preface <

part one <

part two <

part three <

part four <

observations >

addendum <

bibliography <

the author <

the forum <

  observations

Presented above is a bare skeleton of this paradigm. For the moment, limitations of space preclude discussions of my many labels, i.e., those for the Model and for each of its sixteen archetypal individual and collective style cubes, those for their purported dimensions and, of course, those I suggest for designating the sixty-four prototypes for individuals and for collectivities. I will appreciate others' suggestions as to alternative labels.

Some, of course, will question the assumptions underlying this paradigm. I assume

  1. that there are three types of learning
  2. that impromptu semiotic responses prior to any learning are relevant to an ultimate systematization of learned responses
  3. that each type of learning involves a reversal of tendency along an axis of increasing complexity, of increasing cohesion or of increasing directionality, that combinations of these three types of learning, or their absence, result in eight archetypal problem-contexts that are isomorphic for persons alone and collectively,
  4. that there are only eight possible directions of response to the problems that arise within those contexts
  5. that the prototypic responses for persons and collectives are isomorphic
  6. that all of this can be visualized as three hyper cubes balanced on the low points of their three axes
  7. and that this paradigm constitutes a crystalline 'semantic space'

[Linguists have suggested to me that all languages must be based upon parallel 'semantic spaces', and that recognition of this should facilitate solutions to problems of translation from one to another and that it may also have implications for 'artificial intelligence'].

But, even if these assumptions are accepted, the paradigm gives only snapshots of our reactions to reality. It pertains merely to given moments. The bigger question, of course, is what might a moving picture look like? Do tendencies toward cyclical movements exist either among a system's archetypes and / or among the prototypes within them, and would such cycles be parallel? Do other regularities of movement exist? With regard to movement among a system's archetypes, there may be clues, for example, in Erikson's (op. cit.) 'A to H' stages for an individual's development and his speculation that this ontology may recapitulate the phylogeny of collective systems. Also, with regard to the movement of prototypes within an archetype, one might look for clues from violet's theories of economic cycles or from yellow's theories for the development of social movements.

For both types of movement, I suggest that the equivalent of a 'motor' must be identified, and that this would involve interaction between 1/ the 'yang-type' violet sectors of communally maintained economy and of temperamentally based character and 2/ the 'yin-type' yellow sector of ideological and existential projective agendas, That is to say, of realism tempered by humanism.

Another basis for speculating about regularities of movement may be found in fluctuations along the paradigm's four tri-dimensional axes of 'existential dialectics' that I have characterized, awkwardly, as 'disjunctive conjunctions' between the prototypic extremes of opposing archetypes. Note violet's maintenance-directed 'tough' structuralist realism versus yellow's 'yielding' post-structuralist conversational symbolic interaction. Note black's 'resilient' Phoenix versus white's 'collapsed' ashes. Note orange's 'flexible' freedom versus blue's 'rigid' (to use Fromm's first title) escape from freedom. Note green's 'stable' order versus red's 'brittle' disorder.

Still another is the tension toward isomorphism between the individual and the collective hypercubes, i. e., to what extent do societal changes determine our personal orientations, and vice-versa?.


As to how the arrays of prototypes for the various archetypes can be used, you will recall that my original motivation for this line of inquiry was to reveal the eight response possibilities for problems. To me, the most useful general conceptions are shown in Figures 2 for Mood-Based Postural Styles and Figure 3 for Primordial Prototypes. I suggest that they indicate the possibilities for all types of problems. You can easily check this with your own breathing. Having been trained in mime, I am particularly sensitive to the importance of variations in breathing and body language. Have they, before, been presented in this light?

Personally again, with regard to a contrast between Community violet and Ideological yellow, I presented a paper at the Minority Theory Section of the International Sociological Association in Upsalla, Sweden that had been fore-shadowed thirty years ago in my Harlem: Ville Noire (co-authored with Michael Fabre) on the political options within a slum-ghetto. Those options, ones shared also by under-classes in democratic societies, are displayed in Part 3's Figure 11 on responses to Community. In contrast, Part 3's Figure 9 on Ideological Orientations shows parallel options for 'full-citizens' as 'progressive' or 'cynical' (not 'integration' or 'escapism'), 'liberal' or 'reactionary' (not 'assimilation' or 'separatism'), 'conservative' or 'radical' (not 'amalgamation' or 'opportunism'), and 'insurgent' or 'conformist' (not 'contestation' or 'accommodation'). I showed these oppositions in Part 2's Figure 3.

I hope that others will make similar use of these response-modes as applied to the other archetypes. For example, this might clarify much of the confusion characterizing Self, Personality, Identity and Policy. It might also be used to modify the usual unidimensional 'strongly for-to-strongly against' depiction of opinion poll results, by giving four positive and four negative variations on attitudes.


I must mention the humanistic implications of my labels for the positive valences of the archetypes denoting the three types of learning. Exhortations, thus, for Faith, Hope and Charity fit the positive valences of blue , red and yellow , i. e., Compassion (Figure 15 for Belonging), Optimism (Figure 19 for Reciprocity), and Empathy (Figure 14 for Orientation). Seemingly, so too do Liberty, Equality and Fraternity fit the orange, green and violet positive valences for the combinations of two types of learning: i. e., Organization's honest, immediate legitimacy (Figure 13 for Liberty), Piety's virtuous sustained goodness (Figure 17 for Equality) and Communal's sustained harmonious fairness (Figure 11 for Fraternity). Note also that the bases for invidious intergroup relations are to be found in the negative valences of the three types of learning, i. e., yellow's Bigoted (Orientation's Figure 8), blue's Prejudiced (Belonging's Figure 15) and red's Discriminatory (Reciprocity's Figure 19).


As I write, I have been reading an article in the latest issue of the American Sociological Revue (Vol. 63, No. 6, Dec.'98) on one of my long-time interests. "Network Structure and Emotions in Exchange Relations" by Edward J. Lawler of Cornell University and Jeongkoo Yoon of Ajou University, South Korea, provides a good example of how the Collective Hypercube can help one to visualize authors' theoretical foci. Its introductory paragraph makes a contrast between Emerson's view of exchange relations, over time, as tending to generate trust (my 'externalized' positive red) and the authors' recent research showing repeated exchange relations generating cohesion through an emotional / affective process (my 'externalized' + 'internalized' violet, dependent, of course, upon the incorporation of blue). I have no problem with this or with the interesting research that follows. But its concluding section seems to me to confound violet with 'objectified' yellow by suggesting that their resulting 'theory of relational cohesion' somehow underlies the theoretical tradition of social constructionism. Quite possibly I have misinterpreted them, but you will see my analytical approach.


The Individual and the Collective

Here, I would like to direct attention to the violet systems-maintenance archetypes of Character and Communality (Figures 10 and 11). The Model's three dimensions for these unconscious (Combined I and We) adjustments are Immediate versus Protracted, Sustained versus Episodic and Harmony versus Discord, as is shown in Figure 10. Temperamental differences, and beneath them quite probably hereditary instinctual ones, underlie Erich Fromm's (Figure 2) Styles of Character that are dependent upon those three dimensions. I suggest that they may be helpful for analyses of the relationship of 'Culture to Personality'.

I have found confirmation and clarification of this in the British Social anthropologist M. M. Green's Appendix to the revised edition of her Ibo Village Affairs (1964) where she cites in detail what appears to be an identical schema developed in the thirties by hospital psychiatrist Murdo Mackenzie in The Human Mind (1940). She uses his schema to contrast the temperamental orientations of male with female villagers and between them and those of nearby villagers, as well as with equivalent orientations of the British colonizers.

Mackenzie's dimensions for temperament seem synonymous with my basic ones of activity, strength and valence for the style cube (Cf. Figure 3) and evoke those for Character in Figures 10, i. e.,

  • 'Immediacy' versus 'Deliberation' (my Immediate / Protracted)
  • 'Simplification' versus Amplification (my Sustained / Episodic)
  • 'Forces Combining' versus 'Forces Clashing' (my Harmony / Discord)

Without the aid of a cube of styles, he elaborates upon their characteristics.

'Immediacy' versus 'Deliberation', my Active (Immediate) versus Passive (Protracted) Approaches, he labels as Extroverted versus Introverted, and my Active versus Passive Avoidance he labels as anxious Superiority versus apathetic Inferiority.

'Simplification', my Strong Approach (Sustained), has an "I am" orientation that he sees as resulting from a unifying principle, while 'Amplification', my Weak Approach (Episodic), has a "There is" orientation that insists upon evidential demonstration.

For the third dimension of positive to negative valence, when 'Forces Combine' (my Secure) the

  • Extroverted "I am" of Simplifying Immediacy (my Resilient), is by implication perhaps Mackenzie himself, the
  • Introverted "I am" of Simplifying Deliberation (my Stable) he characterizes as Sound, the
  • Extroverted "There is" of Amplifying Immediacy (my Flexible), he characterizes as Brilliant, and the
  • Introverted "There is" of Amplifying Deliberation (my Yielding), he calls Pacific, while,

when 'Forces Clash' (my Threatened), the defensive reactions are:

  • Extroverted "I am" of Simplifying Immediacy (my Tough) from Aggressivity to Anger and Rage;
  • Introverted "I am" of Simplifying Deliberation (my Rigid) from Dull withdrawal to Depressive plea of inadequacy;
  • Extroverted "There is" of Amplifying Immediacy (my Brittle) from Superficial to Hysterical;
  • Introverted "There is" of Amplifying Deliberation (my Collapsed) from Ritualistic to Obsessional.

(Underlined, here, are the reactions when defenses fail)

I trust you will agree that this is better shown cubically.

Why I have 'published' by Web Page on the Internet

Ideally, I would have wanted to be published by the Scientific American after 1991 when I had found the exciting relationship between my just finished paper and the I Ching, but it was clear that I did not have the necessary baggage of prior publications on the subject. So I focused on my original target, Sociological Theory. Thus, in 1993, I submitted, with more than a little trepidation, both because of its several colors and many Figures and of its mix of 'grand theory' with the so-called occult, "A Cubic Map of Semantic Space: Parsons, Morris, Erikson and the I Ching." The versions I had submitted for its putative 'readers' (they who serve as a jury before publication) were never read because the journal's editor at the time replied with a considerate letter saying that he had no one who would be able to understand it and suggested that I make it into a book. It seemed preferable to me to prepare a paper that separated my suggested hypercubic paradigm from an addendum on its relationship to the I Ching. This is the result that I have not submitted elsewhere. I was encouraged by one of my sons to resort to the Internet, where I would not have problems reproducing the colors and Figures, and also would not have the problem of finding an 'appropriate jury'. The jury is now you. I think of my professor Ralph Linton's dedication of one of his books 'to the students who would oblige their teachers to read it'. This should allow me to consider reactions to it while I still can.


Before you turn to the Addendum, you may be interested in the following quote that I have recently found in I Ching Games by H. Y. Li and Sibly S. Morrill (The Cadleon Press, San Francisco, Ca, 1971, pp.16-17).

....the I Ching enjoys its position in the history of world civilization today both because of its content and the use made of it, and also because of its antiquity. Chinese tradition attributes the formation of its basic structure - its framework - to the Emperor Fu Hsi, believed to have lived about the year 3,000 B. C.

While some historians think that Fu Hsi had about as much claim to historicity as the legendary King Arthur, there are evidences to show that the I Ching originated long before King Wen and his son Duke Tan of Chou who lived about 1,250 B. C. Unquestionably, those two made great contributions to the I Change , but there is also ample evidence that the framework of the I Change and its fundamental ideas existed centuries before King Wen and therefore its commentaries as well.

For obviously, whoever created the framework culminating in the sixty-four hexagrams certainly created a commentary to explain it, and logically that commentary would have been followed by others - just as the commentaries of Duke Tan of Chow were followed by still more, including those of Confucius and his disciples around 500 B. C., and theirs in turn by those of many others who felt that even the work of the famous Sage required elaboration.

All of which leads to a digression that should engage the attention of nearly everyone. So far as presently can be determined, the oldest part of the Old Testament was probably written in the 10th Century B. C., or somewhat later. Zoroaster, to whom the Zend-Avesta is ascribed, is believed to have lived not earlier than 1,000 B. C. The earliest date for any of the Vedas produced by the Sanskrit writers of ancient India is believed to be not earlier than 1,500 B. C. Consequently, except for a papyrus roll in Egyptian hieratic writing of the maxims of Ptahhetep, from the 25th Century B. C. now in the Louvre, it seems very probable that the I Ching may be termed the oldest book now known.

In addition, since the I Ching, unlike any of the other works mentioned above, devotes itself exclusively to the task of providing the user with a way to understand the cosmos and everything therein, as well as furnishing him with the means of finding and adhering to the right path but without the shadow of insistence that the work is the result of a revelation and that it alone provides the way to truth - it must be considered as one of the most objective really great works ever written.

 
    >> more >>