Relationships amongst Arenas
In conducting a deeper analysis into Q interactions within a Domain, I will use . Most investigation to date has gone into these.has been deeply studied over several decades, and posting has recently commenced for and .
The picture is shown at right.
The way forward here commences with some obvious pairings that were noted during two particular investigations: into and into
Q5-Philosophy Doctrines & Q3-Academic Disciplines
As discussed [LINK], friction between adherents to doctrines and those in disciplines are legion. One reason for these battles is likely the similarity. For example, both doctrines and disciplines:
- both claim to purvey knowledge
- both lead to strong identification and attract cause-centred individuals
- both are prone to splitting based on interests or differences of view
- both spread internationally and ignore societal boundaries
But there is also a noticeable asymmetry between doctrines and disciplines:
- While disciplines get public funding, doctrines do not.
- Discipline adherents typically look down on doctrines as being unscientific or lacking rigor and self-criticism.
- Doctrines attempt to penetrate academic institutions, but disciplines do not attempt to penetrate schools of philosophy.
- Leaders of disciplines recognize the need for underpinning philosophical support. However, many take pride at neglecting philosophy and attempt wholesale discrediting of disliked doctrines.
- While there may be strong criticisms or attempts at re-shaping of related disciplines, doctrines do not attempt to deny or discredit disciplines.
There is no comparable intense supportive and quasi-competitive interaction of either of these two Arenas with other Q-Arenas:
Conclusion: and show a hostility that flows from their similarity. When this unnecessary hostility is removed, the two Arenas form a mutually supportive pair. depend on for their assumptions, and depends on for wider influence.
Q4-Societal Institutions and Q1-Family-Households
This pair is simpler. In the introduction to , I noted that conventional sociology generally regards the Family as a "social institution", and puts it in the same list as welfare, ecconomy, and education. So there is surely no need to argue some sort of basic similarity.
In the posting, I emphasized that in everyday speech 'institution' does not always mean an association or organisation. It can mean a customary way of doing things and in this sense "a family" is indeed a customary way of living and bringing up children.
What is more important now are differences from the perspective of the family as an association.
- A family forms naturally in even the most primitive society, while societal institutions are relatively new and require political maturation.
- A family may leave its society, but a societal institution may not leave.
- A family is manageable, but a societal institution is not.
- A family controls its boundaries, but a societal institutions is ever growing and complexifying
- The family is a multiplicity: millions can form, while a societal institution is singular: just one welfare system, one financial system, one educational system. (These systems may have many components, but no component is the whole or can speak for the institution-as-a-whole.)
- Families are generally independent but cooperate to form communities, while societal institutions are inter-dependent and compete for resources within society.
- Institutions recognize that the family is in many ways the foundation of society and generally are handled and evolved so as to support families. Families recognize their dependence on institutions and members often strive to improve them.
There is no comparable confusion or obvious pairing of either of these associations with the remaining Q-entities: .
Conclusion: and form a pair with mutual support.
Q2-Formal Organisations & Q7-Artistic Events
Having paired off four Q-entities, we are left with three:
It seems that and might well form a pair. For example
- both require effective management—not a prominent feature of philosophies, disciplines, families or institutions—and provision of resources plays a major role in their survival.
In terms of differences:
- Organisations seek to endure, while Events are transient.
- Organisations have a guiding mission, while Events can transform themselves as they are developed and the final result may bear little resemblance to the original intention.
- Organisations seek customers/clients, while Events seek an audience.
- Organisations are societally focussed, but if successful may set up in other countries. Artistic events are focused on humanity that transcends a society: they may fail or be unwelcome in their own society but succeed in another.
- Organisations often fund arts bodies and sponsor artistic events, and events depend on organisations for a myriad of services and facilities.
While the pairing is perhaps not quite so persuasive as the others, both of these Q-arenas seem more related to each other than any other including a
Conclusion: and form a pair with mutual support.
Q5-Spiritual Traditions
This is the 7th and final Arena which does not get paired.
Conclusion
We now have the divided up into 4 groups i.e. 3 pairs and 1 singleton.
The first check is to see if this pattern applies in other Domains i.e. are there identically numbered Arena pairings there: i.e. Q1 & Q4. Q2 & Q7, Q3 & Q5, with Q6 as a singleton?
This pattern is exactly what we find in TET quadrants. So, before examining other Domains, we will explore further and see if other TET features apply.
- Proceed to investigate a possible TET.
Originally posted: 30-Sep-2022