Naming: Elements v Frameworks

Language

It is impossible to over-emphasize the significance of naming in the discovery of taxonomic elements and phenomena.

Formulae are essential, not least for taxonomic organization. However, formulae are in themselves artificial, almost dead, and need to be explained. In short, they carry meaning via a scientific-logical process that itself depends on using natural language.

Natural language is the mechanism essential for the construction of reality. It is therefore the method for discovering reality that has been constructed unbeknownst by a wider cultural community over decades, centuries or even millenia. Read more about naming issues.

Complexity brings Difficulty

Over many years, the elements of the taxonomy have been identified in terms of their particular personal function. Elements have been assigned natural language names that ring true and carry enabling associations. Duplication of noun-names has been mostly avoided.

A characteristic feature of elements is their location within larger structures. The relationships to other elements in the structure are critical to their identification, uniqueness and use.

The larger structure is generally termed a framework. The following framework structures have been discovered:

  • Hierarchy (simple, holistic)
  • Structural Hierarchy (composite)
  • Typology (non-holistic hierarchy) with its TET & its Spiral

PLUS

  • Tree (with Centres and Channels)

The Tree is separated because it is a dynamic representation activated by functioning within a social setting.

Whereas naming of elements has proven to be relatively easy, perhaps because they are so essential for clarity, the same has not been true of frameworks, especially Trees.

Naming has proven to be difficult even when Trees have been developed step-by-step in a precise, or formal, manner. Something complex but coherent and self-evidently important may have been discovered (or constructed), but how to best name it often remained a puzzle.

Nouns & Verbs in Primary Hierarchies & Trees

In retrospect, the naming of elements in the Primary Hierarchies has not been wholly straightforward either. It has been affected by our habit of «nominalization» i.e. making or using nouns as a matter of preference.

It is now evident that nouns are useful in two ways: 

  1. clarifying precisely what emerges at a particular level,
  2. indicating via the corresponding verbal form the activity-based function generated by cumulating levels to that point.

As explained, a quite separate verb is required to indicate how the level-noun is to be handled during actual endeavours i.e. when the whole framework is in operation (i.e. within a Tree). In this real-world context, the level-noun is under the influence of a particular Root level projection—which is conjectured to be a psychosocial pressure. It appears now that the absence of appropriate verbs in the past was a major contributor to difficulties in naming.

To repeat:Closed   From an abstract perspective, each Level seems the same as the Hierarchy e.g. the «hierarchy of purpose» has levels each of which is a «purpose». From a functional perspective, each Level or Centre of the «noun name» is qualified by a verb based on the influence of one or sometimes multiple psychosocial pressures. Because these pressures occur in very many places, the verbs appear to be rather general or non-specific.

Note: This distinction between usage of nouns and verbs is explained in detail with examples here.

Originally posted: 15-Feb-2015. Amended: 7-Aug-2016. Last checked: 10-Jan-2023.