Check Other Principal Typologies

Apply the «Obvious» Correspondence

The discovery of obvious RL correspondences for PH'1-Decision Methods invites application to the 6 other Principal Typologies. An identical correspondence cannot be accepted on faith: I must check to get positive confirmation and, while doing so, look for hints about its nature.

The results, listed below, have not been particularly helpful. It is not practicable to go into details and provide all the evidence for the comments. You can check the relevant publications or posts and conduct an independent investigation.

To PH'2-INQUIRY: Research Methods
(within Justify Judgements-L6)

Method Type	THEE-Name	Proposed Root Correspondence	Comments
L'7	Contemplative	Experience-RL4 Well-being	Possible: but other methods like analytic and formal seem to appeal to experience. Selflessness might seem more applicable.
L'6	Analytic	Willingness-RL7 Selflessness	Not obvious: all methods would seem to require willingness. Understanding might seem more applicable.
L'5	Holistic	Change-RL3 Acceptability	Possible in that it is often used in situations demanding change
L'4	Dialectic	Communication-RL5 Understanding	Not obvious: most methods required communicating with oneself or others. Understanding seems a good fit.
L'3	Explanatory	Action-RL1 Performance	Possible because most methods, except empirical, are not about doing.
L'2	Formal	Inquiry-RL2 Certainty	Not obvious: all formal (axiomatic, mathematical) investigation is for inquiry. Certainty seems a good fit.
L'1	Empirical	Purpose-RL6 Autonomy	Not obvious: all inquiries are purposive.

To PH'3-CHANGE: Depiction Methods
(within Generate Representations-L6)

Method Type	THEE-Name	Proposed Root Correspondence
L'7	Unitary	Experience-RL4 Well-being	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'6	Structural	Willingness-RL7 Selflessness	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'5	Unified	Change-RL3 Acceptability	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'4	Dualistic	Communication-RL5 Understanding	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'3	Causal	Action-RL1 Performance	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'2	Atomistic	Inquiry-RL2 Certainty	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'1	Dynamic	Purpose-RL6 Autonomy	Too provisional to make a comment.

To PH'4-EXPERIENCE: Stabilization Methods
(within Integrate Identifications-L6)

Method Type	THEE-Name	Proposed Root Correspondence	Comments
L'7	Transpersonal existence	Experience-RL4 Well-being	Possible: but emotional and relational would also seem to fit.
L'6	Social existence	Willingness-RL7 Selflessness	Possibly the best correspondence: but could also be to Action-RL1.
L'5	Relational existence	Change-RL3 Acceptability	Not obvious. Change is a significant factor in other methods.
L'4	Individual existence	Communication-RL5 Understanding	Not obvious.
L'3	Emotional existence	Action-RL1 Performance	Not obvious.
L'2	Vital existence	Inquiry-RL2 Certainty	Not obvious.
L'1	Sensory existence	Purpose-RL6 Autonomy	Not obvious.

To PH'5-COMMUNICATION: Language Use Methods
(within Assign Meanings-L6)

Method Type	THEE-Name	Proposed Root Correspondence	Comments
L'7	Mythic	Experience-RL4 Well-being	Possible: but might also apply strongly for associative or gestalt.
L'6	Logical	Willingness-RL7 Selflessness	Not obvious.
L'5	Gestalt	Change-RL3 Acceptability	Not obvious
L'4	Universal	Communication-RL5 Understanding	Not obvious: could be argued to be an illusion of communication.
L'3	Conceptual	Action-RL1 Performance	Not obvious.
L'2	Associative	Inquiry-RL2 Certainty	Not at all obvious.
L'1	Concrete	Purpose-RL6 Autonomy	Obvious, because no-one would ever seek use this method without a purpose.

To PH'6-PURPOSE: Ethical Choice Methods
(within Adhere to a Value System-L6)

Method Type	THEE-Name	Proposed Root Correspondence	Comments
L'7	Transcendentalist	Experience-RL4 Well-being	Obvious because it is about looking within for guidance.
L'6	Legitimist	Willingness-RL7 Selflessness	Possible: but others might also fit.
L'5	Communalist	Change-RL3 Acceptability	Not obvious.
L'4	Individualist	Communication-RL5 Understanding	Not at all obvious.
L'3	Pluralist	Action-RL1 Performance	Possible in that action for benefit is implicit: but this fits the other teleological methods.
L'2	Conventionalist	Inquiry-RL2 Certainty	Not obvious.
L'1	Rationalist	Purpose-RL6 Autonomy	Possible but purpose applies to the other three teleological methods by definition.

To PH'7-WILLINGNESS: Capability Enhancement Methods
(within Value Learning-L6)

Method Type	THEE-Name	Proposed Root Correspondence	Comments
L'7	Identification	Experience-RL4 Well-being	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'6	Education	Willingness-RL7 Selflessness	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'5	Experimentation	Change-RL3 Acceptability	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'4	Association	Communication-RL5 Understanding	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'3	Preoccupation	Action-RL1 Performance	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'2	Elucidation	Inquiry-RL2 Certainty	Too provisional to make a comment.
L'1	Iteration	Purpose-RL6 Autonomy	Too provisional to make a comment.

Conclusion

Using simple observation, the Root correspondence that seemed so obvious for decision methods (PH'1) does not generalize.

At this point, I do not regard the correspondence as wrong, but I conclude that simple observation is insufficient. There needs to be a deeper understanding of the process.

The notion of projection suggests that Root Level correspondences should be taken as a set. This would produce an emergent hierarchy: in this case, a re-ordered root-related hierarchy in Tree form.

Why "taken as a set"? Because the significance of the projection comes from the use of every Root Level.

Why "in Tree form"? Because that is the only way that it is possible to move from an abstract conception to a framework that is meaningful and used in practice.

However, Principal Typologies are characterized by a lack of interaction and influence amongst their constituent Types. Each Type stands alone, self-sufficient, superior, and often incompatible or antagonistic to others. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the above "obvious" Typology order of Root-Level projections is the emergent Root-related order.

Without abandoning the identified order, a focus on the Spiral may be more productive. It contrasts with the Typology in that its Modes have to cumulate and are expected to be compatible with each other.

Observation has already revealed that any Spiral generates a Tree whose levels follow the order of Stages (Modes). Its Centres are essences of the Modes and naturally interact and influence each other. So this may well be the emergent framework referred to here.

So the next step in this investigation is an analysis of the Spirals.

---

• Continue by re-ordering the obvious correspondence in relation to the order of Modes (Stages) within a Spiral.

Initially posted: 30-Nov-2013. Last amended 2-Jan-2023.