The system Archaion 4 Globes
It is a theory of the Self that is trying to be integral. Utilizing global sustaining patterns and ways of connecting and relating content together. Fractals, cycles, dualities, hierarchies, fundamental categories, etc. My goal is to be right but most importantly to be careful, construct aware and self aware of my framework. Trying to figure out what goes where and put things at the right places. I represent the system by a mandala for the unity of the whole.
"A mandala is the psychological expression of the totality of the self"
- Carl Jung
Self construct theory
I actually encourage everyone to map what they actually think and to place content in a systematic way. But I do offer my system as a baseline and a way to offer solutions for people. Some of it are so universally sound that I estimate people constructing a symbolic understanding of the world will come to a similar architecture. This construction is an individual process so it is an error in of itself in the mesure that reality is a shared experience and is the best teacher. But I do estimate that my theory do offer a way for people to fill the gap between the individual and the collective regarding a symbolic approach to reality. It is a way to contextualize everything. This is a map and not the territory but I do try to square the circle.
See Glossary for more informations on my definitions, my opinions and my conceptualizations.
The Globes:
1. Interior precise (innate)
2. Exterior precise (interface)
3. Interior universal (universals)
4. Exterior universal (space)
Each globes is refering to a large conceptual category. They operate alone and isolated but they connect after to create spheres.
There are spheres base 2, spheres base 3 and sphere base 4.
So there are 4 Globes, 6 spheres base 2 (2 globes working together), 4 spheres base 3 (3 globes working together) and base 4 (all the globes together).
Most globes and spheres have 2 blocks (division of the content). But 2 spheres and base 4 have 3 blocks.
How it looks like roughly
This is a representation of the system and where each of the globes and spheres are. I illustrate it with a mandala. This is basically a categorical contextual map that indicate systematically where content are and how they connect to each others. After you can go into more precision, sort the content out overtime and naviguate throught it to see the process and the trajectory of the content.
4rch4ion 4Globes
Globes:
1: Interior Precise (Innate): Inner self + Assessment
2: Exterior Precise (Interface): Organism adaptation + Society
3: Interior Universal (Universals): Self parts + Mythos
4: Exterior Universal (Experience): Perception Laws + Environment space
Spheres base 2:
1-2: Nature and Nurture + Relations
1-3: Ops and Table of patterns + Archetypes
2-3 (Deconstructive): Collective unconscious + Culture + Animalistic model
1-4 (Deconstructive): Saviors and demons + Experience perspective + Pathways
2-4: Systems dynamics + Learning interface
3-4: Hero journey + Universal Experience
Spheres base 3:
1-2-3: Background + Vices and Virtues
1-2-4: Human dynamics + Ways of operating
1-3-4: Functions order hierarchy + Individuation
2-3-4: Meta cultural progression + Behavioral perception model
Base 4: Constructive
Levels of totality (heaven)
Logos (human/cosmos)
Vibration levels (earth)
The Blocks
As you can see above, there is two form of content for each spheres and globes except that for some of them its tree. This is the blocks, they serve to divide content and to get things even more precisely. You can see it with X content + X content. The block that is on the left connect more to the spheres on the left of the equation. The block on the right connect more to the spheres on the right of the equation. For the globes, the first block is the most primal form of the globe and the one after is more the expression. For the spheres 2-3 and 1-4 it line up with the base 4 trinity. So the first one will be more levels of totality (heaven), the second Logos (cosmos) and the third vibration levels (earth).
The 4 quadrant
My 4 globes looks a lot like the four quadrants of Ken Wilber. I didnt know his theory at the time I was creating the 4 globes. We map it a little differently even though we put the same 4 big universal categories at the same place. I use interior and exterior like him but we use differently precise and universal vs individual and collective. I think that my mapping is slightly superior when you think about it. But Archaion strenght is that I dont only use 4 quadrants, I square the circle to do a mandala. I can narrow down content more precisely in context and get more nuance because of that.
One of our disagreement is that he thinks culture is on the globe 3 while it is on sphere 2-3. I prefer to use the term society while culture has a 3 bend to it cause its more shared value like. And a lot of things in his quadrant 4 is in globe 2 or sphere 2-4. He made a few errors because he doesnt connect quadrants together. Like for examples a lot of his quadrant 4 (Its) is 2-4 working together or just 2 and a lot of his quadrant 3 (We) is 2-3 working together. Morality and values are mostly 1-2-3 and deeper ones 1-3, some 1-2 not only 3. Political and community values are much more 1-2 and 1-2-3 alike.
Shadow work is more something that is 1-3-4 and is actually more complex than just quadrant 1. Psychology is so large that its not only quadrant 1. Its mainly 1-3 in my opinion if done right but right now we have a 1-2, some 1-3 and 1 biases. But clinically it is indeed 1, behaviorism is 2, neuropsychology is 1-2-4, or 1-4 or 2-4 or just 2 depending on the branch, cognitive science has a 4 bend to it so 2-4 or only 2 or only 4. Purpose is more 1-3-4 but we can say its 1 if we look at it at a precise moment. And if we go stricly by the subjectivity of the person yes its indeed 1.
I will share more informations about my system in the future. I will only talk about sphere 1-3 in what follows.
The sphere 1-3 is where most of typology is. The other spheres containing those globes (1 and 3) also have elements of typology.
Sphere 1-3
1-3 (interior precise connecting to interior universals) as an example:
Because sphere 1-3 has globe 3 (very Carl Jung stuff), we know that categorically we are tracking the universals which are the fundamental symbolic laws of the unconscious essentially. Ops is there because thats what it is tracking even though it use 1-4 to track saviors and demons and 2 for the scientific method, etc. Now we know it is in that realm but we dont know if it is accurate. But we know its in that realm so we put it there. It is also in the interior precise (globe 1) categorically cause we deal with people stories and individuals. If it was stricly 3 we would only talk of images of selves and fantasy stuff without any grounding in more precise image. And moslty without people examples, it would be more vague.
Globe 1 alone would be someone talking about his feelings or his reasons without any categorical pinning. The person just share and process what she subjectively said without any universal laws. Its also very motivation base, own assessment reading and condition driven that globe 1. The first block is more toward the left of the equation. So block 1 is more 1 in the sphere 1-3 than the block 2 who is more 3.
Ops and tables of patterns are heavily 3 but they still categorically try to be about the individual so they bend more towards the globe 1. Tables of patterns is essentially my old system of typology who got better through the years. I use it after Ops. While archetypes are the expressions of the images of the fantasy and the selves parts of the globe 3. So theoritically speaking 1-3, 2-3, 3-4 are mostly where archetype operates but 1-3 is more classic in my opinion. Carl Jung didnt seem super solid on archetypes at times and deviate sometimes so it push me to believe that he saw what I saw but didnt had the langage to differenciate 1-3, 2-3 and 3-4 in a clear simple form.
Each categories (globes, spheres and blocks) in my system can have an infinite amount of stuff in them, the point is to put things that fit the categories in it and then with time sort things out to see what is more accurate. It also helps see things more in the macro to then after go more precise cause you know where to dig basically. The abstract map is so clean that you can see where is the problem so you can dive deep to fix it.
Block 1: Ops and Table of patterns.
Block 2: Archetypes
Connecting the globes and typology
Now if you know Ops (or just typology jargon), it follows roughly that math. The Globes follow the Gamma quadra functions stack. What follows is just a typology representation of what they are overall. This is roughly those universal connections.
Globe 1 is Di, more on the Fi side. Its more SF.
Globe 2 is De, more on the Te side. Its more ST.
Globe 3 is Oi, more on the Ni side. Its more NF.
Globe 4 is Oe, more on the Se side. Its more NT.
Sphere 1-2 = Ti (more hard to tell) and Fe
Sphere 3-4 = Ne and Si (more hard to tell)
It may seem counter intuitive but Ne express globe 3 better, Si integrate globe 4 better but they are more lost (conflict) between those two globes even if their process is more in between those two globes. The Ti Fe axis have more transactions between globe 1 and 2 but get more lost in them independantly.
The animals seems to follow that math:
Sphere 1-3 = Sleep. More IxxP
Sphere 2-4 = Play. More ExxJ.
Sphere 2-3 = Blast. More IxxJ.
Sphere 1-4 = Consume. More ExxP.
Spheres 2-3 and 1-4 are deconstructive spheres because they pass in the middle of the mandala. Stacking wise in typology, consume and blast are always the first two in the stack and they have opposite charge fixation (introvert vs extrovert). Make sense in my view that they are deconstructive rather than constructive (in my opinion).
The itinary in my system regarding typology
1. Starting with Ops. It is tracking saviors and demons and recalibrating itself in sphere 1-4 with already establish theory that is operating in sphere 1-3 lens. The tracking process is globe 2 (inherently) going with behaviors, speech patterns, charges and looks. It is trying to go as much as possible to globe 3 (which it should aim at) with an inevitable 1-3 result.
2. I use my table of patterns (1-3) to bring more precisions. My table have some margin of error because we deal with less universalities so it can be 1-3-4 actually or more 1-4. It takes the more optimal (for what I can tell) typology stuff I was expose to and make it into a stacking of functions that is coherent. It definitely add a layer of treating the mechanisms of Ops and how content relate to each other. It is a counter balance to the inclination of Ops to infer cognition and bending towards behaviors overtime.
3. There is sphere 1-3-4 where I try to see the more personalize animal stack which has 12 animals. My table of patterns help a lot to do that more easily. This sphere also highlight the hero journey (sphere 3-4) and the spiritual path of individuation. You can see the globe 2 missing in that equation. And thats why the individuation process is very personalize, experential and universals without the society in how it is handle.
4. Every tool in my system to try to track people and my own psychology.
In summary:
1. 128 x 4 modalities x 4 social types x 2 sexes = Ops type
2. 64 stacking order = My table of patterns
3. I use Ops + Table + Basic development = easier to see 12 animals. Also see the individuation process. In what ways the pathways seems to be forms and express.
4. At this point I have a pretty good idea of what the person process is. From here I basically use my whole system to try to understand someone (not just typology). I rarely do all those steps in a straight forward fashion.
Symbolic definitions
Because Ops definitions are short, they are actually great to track people but they lack substances. The functions, the human needs and the animals are insanely complex and differ in every type, every stack and every person really. So it is good that it is general so there is more room for context. But there is still some language that can help us expand the horizons and still make them general enough without being bias. Mapping stuff accurately as much as possible is important and we shouldn't only focus on the practicality of tracking people. We need the metaphysical scaling to help people understand and apply this knowledge. This is my straight forward definitions of those categories. They are not vastly different from Ops.
Orientations:
Decider = decide and judge (people focus), rational
Observer = observation and perceive (things focus), irrational
E = objective (external aim), medium and spectrum, low entropy and dynamic
I = subjective (internal aim), source and staking, high entropy and static.
Temperaments:
De, ExxJ = tribe external spectrum judging
Di, IxxP = identity internal stacking judging
Oi, IxxJ = known internal stacking perceiving
Oe, ExxP = gather external spectrum perceiving
De is the opposite of Di, Oe is the opposite of Oi. Spectrum is horizontal and stacking is vertical.
Letters:
S = sensory, elements, report, precise, observing
N = intuition, categories, generalize, conceptualize, observing
T = thinking, logic, working, make sense, deciding
F = feeling, values, vibe, relation, deciding
S is the opposite of N, T is the opposite of F. Combos make dimensions of life (ST, SF, NT, NF).
Functions:
Fe = tribe external judging spectrum of feeling
Te = tribe external judging spectrum of thinking
Fi = identity internal judging stacking of feeling
Ti = identity internal judging stacking of thinking
Si = known internal perception stacking of sensory
Ni = known internal perception stacking of intuition
Se = gather external perception spectrum of sensory
Ne = gather external perception spectrum of intuition
Each function can be masculine or feminine.
Masculine = Solid = pushy and retain
Feminine = Moveable = flowy and let go
Every function has an opposite form to it. That opposition form an axis. Mediation is indirect and Force is direct.
Fe Ti = Mediation in decision, thinking source and feeling medium
Te Fi = Force in decision, feeling source and thinking medium
Se Ni = Force in observation, intuition source and sensory medium
Ne Si = Mediation in observation, sensory source and intuitive medium
Developmental lines.
Extreme = The opposition and strong distance between some dynamics
Balance = The closeness and strong bundage between some dynamics
Meta = The going beyond the thing to leverage power
Doing = The going about the thing to leverage power
Saviors and Demons
Basically, you have charges in your brain and those charges divide the material into two categories. The saviors are what is naturally fire up in your brain and is obsessive. The demons are what is demonize in your brain and is thrown away. All the content I just mention above are divide into those two categories. For example, if you are savior feeling you are demon thinking, if you are savior Oe you are demon Oi. If you are savior Fe, you are demon Ti. It works in opposition and is static in life even though you can develop yourself and work out those demons. The goal is to do the demons and to reject the savior as much as possible. The saviors are the temptation, the bad behaviors but are also a way for us to stay motivate to some degree so its a hard make up to manage. The demons are the insecurities, the limited beliefs, the good behaviors. We have to develop demons cause they are our true calling to be better and are the actual saviors. Just that your mind naturally see saviors as good and demons as bad even though its the contrary that helps balance the psyche into an integrate psyche. So basically do the demons to become balance and do good behaviors in your life. Our true selves is the integration of opposites and the path forward is to make our demons our true selves. Saviors and demons are perceptions and motivations that make some type of behavioral patterns. Behaviors fall short so we have to see the perceptions and the motivations in terms of symbolism to have a starting place and see the instincts being manifest.
Universals
What I mean here is that there are process that are collective. This is hard to explain but I will try to explain it here. Every coins has a form in the collective mind. In more concrete forms, everyone has the same region in the brain doing the same thing. That means that some things are isolate to be some things even if we make our own interpretation of those things that are in line with our saviors and demons. We project and twist the narrative because of our saviors but there is universalities of those things that are operating in a fashion outside of our saviors and demons. We can still call those universalities in line with some coins like feeling, thinking, De, Di, etc. This process is universally doing that even if we differ in terms of interpretations and in terms of projections. For example, the process of gathering infromation is Oe in universal but we can actually gather information with everything in the math. Its just that the universal process is Oe and that the other process are substracting the Oe or simply have so much influence in the gathering process that it matters little what is gathering. Basically every temperament gathers because of attention even if ExxP are the universal of gathering. Being aware of universals make you more aware of levels, isolation of categories, symbolism and subjective and objective layers.
Animals
Sleep = Di + Oi = identity known stacking. High entropy and static about irrational and rational. Introspecting and processing internally. Concise style.
Consume = Oe + Di = gathering spectrum of identity. Low entropy and dynamic about irrational and rational. Learning and processing external in an internal way. Informative style.
Blast = Oi + De = known spectrum of tribe. High entropy and static about irrational and rational. Organising and processing internal in an external way. Pointer style.
Play = De + Oe = tribe spectrum of gathering. Low entropy and dynamic about irrational and rational. Expanding and processing externally. Referencing style.
Double deciding = De + Di = tribe identity judging. Low entropy and dynamic about rational. Balancing spectrum and stacking of judging.
Double observing = Oi + Oe = known gather perceiving. High entropy and static about irrational. Balancing stacking and spectrum of perceiving.
12 animals
Sleep Oi Di = focus on irrational and information. Contemplate animal.
Sleep Di Oi = focus on rational and deciding. Analyze animal.
Consume Di Oe = focus on rational and deciding. Revision animal.
Consume Oe Di = focus on irrational and information. Accumulating animal.
Blast De Oi = focus on rational and deciding. Directing animal.
Blast Oi De = focus on irrational and information. Advising animal.
Play Oe De = focus on irrational and information. Movement animal.
Play De Oe = focus on rational and deciding. Interaction animal.
Double deciding De Di = focus in a more external fashion. Starting with the tribe decision or awareness and ending with the identity decision or awareness.
Double deciding Di De = focus in a more internal fashion. Starting with the identity decision or awareness and ending with the tribe decision or awareness.
Double observing Oi Oe = focus in a more internal fashion. Starting with the known (or unity) and ending with the gather (or multiplicity).
Double observing Oe Oi = focus in a more external fashion. Starting with the gather (or multiplicity) and ending with the known (or unity).
There is 12 animals actually if you want to go more precise. I am not sure to what extent the 12 animals order is genetic. I believe the 4 animal order is symbolically genetic but with 12 animals it starts to get precise and I believe its subject to variation in experience. For example a CP/S vs a CS/P, we might see a CS/P that has extrovert pathways forms because all his life he has interact with people for some reason and the reverse for the CP/S. We will probably see more pathways in a certain direction even though we can see the mechanisms that the persons are still their types. Thats why I prefer to put the 12 animals precision in my sphere 1-3-4 instead of 1-3 as a margin of error. 1-3-4 is also about individuation and developing oneself. I believe knowing your pathways in more precision can help you more in that type of precise fashion but it is less symbolic and less practical (simple to get it to work). In my opinion AI tools could make the gap easier between the simple symbolic and the highly precise pathways.
The table of pattern
I use the table of patterns after Ops. This is a table to connect types together and have better mathematics of connections. This is the cherry picking plus my conceptions of the typology outside of Ops that focus on the stacking order of the functions. There is 4 positions.
The dominant (first function) = charge maker. The first function is concise in the person mind, it is attach to the person without the person knowing. It is obsessive about it’s thing without being necessarily aware of it. The first function makes the charges of the stacks (optimistic and pessimistic).
The helper (second function) = instrumentalization. The second function is where the person speaks, it is informative and brings references. More like a playground to try to explain stuff. The playfulness and the accent of speech is with this one. Often time sloppy but the third function calibrates it.
The balance (third function) = pointer. The third function is an indication or a pointer. It brings clarity to the mind and is the leverage to point things toward something. There is an hobby aspect to it because it is the little insecure thing but is what bring clarity. What help the whole stack be grounded even if its pointer can be delude.
The last function (fourth function) = trigger. The last function is more volatile. It helps bring reference when it’s well utilize but it has a lot of insecurity. It needs a lot of push to finally be utlize and at ease. Kind of stuck in the glue of thinking the first function is the only attachment worth obsessing about.
The dominant (automatic) and the archaic (pain, unconscious) = can't communicate well (extreme/imbalance). The last function = not always the same as the Archaic (you have to look at the stack to know) but always the opposite of the dominant.
I found that each of the 512 types in Ops fit roughtly 4 stacks out of the 64 stacks in my table
Intj = Ni dom, even if some other stack like Te Ni Fi Se and Fi Ni Te Se are consider intj in my opinion because of Se last. The ambivert, optimistic and pessimistic animals follow the math that is create by the first function.
Ambivert animal: first function and its opposite charge and different observer/decider = creative in deconstruction and conclusions but balance. Strategic flow. Strongest animal innately even if its cringe and prone to blindspot.
Optimistic animal: first function and the same charge as the first = creative in construction and open to challenge but childish. Constant flow. Strongest animal in good times or coping time.
Pessimistic animal: The opposite of the optimistic functions so the opposite of the charge (introvert and extrovert) = creative in spiral and a closing off of barrier. Conscious flow. Strongest animal in hard times to access nuggets of information.
ExxP and ExxJ (lead extrovert in the stack) = optimistic extrovert, pessimistic introvert.
IxxJ and IxxP (lead introvert in the stack) = optimistic introvert, pessimistic extrovert.
IxxJ and ExxJ = ambivert animal that is blast.
ExxP and IxxP = ambivert animal that is consume.
Examples of stacks
For example: An intj SB/P(C) MF have 5 possible stacks.1. Ni Te Fi Se 2. Te Ni Fi Se 3. Ni Fi Te Se 4. Ni Te Se Fi 5. Fi Ni Te Se
Ni Te Fi Se: Fi is optimistic and a savior in Ops but does not have the dynamic of the second position. Fi is third position and Te second position. Everything else is classic.
Te Ni Fi Se: Te is the dominant frame (even though it's a demon) so Te Se is optimistic and Ni Fi pessimistic. Ambivert animal show more precision towards Te (Te to Ni). Fi is in the third position like a classic intj. Se is not archaic but is the last function so this is an "observer". Dave from Ops is this type.
Ni Fi Te Se: Fi is optimistic and a savior. Te is in the third position and demon. Everything else is classic.
Ni Te Se Fi: Fi is in the last position, Te is second and Se is third (even tho it's archaic). This is still an "observer" because Fi is optimistic. Everything else is classic.
Fi Ni Te Se: Fi is the dominant frame so Fi Ni is optimistic and Se Te pessimistic. Ambivert animal is Fi Se. Se is not archaic but is the last function so this is an "observer".
Observer and decider nuance
Now it's important to mention that decider triggers do happen in every person, it is just that the energy and the triggers are different in terms of gravity. We can say that because this one pays little attention to observer triggers, it actually has more "decider" energy or swing at some point. To me every functions and positions in the dynamics have more potential energy for some kind of particular gravity. In my view Ops is mostly symbolic and that will influence cognition. My table focus more on precise charges on cognition. Thats also why I always type the person in Ops before my table, because Ops indicate the type in a more macro symbolic way. After I dive to see more the cognitive charge aspect in precision. We can say Ops = symbolic, my table = illustration of more precise symbolic charges and more cognitive focus. So we could say its actually the Ops type that make the charge of the decider vs observer. For what I have seen for now, a dominant decider in my table of patterns is not neccesarily a decider. But a dominant "decider" has more focus on the control of perception with other people. While a "decider" last is more paranoid in terms of wondering what other people think about him or her.
There is 3 nuances for observer and decider. The first aspect is your first function, if it is an observer or a decider it will direct your charges in a particular way. In some fashion this is the least strong aspect about decider and observer but it indicates the other charges and potential decider and observer triggers. The second aspect is if your last function is a decider or an observer function. That will direct your charges in a particular way. The third aspect, that is in fact determining if you are actually a decider or observer, is if your last function is optimistic or pessimistic and if it is a decider or an observer function. It can go with the first and second aspect.
If you do the math there is 8 sort of stack (4 decider and 4 observer). I consider 2 out of the 8 stacks straight decider. This is the classic IxxP and ExxJ first and last function being a decider. 1 stack is mostly compose of decider (75% I would say for what I have seen for now), this is the observer stack that has its pessimistic function that is a decider last. We could think of Se Te Ni Fi and Ni Ti Se Fe has examples. So 3 out of the 8 stacks are technically deciders. I consider 2 out of the 8 stacks straight observer. This is the classic ExxP and IxxJ first and last function being observer. 2 stacks are moslty compose of observer (80% I would say for what I have seen for now), this is the stacks that have an optimistic function last. We can think of types that have their classic third function last. The last stack is one that is rare. This is the decider stack that has its classic second function last. We can think of Fi Ni Te Se and Te Ne Fi Si. For what I have seen they are observers but are aggressive with people.
Genetic precision
In my sense, my table will offer a more precise system to see the potential genetic of types. For example, the red head phenomena is observe in some particular types. The enfp CP/B, the estj PC/X(X), the esfj PX/X(X) and the isfp CS/X(X). The Ops data illustrate that introvert isfp and extrovert enfp cluster in read head. With the table, I can look at things more precisely and see an accent on some particular dynamics. For example, optimistic intuition and ambivert Fi Oe are the main components of the red head phenomenon. Also we can describe what are the other genetic factors (hierarchy of importance) like for the red head it's the Ne Si ExxJ with an accent on optimistic intuition. Having a more precise langage will make us more able to access particular genetics we want to describe.
The connecting math can also be expand on the metaphysical front like Ne Te optimistic can be indicating of some dynamics on it's own apart from being a savior or a demon or other things. Comparing types and the tendencies in more precision. What exaclty is Fi Te + ambivert intuition or optimistic SF or ambivert Oe + Ti, etc.
Proving
To dicern if it's real in terms of intellect and grasping, you have to make binaries to discern the spectrum. Something in contrast to the other thing we are describing. Now, this is harder in my table because this is dynamic and in relation to Ops. The binary I can make are those:
1. Optimistic vs Pessimistic = determining if it's optimistic NF or ST. For example a lead Te has optimistic ST while a lead Ni optimistic NF.
2. Ambivert animal (it indicates the spots) direction A vs direction B = determining if its Oe Di or Di Oe or De Oi or Oi De.
3. Seeing if the Top down attitude I am trying to fit things into are real. This is a feedback loop so I am reevaluating if those are matching up in reality universally. Positions of the stack that confirm 1. or 2. = Those two coins will arrange the stack. If you see that the description of the second spot fit in fact more the dominant than there should be a switch. If it's hard to dicern, it is possible that there is even more precise dynamics making it more difficult to see. Like some precise pathways that I am looking at in sphere 1-3-4. That will usually means that there is two pathways very close together.
Explanatory power, data exposition, tools of contrast and feedback tools (binary, spectrum, hierarchy, etc) are what I am looking at to confirm if the table is true. I consider the table a more precise Ops. In my sense, the precision of parts and what they can offer in description is already a plus. What I am trying to do here is difficult, I am verifying if the thing I am isolating is the deal. Make sure it does not overlap with something that already describe the patterns. But I think that my table will help fill the gap between the symbolic top down (Ops) and the precise bottom up (precise pathways).
