Recapitulation: The Story so Far-I

Introduction

To follow and criticize the propositions in the following section(s), it may be helpful to understand that a paradigm seems to be emerging in these researches. This paradigm, not yet unified, contains a mix of assumptions, observations, logical analysis and conjectures.

I will summarize the various themes below so that I (and everyone else) can come back to check if/when confusion develops. I accept that there may be different views about the status of various propositions: view them as provisional. There are also some new items that were implicit in the recent work but not yet articulated there.

Abbreviations

	Basis	Proposition	Link	Notes
1	Definition	THEE is a taxonomy of psychosocial elements (categories) that are ordered within hierarchies of various sorts.
2	Logic	This taxonomy proper does not include Trees, because these represent the dynamic use of taxonomic elements. Trees are formed by applying a relevant duality to the hierarchy.	Check
3	Observation	In the Root Hierarchy (RH) and Primary Hierarchies (PH), the dynamic duality is some version of person v situation (e.g. self v society, individual v environment, autonomy v constraint). It corresponds to the way we experience taking action.	Check specific cases.
4	Observation	The Root Hierarchy projects itself into each of the other taxonomic hierarchical forms, in the sense that the 7 RH levels correspond to their 7 levels in a standard order that is not necessarily sequential 1 through 7.	Check
Puzzle: What does "projection" mean? What does "correspondence" signify? This part of the Architecture Room is devoted to solving the puzzle for each case: 1: Projection into the Primary Hierarchies. 2: Projection into the various Typologies (or Spirals). 3: Projection into the various Structural Hierarchies. So far, only [1] has been partly addressed as explained below.
5	Assumption	The Root Cell, Will, emanates the whole taxonomy via the RH. Will is also a source or reservoir of psychosocial energy that is distributed to the Root Hierarchy Levels for use.	Check
6	Observation	Each Root Hierarchy Level emanates a corresponding Primary Hierarchy. Conversely, all of a particular PH contents lie within the corresponding RL.	Check
7	Observation	PHs also generate structures that appear to feedback to the RHLs, a finding that led to discovery of the RH. [This finding will be examined further in relation to the Root projection to the Principal Typologies/Spirals.]	Check
8	Conjecture	The origin of taxonomic energy (in the Will) has a neurophysiological foundation in 7 discrete biological instincts that correspond 1:1 with the 7 Root Hierarchy Levels.	Check
9	Conjecture	Each biological instinct manifests as a constant psycho-social pressure (PP). Every person is intuitively aware of PPs to a greater or lesser degree at any moment, and a person can respond more or less creatively.	Check
10	Conjecture	This creative perspective seems compatible with biological instinct as a generator of automatic or programmed behaviour, based on possible activation of different neuronal pathways.
11	Observation	In Primary Hierarchies, investigation has revealed a 1-to-1 sequential correspondence i.e. RHL1 to PH•L1, RHL2 to PH•L2 ... till RHL7 to PH•L7.	Check
12	Logical Conclusion	The 7 Levels of a Primary Hierarchy are 7 instinctual manifestations of the originating Root Level, as well as being elements in their own right.	Check
13	Observation + Conclusion	Any particular Primary Hierarchy level/element can therefore be viewed in three ways: a) as emergence of a taxonomic entity (noun) e.g. comparison. b) as a dynamic application of (instinctual) energy to that entity (verb+noun) e.g. arrange comparison. c) as an entity whose use requires all levels to that point (verbal noun) e.g. comparing.	Check
14	Observation	Other RHL projections have been potentially identified for PH's, and these require investigation in due course.	Check
Application: These conjectures and conclusions were of specific value in analyzing the phenomenon of «forced oscillating duality reversal», initially recognized in the study of Communication.
15	Observation	«Emergent hierarchies» (EHs) were discovered by systematically "forcing" the reversal of oscillating dualities in all elements in all 7 Primary Hierarchies.	Check
16	Logical Analysis	Elements in any EH come from 7 different PHs, so the EH cannot be a PH (or a new PH). Because each element is simultaneously part of the corresponding Root Level, the EH can be sensibly classified as a Root Hierarchy: but a special form, not the Root Hierarchy-RH proper.	Check
17	Assumption	"Forcing" indicates a dynamic process, and so the framework manifests as a Tree with a provisional formula: RH<oD>•K.	Check
18	Observation	The 7 RHLs in each of the 7 EHs are re-ordered in the same way, but this order differs from the RH emanated by the Root Cell. So the EHs definitely do not represent endeavour-RHK.	Check
19	Conjecture	The EH Trees define states of mind that a person may activate following failure, blockage or crises in an endeavour, so as to enhance the possibility of eventual success.	Check
Puzzle: How to characterize the states of mind defined by the new emergent frameworks so as to simultaneously account for the re-ordering of the RHLs in their Trees?
?20	Observation	Each Centre in a Tree has a distinctive hierarchical position and set of interactions (i.e. Channels), and hence a distinctive quality.	Check
21	Definition	Tree levels are labelled KL• to distinguish them from taxonomic levels, labelled -L•.	Check
22	Logical Analysis	In RH<oD>•K structures, the movement of the RHL elements from their usual position to a new position occurs so as to alter Centre functioning, interactions and handling.	Check
23	Conjecture (Principle)	The psychosocial pressures (PP) identified in the original Root Hierarchy (RH) are invariant in all Trees that are classified as Root Hierarchies.	New	cf. 8&9
24	Assumption	The PP inherent in the contents of Centres varies from Tree to Tree, depending on the origin of the Tree. This is evident in the emergent Trees, but is likely to apply to all Trees.	Check	cf. 27
25	Conjecture (Principle)	The Tree Level (KL•) PP controls «input» i.e. the psychological requirement or frame of mind with which a person engages with the Centre contents. The Centre contents PP controls the «output» i.e. its social quality and expectations or requirements of the environment.	Check
26	Observation	In the RHK Tree, the Centre PPs are identical with the Levels-KL PP by definition. In PH•K Trees, there are 1:1 projections from the RHLs, so Centres and Levels-KL again have the same PP.	Check
27	Observation	In the EH's, the output-PP in every Centre within each RH<oD>•K Tree is identical at every KL-Level and leads to a multiplication of pressures whose nature enabled identification of the framework's function.	Check
28	Observation	In Root Hierarchy projections to other taxonomic forms (e.g. Spirals, Structural Hierarchies), each Centre has two PPs (KL-based and Content-based) that are almost always different. The PP required for a suitably creative input differs from the PP sought from the output in social situations.	Check
29	Prediction	Each Tree has 2 forms: the «objective requisite» form with unique verbs+nouns characterizing the Centre, and unique channel labels; the «subjective handling» form uses the same nouns as the former, but takes verbs and channel labels from the emergent root hierarchies.	Check

Initially posted: 1-Nov-2013. Last updated: 14-Jan-2023