Names: Entity & Function
Contents of the Taxonomy
Initially, the taxonomy was constructed out of psychosocial things in analogy with physical things e.g. a '' is a thing, and so levels of purpose might also be referred to as different types of purpose. But that raises the issue of why levels are needed and/or why types should be arranged hierarchically.
Subsequently, it became evident that psychosocial reality contains both structures and processes e.g. there is an «organization» and there is «work» within it without which there would be no organization.
Why?
So taxonomic elements were not so much things to be labeled but functions to be formulated.
I referred previously to "noun" names and "verb" names. The present architectural investigation demands greater clarity. The terms now preferred are:
■ «entity name» which can be either a noun or a verb,
and
■ «function name» which is a verbal phrase relating to the dynamic use of the entity (i.e. within a Tree framework).
The Case of «Purpose»
is one of the earliest frameworks to be discovered. All the levels of in were initially described as nouns:
It is not immediately obvious how to convert these to verb forms. The initial approach was simplicity itself:
• Add the term "set" for individually controllable levels (L1-L4)
e.g. ;
• Add the term "hold" for the intrinsically social levels (L5-L7) which must be identified with as part of group membership
e.g. .
Although purposes naturally have to be "set" and "held", closer scrutiny reveals that the function of the levels in practice does not accord with such formulations.
Example: "" of Project NewCo
are not "set within" Project-NewCo, they are given to those working in Project-NewCo. In order to "set" the for Project-NewCo, you must function in a time when Project NewCo is desired but does not yet exist. To bring it into existence, you have to create a mini-endeavour whose primary task (i.e. ) might be: Create Project-NewCo. One necessary outcome of that mini-endeavour will be to specify Project-NewCo's rationale i.e. its . In other words, «setting principal objects» is a of a mini-endeavour prior to and apart from Project-NewCo itself. Once completed and determined, Project-NewCo can be created because its indicate key aspects of its identity (e.g. raison d'etre, main activities, funding, staffing).
Within Project-NewCo, the specified given serve to provide identity, guidance, structure and stability of purpose to insiders. However, the will only serve their proper function if they are owned and sustained by the Project NewCo insiders.
So the «function» of in practice is something like: «own and sustain principal objects». For this function to be operative, those involved must appreciate the nature of as «entities».
The current and still provisional names for the (not previously published) are therefore proposed as:
| L | Entity Name | Function Name |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Ultimate Value | Activate an ultimate value |
| 6 | Value System | Adhere to a value system |
| 5 | Social Value | Share a social value |
| 4 | Principal Object | Own a principal object |
| 3 | Internal Priority | Install internal priorities |
| 2 | Strategic Objective | Set a strategic objective |
| 1 | Tactical Objective | Pursue a tactical objective |
The numerous formulations of properties and relationships between the as previously published are largely unaffected by this taxonomic development.
The Case of «Inquiry»
The was initially suggested at an early stage of these studies when next to nothing was known of the Taxonomy. Only entities were identified with their properties, and function was barely mentioned. The was presented as in the entity name column, and the possibility of a function names via a verbal formulation seemed simple and obvious.
| L | Entity Name | Verb Name |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Wonder | Wonder |
| 6 | Judgement | Judge |
| 5 | Relation | Relate |
| 4 | Measurement | Measure |
| 3 | Comparison | Compare |
| 2 | Concept | Conceptualize |
| 1 | Data | Register (?) |
However, it is evident that these verbs are simply actions i.e. the action in making a comparison, the action involved in measurement. To say that a «» is based on «» is not to say very much. While important and indeed essential to , action terms do not indicate the function of the entity within endeavours.
In order to grasp the hierarchical quality, I have applied the conjecture being investigated in this section, namely that the function of each level stems from a unique input by the corresponding . My justification is that it has been confirmed in well-understood hierarchies like above and adds clarity. As a result, the table for now appears as follows:
| L | Entity Name | Function Name |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Wonder | RL7-Willingness process intrinsic to |
| 6 | Judgement | RL6-Purpose process intrinsic to . |
| 5 | Relation | RL5-Communication process intrinsic to |
| 4 | Measurement | RL4-Experience process intrinsic to |
| 3 | Comparison | RL3-Change process intrinsic to . |
| 2 | Concept | RL2-Inquiry process intrinsic to |
| 1 | Data | data |
In the case of , it is clearly not enough for inquiry simply to sense some phenomenon. The must be collected to enable subsequent analysis, and that involves RL1-doing something (e.g. ticking a box, pen moving on graph paper, sensor feeding a computer) and the functionmight therefore be named: «».
To continue this train of thought:
can only be operative in inquiry if they are adequately , which itself requires RL2-inquiry.
can be performed if you set up a system of relevant things that revealing different RL3-changes of state.
is a form of socially agreed comparison-L3 that has been instituted formally, and the functional issue here involves user acceptance of its validity, which is an RL4-experiential requirement.
are abstracted from what reality has to offer and this is a construction based on RL5-communication.
only makes sense when explained in terms of RL6-criteria.
Finally, functions through its RL7-willing active release.
The provisional formulations are now as follows:
| L | Entity Name | Function Name |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Wonder | Release wonder |
| 6 | Judgement | Justify a judgement |
| 5 | Relation | Construct a relation |
| 4 | Measurement | Accept a measurement |
| 3 | Comparison | Arrange a comparison |
| 2 | Concept | Define a concept |
| 1 | Data | Collect the data |
Entities Imply Action
We naturally think of entities from L1 to L5 in action terms i.e. as intrinsically verbal. Nouns are a convenient abstraction. When considered a verbs, it is evident that there is a cumulation of level functioning up to but not beyond the particular entity i.e. is provided ultimately by the lowest level in the system, not by the level that you happen to identify.
This Matrix uses as an example: see further examples below.
| Level of Emergence of Entity : Noun-Name |
Functions Implied by Entity : Verb Name | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Wonder | Wonder | ||||||||
| 6 | Judgement | Judge | ||||||||
| 5 | Relation | Relate | ||||||||
| 4 | Measurement | Measure | ||||||||
| 3 | Comparison | Compare | ||||||||
| 2 | Concept | Conceive | ||||||||
| 1 | Data | Sense | ||||||||
Examples:
involves acceptance of the measurement principle (L4) + using that system to arrange comparison (L3) + defining the relevant concepts (L2) + collecting data that are sensed (L1).
involves understanding what the signal is and when it should be used (L2) + producing the appropriate stimulus (L1).
) requires devising action-result possibilities in a situation (L5). However, as an action-event, it necessarily also involves deploying a repertoire (L4) + using techniques (L3) + following certain procedures (L2) + making bodily movements (L1).
Entities-functions at L6 and L7 often seem to float above the world of action. They seem to permeate actualities and often get taken for granted or ignored/neglected.
L6 entities provide an essence e.g. in , a requires to be a symbol; in , assumes a clear of the state of affairs.
L7 entities remove boundaries e.g. opens up ; opens up ; opens up .
Also see application to here.
Having clarified these naming issues, and particularly the function name, we can consider Primary Hierarchies level by level.
Last amended: 29-Dec-2014. Last updated 8-Jan-2023