The Internal Duality Pattern

Significance

It is proposed that the internal duality, with its division between L4 and L5 leading to a 4+3 pattern, has provided a natural name for all the Domain Fundamental Trees.
ClosedMore:

The 4+3 pattern is found in a number of places.

  • the basis for creating Q-hierarchies out of subsidiary typologies.
  • the number of types on diagonals in an approach duality
  • the number of modes in the two Cycles of a Spiral
  • the number of Levels on each pole of an Oscillating Duality
  • the most obvious division within a Structural Hierarchy

Every possible dichotomizing of a THEE Hierarchy appears to create something significant. However, there has to be something special about a division that lends itself to naming the fundamental frameworks.

Pattern

The collation of names reveals that the name assigned to the context pole of the originating Tree is invariably also assigned to the content pole of the final Tree.

Why?Closed Because this patterning is also found in the Control Triplets, it is likely to be due to the way a structural hierarchy is constructed. The precise reason is currently unknown.

In the Fundamental Triplets, inspection of the Centres suggests a pattern as shown in the diagram at right.

The Primal Vehicle seems designed to ensure that the Domain Tools (KL1-KL4) are governed by Domain Needs (KL5-KL7). At the heart, KL4 is about accepting ownership of the Domain Vehicle.

The Primal Field seems designed to activate Domain Energies (KL7-KL5) to meet Domain Needs (KL1-KL4). Here, KL4 is about mediating between the two.

Even if the orientation of the two iD-poles appears the same: «Needs», the Centres contents are quite different. In the final Tree the Centres are far more complicated, including as they do all the Groups within the Groupings represented there, and hence all the levels in the originating Tree.

To appreciate that difference, it helps to review the psychosocial pressures in play in the two Trees.

Psychosocial Pressures

In the originating Tree, the psychosocial pressures correspond with those found in the Root Hierarchy because that is the identified projection. As a result,

  • The Context pole responds to transcending pressures:  RL5-Understanding, RL6-Autonomy, and RL7-Selflessness.
  • The Content pole responds to actualizing pressures: RL1-Performance, RL2-Certainty, RL3-Acceptability, RL4-Well-Being.

In the final Tree, the psychosocial pressures are those identified with the Groupings of the Structural Hierarchy: which is a more complicated pattern as explained here. As a result:

  • The Content pole consists of the following pressures (in order from KL1 upwards):  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 its Centres subject to: RL3-Acceptability, RL4-Well-Being, RL7- Selflessness. These pressures, taken together, appear to enable or support or foster social integration.

The difference in pressures is summarized in this Table.

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

This pattern will be examined again in the Control Triplets.

If we combine this analysis with the above pattern, then we find the following:

Internal Duality Primal Vehicle
Originating Tree		 Primal Field
Final Tree
Context Transcending pressures
affect
Need specification		 Integration pressures
affect
Energy development
Content Actualizing pressures
affect
Tool use		 Responsibility pressures
affect
Need specification

Originally posted:  4-Sep-2016. Reviewed: 15-Jan-2023.