Earlier, when this was entitled more cumbersomely as "Styles of Human Behavior in a Hypercubic Paradigm: Semantic Typologies defined within a Matrix of Prototypic Responses in Archetypal Contexts", Jesse Carleton, obviously a friend, wrote the following warning to other readers:
"Anyone who propounds a 'Theory of Everything' risks being called a crackpot, and it takes time to convince one's self that this work is valid. At first the references seem hopelessly eclectic, the colors silly, and the terminology meaningless. Add the I Ching to this and count in Paul's playful approach and we have all the ingredients for a first-class nutcake. But persevere, as the Chinese classic so often enjoins us. As the light begins to dawn, you will see that there is truth and power here that can revolutionize the social sciences.
"Does Paul's approach constrain the varieties of human experience or oversimplify behavior? Not at all. It is a starting point. We use words to describe human behavior. Paul assumes that there is an underlying dialectical reality and that semantic space evolves when we attempt to make sense of that reality."preface
Perhaps the most attention-getting formulations in the study of mankind are the arrays of typologies that sensitize us to human and socio-cultural variability. Most of these typologies would seem to fall into two categories. First are the contrasting contexts for our problems (e. g., organizational, emotional or moral ones), and second are the contrasting styles of our responses to such problems (e. g., flexible, rigid or yielding).
In part one I present the Model and explore cubic representations of sets of mutually exclusive problem-context archetypes, eight for individuals and eight for collectivities. In part two I similarly explore cubic representations of eight, also mutually exclusive, modes of response within each of these sixteen contexts. In part three I superimpose response cubes upon problem-context cubes. This is to show, for both individuals and collectivities, the sixty-four response-corners of what I designate as hypercubic semantic space. In part four I show the isomorphism between individual and collective modes of response.
Finally, I present my observations about the implications of this paradigm.
An addendum relates the I Ching to the paradigm. It shows that its sixty-four hexagrams would better be presented as the dialectically opposed corners of a hypercube , rather than on a circle's rim or within the spaces of a chess board. Also presented is a bibliography and a short biographical sketch of Paul Oren, the author.
An online forum is provided to facilitate discussion and debate with the author and other contributors.