Application to Domain Fundamentals

Taxonomic Principle

It is now taken as a principle that the apparent correspondences in taxonomic frameworks relate not to the Root Level as such, but rather to a psychosocial pressure that is intrinsic to the Root Level.

The psychosocial pressures function as internal and external drivers or motivators. They are probably of neuro-biological origin and cannot be turned off. However, their manifestations may be suppressed by unconscious or deliberate effort.

Grouping		Psychosocial Pressure
G7- KL7	is subject to pressure for	Selflessness
G6 - KL6	is subject to pressure for	Well-being
G5 - KL5	is subject to pressure for	Acceptability
G4 - KL4	is subject to pressure for	Certainty
G3 - KL3	is subject to pressure for	Performance
G2 - KL2	is subject to pressure for	Understanding
G1 - KL1	is subject to pressure for	Autonomy

Explanation with Two Examples

Any explanation of the ordering of the psychosocial pressures must apply equally to every Structural Hierarchy within the taxonomy. (It is currently estimated that there are 67 in all.)

The conception of a final Structural Hierarchy Tree as a Field therefore has to be the starting point for understanding. Examples are needed in order to bring the argument down to earth.

I will use Action-PH1 and Inquiry-PH2 as my examples for the Fundamental sH-Triplets.

Domain		Original Tree:  Primal Vehicle	Struct. Hier:  Primal Effect	Final Tree: Primal Field
RL2/PH2	Inquiry	A Considered Analysis	Making Discoveries	A Scientific Study
RL1/PH1	Action	A Deliberate Activity	Producing Results	A Credible Course

The Primal Vehicle in the Action Domain is A Deliberate Activity. The Field both created by deliberate activities and within which deliberate activities get their meaning is A Credible Course of Action.

Abbreviations: Levels in the originating Tree are marked L, while Levels in the final Tree are marked G (which correctly ties them to the sH Groupings).

G1 is the foundation of the Field, everything must find its basis there. It appears to be under the pressure of Autonomy.

• Action Domain: G1 = initiate activities.
• Inquiry Domain: G1 = ask questions.

In both examples, it seems evident that if your heart is not in it, if you do not feel that you personally own the field, preferably are in charge of it, then the scientific study-PsH2K is unlikely to bear fruit, and the course of action-PsH1K likewise will go nowhere. A quick review of alternative pressures seems confirmatory.
Detail

• performance—because performance is primarily a matter for the vehicle and for the structural hierarchy as a whole.
• certainty—would be paradoxical because the field is intrinsically highly uncertain, and it seems unlikely to could be grounded in certainty.
• acceptability—carries little weight at this level, and choices that are unacceptable may be possible or even required.
• well-being—seems irrelevant at this ground level.
• understanding—seems irrelevant at this ground level.
• selflessness—seems to be asking to much at this ground level.

G2 typically provides a control that effectively guides the use of G1. It appears to be under the pressure of understanding. It seems evident that once autonomy is activated, it is essential to be able to communicate those autonomous choices both to oneself and others.

• Action Domain: G2 = shape proceedings.
• Inquiry Domain: G2 = specify assumptions.

The dyads link adjacent Ls (Monads) and overlap. This ensures a consistency and coherence in the structure of the field i.e. the course of action or the scientific study.

G3 is typically the context and appears to be under a pressure for performance, the RL1 pressure. It is noticeable that the correspondence then continues in ascending RL order so that:

• G4 is under the RL2 pressure for Certainty,
• G5 is under the RL3 pressure for Acceptability,
• G6 is under the RL4 pressure for Well-Being

That only leaves the RL7 pressure for selflessness which is assigned to G7.

Check this ordering makes sense in regard to:

Courses of Action (Action Domain RL1):

Scientific Studies (Inquiry Domain RL2):

Field Division

The Primal Field Tree can be viewed as possessing an internal duality, whose division splits the upper 3 context levels from the lower 4 content levels. These are summarized in the Naming investigation because it provides the basis for naming.

The division between G5 and G6, appears to be of particular significance. The upper two levels enable persistence and continuity of the field by involving the most personal and most impersonal pressures; while the lower five levels which deal with what is actually occurring enable change of the field.

---

• Investigate Control Fields

Originally posted 15-Jun-2015. Last amended 12-Jan-2023.