Rationale of Spiral-Mode Transitions

Foundation & Evolution

Any Spiral is a depiction of a real-world process that takes place within a psychosocial field defined by the associated TET and Typology.

All Spirals start with a Foundation Mode (μ1 in Stage-1) that is unavoidable in the area of concern if anything is to exist socially e.g. management in PH'1C depends on doing things properly in time—without that, an organization or a project would just collapse and cease to exist.

Then additional Modes are added from μ2:Stage-2 to μ7:Stage-7 in a process described variously as growth, development, strengthening, increasing sophistication, maturation, consolidation or establishment.

The cumulation of Mode values occurs in two Cycles—hence a «Spiral of Growth»—in which the Foundation Mode-μ1 is re-engaged twice more: after Stage-4 (end of Cycle-1) and after Stage-7 (end of Cycle-2).

Each move around the Spiral involves a move up or down one of the axes, with minimal change in relation to the other axis. It is therefore possible to abstract the process as shown in the diagram.

Provisional Psycho-Social Axes of the 7 Spirals

Everything Starts in Mode-1

Studies have revealed that the Foundation Mode (μ1) always corresponds to Type-3, and it is postulated that Type-3 has a correspondence to RL1-Action i.e. pressure for performance. This makes a great deal of sense. Unless taking action is given value as the most fundamental aspect of any Primal Means, psychosocial reality does not impinge on the world. Recognizing the value (and power) of action—what can be done, what must be done, what should be done, what is being done—is where everything begins.

An early postulate of THEE was: we are here to do.

Examples:

PH'6C: In φ1, members seek benefit by taking action on behalf of the group. If they don't do so, then they will not participate or support the group. Applied to politics within a society, «sub-groups seeking benefits» is the essence of the Pluralist Mode. The mystery and uncertainty about correspondence to Type-3 seems to be dispelled.

Encouraged by a meaningful correspondence, let us consider the general psychosocial characteristic when adding further Modes regardless of the particular Typology. I will offer examples and evidence from Spirals but consider full comparisons to observations in a later Topic.

Cycle-1

Mode-1 to Mode-2

This is typically the most difficult transition in the whole Spiral.
Examples:

As the TET reveals, the demand here is to move backwards along the X-axis, i.e. to retreat from focusing on the desired social outcome. Yet φ1 represents what everything depends on. Its values are so obvious that a strong preference to intensify them is common, even if it ultimately proves self-defeating.

Mode-μ2 always derives from Type-6, which corresponded to Willingness-RL7 in the initial analysis. It is then apparent why this transition is so difficult. Action is the most concrete level and Willingness is the most abstract. In addition, the relevant psychosocial pressure is selflessness, which is notoriously difficult for most people.

More specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular Mode-μ2/Type-6 corresponds with Willingness-RL7.

Mode-2 to Mode-3

The transition to Mode-3 is provoked by the problems of success in Stage-2, as well its inherent limitations. The vertical move up the Y-axis demands an increased focus on psychological requirements. What that means varies according to the particular Spiral, but it must involve enhanced, subjectivity, greater significance of individual persons, and a greater valuation assigned to the mental state. One consequence of this is that transition may call for some self-development, which is inherently unique and unpredictable.

Inevitably these features emphasize differences between people, or conflicts within a person, that cannot be ignored and must be reconciled. The only possibility for handling such differences is by thought, discussion, explanation, debate, argument. There is surely a pressure for understanding, and the natural Root correspondence would be expected to be Communication-RL5.

Examples:

In strengthening management(PH'1C), dialectic mode-μ3 conflicts based on opposing values and interests emerge and need resolution by discussion. In political maturation (PH'6C), individualist mode-μ3 fosters economic exchanges that depend on meeting and communication. In developing effectiveness (PH'7C) it is possible to benefit from others by exchanging views and experiences.

Mode-μ3 is always derived from Type-4 whose Root correspondence was initially proposed as Communication-RL5. That appears to fit perfectly. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular Mode-3/Type-4 corresponds in this way.

Mode-3 to Mode-4

The context is now much stronger, but the underlying rationale (i.e. serving the Primal Need), has been put to one side for two Stages. The next transition to Mode-4 moves horizontally to the upper half of the X-axis and so brings the focus back to the social output. This typically demands greater responsibility, which fits with a correspondence to Purpose-RL6, and pressures for autonomy produce the best result.

Examples:

In political maturation (PH'6C), the rationalist mode-μ4 limits biased, power-centric manipulations by elites, because information, scientific knowledge, common-sense, views of people involved, and other factors relevant are valued for a just outcome. In establishing conjectures (PH'2C), the empirical mode-4 involves generation of objective knowledge through systematic observation rather than depending on plausibility, analyses and debates.

Mode-μ4 is always derived from Type-1 whose Root correspondence was initially proposed as Purpose-RL6. That appears to fit perfectly. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular Mode-μ4/Type-1 corresponds in this way.

Stage-4 is typically viewed as a watershed development. The Spiral can now spontaneously re-enter Mode-1 (Type-3) in a more developed fashion. Or, in practice, Mode-1 re-positions in the ellipse because Cycle-1 values enable greater focus on output. There is no special psychological difficulty when the move is down the Y-axis rather than up; nor is there social difficulty of pressure or resistance when there is no change on the X-axis.

Cycle-1 to Cycle-2

The next transition requires an even larger move back along the X-Axis, to its lowest value. This is difficult and requires self-discipline. But unlike Cycle-1, there is no problem about the Mode-1 foundation, because it is firmly established and anchored by three other Modes.

Instead, Cycle-2 starts here, and the values to be introduced are invariably geared to enhancing the use of μ1, μ2, μ3 & μ4 as a set. This is possible because Cycle-2 activates a higher Root Level than that governing Cycle-1.

In the Principal Typology, Cycle-1 is about contextual control of the use of a particular Root Level (via its Primary Hierarchy), so Cycle-2 is about use of the next higher Root Level (via its Primary Hierarchy).

Cycle-2 in Other Typology Forms

Mode-μ5, Mode-μ6, Mode-μ7

The three final Modes are all in extreme positions vis a vis the TET axes; and there are three possible Root correspondences: 

• Inquiry-RL2
• Experience-RL3
• Change-RL4.

It is evident from their position that Mode-μ5 and Mode-μ6 proceed with minimal concern for the social result, while Mode-μ7 has a high concern for it.

It seems rather obvious that Change-RL3 is about the social output. The maximum feasible outcome involves both stability and improvement or transformation. It may also be expected to be associated with attention to the mental state or personal requirement. So Mode-μ7 likely corresponds to Change-RL3, with acceptability as the pressure.

Mode-μ7 is derived from Type-5 which was previously associated with Change-RL3. This provides some confirmation. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular Mode-μ7/Type-5 corresponds in this way.

Mode-μ6 is very high on the Y-axis and so demands high self-awareness or subjectivity or personal involvement. The correspondence to Experience-RL3 and a pressure for well-being seem obvious.

Mode-μ6 is derived from Type-7 which was previously associated with Experience-RL4. This provides some confirmation. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular Mode-μ6/Type-3 corresponds in this way.

Mode-5 is very low on the Y-axis and so is inherently impersonal. Inquiry-RL2 needs to be dispassionate, impartial and independent of a particular person. It is therefore the obvious correspondence. Pressure for certainty would fit as well.

Mode-μ5 is derived from Type-2 which was previously associated with Inquiry-RL2. This provides some confirmation. However, more specific scrutiny is needed to clarify how and why each particular Mode-μ5/Type-2 corresponds in this way.

Looking now at the Transitions

μ4 → μ5 goes back along the X-Axis and so calls for a retreat from the concern with outputs, which, being antithetical to the object of the exercise, demands self-discipline. A correspondence of Mode-μ5 to Inquiry-RL2 would suit that requirement.

μ5 → μ6 calls for a move up the Y-Axis which means an effort of self-development, or much increased awareness, or total inner attention, or intense focus on the feelings of others. A correspondence of Mode-μ6 to Experience-RL4 would suit that requirement.

μ6 → μ7 stays high on the Y-Axis but moves far along the X-Axis. So it calls for a re-orientation back to the social output without neglecting personal or subjective factors. A correspondence of Mode-μ7 to Change-RL3 would suit that requirement.

Summary

Taken together, the findings here are strongly confirmatory for the Root Level correspondence as previously conjectured.

However, the formulation is stronger because the analysis:

• does not depend on evidence from just one Typology/Spiral;
• focuses on psychosocial factors that makes correspondence meaningful.

The pattern of pressures and Root Levels is summarized below:

Mode	Basis in Type	Psychosocial Pressure	Root Level Origin
μ7	Type-5	Acceptability	RL3-Change
μ6	Type-7	Well-being	RL4-Experience
μ5	Type-2	Certainty	RL2-Inquiry
μ4	Type-1	Autonomy	RL6-Purpose
μ3	Type-4	Understanding	RL5-Communication
μ2	Type-6	Selflessness	RL7-Willingness
μ1	Type-3	Performance	RL1-Action

---

• These generalized findings can now be checked by applying them to all the Spirals.

Initially posted: 30-Nov-2013. Last amended 2-Jan-2015. Last updated: 4-Jan-2023.