Level #01 :
Inadequacy of formulations (index
)
1. No single
formulation (including this one), nor any logically integrated set of formulations,
adequately encompasses the nature of the development process. Every position or formulation
is therefore suspect. When it is formulated within a domain of unquestioned consensus, this
potential doubt is inactive, thus establishing a boundary of uncritical discourse which inhibits
development.
Level #02 :
Opposition/Disagreement (index
)
2.1 New
initiatives, including this one, are formulated by taking and establishing a particular
position in opposition to whatever is conceived as potentially denying it. The nature of the
initiative is partly determined by the way in which the challenge or initial absence of any
opposing position is perceived and the possible nature of the response. It is the immediacy with
which the challenge is perceived that empowers the initiative.
2.2 The
taking of a position as a result of a new initiative engenders or activates a formulation
which is its denial. Every formulation is therefore necessarily matched by an initiative which is
incompatible with it, or opposed to it, or takes an essentially different direction from it. This
opposition is fundamentally unmediated and as such cannot be observed or described. It can
only be comprehended through identification with one of the opposed positions.
Level #03 :
Dialectic synthesis (index
)
3.1 A form,
through the affirmation of its existence, exerts pressure in response to its context
which acts as an impulse for the continual transformation of the latter. As antecedent of any
such transformation, it subjects any outcome to constraints. Tothe extent that the nature of the
pressure on its context is unrecognized, any action initiated is distorted or unregulated in its
impact on the context.
3.2 A form
existing in the present stands in opposition to other pre-existing forms within the
same context. As a result it is constrained by them to be of the necessary scale and proportion
to oppose the pre-existing forms most dynamically. Within a given context, however, an
opposing form of a particular type may be engendered which has been superseded in other co-
present contexts. Forms corresponding to different stages of development may thus re- emerge
and co-exist if the communication between contexts is obstructed in any way. To the extent that
ignorance concerning this obstruction prevails, contexts become progressively more restricted,
such that the dynamism of the opposition of the forms engendered within them diminished with
a corresponding increase in the inertia or resistance associated with the least developed forms.
3.3 Opposition
between two forms tends to give rise to a new form which has properties
characteristic of both of them as well as new mediating properties unique to itself. The new
form interrelates or harmonizes the original opposing forms. It reconciles them at a new level of
expression of unity, whether or not they then disappear. The potential existence of the new
form is therefore partially implicit (although incomplete) in each of the opposing forms prior to
its generation. It thus functions as a stimulus or attractant by providing a pattern for their
interaction and the organization of its outcome. Once created, the form will in its own turn
prove inadequate and be opposed and superseded by more adequate forms whose nature it
partially defines. The attraction of a particular form may however prevent the energetic
development of this process.
Level #04 :
Developmental interaction (index
)
4.1 In a
set of forms, one form acquires a dominant status at any one time. As such it
establishes the formal pattern of relationships between other forms by observing and
distinguishing their elements, and interpreting their significance. Any infringement of this
monopoly of power is met by a conscious reaction on the part of those associated with it who
strive for position within the framework it supplies.
4.2 In a
set of forms, one or more forms acquire a recessive or sub-dominant status at any one
time. As such they are characterized by both minimal inherent organization and high inertial
resistance to transformation. Any attempt to change those associated with such forms is met by
unconscious reaction.
4.3 In a
set containing a dominant and a dominated form, the pattern of relationships governed
by the dominant form proves progressively more inadequate as a framework for handling the
accumulation of new information and experience. Inconsistencies, contradictions and
incompleteness gradually accumulate and become increasingly apparent as conditions change.
The dominant form alone does not contain the variety to encompass and control thecomplex
conditions to which it is exposed. The value of the recessive or inferior form becomes
correspondingly apparent by contrast. The unconscious or impulsive actions of those
associated with both forms serve merely to aggravate the condition and to highlight the absence
of a form providing any adequate sense of direction or functional orientation for the whole.
4.4 In a
set containing a dominant and an inferior form, and characterized by contradictions,
adequate control is usually maintained through the momentum of working processes governed
by the dominant form. Any deviation is corrected by a conscious integrative action on the part
of those associated with that form. As the contradictions cease to be held in restraint in this
way, the source of control is effectively transferred from the dominant form to the inferior form
which thus emerges to take its place. To the extent that this transfer of control is resisted, the
change is likely to be violent rather than smooth.
Level #05 :
Constraints on existence (index
)
5.1 For
a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance, it must bear a consciously
recognized relationship to a context. If this relationship is ignored the form effectively merges
into the context and cannot be distinguished from it due to the absence of any recognized
boundaries or limits.
5.2 For
a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance, it must be sufficiently general
to be perceived as relevant to other variants of the phenomenon detached from immediate
perception within the domain of discourse. If it is so general that it is perceived as relating to
too wide a range of phenomena, then its significance is lost. Or, alternatively, it becomes so
detached from immediate perception that its significance becomes fragmented into seemingly
unrelated facets which arouse differing degrees of attachment or rejection.
5.3 For
a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance, it must be perceived as relating
to tangible phenomena of immediate relevance. But if this relationship is so strong as to be
perceived as merely a reflection of those phenomena or identical with them, then its significance
is lost or engenders contradictions, confusion and associated conflict.
5.4 For
a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance, it must be perceived as
sufficiently complex to encompass the complexity. If this is too much greater than that of the
phenomena, its significance is either lost or a faith in the form may be engendered which is then
valued for its own sake, independently of the phenomena, and possibly as being in some way
superior to them.
5.5 For
a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance, it must be sufficiently simple to
be a comprehensible vehicle for intention. But if it is perceived as too simple (or trivial) the
significance is lost. The unchannelled intention then reinforces inactivity or degenerates into
sublimated forms of action.
Level #06 :
Coherence through renewal (index
)
6.1 Sustaining
the coherence of a form through its continual renewal requires a focused
reaffirmation of the existence of the elements which ensure its integrity. To the extent that this
reaffirmation is lacking, knowledge of its structure is eroded and the boundaries of the form
become confused or dissolve.
6.2 Sustaining
the coherence of a form through its continual renewal requires redefinition of the
form to distinguish it from the superficial features of encroaching alternative forms with which it
interacts. These may appear more attractive if concentration is relaxed. To the extent that this
transformative process is lacking, aspects of the alternative definitions may be partially
incorporated, thus progressively destroying the form as an integrated structure by formation of
a hybrid or an agglomerate.
6.3 Sustaining
the coherence of a form through its continual renewal requires repeated effort to
understand the essential or general characteristics of the form which underlie any particular set
of superficial features and thus not bound by them. To the extent that this understanding is
lacking, the superficial features condemn the form as unnecessarily constraining, unsatisfactory,
with consequent reactions.
6.4 Sustaining
the coherence of a form through its continual renewal requires periodic detached
recognition of its wider significance and how its development can best be controlled in relation
to this. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, transformation of the form is blocked
because of the narrow perspective with which it is viewed.
6.5 Sustaining
the coherence of a form through its continual renewal requires recognition of the
contextual structuring constraints, qualitative characteristics and challenges which ensure its
stability, and in terms of which it may be transformed. To the extent that this recognition is
lacking, the stability of the form is undermined by doubts concerning its present relevance.
6.6 Sustaining
the coherence of a form through its continual renewal requires adaptation of
insights concerning its possible development to a realistic strategy for its actual development.
To the extent that this adaptation is lacking, any strategies formulated will be impractical and
will result in maldevelopment of the form.
Level #07 :
Modes of change (index
)
7.1 Under
certain conditions the only form of change perceived as effective is through the wilful
destruction of a prevailing form, whether or not a new or more adequate form can be
substituted in its stead. This approach is favoured when the existing form is perceived as
essentially static and an inhibitor of any form of dynamism or growth.
7.2 Under
certain conditions the only form of change perceived as effective is through
supportive interaction (dialogue) with the various perspectives formulated within the community
concerned. Through such participative involvement on the part of the change agent as a
sympathetic catalyst, a new community viewpoint can develop naturally from its existing
foundations and be transformed. This approach is favoured when existing methods are
perceived as implying destructive discontinuity or the imposition of inappropriate external
formulations which would do violence to the community's growth and thus effectively retard it.
7.3 Under
certain conditions the only form of change perceived as effective is through the
formulation of a new all- encompassing philosophy (paradigm, theory, or strategy) as the
reference framework in terms of which change can be initiated and undertaken. This approach
is favoured when the diversity of existing initiatives is perceived as breeding confusion,
dissipating resources, and undermining any possibility of a new level of collective achievement
for the community as a whole.
7.4 Under
certain conditions the only form of change perceived as effective is by enabling a
more sensitive recognition of the variety of existing forms and the manner in which, through their
various (and possibly discordant) interactions, they already constitute a rich and harmonious
pattern saturated with meaning at a deeper level of significance. This approach is favoured
when there is concern that new forms advocated are insensitive to and detached from the
inherent harmony in those which have already been organically integrated into the tissue of lived
reality.
7.5 Under
certain conditions the only form of change perceived as effective is through the
formulation of laws and definitions concerning observable processes on the basis of controlled
investigation of their properties. Through such forms control is obtained over the processes
which can then be used to restructure the environment according to their possibilities. This
approach is favoured when there is concern that the processes of change are clothed in
superstition, mystification, and are attributed solely to chance, or accident, or inexplicable
agents acting spontaneously beyond the control of man.
7.6 Under
certain conditions the only form of change perceived as effective emerges by
renunciation of forms based upon the spatio-temporal world in favour of other factors and
frames of reference to which appeal may be made. This approach is favoured when there is
recognition that manipulative control of particular sub-systems of the external physical
environment is only partially satisfactory (even when it is complete), and that less tangible
dimensions need to be taken into account. Any such forms are frequently at least partially
based on transformations of the inner world of the individual as it relates to the external world.
7.7 Under
certain conditions the only form of change perceived as effective is to design
configurations through which the full range of existing forms in opposition to each other can
function creatively as complementaries, compensating for each otherslimitations and excesses.
This approach is favoured when there is concern that the various approaches to change are
functioning together so discordantly that some new form of dynamic order is required which
provides a context for their different, and essentially incompatible, orientations.
Level #08 :
Constraints on change (index
)
8.1 In assessing
any apparent need for change, care is required to avoid mistaken formulations
of the environmental condition. These can lead, for example, to an impetuous response or
action for action's sake, from the consequences of which recovery may be difficult.
8.2 In formulating
and planning any change initiative, care is required in selecting the point and
manner of intervention. The constraints rarely offer the desired freedom of action and may
easily be used as a focus for distracting dissatisfaction.
8.3 In formulating
the nature of the change initiative, care is required in adapting any
representation of it to avoid the temporary benefits of pleasing whoever is identified with the
current condition or failing to acknowledge the difficulties to be encountered in changing it.
These difficulties include weaknesses in those associated with the change initiative itself.
8.4 In implementing
a change initiative as formulated, care is required that the initiative is not
itself distorted by close association with the adverse conditions to which it responds or
weakened by avoiding unpleasant decisions which have to be made to maintain the integrity of
the response.
8.5 In sustaining
a change initiative as formulated, care is required in ensuring its equilibrium
with the intensification and expansion of activity due to confidence from successful experience
with any adverse conditions encountered and with the distractions of contentment with positive
achievements.
8.6 Once
a change initiative has achieved its maximum deployment, care is required in
responding to the limitations on any further development. The original direction of effort may
well be deflected in the pursuit of further success, especially in response to any accumulation of
negative assessments.
8.7 Once
the essential task of a change initiative is approaching completion, care is required in
deciding on the termination of activities as originally intended. It may seem natural to continue
the activities or to institutionalize them. Positive encouragement to do so may be received from
all concerned. Succumbing to these pressures creates the risk of entrapment by a pattern of
activity which it may then prove difficult to terminate at any time.
8.8 After
a change initiative has been terminated, care is required in evaluating the activities and
the achievements in the light of the original intent in order to avoid subsequent dependence on
them.
Level #09 :
Implementation of a transformation process (index
)
9.1 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to realworld hazards requires assembly
of the necessary operational resources of an adequate quality. To the extent that assembly is
impossible, or their quality is inadequate, the process will be handicapped and partially
controlled by the nature of those deficiencies.
9.2 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to realworld hazards requires precise
and energetic clarification of the succeeding stages of the process. To the extent that this
clarification is lacking, action will be confused and momentum will be insufficient to overcome
unforeseen problems.
9.3 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to realworld hazards requires
recognition of deviation or conflict between resources assembled and process planning in the
light of independent critical questions concerning the implementation process. To the extent that
this recognition is lacking, or that the questions are poorly conceived, further implementation
(together with any corrective action) will result in an imbalanced process vulnerable to
disruption.
9.4 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to real-world hazards requires attentive
preparation of the assembled elements to be processed. To the extent that this attentiveness is
lacking, details of the preparation will be carelessly omitted or improperly executed thus
jeopardizing the success of the operation.
9.5 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to real-world hazards necessitates a
controlled manipulation of the prepared elements into an emerging configuration. To the extent
that this manipulation is improperly controlled or that the correspondence between the action
taken and the knowledge of the action actually required is otherwise inadequate, the results will
be unsatisfactory.
9.6 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to real-world hazards requires
dispassionate evaluation of the form emerging from the process in the light of the original
intention and the current circumstances. To the extent that this evaluation is inadequate (and no
corrective action is taken), the product may either not correspond to the original intention or be
inappropriate to current possibilities for using it.
9.7 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to real-world hazards requires that the
emergent product be appropriately detached from the process which gave rise to it. To the
extent that this separation is inadequate, or the relationship between the product and the
process is otherwise confused, the resultant dependency relationship will jeopardize the value
of the product.
9.8 Implementation
of a transformative process subject toreal- world hazards requires
controlled delivery of the product to its originally intended setting in the face of possible
reactions against it. To the extent that there is over-sensitivity to such reactions, the delivery
cannot be completed thus jeopardizing the original intent.
9.9 Implementation
of a transformative process subject to real-world hazards requires an
appropriate attitude on completion of the process to ensure that it is evaluated within its proper
context. To the extent that this attitude is lacking, efforts may then be made to associate either
the product or the process to other contexts and initiatives. This distorts the originally intended
significance of the initiative and runs the risk of confusing any new initiatives.
Level #10 :
Endurance of a form (index
)
10.1 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its built-in ability to recognize the probable
consequences of initiatives it determines and thus ensure relationships to other formulations
which are supportive of their mutual development. To the extent that this recognition is lacking,
destructive initiatives emerge with ultimately negative consequences for the development of the
original form.
10.2 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its built-in ability to recognize the determining
causes of developments in its environment and thus establish supportive relationships for the
development of other forms on the basis of its own experience. To the extent that this
recognition is lacking, the form develops parasitic or exploitative relationships with other forms
which are ultimately detrimental to its own development.
10.3 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recognize the characteristic
initiatives and responses engendered by other forms in order, by exercise of discrimination, to
determine those with which a mutually beneficial association is possible. To the extend that this
recognition is lacking, the formulation is continually drawn into illusory or mutually conflicting
relationships with other forms, in an uncontrollable manner which provides no stable foundation
for its own development and effectively conceals its possibility.
10.4 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recognize the developmental
potential of other forms in order to adapt appropriately to such alternative perspectives for its
own further development. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, the potential of such
alternative forms is misrepresented, thus undermining the future adaptability of the form and the
refinement of its own development goal.
10.5 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recognize the different levels
or capacities by which other forms may be characterized in order to relate appropriately to
them to further mutual development. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, any
relationships risk entrapment in apparent contradictions and in inappropriate responses to
formswhich stand in active opposition. In such circumstances the form may simply serve to
spread dissension and blind awareness to particular expressions of a form.
10.6 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recognize the pathways and
goals of different modes of development characteristic of other forms and to adapt
appropriately to an environment with such contrasting possibilities. To the extent that this
recognition is lacking, other forms are actively condemned, often with considerable prejudice.
The power and development of the form is then severely handicapped by the distortion and
fragmentation of the actions it determines into rigidly polarized opposition to other forms.
10.7 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recognize, through some
process of detachment, those of its features which need to be gradually abandoned and those
which need to be reinforced. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, rigid attachment to an
unchanging form deflects any inherent dynamism into superficial matters of little consequence.
10.8 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recall earlier stages in its
development and the manner in which weaknesses were progressively eliminated. To the extent
that this recollection is lacking, the form is unable to sustain any method for its own
transformation and the necessary confidence is instead displaced into reinforcing attachment to
existing weaknesses.
10.9 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recognize the probable
future states of forms and the probable circumstances of their termination. To the extent that
this recognition is lacking, the form tends to become the vehicle for negative intentions towards
the positive achievements associated with other forms, rather than channelling that intention to
reinforce its own developmental momentum.
10.10 The
endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability to recognize in other forms
the weaknesses to which they have developed an appropriate resistance. To the extent that this
recognition is lacking, the form becomes a vehicle for the development of destructive
misperceptions which hinder any ability either to abandon the weaknesses they have overcome
or to free other forms from such obstacles to their own development.
Level #11 :
Empowerment and importance of a form (index
)
11.1 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of constructive
or destructive action with which it is associated and the manner whereby they are distinguished.
11.2 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of enrichening
or impoverishing action with which it is associated.
11.3 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of protection or
exposure with which it is associated.
11.4 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of assistance or
obstruction with which it is associated.
11.5 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of bias or lack
of bias with which it is associated.
11.6 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of security or
danger with which it is associated.
11.7 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of confidence
or doubt with which it is associated.
11.8 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of consolation
or dejection with which it is associated.
11.9 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the degree of inspiration
and reinforcement with which it is associated.
11.10 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the quality of remedial
advice with which it is associated.
11.11 The
empowerment and importance of a form is determined by the power of the subtle
qualities with which it is associated.
Level #12 :
Harmoniously transformative controlled relationship (index
)
12.1 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by forceful spontaneous initiatives appropriately guided by an implicit sense of
opportunity and constraint. Such action opens up viable new possibilities. If inappropriately
controlled, it may be excessively violent, misguided, unfruitful or merely self- serving.
12.2 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with it environment is
characterized by a capacity to respond receptively to a comprehensive range of external
initiatives by providing appropriate frameworks within which they can be embodied and
consolidated. To the extent this capacity is lacking, such receptivity may be over-loaded
leading to selective resistance, non-response or alternatively to their cooptation.
12.3 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by a capacity to interrelate initiatives, creatively and explicitly, with contexts
within which they can be further developed. To the extent this capacity is lacking, any such
catalytic mediation becomes diffuse and lacking in continuity. Apparent contradictions are then
a source of confusion rather than being perceived as aspects of an intricate pattern of
stimulating diversity.
12.4 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by the gradualemergence of higher order organization in response to initiatives
and constraints. If such emergence is absent or inhibited, the form engenders actions which are
increasingly incapable of containing the forces to which they respond.
12.5 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment
necessitates a degree of organization which enables it to respond fully, in an integrated
uncompromising forceful manner, to a full range of external events of which it remains
independent. To the extent that this capacity is inappropriately developed, such organization is
characterized by domination, self-appreciation, and misuse of power.
12.6 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment
necessitates intuitive readjustment of implicit assumptions in order to renew the capacity to
respond appropriately to events in context. To the extent that this capacity is lacking, any
response is inhibited or focused on superficial detail.
12.6 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment
necessitates intuitive readjustment of implicit assumptions in order to renew the capacity to
respond appropriately to events in context. To the extent that this capacity is lacking, any
response is inhibited or focused on superficial detail.
12.7 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by a capacity for detached evaluation of past development from a perspective
which provides both an intuitive balance between relevant factors and a sense of integrative
possibilities. To the extent that this capacity is lacking, evaluation of external factors is negative
or indecisive thus hindering further development.
12.8 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by the capacity to respond spontaneously to higher order goals and possibilities
even if the prevailing set of lower order goals and possibilities (with which it is identified) must
be abandoned in order to do so. To the extent that the capacity for this transformation is
lacking, the lower order goals and possibilities are distorted and reinforced to the detriment of
further development.
12.9 A form
in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by the spontaneous initiation of higher order processes which are focused in
order to transform the operation of pre-existing lower order processes by which it is governed.
To the extend that this capacity is inappropriately developed, any processes initiated are
misdirected to the detriment of further development.
12.10 A
form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by an explicit pattern of control processes governing future possibilities, or
current needs and opportunities. To the extent that this capacityis inappropriately developed,
there is a tendency to over-control which is detrimental to further development.
12.11 A
form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by the capacity to engender appropriate design in the light of significant new
insights which bring possibilities and constraints into focus in an unforeseen and fruitful manner,
thus facilitating effective action for their development. To the extent that this capacity is
inappropriately developed, it results in automatic negative reaction to external initiatives and
conditions, to the detriment of their further developments.
12.12 A
form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship with its environment is
characterized by a response pattern of reconciliation between all potential initiatives or conflicts.
This unifying pattern thus acts as a stabilizing influence ensuring continuity, particularly between
higher and lower-order processes. To the extend that this capacity is inappropriately
developed, the response pattern becomes confused, reacting inadequately to spurious
conditions.
Level #13 :
Creative renewal (index
)
13.1 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any impotence and
enfeeblement of action associated with the form in its current mode.
13.2 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any fragmented or
inconsistent action associated with the form in its current mode.
13.3 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any fragmented or
inconsistent action associated with the form in its current mode.
13.4 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any non-viable
products of action associated with the form in its current mode.
13.5 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any dependence and
powerlessness of the form in its current mode.
13.6 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any rigidity or
crystallization of the form in its current mode.
13.7 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any impracticality or
shortsightedness of action associated with the form in its current mode.
13.8 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any sense of futility
associated with the form in its current mode, or to any (consequent) self-destructive processes.
13.9 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative responseto any apathy or
pessimism associated with the form in its current mode.
13.10 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any unpredictability or
uncontrollability associated with the form in its current mode.
13.11 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any action associated
with the form becoming narrowly focused as an end in itself.
13.12 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to any corruption or
dissolution of the form in its current mode.
13.13 Renewal
is dependent on the emergence of a creative response to the total
disappearance of the form in its current mode.
Level #14
: Cycle of development processes (index
)
14.1 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by static,
unchanging forms.
14.2 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by the
breakdown of forms into their component elements.
14.3 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by the
coalescence of forms through which a new form is engendered.
14.4 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by the
harmonious interaction of forms which retain their identity.
14.5 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by a unified,
continuous pattern of forms.
14.6 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by a diversity
of separate, discrete forms.
14.7 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by specific
conflictual relationships between forms.
14.8 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by
qualitatively significant undefinable relationships between forms.
14.9 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by chance-
determined forms.
14.10 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by forms
which result as a natural and predictable consequence of those processes.
14.11 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by forms
whose existence in the spatio- temporal world is self-explanatory.
14.12 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by forms
whose existence cannot be adequately explained in terms of the spatio-temporal frame of
reference.
14.13 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by fluidity,
turbulence and chaos.
14.14 The
cycle of development processes includes extreme phases characterized by ordered
systems and well-defined patterns.
Level #15 :
Construction and development of form (index
)
15.1 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires direct or
indirect observation of empirical facts, whether events, processes, or phenomena.
15.2 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development that requires
appropriate procedures of measurement of empirical quantitative can be obtained.
15.3 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires
appropriate procedures for the design and interpretation of significant experiments.
15.4 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires
appropriate procedures of empirical generalization and descriptive classification to organize
empirical data in a preliminary way in preparation for systematic classification.
15.5 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires
appropriate procedures whereby explanatory results can be represented.
15.6 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires the use
of conceptual elements, whether characteristic abstractions, terminology or techniques, which
constitute the intellectual keys by which phenomena are made intelligible.
15.7 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires
hypothesis formation, namely postulation through creative insight of a conceptual model based
on assumptions concerning existing experimental observations or measurements.
15.8 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires
recognition of a problem which appears susceptible to solution by use, or extension, of
available techniques.
15.9 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires the
possible adjustment orreplacement of a conceptual model as a result of new observations or
measurements.
15.10 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires the
selection of a particular style of explanatory procedure required for the application of a given
group of concepts.
15.11 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires use of
formal or mathematical elements, whether computational, construction or analytic procedures.
15.12 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires use of
techniques of formal transformation, whether formalization (reduction to relations while
disregarding the nature of the related) or axiomatization (tracing of entailments back to
accepted axioms).
15.13 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires
validation of a conceptual model by checking its predictions against observations or
measurements using techniques of confirmation, corroboration or falsification.
15.14 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires the
production of rigorous formal definitions of the validity, probability, degree of confirmation, and
other evidential relations involved in the judgement of a logical argument.
15.15 Construction
of form and the logical prediction of its future development requires the use
of a formal propositional system having a definite, essential logical structure, namely a formal
scheme of propositions and axioms bound together by logical relations.
Level #16 :
Values and assumptions (index
)
16.1 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that the
form is without imperfection.
16.2 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that the
form is an end in itself.
16.3 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that there
is a permanent dimension to the form.
16.4 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that the
form is composed of independent external features.
16.5 Recognition
of the values underlying a formhighlights any unfounded assumption that the
inadequacies of the form have no cause or are their own cause.
16.6 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights anyunfounded assumption that the
inadequacies of the form arise from irrelevant causes.
16.7 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that the
inadequacies of the form are only due to one cause, independent of conditions or secondary
circumstances.
16.8 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that the
inadequacies of the form are necessarily permanent.
16.9 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that it is
impossible to generate an adequate form.
16.10 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that the
form as achieved is adequate, can be accepted, and that further effort to generate a more
adequate form should cease.
16.11 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that the
most abstract forms constitute the ultimate achievement.
16.12 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlight any unfounded assumption that,
however perfect the form engendered, its inadequacy will eventually become apparent.
16.13 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlight any unfounded assumption that
there is no method adequate to the current circumstances.
16.14 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that
there is no suitable method, or pattern of methods, whereby acentric significance can be
effectively perceived or reflected in a form.
16.15 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption
supporting the practice of methods which yield no useful results.
16.16 Recognition
of the values underlying a form highlights any unfounded assumption that
there are no effective remedies for the inadequacies of the existing form.
Level #17 :
Relationship potential of a form (index
)
17.1 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on its relative imperfection.
Absence of imperfection reduces dependency arising from formal incompleteness thus
removing any basis for interdependency. However, the nature of the imperfection strongly
influences the quality of interdependence with which the form can be associated.
17.2 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on the recognition that the
form is not an end in itself.
17.3 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition of the
impermanence of the form. The larger the set of forms within which relationships may exist, the
greater the probability that such relationships will involve patterns of formal development and
transformation in which any invariance will be at a higher level of abstraction than that of the
form as originally recognized.
17.4 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition that the form
is itself the integrated development of interdependent forms.
17.5 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extend to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition of the causes
of the perceived inadequacies of the form. Such recognition establishes a relationship between
the form and other forms. However the nature of the perceived cause strongly influences the
quality of interdependence with which the form can be associated.
17.6 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition that the
inadequacies of the form arise from relevant causes and not from causes irrelevant to the nature
of the form.
17.7 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition that the
inadequacies of the form are due to a multiplicity of causes themselves dependent on conditions
and secondary circumstances.
17.8 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition that the
inadequacies of the form and their causes are necessarily of a temporary nature.
17.9 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on conviction that it is
possible to generate a more adequate form. By focusing attention on possible adaptation of the
form, its evolving relationship to other forms thus becomes evident.
17.10 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on continuing effort
togenerate a more adequate form and refusal, as adequate, of what has already been achieved.
This ensures that the form is placed in a context of forms in process of transformation rather
than in isolation.
17.11 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition that
elaboration and retention of the most abstract form does not constitute the ultimate
achievement. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, any such form, despite its
sophistication, is a hindrance to the dynamics of further development.
17.12 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on conviction that forms can
be engendered which will not subsequently come to be perceived as inadequate. Such forms
must necessarily incorporate and counterbalance the factors which make for the emergence of
inadequacy in an evolving set of forms.
17.13 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on conviction that there is
a
method, or pattern of methods, which can be followed and is adequate to current
circumstances. To the extent that this conviction is lacking, it is unlikely that significant
relationships between forms will be recognized.
17.14 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on conviction that a suitable
method, or pattern of methods, may emerge whereby acentric significance can be effectively
perceived or reflected in form. To the extent that this conviction is lacking, methods used will
continue to be centred on particular approaches which fail to take account simultaneously of
insights emerging from those centred on other approaches.
17.15 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on recognition of the futility
of practising methods which yield no fruitful results. To the extent that this recognition is lacking,
the methods pursued will limit the range and richness of relationships which can be established
between forms.
17.16 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms, is directly dependent on conviction that there are
effective remedies for the inadequacies of the existing form.
17.17 The
relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely the extent to which it is
assimilated into a larger set of differing forms depends on (intuitive) recognition of the
permeability and variability of the boundary of that form.
Level #18 :
Inadequate transformation attempts (index
)
18.1 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the assembly or mobilization of
operational resources in accordance with a predetermined concept. This tends to engender
either subservience or considerable resistance and alienation of potential support. Such forcing
initiatives may well prevent formation of linkages vital to the future integrity of the operation and
may lead to its early abortion or a considerable limitation in its scope.
18.2 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as allowing operational resources to
assemble, as and when they may, according tot he emergent processes of their initial
interaction. This tends to result in considerable confusion, seldom with any creative operational
outcome of other than a superficial nature. Such initiatives then lack coherence, continuity and
any capacity for endurance.
18.3 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be underminded by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the imposition of a programme of
operations. This immediately splits the resources mobilized into the empowered and the
disempowered. The strength of the former then tends to be overestimated, whilst their
weaknesses are under estimated, and the full contribution of the disempowered is blocked. The
imposed programme is never called into question. This procedure further alienates potential
support and increases the risk that the operation will go out of control if circumstances later
arise in which the blocked or alienated resources are essential.
18.4 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the dependence on spontaneous,
participative self-organization of operational programmes. This tends to result in uncertainty and
conflicting activities which reinforce lack of coherence, of continuity, and of any capacity for
endurance. Any programmes which emerge are immediately called into question.
18.5 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the reassessment of objectives
and direction through detailed analysis following the initiation of the operation, this tends to be
a
destructive, unfruitful exercise providing little more than an intellectual framework as support for
programme integration. The exercise then serves to alienate involvement in the operation, rather
than to uncover new reserves of support for it.
18.6 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the reassessment of objectives
and direction through resensitizing processes, affirmation, and celebration of solidarity,
following the initiation of the operation. This tendsto emphasize the dimensions of consensus
(whether intangible or superficial) at the expense of the dimensions of disagreement (often
specific and fundamental). Operational coherence is then dependent on the former without any
adequate framework to balance the issues raised by the latter.
18.7 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the preparation or partial
destructuring of the operation (for subsequent transformation), according to a rigid procedure
unresponsive to contextual feedback. This tends to result in the accumulation of conditions
which disrupt the procedure. The operation can then only be continued by overriding such
obstacles or by limiting its original scope. Both solutions generate difficulties necessitating future
operations for their elimination.
18.8 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the preparation or partial
destructuring of the raw materials of the operation (for subsequent transformation) according to
a procedure totally responsive to contextual feedback. This tends to result in the erosion (and
eventual dissipation) of the procedure whose impetus is then absorbed into the contextual
processes.
18.9 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the transformation of the raw
materials of the operation by a series of precisely defined (and reproducible) changes of
structure. This tends to limit such operations to those of essentially mechanical scope and
renders them inapplicable to transformations of perception, attitude or value.
18.10 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as the transformation of the raw
materials of the operation by a set of intuitive, irreproducible processes. This tends to limit such
operations to those of essentially intangible scope. This renders them inapplicable to
transformations of tangible conditions which should reflect such changes and give them a
measure of permanence.
18.11 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as evaluating the transformation in
terms of the quality of the results achieved, without taking into consideration the viability of the
process as a means to that end. This facilitates the emergence of processes whose by-products
set the stage for later difficulties.
18.12 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as evaluating the transformation in
terms of the viability of the process, without taking into consideration the quality of the results
achieved (if any). This facilitates the emergence of processes carried out as an end in
themselves, but which generate little of permanent benefit to thecontext in which they take place.
18.13 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as abrupt separation of the emergent
product from the process which gives rise to it. Such sudden separation endangers the product
in its final phases of dependency on the process.
18.14 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as continuing dependence of the
emergent product on the process which gives rise to it. This pattern of dependency endangers
the ultimate self-sufficiency of the product.
18.15 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as delivery of the final product to the
originally intended setting in a manner insensitive to reactions from that setting. This tends to
lead to the early rejection of the product.
18.16 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as delivery of the final product to the
originally intended setting in a manner overly sensitive to reactions from that setting. Unless the
normal resistance to new products is overcome, this tends to prevent the product from being
delivered.
18.17 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as complete rejection of any
subsequent evaluation of the process or association with it. This tends to deprive subsequent
initiatives from any value of the process as a learning experience.
18.18 Attempts
at the transformation of form tend to be undermined by destructive energy-
dissipating conflict between methodological extremes such as continuing identification with the
process after its completion. This tends to distort any subsequent initiatives.
Level #19 :
Qualitative transformation (index
)
19.1 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the assembly or mobilization of, in accordance with a predetermined concept.
19.2 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) allowing operational resources to assemble naturally of their own accord.
19.3 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the imposition of a programme of operations.
19.4 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the dependence on spontaneous, participative self-organization of operational programmes.
19.5 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the reassessment of objectives and direction through detailed analysis, following the initiation
of the operation.
19.6 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the reassessment of objectives and direction through resensitizing processes, following the
initiation of the operation.
19.7 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the preparation or partial restructuring of the elements of the operation, according to a rigid
procedure unresponsive to contextual feedback.
19.8 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the preparation or partial restructuring of the elements of the operation, according to a
procedure totally responsive to contextual feedback.
19.9 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from (and
to) the transformation of the elements of the operation by a series of precisely defined changes
of structure.
19.10 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) the transformation of the elements of the operation by a set of intuitive, irreproducible
processes.
19.11 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) evaluating the transformation in terms of the quality of the results achieved, without
taking into consideration the viability of the process as a means to that end.
19.12 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) evaluating the transformation in terms of the process, without taking into consideration
the quality of the results achieved.
19.13 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) abrupt separation of the emergent product which gives rise to it.
19.14 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) continuing dependence of the emergent product on the process which gives rise to it.
19.15 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) delivery of the final product to the originally intended setting in a manner insensitive to
reactions form that setting.
19.16 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) delivery of the final product to the originally intended setting in a manner extremely
sensitive to reactions from that setting.
19.17 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) complete rejection of any subsequent evaluation of the process or association with it.
19.18 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus, alternating from
(and to) continuing identification with the process after its completion.
19.19 Qualitative
transformation depends on harmonious transfer of focus between extremes
whilst maintaining an appropriate periodicity for such transfers within a self- organizing pattern.
Level #20 :
Significance of mutually constraining forms (index
)
20.1 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with their avoidance of
unnecessary or excessive response to each other. To the extent that this forbearance is lacking,
the significance is obscured by the turbulent nature of that response.
20.2 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with affirmation of their affinity.
To the extent that this affirmation is lacking, the significance is obscured by the consequences of
previous unbalanced interactions.
20.3 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with their controlled interaction.
To the extend that such control is lacking, the significance is obscured by the uncontrolled
nature of their interaction.
20.4 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with recognition of their sensitively
supportive response to each other's condition. To the extent that this sensitivity is lacking, the
significance is obscured by destructive interactions.
20.5 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with reconciliation of their
respective characteristics. To the extent that this reconciliation is lacking, the significance is
obscured by non-recognition or non-acceptance of some characteristics.
20.6 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with acknowledgement of
inadequacies. To the extent that such acknowledgement is lacking, the significance will be
obscured by distortion of the relationship for short-term advantage.
20.7 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with abandonment of claims to
non-existent qualities. To the extent that such claims are not relinquished, the significance will be
obscured by efforts to achieve short-term advantage.
20.8 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges withthe implicit development of
principles governing their actions. To the extent that such implicit principles are lacking, the
significance is obscured by unconstrained actions and their consequences.
20.9 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with the explicit development of
principles governing their actions. To the extent that such principles are lacking, the significance
is obscured by unconstrained actions and their consequences.
20.10 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with acknowledgement of
obstacles to further development. To the extent that such acknowledgement is lacking, the
significance is obscured and their power reinforced.
20.11 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with abandonment of efforts to
increase the resources associated with either form. To the extent that this is not achieved, the
significance is obscured by the dependence created on the resource-seeking activity.
20.12 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with reservations concerning the
resources and characteristics associated with the forms. To the extent that this reserve is
lacking, the significance is obscured by preoccupation with these attributes.
20.13 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with enthusiasm for the functions
with which they are associated. To the extend that this enthusiasm is lacking, the significance is
obscured by indifference to those functions.
20.14 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with perseverance. To the extent
that such persistent attention is lacking, the significance is obscured.
20.15 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with recognition of the
constructive and destructive consequences of their interaction. To the extent that this
recognition is lacking, the significance is obscured.
20.16 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with recollection of the multiple
aspects of their interaction. To the extent that such memories are eroded, the significance is
obscured.
20.17 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with alertness to potential
confusion. To the extent that such attentiveness is lacking, the significance is obscured.
20.18 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with intelligent interest in their
interaction. To the extent that such interest is lacking, the significance is obscured.
20.19 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with balanced attention to them.
To the extent that there is preoccupation with one form, the significance is obscured.
20.20 The
significance of mutually constraining forms emerges with ability to focus on their
interaction. To the extent that such focus cannot be maintained, the significance is obscured.
1. Schedule
