Discovery of the Root Hierarchy

Introduction

The Root Hierarchy has many unusual and unexpected properties, not least its very existence. This topic explains an unusual architectural property that led to its discovery. The property will first be explained in Steps and then the historical discovery process will be presented. (For explanations of technical terms, visit The Hub.)

An Unusual Property

Step 1: Start from the Origin, WILL

Will emanates a Hierarchy:

WILL Root Hierarchy

Here is the expanded Root Hierarchy:

RH Noun Name Verb Name
RL7 Willingness Being Willing
RL6 Purpose Intending
RL5 Communication Communicating
RL4 Experience Feeling
RL3 Change Changing
RL2 Inquiry Inquiring
RL1 Action Doing

Each of the Root Levels emanates its own distinctive Primary Hierarchy (PH•) i.e. on close scrutiny, any and every particular example that lies within a Root Level can be placed within one (or more) levels of a 7-level Primary Hierarchy.

Step 2: Emanate any Root Level (RLn)

RL[n+1]  
 
RLn PHn: L7
PHn: L6
PHn: L5
PHn: L4
PHn: L3
PHn: L2
PHn: L1
RL[n-1]  
 

The levels in the Primary Hierarchies identify elements that are unavoidable processes in human living. Almost all seem to be used more or less effectively all the time. By contrast, many of the derivatives of these basic elements are only used in specific situations.

Step 3: Recognize the nested Principal Typology

The 6th Level of every Primary Hierarchy (i.e. PH•L6) has a particular controlling quality over the operation of the other elements (basic and derived). Inside PH•L6, there is a nested hierarchy, called a Principal Typology. It sits alongside other examples within PH•L6, neither including nor excluding them.

              PH'nL7: Type 7
              PH'nL6: Type 6
              PH'nL5: Type 5
RL[n+1]             PH'nL4: Type 4
            PH'nL3: Type 3
RLn PHn: L7           PH'nL2: Type 2
PHn: L6           PH'nL1: Type 1
PHn: L5            
PHn: L4            
PHn: L3            
PHn: L2            
PHn: L1            
RL[n-1]     n = any number from 1 to 7;
but if n = 7, then n+1 = 1.
           

The Principal Typology contains Types, each of which provides a special rational and powerful guide to using the Primary Hierarchy.

The Types are discrete incommensurable methods that define basic human identities and get formulated as paradigms or doctrines whose adherents regard them as true, right and best. However, Closedtaking an overall view, the usefulness of each Type of practice appears to vary according to the situation.

The Types are hierarchically ordered because each takes its nature from a specific core process which emerges from assigning primacy to a particular element/level in the Primary Hierarchy (i.e. there is a correspondence).

Step 3: View all Types Simultaneously via a TET

The Types exist to deal most effectively with a fundamental aspect of psychosocial reality. They can therefore be plotted by creating a Typology Essences Table (TET) in which the axes define this reality:

X-axis = the desired and sharable social output
&
Y-axis = the personal psychological requirement.

The TET naturally divides into quadrants and various Types can be assigned within a quadrant in the TET, either centrally or at an extreme, except for one Type which spreads diffusely in the lower right quadrant.

Note that the location of Types in the TET quadrants is the same for all 7Principal Typologies. The numbers in the diagram are the Type Levels.

Step 4: Move from Content to Context

The methods, i.e. «content» defined by Types, are intrinsically incompatible; and typically generate social conflict between adherents in practice. However, the Types are also defined by a «context» which are values-as-assumptions that are widely accepted. These values provide social-contextual support for the persistence and use of the Type contents.

There is a set of acceptable values in each Type (covering key features) that form a system, called its Mode.

The Modes of the various Types are compatible and inclusive in nature. However, being values, they cannot all suddenly come into existence simultaneously. The first mode is basic and unavoidable. In practice and if the required pressures exist, subsequent Modes can be incorporated in a particular sequence over time for growth and development.

This sequence can be plotted on the TET to form a Spiral defining Stages as shown below:

Because the Spiral Stages represents a sequential order of Modes (rather than Type-Methods whose numbers are shown above), it needs to be renumbered (using Roman numerals to avoid confusion).

Note that there are two Cycles. The first Cycle incorporates the central Types, and the second Cycle incorporates the extreme Types. Mode-I belongs to both Cycles and is entered spontaneously three times.

Step 5: Define the Spiral-Hierarchy.

The rationale for the Spiral development is the creation of the strongest possible context to support the over-arching rationale of the originating Primary Hierarchy.

The Spiral order is itself the basis for a holistic Hierarchy that clarifies the determinants of that rationale. Each of its Levels is defined by an essence of the corresponding Mode.

  Essence of Mode VII  
  Essence of Mode VI  
  Essence of Mode V  
  Essence of Mode IV
  Essence of Mode III  
  Essence of Mode II  
  Essence of Mode I  

Of most importance is the way these essences interact in practice. This requires definition of the dynamic duality (M v F), and the creation of a Tree with Centres and Channels.

Step 6: Connect the Internal Duality to Root Styles

Any Tree contains an internal duality defining context and content: the upper 3 Levels (L5-L6-L7) are the context for the lower 4 Levels (L1-L4). (In a Spiral-Tree, the levels are labelled: CL.)

In a Tree's internal duality, there is always a parallel in that:

• CL1 corresponds to CL5
• CL2 corresponds to CL6
• CL3 corresponds to CL7
(& CL4 mediates the context for the content).

The lower 4 Spiral-Levels (emerging from Cycle-1) appear to be different Styles of the original Root Level.

While the upper 3 Spiral-Levels (emerging from Cycle-2) seem to be quite different. Although they are derived from L'2, L'7 and L'5 of the original Principal Typology (check Steps-3 & 4), they have the quality of the next higher Root Level as shown in the diagram below.

      Style δ RL[n+1]
Context Centre from
Mode VII		 corresponds to
(or emerges from)		 Style γ
Centres from Mode VI correspond to
(or emerges from)		 Style β
Centres from Mode V correspond to
(or emerges from)		 Style α
Content Centre from
Mode IV		 corresponds to
(or emerges from)		 Style δ RLn
Centres from Mode III correspond to
(or emerges from)		 Style γ
Centre from
Mode II		 corresponds to
(or emerges from)		 Style β
Centre from
Mode I		 corresponds to
(or emerges from)		 Style α

Conclusion

The key feature is that a Root Level generates the next Root Level. This abstract picture can now be examined in terms of taxonomic contents and the process of discovery.

Taxonomic Contents

Note on Names: The taxonomy contents are functions with distinctive properties for which we use names as a convenient shorthand. Not all the functions are known with equal confidence, and names (as distinct from formulae) are open to improvement. Alternative meanings of the words used for names can cause confusion. Above all, it is important not to ask "what is?" questions about names as philosophers tend to do. Instead ask: is this a suitable name? is there a better name?

Root Style Hierarchy

The Root Style Hierarchy appears to be as follows:

Style α: Pursuing
Style β: Organizing
Style γ: Harmonizing
Style δ: Directing

Rationale of the Root Levels

The process described above led to a framework oriented to a basic rationale for each Root Level. These rationales are tentatively proposed as shown in this Table.

RHL » Root emanates
Primary Hierarchy		 Principal Typology Rationale for Root Level Tree
RL7 » Willingness ↔ PH7 PH'7-Enhancing Capability Competence PH'7CHK
RL6 » Purpose ↔ PH6 PH'6-Making Ethical Choices Governance PH'6CHK
RL5 » Communication ↔ PH5 PH'5-Using Language Association PH'5CHK
RL4 » Experience ↔ PH4 PH'4-Mental Stabilization Individuality PH'4CHK
RL3 » Change ↔ PH3 PH'3-Depicting Reality Adjustment PH'3CHK
RL2 » Inquiry ↔ PH2 PH'2-Testing Knowledge PH'2CHK
RL1 » Action ↔ PH1 PH'1-Deciding Achievement
PH'1CHK

Diagrammatic representation: As evident from the above table, the labels on the left are mostly provisional.

          RL1
C
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e 		      Harmonizing Action
      Organizing Action
      Pursuing Action
      Directing Willingness RL7
  G
o
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e 		  Harmonizing Willingness
    Organizing Willingness
    Pursuing Willingness
      Directing Purpose RL6
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n 		    Harmonizing Purpose
    Organizing Purpose
    Pursuing Purpose
      Directing Communication RL5
  I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
ty 		  Harmonizing Communication
    Organizing Communication
    Pursuing Communication
      Directing Experience RL4
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t 		    Harmonizing Experience
    Organizing Experience
    Pursuing Experience
      Directing Change RL3
  K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e 		  Harmonizing Change
    Organizing Change
    Pursuing Change
      Directing Inquiry RL2
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t 		    Harmonizing Inquiry
    Organizing Inquiry
    Pursuing Inquiry
      Directing Action RL1
      Harmonizing Action
      Organizing Action
      Pursuing Action

Discovery

The initial discovery came from puzzling over the presence of inquiry in decision (PH'1), and then discovering the Spiral and finding that inquiry-like modes were were concentrated in Cycle-2. Cycle-1 started in the necessity of activity and getting control of that activity, and Cycle-2 was about increasing the effectiveness of that control through valuing inquiry of three different sorts. See details here.

PH'1 Management Culture Mode Cycles   Spiral-Hier-Tree Internal Duality
& Root Styles
L5 Systemicist #2
Enhancing effectiveness		 VII Harmonizing Inquiry
L7 Imaginist VI Organizing Inquiry
L2 Empiricist V Pursuing Inquiry
L1 Rationalist #1
Getting control of activity		 IV Directing Action
L4 Dialectic III Harmonizing Action
L6 Structuralist II Organizing Action
L3 Pragmatic I Pursuing Action

If there was a unifying Root and Root Hierarchy, and this was by no means obvious at the time, then I was convinced that Action would be RL1, because it is the final common pathway and most concrete aspect of endeavour and human functioning generally.

The above findings suggested that Inquiry was RL2.
So the picture now looked like this:

? ?
? ?
RL7 ?
RL6 ?
RL5 ?
RL4 ?
RL3 ?
RL2 Inquiry
RL1 Action

Purpose has Ethical Choice Systems as its Principal Typology, and the context here is Politics. When this framework was analysed (here) as explained above, the following picture emerged:

PH'6 Political Mode Cycles   Spiral-Hier-Tree Internal Duality
& Root Styles
L5 Communalist #2: Accepting responsibility for political choices VII Harmonizing Willingness
L7 Transcendentalist VI Organizing Willingness
L2 Conventionalist V Pursuing Willingness
L1 Rationalist #1: Seeking benefit from political choices IV Directing Purpose
L4 Individualist III Harmonizing Purpose
L6 Legitimist II Organizing Purpose
L3 Pluralist I Pursuing Purpose

Purpose, a topic investigated in great detail, suggested itself for RL6 (if the Root Hierarchy had 7Levels). I had also speculated that the Top Level (perhaps RL7) might be Willingness because that seemed to capture the most abstract and experiential spirit of Will. (However, no elements had then been identified within any putative Willingness-PH7.)

However, when the above pattern emerged in the analysis of politics, I was ready to commit to a 7-level Root Hierarchy as follows:

Root-H
Level		 Content
RL7 Willingness
RL6 Purpose
RL5 ?
RL4 ?
RL3 ?
RL2 Inquiry
RL1 Action

The next step was more difficult. I had worked out the Primary Hierarchy of Experience and developed its Principal Typology in detail—but I had not examined the TET and had no appreciation of what the Spiral dealt with. However, Experience seemed to lend itself to the central position as shown here:

Root-H
Level		 Content
RL7 Willingness
RL6 Purpose
RL5 ?
RL4 Experience
RL3 ?
RL2 Inquiry
RL1 Action

The remaining frameworks that I had come across or personally developed all appeared to fall into just two areas: Communication or Change.

At the time, I had some tentative conjectures for the Primary Hierarchy and Principal Typology for Communication; and some notion of the Principal Typology for Change, but not its Primary Hierarchy. In neither case, had the TET or Spiral been investigated. However, in looking at the Root Hierarchy, it seemed likely that the order was as follows:

Root
Hierarchy		 Content
RL7 Willingness
RL6 Purpose
RL5 Communication
RL4 Experience
RL3 Change
RL2 Inquiry
RL1 Action

Validation

  • Validation was initially developed by the analysis of endeavour, and then structurally corroborated through discovery of the structural hierarchy of creativity.
  • Further validation came from discovering significant correspondences between each Root Level and the 7 Levels in a Principal Typology and Structural Hierarchy, and later with the 7 Q-sets. (See details here.)
  • However, an obvious further basis for validation lies in the further development of Spirals. The above formulation would predict the following findings:
  • Willingness Spiral-H has RL1-Action as the Internal Duality context.
  • Communication Spiral-H has RL6-Purpose as the Internal Duality context.
  • Experience Spiral-H has RL5-Communication as the Internal Duality context.
  • Change Spiral-H has RL4-Experience as the Internal Duality context.
  • Inquiry Spiral-H has RL3-Change as the Internal Duality context.

At the time of initial posting, none of these TET's and Spirals had been definitively investigated and developed, although the current conjectures were supportive.

Recently (2022), the Experience-PH'4C spiral has been posted here; and Spirals for Communication-PH'5C and Inquiry-PH'2C have been provisionally worked out. These 3 cases support the above predictions.

Unification

The above account is the way I discovered a Root Hierarchy (RH) which had an unequivocal function: the enabling of human endeavours. This Root Hierarchy contained all known taxonomic structures i.e. unified them; and also predicted as yet undiscovered taxonomic frameworks.

However, it was then natural to ask whether the RH could itself be unified. Could there be a single cell-entity that emanated this Hierarchy?

I have concluded that every RH-level is a conscious expression of human «will», and therefore the origin of THEE can be conceived as originating in a single cell, with the formula R, and the formal name: Will.

The Taxonomy should therefore be viewed as an emanation of Will (R).

Initially completed: 2-Jan-2014. Last updated: 31-Dec-2022.