Solved Meta-THEE Challenges

January 2023: These challenges were current in 2009. Since then, virtually all have been dealt with in the Architecture Room. However, the list is provided here for interest.

There is one issue requiring more attention: the possibility of more than one pattern of projection: see MTC-#002, MTC-#008.

MTC-#001: Q-expansion of the Root Typology

The Root Hierarchy has various distinctive features. So special caution is advised before imposing structural principles derived from other THEE hierarchies. The Root Hierarchy is unique within THEE in having a Q-expansion that links it to the Principal Typologies that emerge from its own Levels (i.e. the Primary Hierarchies).

Does the Root Typology have a Modal Hierarchy and a Q-expansion?

The answer to this will be found by focusing on:

a) the various Types. These are now known to be Primal Quests-RH' which are purposive systems (i.e. within RHL6) governing a person's creative life.

b) better understanding of the Q-expansion.

2023:  The investigation of the Q-expansion suggests that they are required to ensure Primal Needs are met. This is handled in the Root Domain by expanding the Root Hierarchy. So the current position is that there will be no expansion of the Root Typology.

Originally posted Jun-2009. Updated 15-Jan-2013.2023: Proj2023

MTC-#002: Correspondence of the Root Hierarchy Levels with Groupings of the Spiral-derived Structural Hierarchy

This finding occurred fortuitously while developing the PoliticsFrameworks. Click for details of this special linkage.

Is this finding applicable to other Principal Typologies via their Spirals? (It might only apply to PH'6, which is distinct in various ways.)

If it is: Is the finding also applicable to Spiral-derived Hierarchies emerging from Subsidiary Typologies?

It is still not clear whether there is a standard pattern.

If so, is there a patterning in the correspondences that is either heuristically useful in discovering structural hierarchies or offers some practical usefulness?

Is there an obvious explanation or implication?

Originally posted Sep-2009

Since this observation, the findings were confirmed in another Spiral-derived Structural Hierarchy (Expectations of Employment), as well as in the Root Structural Hierarchy, itself (Components of Creativity). Subsequently, a general pattern of correspondence has been finalized and conceived in terms of psychosocial pressures.

Note: In the case of the Root Tertiary Hierarchy, Producing Goodness, there appear to be two different projections.

Added: 22-April-2012.

MTC-#003: Oscillating Duality Specification in a Spiral-derived Hierarchy

During posting of the Interacting for BenefitFramework, an oscillating duality was identified that is spiral/mode-related, not approach/type-related (i.e. it has no relation to the approach duality e.g. the move from Mode-4 → Mode-5 occurs within the same diagonal.) It seemed to be about control/determination v adaptation/acceptance, but this may be a purely generic conceptual description. More precise specification seems possible because it has now occurred once. In the duality in government handling of the economy, the duality was on communication (expression v attention), which happens to be critical to political work.

In most hierarchies, there are 4 odd-numbered Levels and 3 even-numbered. However, the diamond suggests that Mode-1 (which starts as equivalent to Level-1 i.e. odd-numbered) is re-entered at the end as if it were Level-8 (i.e. even-numbered) and shows the even-numbered quality.

  • What conclusions can be drawn from this finding?
  • Is there a significant difference between the Spiral-derived hierarchies and other hierarchies e.g. Primary Hierarchy, Principal Typologies, that all have oscillating dualities?
  • Is there any special significance of the seeming re-appearance of L1 as L8 or is it a manifestation of the cyclic nature of such hierarchies?

Originally posted Dec-2009; updated Aug-2010.

MTC-#004: Correspondence of Root Hierarchy Levels with Principal Typologies

Sensitised to the influence of the Root Hierarchy following the conjectured correspondence with Structural Hierarchy Groupings (see MTC#002), a correspondence to Principal Typologies may also exist.

Added: The relation of the Root Hierarchy may be primarily to the Spiral rather than the Principal Typology.

Question:   Could this be what is controlling the ubiquitous 7 varieties?

2022. A full exploration has now been completed here.

Originally posted Aug-2010. Revised Jul-2011.

MTC-#005: General Characteristics of Typologies

People are identified with at least a few, but probably several or numerous Typologies. This is because they come into action during different forms of personal commitment. Each Typology seems to function distinctively. Some of these differences in handling may depend on the importance of the Typology’s domain of commitment within a person’s life.

After completing several Typologies within TOP, it should be possible to perform some systematic comparative analyses and post results.

  • Which differences are inherent in the Typology form wherever it appears in THEE?
  • Which features are intrinsic to the particular Typology, and which are extraneous (i.e. due to exemplification)?
  • Does prominence of a particular Typology modify functioning of other Typologies in a systematic way?

Originally posted Dec-2010.

MTC-#006: Correspondence between the 7 Q-Hierarchy Set and the Root Hierarchy Levels.

There had been an apparent association between . . Closedcontinue:

the Q-Hierarchies in Domains of Responsible Work in Society (PH5QH1-7), the best developed set. I returned and looked more closely following development of the Deciding and Achieving frameworks (to be posted through 2011). That inquiry had made it reasonably clear that Organizations (PH5QH2) are associated with Action-RL1/PH1. In my notes, I had assumed (or 'best guessed') that the association was with Purpose-RL6. Correcting that left a gap where I had previously put Action-RL1. Using the understanding and logic developed from working out the Deciding and Achieving frameworks, I corrected that correspondence and this then left another gap. In that way, I progressively replaced every assignation. Only one former 'best guess' turned out to be correct in the new arrangement—clearly a chance event. It shows what I have always suspected:Closed intuition and guessing are unreliable tools in THEE investigations. You need logic-reasoning plus painstaking accumulation of formulations.

This is the third major structure within THEE to show Root correspondence, what about the fourth and final one—Primary Hierarchies? It seems unlikely.

How do the dynamics of this re-ordering work for the Root Hierarchy?

2023: Projection of the Root Levels is now fully worked out including in relation to the Q-expansion. It has led to the fruitful conjecture of the existence of psychosocial pressures intrinsic to each RL. See elsewhere in the Architecture Room.

Originally written: Apr-2011. Posted July-2011

MTC-#007: Oscillating duality in a Primary Hierarchy can be forced to reverse.

In a revision of the Primary Hierarchy of Communication, the oscillating duality looked as if it could be forced to be the opposite to what it naturally is (or seems to be). In examining what happens when a reversal of polarity is forced in this way, each element of communication turned out to be about or subservient to something else. This 'something else' directly implicated a particular Level in a Primary Hierarchy . There was no duplication: each of the 7 elements of Communication corresponded to a different Primary Hierarchy.

It now seems very possible that the Root Hierarchy in some way determines the nature of the major THEE structures. It would explain the 7's that appear everywhere.

Nothing like this was obvious before, so does it apply to the other Primary Hierarchies?

To investigate, the same way of looking will be applied. I will call up the oscillating duality and then recall or envisage situations for each level-entity in which it is being forced to reverse polarity.

Originally posted July-2011. Re-named and revised slightly in Jan-2011.

2015: An investigation has been completed. As well as answering the posed questions, there have been valuable and unexpected findings.
Read more.

MTC-#008: Root Projection to Primary Hierarchy

A simple way to explain Levels of Purpose (avoiding the detailed formulation of the function) was developed for seminars pragmatically. It has now been found useful in investigating the Producing Goodness framework (posted in 2012). This explanation now seems to suggest an association with specific Root Levels. This would be a Root projection and a possible answer to the question posted in MTC-#007.

ClosedClick to see

In this projection, it turns out that the Oscillating Duality in the Root Hierarchy has been converted into the Internal Duality i.e. the even levels (internal & private) are all at the top and the odd-numbered levels (external and piublic) are all at the bottom.

Is there a projection of the Root Hierarchy on to each Primary Hierarchy?

There surely must be as it is the only form not handled in this way.

What does this projection associated with Levels of Purpose mean?

My current speculation is that this is about human survival: personal initiatives (above) resting on the necessity for social adaptation (below).

Note: A different projection to the Primary Hierarchy has been discovered, but the notes were mislaid before posting here.

Can there be two different projections?

I guess almost anything is possible when investigating something that is mainly unknown. Two projections might reveal something about THEE of which I have been previously unaware.

What is the significance of the different projection patterns to the different architectural forms?

The answer surely relates to the different functions of the various parts of the Taxonomy. These have not yet become a specific focus of inquiry, and so there are no conjectures or proper formulations.

2016: Investigation into the various patterns of Root Projection has been completed here. However, the correspondences shown in the Table and conversion of an oscillating duality into an internal duality have not been further studied.

Originally posted: Apr-2012

Originally posted: August 2009. Last checked: 2-Feb-2014. Additions subsequently.