Review: Naming Domain Controls

Summary of Proposals

This Table represents a risky move in these taxonomic studies. Frameworks are being postulated and names are being proposed without the usual intense literature searches, substantive observations and reasoning. Inevitably some names will need modification and others will be deemed off-target if not misleading.

Alternative

Conceptual Names vs Natural Names

The extensive discussion about natural names in the Hub remains valid. Only a formula can be precise and unencumbered by common or idiosyncratic associations. The strength of formulae is that they are dead in an emotional sense. That precision works superbly if all the properties and relations, as well as the defining function of the entity, leap to mind. For most of us at this early stage of study, that is an unrealistic expectation.

Conceptual-schema names lie somewhere between formulae and natural names in their ease of use. They are natural language with all those strengths, but they are devised to provide deeper insights and apply very widely.

When a particular framework is relevant in practice, the abstract commonality of that framework with similar frameworks in some utterly different Domain is of no value or interest. The most important thing is to bring the framework alive in the moment with those using it feeling fully comfortable and committed.

Another feature in applying the conceptual schema is that the goal is to reduce all frameworks to «the person in a social setting». Whereas in practice, the goal might be to provide a framework for a school or a business or a society. That context automatically creates a different flavor to terms used. In the various Satellites diverse applications with terminological adjustments have been regularly demonstrated.

Comparison of Internal Dualities

The internal dualities in the Fundamental Triplets gave names to the two Trees. However, naming in the Control Triplets was derived from the recently developed conceptual structure of the Taxonomy.

Similarities in the two Triplets exist insofar as there is again a commonality of names between the Context of the Originating Tree and the Content of the Final Tree.

Perusal of Control Tree Centres in the various Domains has allowed a generalization much as it did in the Fundamental Trees. The two patterns are shown below:

Psychosocial pressures also show both similarities and differences in comparison to the Fundamental Triplet.

Differences are found in the originating Tree because the psychosocial pressures correspond with those found in the Spiral (PH'•C), rather than the Domain Vehicle (PH•K).

In the Control Triplet: 

• The Context pole (KL7-KL5) responds to RL3-Acceptability, RL4-Well-Being, RL2-Certainty—which seem to be about actualizing the pressure of the next higher Domain.
• The Content pole (KL4-KL2) responds mainly to:  RL4-Autonomy, RL5-Understanding, RL7-Selflessness—which seem to be about transcending the pressure of the Domain.
• KL1 (technically part of the Content pole) carries the weight of the Domain with its most direct actualizing pressure:  RL1-Performance. This is the Primal Nexus: where the psychosocial and tangible worlds interact.

Similarities are found in the final Tree of the Control Triplet, because the psychosocial pressures are those found in the Structural Hierarchy which is the same in the two cases.

• The Content pole has Centres subject to:  RL6-Autonomy, RL5-Understanding, RL1-Performance, RL2-Certainty. Taken together these appear to enable or demand or depend upon the exercise of responsibility.
• The Context Pole has Centres subject to: RL3-Acceptability, RL4-Well-Being, RL7- Selflessness. These pressures, taken together, appear to enable or support or foster social integration.

The pattern of pressures is summarized in this Table.

Internal Duality	Control Vehicle Originating Tree	Control Field Final Tree
Context	Actualizing pressures [from next higher Domain]	Integration pressures
Content	Transcending pressures [except KL1 is Actualizing]	Responsibility pressures

Here is a reminder of the Fundamental Triplet pattern:

Internal Duality	Domain Vehicle Originating Tree	Domain Field Final Tree
Context	Transcending pressures	Integration pressures
Content	Actualizing pressures	Responsibility pressures

To repeat: the Control Vehicle is markedly different from the Domain Vehicle
More

1. In the Content pole, transcending pressures of the Domain are brought to bear—not Domain actualizing pressures.
2. In the Context pole, actualizing pressures from the adjacent higher Domain are brought to bear— not actualizing or transcending pressures of the Domain.

However the Control Field and Primal Field look identical in terms of Centre pressures.

---

• Current use of the term "Primal".

• Continue to the Extrinsic/Ethical Controls.

Originally posted: 4-Sep-2016. Last amended: 15-Jan-2023.