Inquiry Domain: 

Arenas for Knowing (PH'2Q•)

Overview

The Arenas for Knowing are about reaching a valuable conclusion.

The 7 Q-Arenas for Knowing are each presented briefly here

The pairing of these Arenas is explained here.

The Tree of the 7 Arenas is proposed here.

In this webpage, after providing a summary Table of the 7 Arenas, there will be further Tables and diagrams related to each of the Arenas, specifically:

a) the Types in the Arena

b) the Spiral of Growth in the Arena

c) the Tree of the Arena

More

All formulations are summary propositions. Being at an early stage of drafting, they need correction, expansion, refinement and improvement.

Knowing in the Q-Arenas is expressed as a conclusion, which is the basis for generating choices. Unlike formal or scientific knowledge, conclusions are typically situational, time-sensitive, and ephemeral. Labels to help grasp each of the Arenas are shown in the Table below.

PH'2	Label for Conclusions Constituent Types	Typology PH'2Q•t	Spiral PH'2Q•C	Hierarchy PH'2Q•H	Tree PH'2Q•HK	Struct Hier PH'2Q•sH	Str Hier Tree PH'2Q•sHK
	Conclusions within a Knowing Arena	Ways of Concluding	Strengthening the Conclusion's Value	Levels in the Knowing Arena	Dynamic Determinants	Context of the Knowing Arena	Socio-emotional Engagement
•Q7	Speculative conclusions Contemplative (T7) guided by Empiricist (T1)	... to design a future	... the likelihood of a future scenario	... of an achievable future	... of knowing what to create	n/k	n/k
•Q6	Ethical conclusions Formal (T6) guided by Contemplative (T7)	... to assert an importance	... the appreciation of importance	... of an emergent requirement	... of knowing what to value	n/k	n/k
•Q5	Public conclusions Holistic (T5) guided by Formal (T6)	... to structure a pronouncement	... the influence of a pronouncement	... of an authoritative communication	... of knowing what to say	n/k	n/k
•Q4	Personal conclusions Dialectic (T4) guided by Holistic (T5)	... to form a view	... adherence to a view	... of a formulated view	... of knowing what to think	n/k	n/k
•Q3	Political conclusions Explanatory (T3) guided by Dialectic (T4)	... to facilitate a change	... compliance with change	... of a premeditated change	... of knowing what to change	n/k	n/k
•Q2	Scholarly conclusions Analytic (T2) guided by Explanatory (T3)	... to select an investigation	... the significance of an investigation	... of a contributing study	... of knowing what to study	n/k	n/k
•Q1	Practical conclusions Empiricist (T1) guided by Analytic (T2)	... to reach a decision	... confidence in a decision	... of an informed action	... of knowing what to do	Organisation of knowing what to do.	n/k

Q1: Knowing What to Do : Practical Conclusions

Decision are about doing something, and we are often faced with big tricky decisions where we want to know what exactly is the best thing to do. Especially if we have to justify our choice, it is important to ensure «actions are informed».

However, becoming informed is always an effort. The alternative. if doing nothing is not an option, is to act on reflex, depend on habit, choose the easiest path or simply follow orders.

#	Ways (t) to Inform a Decision TET	Modes/Stages (μ/Φ) in Strengthening Confidence Spiral	Hierarchy (L) for Informed Action Tree
7	Enable Good Sense	Natural Wisdom	Nous
6	Use a Framework	Explanatory Framework	Explanations
5	Reach Understanding	Personal Understanding	Understanding
4	Impose Principles	Functional Principles	Principles
3	Apply Knowledge	Established Knowledge	Knowledge
2	Select Information	Useful Information	Information
1	Check Data	Raw Data	Data

Q1t: Ways to Inform a Decision

Ways to inform a decision (PH'2Q1t) were developed from the application of styles to the Typology. The ways are distinctively different as evidenced in the matrix below.

The ways can be considered in relation to a decision required in a social situation and plotted according to whether they are high or low in the focus on social support (X-axis) and on requirement for abstraction (Y-axis).

As usual, the ways fall into four quadrants. Approaches in diametrically opposite quadrants engender a degree of antagonism: UR are general, while the LL are specific; LR is content-based, while UL is contextual.

The inner circle defines ways that are impersonal and where the choice is easily shared.
The outer circle defines ways that are personal and require mutuality for appreciation of the choice.
The two circles fuse in data which changes from being valid to being accepted.

The arrows indicate how impersonal methods are guided by personal states i.e. selection of information (t2) is guided by understanding (t5), imposition of principles (t4) is guided by good sense (t7), application of knowledge (t3) is guided by theories (t5), and the use of raw data (t1) whose validity claims are guided by its acceptability.

Q1C: Stages in Strengthening Confidence in a Choice

In this framework, the ways to inform a choice, having been plotted, are viewed as modes of confirmation of the choice.

These modes comprise distinctive sets of principles and values for making a choice and increase the sense of security in choosing. Together they spell out what is required for a choice to be properly informed.

Informing a choice commences with obtaining raw data believed to be valid (μ1) while recognizing that such data is meaningless unless properly processed.

Cycle-1 modes progressively specify more sophisticated ways to process data: initially by converting it into useful information (μ2), then by drawing on established knowledge (μ3), and finally by selecting principles (μ4) that have proven their worth in practice.

In Cycle-2, the last three modes progressively improve the use of principles, initially via personal understanding (μ5), then by application of an explanatory framework (μ6) and finally by using good sense(μ7).

Enterprise effectiveness demands a progression from engagement based on convention and aspirations to one based on knowledge and evidence.

Drivers for the evolutionary progression through these modes appear to be: (a) difficulties in choosing, (b) external criticisms of choice, (c) personal aspirations and preferences, and (d) undesirable consequences of a current mode when taken to extremes.

Q1HK: Determinants of Informed Action

As usual, a Tree can be created from the Q-typology (equivalent to the essence of each of the 7 modes) and this provides for dynamics between the determinants of an informed choice.

The dynamic duality to be applied is personal/individual v social/organizational.

The internal duality revealed is knowing v thinking.

The psychosocial pressures are certainty as the underpinning force derived from the Inquiry-RL2 domain, and not shown in the diagram; and then performance based on the Q1 position, and finally autonomy (from the Empiricist-PH'2L1 method) and certainty (from the Analytic-PH'2L2 method).

The requisite and self-interested Trees are shown below.

Q1sH & Q1sHK: Speculation on the Structural Hierarchy and its Tree

Q2: Knowing What to Study : Scholarly Conclusions

Disciplines generate a vast number of questions, not all of equal significance Exactly where to channel research in order to make the most valuable contribution is therefore a relevant concern for scholars.

On the one hand, it is easy to choose to study popular, conventional or well-funded topics, or mount a study that conveniently uses available facilities. On the other hand, effort is required to know ensure that a study will contribute to the discipline.

#	Ways (t) to Channel an Investigation TET	Modes/Stages (μ/Φ) in Strengthening Significance Spiral	Hierarchy (L) for a Contributing Study Tree
7	Demand Originality	Genuine Originality	Originality
6	Articulate Paradigms	Existing Paradigms	Paradigms
5	Expose Presumptions	Implicit Presumptions	Presumptions
4	Pose Questions	Meaningful Questions	Questions
3	Develop Approaches	Innovative Approaches	Approaches
2	Identify Issues	Problematic Issues	Issues
1	Review findings	Research Findings	Findings

Q2t: Ways to Channel an Investigation

Ways to channel an investigation (PH'2Q2t)were developed from the application of styles to the Typology. The ways are distinctively different as evidenced in the matrix below.

The ways can be considered in relation to selecting a study in an academic discipline and plotted according to whether the selection is high or low in being determined by the study topic (X-axis) and on a requirement for mastery of the field (Y-axis).

As usual, the ways fall into four quadrants. Those in the upper half are more abstract and personal, while those in the lower half are more concrete and factual. Methods in the right half are more focused and study-specific, while those in the left half are more general and non-specific. Approaches in diametrically opposite quadrants therefore engender a degree of antagonism: UR are focused-abstract, while the LL are general-concrete; LR is focused-factual, while UL is general-abstract.

The inner circle contains ways for pursuing specific studies.
The outer circle contains ways that structure speculations.
The two circles fuse in findings which changes from being confirmatory to being surprising.

The arrows indicate how guidance should be sought by the inner foci i.e. issues (t2) need to be guided by presumptions (t5), new approaches (t3) need to be guided by paradigms (t6), questions (t4) should be guided by originality(t7), and replications need to focus on confirming (or disconfirming ) surprising findings (t1).

Q2C: Stages in Strengthening the Significance of a Study

In this framework, the ways to channel an investigation, having been plotted, are viewed as modes of questioning current findings.

These modes comprise distinctive sets of principles and values for devising a study and pursuing inquiries which will develop the discipline. Together they spell out what is required for a study within a given topic to make an impact.

Current research findingsimmediately suggest carrying out a replication to confirm or disconfirm (μ1) but disciplinary development depends on going beyond simple confirmation.

Cycle-1 modes progressively develop current findings: initially by identifying problematic issues (μ2), then by applying innovative approaches (μ3) (methods, techniques, samples) , and finally by posing new meaningful questions (μ4).

In Cycle-2, the last three modes progressively enable deeper speculation, initially by identifying implicit presumptions (μ5) that impede inquiry, then by applying an existing paradigm (μ6) and finally by enabling genuine originality (μ7) leading to surprising findings (μ1).

In this way, the investigative focus moves from simple replications to studies that complement and extend current findings and then ultimately challenge these and potentially disrupt the accepted paradigm.

Drivers for the evolutionary progression through these modes appear to be: (a) anomalies in existing knowledge, (b) external pressures for knowledge, (c) researcher aspirations and preferences, and (d) limitations of the current mode.

Q2HK: Determinants of a Contributing Study

As usual, a Tree can be created from the Q-typology (equivalent to the essence of each of the 7 modes) and this provides for dynamics between the determinants of a study likely to be significant and so contribute to the discipline.

The dynamic duality to be applied is personal/responsive v social/systematic.

The internal duality revealed is curiosity/speculation v exploring/examining.

The psychosocial pressures are certainty as the underpinning force derived from the Inquiry-RL2 domain, and not shown in the diagram; and then certainty based on the Q2 position, and finally certainty (from the Analytic-PH'2L2 method) and performance (from the Explanatory-PH'2L3 method).

The requisite and self-centred Trees are shown below.

Q2sH:  Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q2sHK: Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q3: Knowing What to Change : Political Conclusions

Change in social groups is potentially disturbing and often opposed by some or even many. Because changing a system evokes issues of acceptability and distributes benefits unevenly, reaching a conclusion about what change to make is inherently political.

Ensuring people will comply means making an effort to prepare them for change. In the absence of preparation and consideration, you have to put off the change or force it through with all the attendant uproar and risks of opposition and defection.

#	Ways (t) to Facilitate a Change TET	Modes/Stages (μ/Φ) in Strengthening Compliance Spiral	Hierarchy (L) for Premeditated Change Tree
7	Reinforce Authority	Unequivocal Authority	Authority
6	Justify Positions	Defensible Positions	Positions
5	Anticipate Objections	Legitimate Objections	Objections
4	Discover Incentives	Persuasive Incentives	Incentives
3	Expose Pressures	Unavoidable Pressures	Pressures
2	Depict Scenarios	Desirable Scenarios	Scenarios
1	Recognize Possibilities	Current Possibilities	Possibilities

Q3t: Ways to Determine a Change

Ways to determine a change (PH'2Q3t)were not developed from the application of styles to the Typology. SO HOW WERE THEY DEVELOPED?? The ways are distinctively different as evidenced in the matrix below.

The ways can be considered in relation to an unsatisfactory social situation and plotted according to whether the selection is high or low in being influenced by the socio-physical milieu (X-axis) and on a requirement for personal conviction about the change (Y-axis).

As usual, the ways fall into four quadrants. Those in the upper half are more focused, while those in the lower half are more extensive. Methods in the right half are more directive, while those in the left half are more representational. Approaches in diametrically opposite quadrants therefore engender a degree of antagonism: UR are focused-directive, while the LL are extensive-representational; LR is extensive-directive, while UL is focused-representational.

The inner circle contains ways revealing properties of the social situation.
The outer circle contains ways that relate to handling the social situation.
The two circles fuse in possibilitieswhich changes from being easyto being controversial.

The arrows indicate how guidance should be sought by the inner ways i.e. scenarios (t2) should be guided by likely objections (t5), exposure of pressures (t3) needs to be guided by positions taken (t6), incentives (t4) need to be guided by available authority (t7), and possibilities (t1) that are identified as easy are viewed in the context of more controversial options.

Q3C: Stages in Strengthening Compliance with a Change

In this framework, the ways to determine a change, having been plotted, are viewed as modes of facilitating change.

These modes comprise distinctive sets of principles and values for addressing the need for change, and handling people and situations. Together they spell out what is required for deliberate premeditated change within a social situation.

Current possibilitiesstart with the easy option (μ1) but a better result depends on enhancing attractiveness and necessity

Cycle-1 offers more sophisticated ways to determine a preferred option: initially by envisaging desirable scenarios (μ2), then by showing its accord with unavoidable pressures (μ3), and finally by offering suitably persuasive incentives (μ4).

In Cycle-2, the last three modes progressively overcome disagreements and ensure compliance: initially by engaging with legitimate objections (μ5) , then by adopting a defensible position (μ6) and finally by activating or exercising unequivocal authority (μ7), which may even lead to settling on a controversial option (μ1).

In this way, the compliance moves from options that are easy, to ones that are complicated and ultimately controversial.

Drivers for the evolutionary progression through these modes appear to be: (a) difficulties in managing the situation, (b) external pressures for better outcomes, (c) the person's aspirations and preferences, and (d) limitations of the current mode.

Q3HK: Determinants of Premeditated Change

As usual, a Tree can be created from the Q-typology (equivalent to the essence of each of the 7 modes) and this provides for dynamics amongst the determinants of a premeditated change.

The dynamic duality to be applied is personal/responsive v social/general.

The internal duality revealed is handling disagreement/opposition v appreciating implications/presentation.

The psychosocial pressures are certainty as the underpinning force derived from the Inquiry-RL2 domain, and not shown in the diagram; and then acceptability based on the Q3 position, and finally performance (from the Explanatory-PH'2L3 method) and understanding (from the Dialectic-PH'2L4 method).

The requisite and self-centred Trees are shown below.

Q3sH:  Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q3sHK: Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q4: Knowing What to Think : Personal Conclusions

Situations of importance can become volatile as they continually evolve. To hold a steady course despite such ups and downs requires «sustaining a specific view» and being prepared to stick to it despite alternatives.

While knowing what to think about a complex issue is always an effort, the alternative is to stick with long-held ideas, defer to authority, follow the crowd, stay ignorant or confused, or let yourself be thrown about by the volatility.

L	Ways to Form a View TET	Modes/Stages in Strengthening Adherence Spiral	Hierarchy for an Articulated View Tree
7	Assume Responsibility	Personal Responsibility	Responsibility
6	Operate Mindsets	Applicable Mindsets	Mindsets
5	Study History	Comparable History	History
4	See Implications	Probable Implications	Implications
3	Allow Interpretations	Alternative Interpretations	Interpretations
2	Follow Arguments	Allowable Arguments	Arguments
1	Weigh Evidence	Shareable Evidence	Evidence

Q4t: Ways to Form a View

Ways to form a view (PH'2Q4t)were developed from the application of styles to the Typology. The ways are distinctively different as evidenced in the matrix below.

The ways can be considered in relation to a personally relevant issue calling for a view, and plotted according to whether its development is high or low in being determined by the issue (X-axis) and on a requirement for impartiality (Y-axis).

As usual, the ways fall into four quadrants. Those in the upper half call for divergent thinking, while those in the lower half call for convergent thinking. Ways in the right half are future-oriented, while those in the left half are past and resent oriented. Approaches in diametrically opposite quadrants therefore engender a degree of antagonism: UR are divergent-future, while the LL are convergent-past; LR is convergent-future, while UL is divergent-present.

The inner circle contains ways for grasping the issue.
The outer circle contains ways that put the issue in context.
The two circles fuse in evidencewhich changes from being available to being compelling.

The arrows indicate how guidance should be sought by the inner ways i.e. arguments (t2) tend to be guided by historical precedent (t5), interpretations (t3) tend to be guided by mindsets (t6), implications (t4) tend to be guided by responsibilities (t7), and evidence (t1) that is available tends to be guided by the need for it to be compelling.

Q4C: Stages in Strengthening Adherence to a View

In this framework, the ways to form a view, having been plotted, are viewed as modes of challenging a view.

 

These modes comprise distinctive sets of principles and values for reaching a particular view given all the uncertainties and differences of opinion. Together they spell out what is required for a view to be sustained over time as events evolve.

Any worthwhile view starts from shareable evidencethat is readily available (μ1) but a better view can be developed if the nature of the evidence is taken more seriously.

Cycle-1 offers more sophisticated ways to address evidence: initially by considering reasonable arguments (μ2) about the quality of the evidence, then by looking at alternative interpretations (μ3) of the evidence, and finally by recognizing probable implications (μ4) of the evidence.

In Cycle-2, the last three modes progressively justify any view emerging from the evidence: initially by looking at historical comparisons (μ5) , then by fitting it into an suitable mindset (μ6) and finally by assuming personal responsibility (μ7), which leads to viewing the evidence as compelling (μ1).

In this way, adherence moves from evidence that is available, to evidence that is examined. and finally evidence that is felt to be compelling.

Drivers for the evolutionary progression through these modes appear to be: (a) difficulties in grasping the issue, (b) external pressures for better thinking, (c) the person's aspirations and preferences, and (d) limitations of the current mode.

Q4HK: Determinants of a Formulated View

As usual, a Tree can be created from the Q-typology (equivalent to the essence of each of the 7 modes) and this provides for an understanding of the dynamics amongst the determinants of an articulated view.

The dynamic duality to be applied is personal/responsive v social/general.

The internal duality revealed is reaching a position v guiding perception.

The psychosocial pressures are certainty as the underpinning force derived from the Inquiry-RL3 domain, and not shown in the diagram; and then well-being based on the Q4 position, and finally understanding (from the Dialectic-PH'2L4 method) and acceptability (from the Holistic-PH'2L5 method).

The requisite and self-centred Trees are shown below.

Q4sH:  Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q4sHK: Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q5: Knowing What to Say: Public Conclusions

When a sensitive matter emerges in a group, those in leadership positions are expected to give an opinion or decision about it in the shape of a memorable, formal and authoritative statement : labeled here a «pronouncement». (Distinguish this from an «announcement» which refers more generally to making something known to others.)

It takes effort to know what to say in a public pronouncements. The alternative is to offer a convenient opinion, improvise a response, announce a snap decision, or simply make no comment.

#	Ways (t) to Structure a Pronouncement TET	Modes/Stages (μ/Φ)) in Strengthening Belief Spiral	Hierarchy (L) for an Authoritative Pronouncement Tree
7	Use Rhetoric	Effective Rhetoric	Inspiration
6	Source References	Definitive References	References
5	Specify Assumptions	Current Assumptions	Assumptions
4	Construct Narratives	Credible Narratives	Narratives
3	Formulate Appeals	Passionate Appeals	Appeals
2	Extract Summaries	Digestible Summaries	Accounts
1	Produce Reports	Reputable Reports	Reports

Q5t: Ways to Structure a Pronouncement

Ways to structure a pronouncementwere developed from the application of styles to the Typology. The ways are distinctively different as evidenced in the matrix below.

The ways can be considered in relation to a complicated problem affecting a society, and plotted according to whether structuring is high or low in being determined by the intention of the speaker (X-axis) and on a requirement for knowledge of the realities (Y-axis).

As usual, the ways fall into four quadrants. Those in the upper half call are more subject to bias, while those in the lower half are more rationally controllable. Ways in the right half are more holistic-comprehensive, while those in the left half are partial-selective. Approaches in diametrically opposite quadrants therefore engender a degree of antagonism: UR are biassed and comprehensive, while the LL are controlled and selective; LR is controlled and comprehensive, while UL is biassed and selective.

The inner circle contains ways that offer immediate pronouncements.
The outer circle contains ways that shape and structure pronouncements.
The two circles fuse in reportswhich changes from being merely detailedto being viewed as definitive.

The arrows indicate how guidance should be sought by the inner ways i.e. summaries (t2) tend to be guided by assumptions (t5), appeals (t3) tend to be guided by references (t6), narratives (t4) tend to be guided by rhetoric (t7), and reports (t1) that are detailed tends to be guided by the need for it to be definitive.

Q5C: Stages in Strengthening the Influence of an Pronouncement

In this framework, the ways to structure a pronouncement, having been plotted, are viewed as modes of influencing.

These modes comprise distinctive sets of principles and values for crafting a communications so it will be understood, accepted and believed. Together they spell out what is required for a well-presented message to have an impact.

Any pronouncement starts from reputable reportsthat are either already in existence of have been commissioned in the light of the latest upsurge in concern for a difficult matter. Detailed reports (μ1) are typically long complex documents—and far too difficult for most people to read and digest.

Cycle-1 offers progressively more effective ways of adapting to recipients: initially by producing digestible summaries (μ2) of a report, then by making relevant passionate appeals (μ3), and finally by recognizing credible narratives (μ4) that integrate and contextualize the reports.

In Cycle-2, the last three modes progressively develop foundations for belief: initially by looking at current assumptions (μ5) , then by sourcing definitive references (μ6) and finally by using effective rhetoric(μ7), which leads to viewing the reports as definitive (μ1).

In this way, reports move from being merely highly detailed, to becoming meaningful. and finally to being seen as definitive.

Drivers for the evolutionary progression through these modes appear to be: (a) difficulties or unwillingness in recipients acceptance or understanding, (b) external pressures for better understanding, (c) the person's aspirations and preferences, and (d) limitations of the current mode.

Q5HK: Determinants of an Authoritative Communication

As usual, a Tree can be created from the Q-typology (equivalent to the essence of each of the 7 modes) and this provides for an understanding of the dynamics amongst the determinants of a sustainable view.

The dynamic duality to be applied is personal/responsive/specific v social/general/systematic.

The internal duality revealed is message contents v increasing persuasiveness.

The psychosocial pressures are certainty as the underpinning force derived from the Inquiry-RL3 domain, and not shown in the diagram; and then understanding based on the Q5 position, and finally acceptability (from the Holistic-PH'2L5 method) and selflessness (from the Formal-PH'2L6 method).

The requisite and self-centred Trees are shown below.

Q5sH:  Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q5sHK: Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q6: Knowing What to Value : Ethical Conclusions

We often told that something is important or we wish to others to see that importance. If a value is socially required i.e. viewed as "right & good", then it is referred to as a "need" and its handling is intrinsically ethical. The intention is that this emergent value should move from being just a good idea, to being acted upon and eventually become a convention and resistant to change.

Installing a new convention into consciousness is extremely difficult. If the need is ignored, then the person (or potentially a community or society) is effectively blind as it sticks with existing values and suffers from its limited perception of needs.

#	Ways (t) to Assert Importance TET	Modes/Stages (μ/Φ) in Strengthening Appreciation Spiral	Hierarchy (L) for an Emergent Requirement Tree
7	Enable Integration	Balanced Integration	Balance
6	Deepen Awareness	New Awareness	Awareness
5	Explore Realities	Blatant Realities	Realities
4	Scrutinize Judgements	Reasoned Judgements	Judgements
3	Engage Challenges	Admissible Challenges	Challenges
2	Highlight Associations	Immediate Associations	Associations
1	Introduce Conventions	Required Conventions	Conventions

Q6t: Ways to Assert an Importance

Ways to assert an importancewere developed from the application of styles to the Typology. The ways are distinctively different as evidenced in the matrix below.

The ways can be considered in relation to the emergence of social need requiring recognition and appropriate action. They can then be plotted according to whether the assertion of that need is high or low in being determined by the desired effects (X-axis) and on a being determined by a personal viewpoint (Y-axis).

As usual, the ways fall into four quadrants. Those in the upper half call are more subjective-intuitive, while those in the lower half are more objective-factual. Ways in the right half entail acceptance, while those in the left half call for inquiry. Approaches in diametrically opposite quadrants therefore engender a degree of antagonism: UR are subjective-accepting, while the LL are objective- inquiring; LR is objective-accepting, while UL is subjective-inquiring.

The inner circle contains ways that clarify the new convention.
The outer circle contains ways that solidify the convention.
The two circles fuse in the introduction of conventionswhich changes from being enforced to being integrated.

The arrows indicate how guidance should be sought by the inner ways i.e. associations (t2) tend to be guided by realities (t5), challenges (t3) tend to be guided by awareness (t6), judgements (t4) tend to be guided by the need for balance (t7), and conventions (t1) that are enforced tend to be guided by the possibility of becoming entrenched.

Q6C: Stages in Strengthening Appreciation of a Need

In this framework, the ways to assert an importance, having been plotted, are viewed as modes for reaching conviction about a need.

These modes comprise distinctive sets of principles and values for handling values and people. Together they spell out what is required for a new important idea to be viewed as a need and eventually to become habitual.

Any new need is asserted socially as required conventionand simply stipulated and enforced formally or informally. A better result is likely if the importance of this convention is properly accepted. Enforced convetions (μ1) are typically resisted/

Cycle-1 offers progressively stronger ways of interrogating a given convention: initially by checking immediate associations (μ2), then by arguing admissible challenges (μ3), and finally by making reasoned judgements (μ4) that then allow for a convention to be accepted.

In Cycle-2, the last three modes progressively enable inner conviction about the need: initially by facing the realities (μ5) , then by opening up to new awarenesses (μ6) and finally by a mature and balanced integration (μ7) with existing values.

In this way, required conventions move from being enforced, to becoming accepted, and finally to being entrenched.

Drivers for the evolutionary progression through these modes appear to be: (a) issues unresponsive to existing conventions, (b) external pressures for the convention, (c) the person's aspirations and preferences, and (d) limitations of the current mode.

Q6HK: Determinants of an Emergent Value

As usual, a Tree can be created from the Q-typology (equivalent to the essence of each of the 7 modes) and this provides for an understanding of the dynamics amongst the determinants of an emergent value.

The dynamic duality to be applied is personal/responsive/specific v social/general/systematic.

The internal duality revealed is stipulation v imagination or possibly novelty v neutrality.

The psychosocial pressures are certainty as the underpinning force derived from the Inquiry-RL3 domain, and not shown in the diagram; and then well-being based on the Q6 position, and finally selflessness (from the Formal-PH'2L6 method) and well-being (from the Contemplative-PH'2L7 method).

The requisite and self-centred Trees are shown below.

Q6sH:  Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q6sHK: Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q7: Knowing What to Create: Speculative Conclusions

We engage with the future when we want to start a business or seek to win support for a project that requires funding and promises benefits. This hypothetical potential future might not eventuate and the challenge is how to design and define this future to maximize the likelihood that it (mostly) will.

Knowing what details to include is always an effort. The alternative is to proceed in a haphazard way making it up as you go along, issuing extravagant promises and then making excuses, or simply avoiding ever taking risks in commitments that depend on unknown future developments.

#	Ways to Design a Future TET	Modes/Stages (μ/Φ) in Strengthening Envisaging Spiral	Hierarchy for an Achievable Future Tree
7	Inject Commitments	Unwavering Commitments	Commitment
6	Mobilize Resources	Essential Resources	Resources
5	Exploit Contingencies	Integral Contingencies	Contingencies
4	Change Expectations	Realistic Expectations	Expectations
3	Complete Schemata	Facilitating Schemata	Schemata
2	Stimulate Reflections	Penetrating Reflections	Reflections
1	Propose Ideas	Speculative Idea	Ideas

Q7t: Ways to Design a Future

Ways to design a futurewere not developed from the application of styles to the Typology. HOW THEN?   The ways are distinctively different as evidenced in the matrix below.

The ways can be considered in relation to a an opportunity that appears for a new business, and plotted according to whether its future realization is high or low in being determined by the opportunity (X-axis) and on a requirement for personal flexibility(Y-axis).

As usual, the ways fall into four quadrants. Those in the upper half are more outward looking, while those in the lower half call for inward looking. Ways in the right half are more self-generated, while those in the left half are more milieu-determined. Approaches in diametrically opposite quadrants therefore engender a degree of antagonism: UR are oriented outward and to self, while the LL are oriented inward and to the milieu; LR is oriented inward and to self, while UL is oriented outward and to the milieu.

The inner circle contains ways for envisaging the opportunity.
The outer circle contains ways for responding to the opportunity.
The two circles fuse in the ideawhich changes from being enticingto being workable.

The arrows indicate how guidance should be sought by the inner ways i.e. reflection (t2) tends to be guided by contingencies (t5), schemata (t3) tend to be guided by available resources (t6), expectations (t4) tend to be guided by commitments (t7), and the speculative idea (t1) that is enticing tends to be guided by the version that is workable.

Q7C: Stages in Strengthening Envisaging for Realization

In this framework, the ways to design a future, having been plotted, are viewed as modes of envisaging.

These modes comprise distinctive sets of principles and values for clarifying and potentially generating the future. Together they spell out what is required for a future to be envisaged so that the initial idea is likely to be realized despite the many uncertainties and unknowns.

Any proposition to create or build something starts from a speculative ideathat is enticing(μ1)—but excitement and hope are not enough and the initial wishes need fleshing out.

Cycle-1 offers progressively more sophisticated ways to develop a speculative idea: initially by engaging in careful deep reflection (μ2), then by completing schemata (μ3) whose format helps in a systematic and comprehensive formulation, and finally by imposing realistic expectations (μ4) of the evidence.

In Cycle-2, the last three modes progressively determine the practicality of the idea with its plans, budgets and expectations: initially by considering integral contingencies (μ5) , then by focusing on the essential resources (μ6) to handle the plan and contingencies, and finally by checking for unwavering commitment (μ7), all of which are critical for the idea to be workable (μ1).

In this way, the speculative idea moves from being enticing, to becoming credible, and finally to being workable.

Drivers for the evolutionary progression through these modes appear to be: (a) urges to be realistic, (b) external pressures for clarity, (c) the person's aspirations and preferences, and (d) limitations of the current mode.

Q7HK: Determinants of an Achievable Future

As usual, a Tree can be created from the Q-typology (equivalent to the essence of each of the 7 modes) and this provides for an understanding of the dynamics amongst the determinants of an achievable future.

The dynamic duality to be applied is personal/idiosyncratic/responsive v social/general/systematic.

The internal duality revealed is envisaging potentials v emergence in implementation.

The psychosocial pressures are certainty as the underpinning force derived from the Inquiry-RL3 domain, and not shown in the diagram; and then selflessness based on the Q7 position, and finally well-being (from the Contemplative-PH'2L7 method) and autonomy (from the Empiricist-PH'2L1 method).

The requisite and self-centred Trees are shown below.

---

Q7sH:  Not investigated: Name Unknown

Q7sHK: Not investigated: Name Unknown

---

Comparing Internals of PH'2Q Arenas of Knowing

Download a pdf Table listing the 7 types/modes/levels to enable easier comparisons across the 7 PH'2Q Arenas.

Download a pdf file of Table below.

 

---

Logic for Naming

As explained in the Architecture Room, naming of whole frameworks, especially Trees, has been a challenge. The solution for the main framework Trees followed discovery of a logic that could be systematically applied.

In these Q-Arenas, there were issues in naming the TET (t), the Spiral and the Tree. I leaned heavily on intuition combined with a desire to maximize consistency across the Arenas.

In regard to Trees, a pattern appeared to emerge as follows: The Tree name has two words with the second noun word taken from fundamentals of the Root Level Domain associated with the Q• psychosocial pressure, and the first adjectival word taken from the fundamentals of the next higher Root Level Domain.

Q1HK: An informed action i.e. RL2+RL1.

Q2HK: A contributing study i.e. RL3 (because contributing means a change to the discipline base) + RL2 (because a rigorous study is PsH2K).

Q3HK: A premeditated change i.e. RL4 (because thinking is central to experience) + RL3.

Q4HK: A formulated view i.e. RL5 (because formulation is part of communication) + RL4 (because an authentic view is PH4K).
More

Until this principle was discovered, the name was "a sustainable view" which, on reflection, is less accurate because sustenance is not the issue. Views may need to change quickly. But in all case the view must be able to be articulated and not simply held as a vague feeling or preference.

Q5HK: An authoritative pronouncement i.e. RL6 (because values are the basis for authority) + RL5 (because a pronouncement is a communication).

Q6HK: An emergent requirement i.e. RL7 (because willingness is future-oriented) + RL6 (because what is required is a need and a need is a social value-PH6L5).

Q7HK: An achievable future i.e. RL1 (because the system is cyclic and achievement is the RL1 primal need; alternatively term: actionable) + RL7 (because willingness is future-oriented).

At the time of writing (December 2023), it is not known whether this naming principle will helpfully apply in all Q-Arenas.

 

---

Plotting all Arenas

These are the diagrams whose logic is explained in the Architecture Room.

Arenas of Knowingthat are the bases for conclusions are plotted and fall into four quadrants according to whether they are high or low in enabling a social impact(X-axis) and on stabilizing a person's situation(Y-Axis).

This diagram appears valid insofar as typical TET features are to be found.

• The inner circle contains Arenas where conclusions bolster current handling, while the outer circle contains Arenas where conclusions are used to position for future possibilities. The two circles fuse in Emergent Requirementswhich can do both.
• Arenas in diametrically opposite quadrants have a degree of antagonism:  UR Arenas seem dominating, while LL Arenas call for a more receptive attitude; UL Arenas are oriented to the individual, while the LR Arena is oriented to wider society.
• The arrows show interactional support: informed actions and formulated views support each other, premeditated changes call for authoritative pronouncements; contributing studies support achievable futures; and finally personal and societal requirements support each other.

---

The full significance of the Tree shown below has not been determined. What it possibly shows is that Formulated Views lie at the heart of any position taken in regard to a particular situation.

 

---

Originally posted: 12-Dec-2023.