Emergent Channels

Limitations

As indicated earlier, it was assumed that all the emergent hierarchies would have similar Channels and this has proved correct.

However, attempting to develop names for bi-directional influences using non-specific references to 'PH-elements' proved difficult and seems of dubious validity. Each Channel only comes alive by considering actual elements in a specific emergent Tree framework with actual situations in mind.

Nevertheless in the early stages, this method did provide some guidance.

Method

The architectural pattern for Channels in Trees has been demonstrated on many occasions by analysis from first principles. It is therefore assumed that this pattern will apply here.

In a conventional Tree, like the Root Hierarchy shown at right, the core Centre is L4_B which interacts with all other Centres except L1_B.

In the reordered Tree (lower diagrams), Willingness, which is L7_B in the Root Hierarchy moves to the core KL4_B position. Experience, which is L4_B, then moves down to the KL2_B position.

Note: See a full comparison of these two Root-Level Trees in the next Topic.

The channels were therefore considered in the following order—shown Left to Right in the diagrams below:

Transverse channels connecting Centres within a Level i.e. KL3, KL5, KL6.
Channels that connect with Willingness (here in KL4B position)
Channels that connect with Experience (here in KL2B position)
Channels in an outer ring bypassing both Willingness-KL4 and Experience-KL2.

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

There is no point in attempting to explain the Channels in a general way. The nomenclature of Channels as formulated to date in the light of this investigation is shown below. The general picture is valuable because it is conjectured that the Channel names apply to other forms of emergent hierarchy based on different ways of re-ordering the Root Levels.

Now compare the emergent Root-Level Tree with the standard Root Hierarchy Tree.

Originally posted: 12-Mar-2014.