TELOS:
This ontology is a map, not a path. It charts the territory of human development — the terrain that various telos-driven journeys traverse. The map does not prescribe destination; the practitioner brings their own orientation:
Thomas Campbell: Reduction of entropy → becoming love
David R. Hawkins: Ascending levels of consciousness → enlightenment
Buddha: The middle way / cessation of craving and aversion → nirvana
Christ: The path of unconditional love → agape
Marcus Aurelius: Living according to Nature → eudaimonia
The ontology maps what emerges from the causal — all paths use the same terrain.
INTEGRATION:
Ontology-OS works with three companion systems:
OS
Scope
Question
Output
Ontology-OS
Deep
What exists?
The map (rows, columns, categories, items)
Telos-OS
Strategic
Where am I going?
IDENTITY, DIRECTION, STRATEGY, VALUES
Context-OS
Wide
Where across contexts?
Priority + Bottleneck × 8 compass directions
Pulse-OS
Focused
Where am I now?
STATE, PROCESS, ACTION, SYSTEM HEALTH
Flow:
1. Telos-OS → Strategic clarity (what matters, where going)
2. Context-OS → Wide scan (which life directions need attention)
3. Pulse-OS → Focused reading (current state via true/false calibration)
4. Ontology-OS → Reference (specific items, definitions, META frameworks)
Ontology-OS provides the territory. Telos-OS sets direction. Context-OS orients across life. Pulse-OS reads current state.
META-OPERATING (Real-Time Dashboard):
The cockpit view — what you track and act on moment-to-moment.
STATE
├── Level of Consciousness: 0-1000
├── Openness: 0-100% (or breakdown: Heart | Body | Mind)
├── Integration: 0-100% (or breakdown: Mental | Emotional | Field)
└── Channelling: Truth | Grace | Glory | null (which are flowing)
PROCESS
├── Active Rows: (which rows currently processing — e.g. 0th, 2nd, 4th)
├── Processing[]: (what's consuming OpEx — can be multiple)
│ └── each:
│ ├── Location: [row] → [column] → [category] → [item]
│ ├── Energy %: 0-100%
│ └── Attention %: 0-100%
├── Entropying[]: (what's being dissolved — can be multiple)
│ └── each:
│ ├── Location: [row] → [column] → [category] → [item]
│ ├── Resolved: 0-100%
│ └── Integrated: 0-100%
└── Bottleneck: (current constraint on growth — single)
├── Location: [row] → [column] → [category] → [item]
├── Pattern: STUCK | STAGNATION | UNDERDEVELOPED | DEBT | DEPTH | null
└── Type: ORIENTATION | CONSCIOUS | UNDERSTANDING | TIME | METRIC | null
ACTION
├── Lever: [row] → [column] → [category] → [item] (best intervention for bottleneck)
└── Letting Go: (what to release/handle)
Operating loop: Notice state → Identify arising → Find constraint → Apply lever → Let go → Allow flow
META-DISCERNMENT (Theory of Constraints Applied):
The ontology is a diagnostic instrument. Every element is measurable; bottlenecks identifiable at any level.
Late stage: UNDERSTANDING with DEPTH pattern (being constraints)
The final constraint is often comprehension of what mastery serves — the "why" behind the "what".
4th ↔ 3rd Relationship (Clearing ↔ Channelling):
When processing entropy (4th): moving through cravings/aversions
When NOT processing entropy: channels open, 3rd Channelling flows
Channelling (Truth, Grace, Glory) = what flows THROUGH when blockages clear
The three channels are independent — you may channel 1, 2, or all 3
Resolution typically leads Integration — you clear faster than you absorb
Five Focusing Steps (TOC):
1. IDENTIFY the constraint (lowest T, highest O, or highest liability)
2. EXPLOIT the constraint (maximize output from current capacity)
3. SUBORDINATE everything else (focus supports constraint)
4. ELEVATE the constraint (increase capacity)
5. REPEAT (don't let inertia become the new constraint)
META-EVALUATION:
1. FIT — Does it belong where it is?
- Column Fit: Does it match the archetype? (🟢 become, 🟣 live, 🔵 form)
- Row Fit: Does it serve this principle's theme?
- Cell Fit: Does it work at the intersection?
- Grammar Fit: Does the item's part of speech match the column? (🟢 qualities/states/skill, 🟣 practices/actions/frameworks, 🔵 processes/structures/momentum)
2. COHERENCE — Does it hold together in resonance?
- Internal: Do items within a category belong together?
- Conceptual: Does the title capture what's inside?
- External: Does it complement (not duplicate) siblings?
3. AESTHETICS — Is it elegant?
- Naming: Clear, memorable, appropriate weight?
- Balance: Structural harmony, consistent item counts?
- Flow: Natural progression through items?
- Resonance: Does it land? (gut check)
4. WHOLENESS OF UTILITY — Is it complete and useful?
- Completeness: Does it cover territory without gaps?
- Usefulness: Can you apply it in practice?
- Actionability: Do you know what to do with it?
- Non-redundancy: Is each item necessary?
Meta-Ontology:
0th to 6th in order of emergence → implicit priority of importance
Rows 0th-4th form core cycle; 5th-6th extend for application/relating
Becoming and Living come in 4's, Forming in 3's (triadic integration)
Symmetry per row: procedural categories = developmental + praxis categories
No words repeat across ontology, unless a title is reused within its category
Horizontal alignment: categories at same position should relate across columns
Vertical sequence: categories should emerge from those above (foundational → emergent)
Living includes: active practices, frameworks/lenses to apply, principles to hold
2nd ALCHEMY is peak complexity — transformation is the hardest work
4th ENTROPY follows FRUITION because shadow emerges from attempted expression, not building alone
4th as Doorway (Nishitani): Nihility is not obstacle but passage — you must go through, not around. The field of emptiness (0th) is reached by traversing, not avoiding, the field of nihility (4th).
Extension rows (5th-6th): Apply development externally — to world (Making), to others (Communion)
Transitions: awaken before build, capacities enable transformation, transformation bears fruit, fruit reveals shadow, shadow informs making, making enables relating, relating scales to collective
Category Item Tests:
- Becoming items should be qualities (adjectives/states), not actions (verbs)
- Living items should be doings/practices (verbs/nouns), not static descriptions
- Forming items should be investable processes, not one-time events
Active Tests:
- Becoming: "Can I wake up more [X] tomorrow?" (e.g., more aware, more resilient)
- Living: "Can I practice [X] today?" (e.g., practice meditation, apply a maxim)
- Forming: "Can I invest in [X] over time?" (e.g., invest in integration, build charisma)