Resultants
There are five resultants identified in
this TPOV:

In the context setting process @F-L-O-W, or
CSP, I am providing several resultants (a
term I saw Graves used in his original triangulation of his
neurophysiology:conditions ratio that later became Spiral
Dynamics.

I don’t remember a mention of "resultants"
in SD, but to me, it’s a stronger argument for Gravesian
Theory with the triangulated
Resultant:Biopsychosocial:Conditions, which also brings up a
reference to Bandura’s Social Learning Theory Constructs:
People:Environment:Behavior, another triangulated system.

Side Bar: There is actually a
way, if you visualize a tetrahedron to forge a set
of cross-paradigmatic approaches to formulate a
metaparadigm…which is starting to become more attractive
as it adds more density and frequency with accelerating
complexity. A tetrahedron is a very important
architectural pattern, as it may be the strongest
structural pattern known.

In

geometry, a tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra)
is a

polyhedron composed of four

triangular

faces, three of which meet at each

vertex. It has six

edges and four vertices. The tetrahedron is the only

convex polyhedron that has four faces.
^[1] The
tetrahedron is the three-dimensional case of the more
general concept of a

Euclidean

simplex. The tetrahedron is one kind of

pyramid, which is a polyhedron with a flat polygon
base and triangular faces connecting the base to a common
point. In the case of a tetrahedron the base is a triangle
(any of the four faces can be considered the base), so a
tetrahedron is also known as a "triangular pyramid". Like
all

convex polyhedra, a tetrahedron can be folded from a
single sheet of paper. It has two

nets.^[1]

The net of a polyhedron is also known
as a development, pattern, or planar net (Buekenhout and
Parker 1998). The illustrations above show polyhedron nets
for the

tetrahedron.

I have identified 5 Resultants (I’m going
to keep this term for now):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resultant

re·sult·ant 

1.


that

results;
following
as
a

result or
consequence.

2.


resulting from
the
combination
of
two
or
more
agents:


a

resultant

force. 

noun

3.



Mathematics,
Physics.


vector sum.

4.



Mathematics
.

a
determinant
the
entries
of


which are
the

coefficients
of
each
of
two

polynomials
in
a
specified

arrangement
and
the
value
of

which
determines
whether
the
polynomials

have a
common

factor.

5.

something
that


results.

Cooperation

Cooperation (sometimes
written co-operation or coöperation) is the
process of working or acting together. In its simplest
form it involves things working in harmony, while in its
more complicated forms, it can involve something as
complex as the inner workings of a human being or even the
social patterns of a nation. It is the opposite of working
separately in competition.

Source and more discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation

Collaboration

Collaboration is
working together to achieve a goal.^[1]
It is a

recursive^[2]
process where two or more people or

organizations work together to realize shared goals,
(this is more than the intersection of common goals seen
in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective,
determination to reach an identical objective
^{[by
whom?][original
research?]}) — for example, an
intriguing^{[improper
synthesis?]} endeavor^[3][4]
that is creative in nature^[5]—by
sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus. Most
collaboration requires

leadership, although the form of leadership can be
social within a

decentralized and

egalitarian group.^[6]
In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain
greater resources, recognition and reward when facing
competition for finite resources.^[7]
Collaboration is also present in opposing goals exhibiting
the notion of

adversarial collaboration, though this is not a common
case for using the word.

Source and more discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration

Competition
Also note that competition was mentioned,
and it is yet ANOTHER ValuDYNAMIC, which can be identified
with a particular value’s set or basin.

Competition in

biology,

ecology, and

sociology, is a

contest between organisms, animals, individuals,
groups, etc., for

territory, a niche, or a location of

resources, for resources and goods, for

prestige,

recognition,

awards, mates, or group or social status, for
leadership; it is the opposite of

cooperation.^[1]
[2]
It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal
which cannot be shared or which is desired individually
but not in sharing and cooperation.

Source and more discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition

Compromise

To compromise is to
make a deal between different parties where each party
gives up part of their

demand. In

arguments, compromise is a concept of finding

agreement through

communication, through a mutual

acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an
original

goal or desire.

Extremism is often considered as

antonym to compromise, which, depending on context,
may be associated with concepts of

balance and

tolerance. In the negative

connotation, compromise may be referred to as

capitulation, referring to a "surrender"
of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of
negotiating an agreement. In human relationships
"compromise" is frequently said to be an agreement that no
party is happy with, this is because the parties involved
often feel that they either gave away too much or that
they received too little.^[1]

Source and more discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise

Capitulation

Capitulation (Lat.
capitulum, a little head or division; capitulare,
to treat upon terms), an agreement in time of war for the

surrender to a hostile armed force of a particular
body of troops, a town or a territory.

Source and some discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulation_(surrender)
The reason I set this much
context is to make a point about each of these resultants
as stemming from a ValuDYNAMIC, which is a dynamic system
emerging from valuing, and the emergence from that valuing
process.

While this may be confusing, it’s
an important set of distinctions when we are looking at what
does Collaboration as a value’s system resultant emerge as,
and what are the likely micromotives that provide the
ingredients for this emergence.

In a Conflict Model developed by
Thomas & Kilmann [

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kilmann_Conflict_Mode_Instrument
]

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode
instrument consists of thirty pairs of statements. For
each pair, the respondent must choose either the A or B
item (for example, one item depicts collaborating while
the other item describes avoiding). Each pair of
statements was specifically designed, through a
multi-stage research process, to be equal in social
desirability.

The TKI uses two axes (influenced by
the Mouton and Blake axes) called "assertiveness" and
"cooperativeness." The TKI identifies five different
styles of conflict: Competing (assertive, uncooperative),
Avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative), Accommodating
(unassertive, cooperative), Collaborating (assertive,
cooperative), and Compromising (intermediate assertiveness
and cooperativeness). There are some seemingly obvious,
but difficult to support, similarities between anger
resolution-management style ideas with other tools and
theories, such as

DISC assessment,
Social styles, and even the theory of

Five Temperaments, which is based in the theories of
ancient Greece.

You may notice, that the 5 resultants I’ve
chosen, are in fact, mostly aligned with the five different
styles of conflict.

Helpful Hint: Resultants
are key to keep in mind because they help us understand the
power, accountability, authority, and responsibility of each
ValuDYNAMIC. All of us hiearchical rank through inborn filters
and biases, which of these resultants emerge because of the
micromotives we possess, develop and make a strength. None of
us, have only one of these dynamics present, but we "order"
them according to our worldview, experience, and capability.

Action Step: Identifying
which is these resultants is present in your behavior in terms
of density and frequency, supports development of
subject:object relations.