierarchy (•sH) √ √ X ? X X √ X
Tertiary Hierarchy: PH"6 only1 √ X ? X √ X √ X
√ = characteristic; X = not present; ? = not certain; n/a = not applicable.
1 This variety of hierarchy has been little studied apart from Purpose-PH"6. The other 6 varieties are believed to be simpler.
Conceptions as at Mar-2016: Subject to amendment.

Back to Top

Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated 2-Jul-2016.