1990 | Uncompleted
Towards a general typology of relationships (between people, concepts, etc)- / - The very tentative typology below
is distributed across two tables. The second is concerned with physical
and emotional relations. The first is concerned with mental and
spiritual relations. These are denoted by the left-hand columns.
For each of kind of relationships, a distinction is made between the senses
and their correspondence to the (Jungian) psychological functions: touch
(sensation), smell/taste, hearing, and vision. These are denoted
by the right-hand columns. In each case, 8 forms of relationship
are distinguished. So for each table there are 64 distinct relationships.
To get a sense of how there might differ, the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching
have been mapped onto that framework using the traditional house-organization.
Clicking on the link in any given cell, will take you to the hexagram index
and to a choice of relevant commentaries. Further comments below.
Comments Below each table, in the last row, is a very first attempt to reconcile each column of a table with immediately recognizable actions and proceses in a relationship. It should be possible later to provide such distinctions at the cell level as well. For example, "emotionally grabbed" or "squeezed". The layout of the tables suggests that the most obvious physical characteristics of relationships may serve as templates suggesting emotional, mental or spiritual equivalents. The tables are in this sense a table of metaphorical harmonics -- were it possible to attach appropriate meanings to each cell. A kind of psycho-social equivalent to the mutliplication tables! The tables may also be considered as equivalent to the periodic table of chemical elements. In that sense, some cells may usefully represent relationships that are poorly understood or ill-defined. Use of the I Ching hexagrams tends to emphasize the subtlety of relationships -- when there is a need for more graspable understanding of the different types of relationship. However, "grasping" may be but one approach to understanding relationships -- and may be a trap in its own right! There is some possibility that particular columns may reflect the principal style of particular forms of organization. This is indicated in the first row of erach table. One difficulty with the tables at present is the confusion / ambiguity
as to whether it should reflect a typology of characteristic behaviour
in a relationship as opposed to a typology of relationships.
Associated questions: Scissors / Stone / Paper Metaphoric harmonics Symmetry (Mutual) vs Asymmetry (One-way) Alternation of columns (Right / Left) Cooper / Thom (catastrophe) Periodic table (other periods, 10, 18, etc) Issue of whether about the involvement in the relationship, or the relationship (atom vs molecule?) valzncies? ReferencesA typology of relationships with plants (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/earthknd/merton/toc.html) A Critical Incident Typology
Of Client Relationships In The Auditing Profession (
Eric Widmer (forthcoming). Les relations fraternelles à l'adolescence.
[Sibling Relationships
of
Recursive Relationship Types (http://www.fbi.fh-darmstadt.de/~databases/db04.html) Relationship types (http://www.dtic.mil/c3i/bprcd/0050/sld191.htm) Entity relationship modelling (http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/User/R.A.Jones/project/index.html) Relations, analogies, correspondences in Hermann Hesse's Glass Bead Game and attempts to design playable variants by Charles Cameron (http://haven.ios.com/~davehuge/Relation.html)
|