STRUCTURAL REFORMATION OF REVERSAL THEORY

Resurrexit Spiritus part 2

Dr. Marcus Aurelius Roe (2023)

The eight Reversal Theory states are described as forming a randomised “matrix” with no inter-domain patterns (Apter, 2001). That is a strange matrix. This article attempts to prove it is a matrix, however completely non-random as a matrix should be. The integrations, to do with psychomena and spiritual understanding as described in the previous article, are hidden primarily due to basic misconfigurations. In order to identify the missing structure of Reversal Theory, it is first necessary to consider and reformulate some of the definitions, extract meaning from inter-domain patterns, and then designate the greater order.

SHIFT, RENAME, AND REFORMULATE

The primary problem with systemising Reversal Theory is the conflation of elements in transactions with relationships. Since the dynamics and structure are to be completely shifted, it is reasonable to adjust some of the state definitions. So as not to confuse literature in Reversal Theory, I will use alternative terms for the domains.

Two of the states from the Reversal Theory domains, “caring for others” and “empowering others,” are redundant. Truly empowering others can only be accomplished after having mastered the self. This is simply a form of altruism or “others-sympathy” altered by advancement in another domain.

To alleviate this problem, the others-sympathy state in relationships becomes altruism in Eros domain and others-mastery in transactions is replaced by power in Logos domain. Power then becomes the wider state of empowering the self in the world. This can be accomplished by empowering others but that is not the only means. Power and mastery are completions of altruism and egoism, so they must contradict at the same time as interacting. Table 1 clarifies differences and similarities between the domains and states in the theory and proposed reforms.

Table 1. Four Domains Equivalencies Listed by Theory and State Dynamics

Here in Tables 1 & 2, the domains are lined up in the prescribed non-order of Reversal Theory: means-ends, rules, transactions, and then relationships. They are placed under their Resurrexit Spiritus replacements: Telos, Kratos, Logos, and Eros. The primary problem described above also establishes the first visible ‘issue’ Logos creates for Eros, as seen in Table 2, in the ‘issues’ row

Table 2. Four Domains Analysis

In Table 2 ‘issues’ row, Telos has no issues with other domains. Kratos has an issue with Eros, Eros with Logos, and Logos back again with Kratos. This means seeking power and mastery causes problems for relationships. Relationships cause problems for conformance and resistance, which in turn conflicts with real power. Based upon this information alone, we cannot perfectly determine order, however we can ascertain that Telos must act in mediation somewhere and so should be in the second or third place of an accurate system.

The ‘obligation’ row of Table 2 is fascinating and very revealing. The only obligatory domain is Kratos; conformation or resistance to things is a basic condition of existence. This would appear to be the seed, or the first domain. However, it is a waste if it does not provoke action, making Telos involuntary if growth is desired. The non-voluntariness of Eros implies people tend to welcome novel experiences that provide unpredicted yet needed definition, so some of the best self-definition derives from the unexpected. To a great degree this is because of a human need to be desired and learn more about the self. This is instrumental to personality development and definition.

Logos is the only domain that is of a purely voluntary nature, there is no way for it to be obligatory, involuntary, or non-voluntary. The reason that Logos is a hurdle for Eros is that it is the domain immediately after it. Logos is the fulfilment of the self-definition and understanding won in the Eros domain. Further confirmation of the supremacy of Logos is found in ‘imbalance cost’, where it is the only one to bear a universal cost to individual imbalance. Logos requires especial energies of self-other-referential-regeneration through the product and craft in universalist completion. In essence, Logos is the mirror reflecting a summary of the other three domains.

ORDER AND CONFIRMATION

I have now derived an order, but perhaps still more can be learned. The ‘defeat-by’ row from Table 2, as laid out in the last Table 3 column, appears to confirm the newly configured order. Generating a phrase from this ordering, it might state that “ignorance precipitates procrastination, in turn misdirecting disgust which contributes to corruption.” Nothing appears glaringly faulty with the reasoning. Another way of phrasing it, in reverse, is that the knowledgeable person seeks expedience and finds delight in justice.

The ‘spirit’ column also confirms the order from material to unspiritual, followed by religious to spiritual. Eros domain has a primary ‘distinction’ in its greatest variability of experience, which is responsible for and in turn due to its ‘result’: definition. This is in reference to all the various emotions, thoughts, ideas, and abstract type notions that occur in this domain. All relations include everything. This is something of a superset, and must mean the most energy is expended here, hence the ‘extrapolate’. The most common domain of interaction in a well-adjusted individual, however, should be Telos.

Logos, then, is the most difficult because it is the extractive meditation of meaning in interactions of the first three domains. The Logos result includes all victories of comprehension extracted from the definition. This is because it judges judgement itself, first of conformance in Kratos domain and then progressively more of the psychomena in Eros domain. Logos is the result of results. This leads toward finer definitions of beauty, that is love in itself. The definition result of the energetic and astounding Eros domain is sparked by the continued confrontation and production of Kratos and Telos. Production of Telos is impassioned at the foundation by confrontation in Kratos.

Table 3. Four Domains Ordered and Described

Table 4. Eight States Analysis

Table 4 has the states ordered correctly and delineated between the specific and nonspecific. These states contain incomplete particulars and universals, so I chose to use alternative names instead. However, extremism in a more nonspecific state will invariably lead to extreme and bad universality. The same is true of extremity in a specific state leading toward extreme and bad particularity.

Table 5. Erosic Scale Analysis

In Table 5, is found the ordering of the domains listed under spiritual categories and, finally, purpose. Purpose is a description of the promise appropriate for both states in each domain. The promise of both conformation and resistance is liberation. Product and craft promise progress. Egoism and altruism promise knowledge. Mastery and power promise love, that is the completed erosic eye. In each case, the domains are the completion of their predecessors.

There are hylic dependencies in the Kratos and Telos domains, indicative of material and bodily reliance. In Eros, hylic are interdependencies to the psychic. Psychic dependence implies an application of internal ethical rules. It is the progressive production of Telos that initiates awareness of the psychic. Logos is the singular domain involved with its only dependency, pneumatics or spirit. Essentially, this is domain self-awareness or reflection in the depths of experience. This is demonstrated in the individual by pneumatic interdependence with the psychic, as well as independence from the hylic.

OBJECT REANALYSIS

So, returning to the problem of the painters in the previous article, are we any closer to a solution? Perhaps and some of the difference may exist in the newly uncovered power state. However, there is something else missing for description of this difference that can incorporate everything learned here. That is elevational motive.

REFERENCES

Apter, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life: A guide to reversal theory (1st ed). American Psychological Association.