Configuration versus Complexification
The Unfolding Duality
Reminder:
Unfolding dualities appear to be characteristic of Principal Typologies and Structural Hierarchies, although their function, other than integrating adjacent Levels/Types, is as yet unknown.
Each Type in a Principal Typology can be characterized by a thesis and an antithesis, which are brought together in a synthesis, which is the thesis of the next higher Type. Previous work has suggested that the intrinsic tension in the duality is in general terms between:
- a ground state: a thesis that is the basic and unavoidable core of the Type
&
- a growth force: its antithesis and the potential for development of the Type.
Cf: stabilization methods (PH'4), ethical choice methods (PH'6)
use of language methods (PH'5) , primal quests (RH').
For the depiction paradigms, the proposed generalized form of this duality is:
Configuration — the ground state or core of any depiction paradigm
&
Complexification — its development potential or force.
Diagram at right shows the whole system and also includes the oscillating duality.
The Seven Dialectic Dualities
L'1: Dynamic
Interaction v Entanglement
Detail
The configuration produced by the dynamic paradigm-L'1 presents (or represents) a system of interacting elements, not themselves systems, and capable of providing each other with feedback to enable a directed evolution of the situation. The basic pattern is therefore interaction.
Complexity is introduced when components intensify and multiply their interactions, becoming over-involved and enmeshed with each other. This entanglement makes the system and its evolution ever more difficult to construe.
Synthesis: Entangled interactions become unworkable and drive components to disengage, which naturally gives rise to boundaries between them.
L'2: Atomistic
Boundaries v Idiosyncrasy
Detail
The configuration produced by the atomistic paradigm-L'2 presents (or represents) boundaries that generate and define discrete entities or irreducible particles. Each bounded entity is perceived as functioning independently and self-sufficiently. Seen from a higher viewpoint, each is just a number, or sometimes a cog, or a pawn.
Complexity develops as those entities individuate uniquely and show increasing idiosyncrasy. Similar entities can be depicted by a generic account and simply counted. Idiosyncratic entities must each be grasped in their own terms and generalization becomes difficult.
Synthesis: Numerous bounded entities that are idiosyncratically individuated naturally give rise to impacts between at least some of them.
L'3: Causal
Impact v Multiplicity
Detail
The configuration produced by the causal paradigm-L'3 presents (or represents) particular components of the situation impacting on specific others with predictable effects. Such interactions constitute the essence of causation.
Causal models become more complex and sophisticated if a component has multiple influences and if the number of components having or potentially having an influence on others multiplies.
Synthesis: Perception of a multiplicity of impacts in a situation becomes overwhelming and eventually incomprehensible, which calls for radical simplification via a binary division.
L'4: Dualistic
Division v Polarization
Detail
The configuration produced by the dualistic paradigm-L'4 presents (or represents) a division that represents a dichotomy and posits or generates opposition between the two sides.
Complexification results as the dichotomy becomes increasingly polarized. Polarization amplifies, sharpens and systematizes the differences between the two sides. As the degree of conflict escalates, all components get drawn in and the situation becomes more and more structured around the division.
Synthesis: The polarization that emerges from division must be resolved to avert a breakdown of the situation. This is made possible by integration of the opposing positions within a whole.
L'5: Unified
Integration v Co-evolution
Detail
The configuration produced by the unified paradigm-L'5 presents (or represents) a fully integrated system of components and the environment, with all the inner complexity, differences, divisions and environmental interactions.
The situation becomes ever more complex through unstoppable internal developments co-evolving with an ever-changing environment, and so demanding continuous dynamic re-formulation of all internal and environmental interactions.
Synthesis: Co-evolution requires integration to be ordered so as to permit monitoring and control, and this leads to definition of a useful stable comprehensive framework.
L'6: Structural
Framework v Functioning
Detail
The configuration produced by the structural paradigm-L'6 presents (or represents) an ordered usable framework defining components, their functions and how they interact via roles and rules.
This schema can act as a template and be repeatedly applied. However, using any framework develops complexity because actual functioningreveals errors and omissions that call for tweaks or extensions or incorporation of sub-units.
Synthesis: A powerful framework that repeatedly and effectively functions results in a total grasp of that entity or situation.
L'7: Unitary
Totalization v Domination
Detail
The configuration produced by the unitary paradigm-L'7 presents(represents) an undifferentiated single whole, a totality, that simply stays, or may expand or contract—but without concern for internal contents (individuals) or for the environment.
Complexification occurs as the totalization gets progressively extended and elaborated by the need to suppress alternatives, enforce conformity and extend uniformity through unequivocal domination of all entities (e.g. institutions in a society).
Synthesis: Totalization and domination generate a rigidity and homogeneity that provides stability at the price of freezing independent functioning. But total suppression creates countervailing forces, and individuals eventually start asserting themselves...
...leading to emergence of interaction, which is the thesis of dynamic depiction-L'1, making the system cyclic as usual.
The presence of a typical unfolding duality appears to be confirmed, which supports the taxonomic ordering.
To gain further understanding, in particular the way this unfolding duality generates polarization in practice, visit a dedicated
section in the
Architecture Room. This section also provides comparisons with other Principal Typologies.
Originally posted: 20-Apr-2025. Last amended: 1-Aug-2026.
