Determinants of Knowledge PH'2CHK

Note: Details of Spirals and their Trees are or will be worked out in the Frameworks sections of this website. This topic is focused on the architecture and specifically on the contribution of psychosocial pressures to meeting our Primal Needs.

ClosedReminder: Highlight Codes

Reaching this Point

Here is a summary of material that has been developed and explained in earlier Topics in this section and elsewhere. It is the basis for appreciating the Tree framework shown below.

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

ClosedSummary of the PH'2 Control Diagram

Conjectures for «Knowledge»

It is proposed that an inherent biology-based rationale for inquiry-RL2 is knowledge. Knowledge is not restricted to the moment or to the individual. It can be built on the output of specialized research methods over many years to increase certainty about its validity.

The Primal Means for knowledge is conjecture. Anyone can conjecture and treat that as knowledge. But research disciplines need a sharper and more critical focus on conjectures.

Conjectures become progressively established as they are investigated and integrated, extended and elaborated, using values drawn from all research methods.

No single method guarantees the validity of desired knowledge, nor does conjecturing. Nothing guarantees the certainty of knowledge. Reality is simply too complicated for that.

The more modes/methods that are included, the stronger conjectures can be, but incorporating modes takes time and follows a necessary order as explained in the Spiral framework.

Regardless of the plausibility of a conjecture, knowledge will always be determined by the way all mode/method essences (Tree centres) are used.

The inexorable passage of time and use of resources is represented in the Tree framework by its base in the Primal Nexus. Here, performance pressure orients conjecturing (KL1) and performance pressure is also evident in the conjecture that results (CL1).

The intrinsic lack of certainty in any knowledge noted above raises concerns about the acceptability of any research work to the relevant reference group. That is why conjecturing, once the Nexus is secure, moves its orientation from inquiry-RL2 to change-RL3, which is driven by acceptability.

In the Tree, the interaction of actualization and transcendence is dramatic.

Given attention to the Primal Nexus, the lower part involving RL2-Inquiry requires:

  • use of actualizing pressures—in orienting conjecturing input to the conducting of research
    i.e. KL2-certainty (in selecting analyses), KL3-acceptability (of conflicting perspectives), KL4-well-being (in choice of data);

    but

  • use of transcending pressures—in producing the conjecturing output that brings research under control
    i.e. CL2-selflessness (in conducting analyses), CL3-understanding (in choice of perspective), CL4-autonomy (in collecting data).

while the upper part involving RL3-Change requires:

  • use of transcending pressures—in orienting conjecturing input to enhance acceptability.
    i.e. KL5-understanding (of assumptions), KL6-autonomy (in regard to choice of a theoretical framework), KL7-selflessness (in noticing patterns);

    but

  • use of actualizing pressures—in producing the conjecturing output so that it enables and constrains lower levels in a way that generates acceptability
    i.e. CL5-certainty (in using assumptions), CL6-well-being (in working within a theoretical framework), CL7-acceptability (in selection of a pattern).

This framework has numerous implications for the handling of research within scholarly disciplines.


Initially posted: 21-Jan-2023