Ten Inquiry Challenges

These 10 challenges, if met, will clarify the nature, properties and relationships of the frameworks that constitute Communication in the Taxonomy.

Use the Hub to get more information on THEE structures mentioned here.

TOP Note: This page will be updated as discovery proceeds.

Here is the position in 2010 at the commencement of this inquiry into Communication:

#1: The essential elements of Communication (PH5)—provisional formal-names and functions for the 7 Levels were developed in the 1980's, but properties were not explored.
#2: The Tree (PH5-K) emerging from #1—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.
#3: The Structural Hierarchy (sPH5) derived from #1—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.
#4: The Tree (sPH5-K) emerging from #3—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.
#5: The Principal Typology (PH'5) nested in L6 of #1—Provisional THEE-name: Approaches to the Use of Language. See Q-expansion below for more details.
#6: The Tertiary Hierarchy (PH"5)—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.
#7: The Spiral of Growth (PH'5C) formed from #5—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.
#8: The Tree (PH'5C-K) emerging from #7—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.
#9: The Structural Hierarchy (PH'5C-sH) derived from #8—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.
#10: The dynamic Tree (sPH5C-sHK) emerging from #9—Nature unknown: no THEE-name.

The inquiry proceeded in an orderly fashion—but not in the above order. As indicated below, by end-2016, suitable names for almost all frameworks had been developed. However, the detailed confirmation of components, relations and properties is yet to be completed in most cases.

#1) PH5: The Communicative Event

7 entities in levels of the Primary Hierarchy of Communication (PH5)

Communication is the 5th Root Level (RH-L5). Each Root Level emanates a 7-level Primary Hierarchy with each Level being an entity that is communication (in some sense) with specific distinguishing properties.

In this case, each Level contains an entity that is thought of, broadly, as an «entity» or «form» or «element» or «component» or «type» as shown. Assuming this is correct, we must:

identify the function of each entity/Level
determine a suitable «formal name» (or THEE-name) for each entity/Level, noting possible synonyms
identify relevant categories that differentiate the 7 entities/Levels
clarify properties for each entity in accord with those categories
gain evidence and confidence that the entities are indeed related hierarchically
identify the contrasting characteristics of the odd and even Levels of the hierarchy of entities i.e. the «oscillating duality».

Join the inquiry and see the results.

This inquiry was provisionally posted in Q2-2011 in stages
with the set of topics completed on 27 May 2011.
Revisions then commenced leading to latest posting at end-2013.

Blank Tree formed from a Primary Hierarchy with M v F as the dynamic duality.

#2) PH5-K: An Intentional Expression

The tree-form requires us to discover a dilemma or polar tension, the dynamic duality (kD), that comes into play as our «committed self» naturally moves up and down the Levels to ensure we can both make and receive communications.

Once the Levels are converted via the duality, then it is expected that 10 Centres will be identified with specific formal-names.

When the Centres are known by name and properties, it will be necessary to determine how they influence each other. This influence is shown by the various bi-directional Channels.

The nature of the directional influences need specification, and (ideally) each Channel should be assigned a distinctive formal-name.

This inquiry commenced in 2010, but was given an impetus in 2012-2013
as part of the project for «Naming Frameworks».
See the result in Frameworks in Development.

#3) sPH5: Creating Discourse

The Levels in the Tree emerging from the Spiral, if properly identified, will be holistic, and therefore should permit the development of another Structural Hierarchy. This development provides corroborative evidence that the Spiral Hierarchy-Tree represents psychosocial phenomena accurately .

The Structural Hierarchy contains entities whose essence is formed by combining adjacent Levels systematically in every possible way—in ones (Monads), twos (Dyads), threes (Triads), fours (Tetrads), fives (Pentads), sixes (Hexads), and a 7-Level Heptad. These are referred to as «Groupings».

Groupings (i.e. Dyads, Triads and so on), contain within them a fixed number of Groups i.e. 6 Dyads within the Grouping of two's, 5 Triads within the Grouping of 3’s and so on.

Blank version of a Structural Hierarchy showing labels above and below.

To be confident about the discovery, it is imperative to clarify and formulate the following correctly:

determine the nature of this structure so as to assign a useful THEE-name
determine the «states» (above) and «forces» (below) that are relevant for each Grouping
clarify and formulate distinctive properties for each Grouping
determine the 28 entities (Groups) identified by Grouping, and assign suitable THEE-names
clarify distinctive properties for Groups within each Grouping
identify the unfolding dualities that develop dialectically moving up the Groups
determine qualities of the internal Levels of the Groupings and apply these to all the Groups systematically.

Read more on the technicalities in the Hub .

This inquiry commenced in 2013 as part of
the project for «Naming Frameworks».
Results are not yet posted.

ack to Top

#4) PsH5-K: A Vibrant Group

Blank Tree formed from a Structural Hierarchy with M v F as the dynamic duality.

The Structural Hierarchy is a 7-Level holistic hierarchy, so it should generate a THEE-Tree as shown. The Tree is a structure mapping forces or influences between Levels.

There will be three tensions (dilemmas, dualities) associated with the Tree whose nature should be understood

oscillating duality—also relevant to the original Structural Hierarchy.
dynamic duality—that provides the dynamics for Tree functioning.
internal duality—that determines L7-L5 context from the L4-L1 activities.

Conversion of the Levels via its particular dynamic duality, M-F in the diagram, generates 10 Centres. The standard pattern of Channels linking those Centres is shown. Their nature needs clarifying and naming. Dysfunction that results from attempting to operate other direct Channels may be useful to note.

A suitable THEE-name must be determined for this Tree.

Read more on the technicalities in the Hub .

This inquiry commenced in 2013 as part of
the project for «Naming Frameworks».
Results are not yet posted.

#5) PH'5: Use of Language

Blank diagram showing the system of hierarchies originating from the Primary Hierarchy. There will be a Secondary Hierarchy of Core Processes found within PH5-L6 as shown in the graphic. The Core Processes are associated with a Principal Typology.

Each Type/Level gets its primary focus or rationale from the corresponding Level in the Primary Hierarchy.

Blank diagram of the 2 x 2 Typology Essences Table showing the nature of quadrants.

In regard to this Typology, we must:

determine its nature (function) and assign a THEE-name
determine relevant categories for properties
clarify the different properties for each Type
distinguish distinctive aspects
determine the unfolding duality that develops in a dialectical fashion.
determine the oscillating duality.

The Typology Essences Table (TET) must be determined as shown. The approaches can be plotted in relation to their use in social or work life; and a variety of useful properties and distinctions can then be identified and appreciated.

#6) PH"5: Nature Unknown

There is likely to be a Tertiary Hierarchy to be discovered nested within (or emanated by) the 6^thType in the Principal Typology (i.e. PH'5-L6), as shown in the graphic. These seem to be more refined Types with each having its primary focus in the corresponding Level of the Principal Typology. If there is a Tertiary Hierarchy, then we must

determine its function and assign a suitable THEE-name
determine relevant categories for properties of the Types
clarify the different way these properties manifest in each Type.

See the picture in PH'5 above.

#7) PH'5C: Establishing a Shared Reality

The Spiral of Growth emerges from the Typology.

Blank spiral showing differences in the transitions in relation to the X and Y axes. All 4 possible transitions occur in each Cycle.

Although Types are incompatible, core values upheld within each Type have a degree of compatibility and widespread acceptability. This allows them to be integrated with benefit in two ways: through time (diachronic) and simultaneously (synchronic).

The diachronic sequence and significance can be discovered if we:

determine the relevant social context for the Typology
recognize three different forms of the Mode in the Lower Right quadrant.
determine how to categorize properties related to the Modes
clarify the contextual Mode inherent within each Type
investigate the psychosocial reasons for sequential evolution—not depending too much on knowing the standard sequence
formulate the properties of each Mode in terms of those categories
determine the forces for evolution through the Modes.

Investigation took place in 2013-2014 as part of the investigation
of the «Root Projections». It was continued in 2016 in working
on «Naming Frameworks» in the Architecture Room.

#8) PH'5C-K: Determinants of Association

Blank Tree formed from a Hierarchy derived from a Spiral sequence with M v F as the dynamic duality.

This Tree comes into play when the 7 Modes, defining the Spiral trajectory that emerges through time, are viewed as 7 Levels of a whole that exists for making choices at any point in time. The Tree maps the forces or influences between Levels.

There will be three tensions (dilemmas, dualities) associated with the Tree whose nature should be understood

oscillating duality—also relevant to the original Structural Hierarchy.
dynamic duality—that provides the dynamics for Tree functioning.
internal duality—that determines L7-L5 context from the L4-L1 activities.

Conversion of the Levels via its particular dynamic duality, M-F in the diagram, generates 10 Centres. The standard pattern of Channels linking those Centres is shown. We must clarify their nature and the dysfunction that results from attempting to operating other direct Channels.

A suitable THEE-name must be determined, and the nature of the Channels that link those Centres clarified.

Investigation took place in 2016 as part
of the work on Naming Domain Controls.

#9) PH'5-CsH: Enabling Understanding

Groupings (i.e. Dyads, Triads and so on), contain within them a fixed number of Groups i.e. 6 Dyads within the Grouping of two's, 5 Triads within the Grouping of 3’s and so on.

To be confident about the discovery, it is imperative to clarify and formulate the following correctly:

determine the nature of this structure so as to assign a useful THEE-name
determine the «states» (above) and «forces» (below) that are relevant for each Grouping
clarify and formulate distinctive properties for each Grouping
determine the 28 entities (Groups) identified by Grouping, and assign suitable THEE-names
clarify distinctive properties for Groups within each Grouping
identify the unfolding dualities that develop dialectically moving up the Groups
determine qualities of the internal Levels of the Groupings and apply these to all the Groups systematically.

Investigation took place in 2016 as part
of the work on Naming Domain Controls.

#10) PH'5C-sHK: Dialogue about a Shared Reality

Blank Tree formed from a Structural Hierarchy derived from a Spiral-derived hierarchy, with M v F as the dynamic duality.

The Structural Hierarchy is a 7-level holistic hierarchy, so it should generate a THEE-Tree as shown. The Tree is a structure mapping forces or influences between Levels.

There will be three tensions (dilemmas, dualities) associated with the Tree whose nature should be understood

oscillating duality—also relevant to the original Structural Hierarchy.
dynamic duality—that provides the dynamics for Tree functioning.
internal duality—that determines L7-L5 context from the L4-L1 activities.

A suitable THEE-name must be determined for this Tree.

Investigation took place in 2016 as part
of the work on Naming Domain Controls.

The inquiry starts with the Primary Hierarchy.

Originally posted: Oct-2010; Last updated 15 Jul 2023.