Outline of a metamodel (4)

Some evidence is available that indicates that the probability of inclusion of N terms in a set of this kind bears a close relationship to the form of the relative abundance curve for isotopes (see Figure 12-l).(5) The peaks in the curve indicate more stable configurations. There is strong evidence that this stability is based upon favored geometrical configurations governing the three-dimensional arrangement of spheres to form a compact whole. It has been argued that there is at least some probability that such 'packing constraints' would govern the preferred ordering of concepts in the mind, given man's seeming inability to comprehend within a four-dimensional framework. (6)

Figure 12-1: Indication of Progressive Decrease in Relative Abundance of Isotopes of Increasing Atomic Number.

From this it would follow that there is a greater probability of a viable need set being formulated with certain numbers of needs rather than with others, although this probability would decrease with an increase in the number of needs. This raises the question of how to explore such viable sets and the dynamics resulting from formulation of a less viable set.

The following procedure gives a way of predicting and ordering the multiplicity of perceived needs. First, in the case of 'human needs,' in how many ways can needs be distinguished by subdividing the set?

Two-Level Distinction. The set may, for example, be split into two subsets, but in how many ways may this be done in a particular case? Depending on the level at which the distinction is made, there may be one, two, three, four, or N recognized two-level distinctions- namely, the most fundamental distinctions and successively less fundamental levels of distinction. Clearly these are not unrelated, since the less fundamental distinctions are regrouped in distinctions at more fundamental levels. For example, at the level at which only four distinctions can be recognized, the regrouping would tend to bear a relationship to the level at which only eight distinctions are made (by regrouping pairs of distinctions). On initial examination of all such two-level distinctions, there would tend to be some confusion as to the level to which they should be allocated in order that the most fundamental should not be embedded in a set of less fundamental distinctions. The probability of any particular two-level distinction being advocated as most fundamental is likely to be higher, the greater the number of possible distinctions at that level. (Namely, it is less likely that the more fundamental two-level distinctions would he recognized.)

On the other hand, this tendency is counterbalanced by the lower stability, viability, and acceptability of the less fundamental distinctions. Over longer periods of time they are meaningful to fewer people and are of less value to the ordering of perceptions, however vigorously the use of any particular one may be advocated.

In sorting out the level to which each two-level distinction belongs, reference may be made to the pattern of relations between the various distinctions at that level in the light of the underlying qualitative characteristics of the number associated with that level (see below).

Three-Level Distinction. The set may, however, be split into three subsets. As before, it is a question of the number of ways in which this may be done in a particular case. The argument above applies again.

N-Level Distinction. Clearly the argument may be generalized for N-level distinction, although, in the light of earlier arguments, N is unlikely to exceed about 10.

Now the procedure adopted to clarify the ordering at any particular N-level effectively clarifies the nature of the most fundamental distinction for N= 2, 3, 4 . ., N. This in turn provides an ordered configuration of aspects that exemplify the nature of the original totality (i.e., N= 1) that was explored by subdivision. Since the distinctions are made and labeled with words, it is vital to recognize that the result of the exercise is an approximation. Closure is not possible, for the future will necessarily develop a better sense of the significance of such fundamental needs. In addition, within whatever context this is performed, the result as a whole is colored by the constraints of that context. The resulting order only reflects a larger or smaller aspect of a more comprehensive series of meanings that could have arisen if a wider range of inputs had been incorporated.

In addition to proceeding by subdivision, clarification concerning a named need may be sought by determining that it may be considered to be a part.

Two-Level Combination. The set may, for example, be paired with one other set to form a two-element set. But in how many ways may this be done in a particular case, given that the pairing cannot be arbitrary but must be based on some aspect of the quality associated with the number 2? Such combinations could be ordered and clarified as suggested by the previous section.

Three-Level Combination. The set could be grouped with two other sets to form a three-element set. As before, it is a question of ordering the ways in which this may be done to clarify the many possible aspects of the superordinate set.

N-Level Combination. Again the argument may be generalized, although it is unlikely, as before, that the total in the resulting set would exceed about ten. In this procedure it may well be that particular combinations are not meaningful or useful. Clearly it becomes increasingly difficult, as N increases, to integrate the original set into a combination. But at any stage, a further procedure may be adopted to identify the successive elements of N-1, N-2 . . . N-M combinations. This clarifies the aspects of the nature of the more fundamental superordinate sets (where N-M = 1) that may underly any given set.

Comment

Both procedures ensure that any given set is embedded in a context. In the first case, this is in relation to alternative (or more superficial) possibilities. In the second, it is in relation to more fundamental possibilities.

By such procedures a particular set is tested and refined in a manner that should establish the constraints on its meaningfulness and communicability to those who-in contrast to the set's vigorous advocates-may be sensitive to other aspects of the context in which it is embedded. The procedures necessarily highlight the extremely limited value of dependence on the univocal, unambiguous meaning of any words (in definitions) used to label such sets or their elements.

It should be stressed that, in contrast to the usual competitive preoccupation, the concern is not with establishing any particular set as the most valid. Rather, it is to give some understanding of the probability that any such set will be advocated, perceived as valid, or widely comprehended and communicated. At the same time it supplies a context for elucidating the meaning underlying whatever marks (words, numbers, codes, etc.) are used to identify a set and its elements.

Contrary to widespread assumption, formulation of a N-term set is not without its 'side effects.' It is fairly obvious, for example, that a two-term need set establishes a dynamic both for those who conceptualize about needs and for thoseinvolved in any institutionalization in response to them. In this case the dynamic arising from the dyad would have any or all such dyadic qualities, as active-passive, rightwrong, we-they, dominant-subordinate, conflict-complementarity, and so on. Namely, the very choice of a two-term need set establishes the nature of the dynamics surrounding its use (e.g., between two agencies or professions, each responsible for one of the needs and consequently competing for resources). It is equally obvious that promulgation of a one-term set (e.g., the need) gives rise to another kind of dynamic. It is, however, much less obvious what kinds of dynamics tend to be associated with sets of a larger number of terms. Like it or not, certain interaction qualities are built in by choice of the number of set elements. If ignored, they will erode or completely undermine the effectiveness of any action based upon them. They define the problem by which an .N-term-based initiative will be counteracted or nullified.