Compare Controls: Inquiry v Action

Similarity

Realist v Idealist perspectives define the oscillating duality for both PH'1-Decision methods and PH'2-Research methods. Review the decision method duality.

Differences in the use of the perspective have required qualifiers:

• for realism: practical realism (PH'1) and scientific realism (PH'2).
• for idealism: functional idealism (PH'1) and epistemic idealism (PH'2).

Other similarities are more striking. As the diagram below shows, the upper 5 methods (L'3 to L'7) in the two Typologies have very similar core qualities, and even similar names (identical in one case). Of course, these qualities are used differently because they have to serve different primal needs: achievement (for PH'1) and knowledge (for PH'2).

The requirements are diametrically opposite:

In the case of the Action domain, the concern is successful performance for achievement: so ideas here demand reality be altered to accord with them.

In the case of the Inquiry domain, the concern is for maximizing certainty for knowledge: so ideas here should accord with reality as it is taken to be.

Cf. Other Domains

A quick check, not presented here, suggests that the idealism-realism dichotomy does not extend to other Typologies, or at least not so obviously. Instead, the oscillating dualities seem to reflect other perennial philosophical dilemmas e.g. for PH'6-ethical choice, the oscillation is teleological v deontological.

Differences

The difference in these two Typologies lies in what needs to dominate:

In the case of the Action Domain, the concern is successful performance for achievement. Ideas are in the driving seat because we desire or need reality to alter in line with our values and objectives, whatever those ideas may be.

In the case of the Inquiry Domain, the concern is maximizing certainty for knowledge. Realism is in the driving seat, because we desire or need our ideas (findings, results) to correspond as closely as possible to reality, whatever that reality may be.

From the diagram, it is evident that the odd-numbered levels are dominant because they are in the majority and found both at the very top and very bottom of the hierarchy. Dominance is most apparent in the lowest two levels which, unlike the others, are not similar within the two Domains.

L'1 in each Domain appears to be fundamental, and its equivalent in the other Domain is L'2. However, the significance of the L'2 position suggests considerable interaction.

For Decisions:
setting purposes-L'1 needs to be shaped and guided by using information-L'2.

For Research:
accumulating facts-L'1 needs to be shaped and guided by systematic ratiocination-L'2.

This analysis is jumping ahead of itself: these methods cannot be assumed to shape and guide each other within a person, because methods are independent incommensurable entities that oppose each other. However, the values intrinsic to those methods, as revealed in the Spiral analysis, can coexist and do reveal direct influences between methods.
More.

Mutual influence and control amongst methods is only provided following the Spiral Transformation where widely accepted contextual values of the methods are what counts. In the Spiral, methods are replaced by modes. L'3 is Mode-1 that starts and ends the first Cycle, and L'2 is Mode-5 that commences the second Cycle. In the Tree of Need Determinants, L'1 is the top of the content section (KL1-KL4), and L'2 sits directly above it at the bottom of the context (KL5-KL7).

Primary Hierarchy Oscillation

The Principal Typology hierarchy parallels the Primary Hierarchy (i.e. L'1 has links to L1, L'2 to L2 &c.), so we might expect to find similar or related differences in the oscillation duality in PH1-Action and PH2-Inquiry.

The Table below shows the oscillation pattern for these two Primary Hierarchies as recently developed in an Architecture Room investigation.

ACTION-PH1	PH1 Oscillation	L	PH2 Oscillation	INQUIRY- PH2
Spontaneity	Internal experience	7	Subjective: personal control	Wonder
Choice	External pressures	6	Objective: social control	Judgement
Intervention	Internal appraisal	5	Subjective: personal control	Relation
Response	External instigation	4	Objective: social control	Measurement
Technique	Internal system	3	Subjective: personal control	Comparison
Procedure	External demand	2	Objective: social control	Concept
Movement (bodily)	Internal volition	1	Subjective: personal control	Data

However, our expectation is confounded. In contrast to the Principal Typologies where odd levels in PH'1 are similar to even levels in PH'2 (and vice versa), the Table above reveals that the odd-even oscillation in PH1 and PH2 are unambiguously similar:

• Odd-numbered levels in both PH1 and PH2 align with an internal control, which we might otherwise view as underpinning an idealist position.
• Even-numbered levels in both PH1 and PH2 align with an external control, which we might otherwise view as underpinning a realist position.

Conclusion: Oscillation in Principal Typologies is different in nature from oscillation in Primary Hierarchies.

---

• Back to the review options.

Originally drafted: 17-Apr-2015. Last amended: 30-Apr-2022.