---
title: Value Hexagram (Hexagramme de Valeur)
emoji: 🌌
colorFrom: blue
colorTo: green
sdk: static
pinned: false
license: mit
---

# The Value Hexagram: Epistemological Modeling and Multidisciplinary Applications

## Research and Exploration Document

**Author:** Henry Peyret / Wassati  
**Project:** ITEA4 MOSAIC  
**Version:** v19.24 — August 2026  

[![DOI](https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.20811054.svg)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20811054)

| Resource | Link |
|----------|------|
| 🚀 **Live Application** | [hexagram-community-hexagramme-de-valeur.static.hf.space](https://hexagram-community-hexagramme-de-valeur.static.hf.space) |
| 📦 **Dataset & Corpus** | [Hexagram-Community/value-hexagram-corpus](https://huggingface.co/datasets/Hexagram-Community/value-hexagram-corpus) |
| 📄 **Citable Publication (DOI)** | [10.5281/zenodo.20811054](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20811054) |
| 🌐 **Wassati** | [wassati.com](https://www.wassati.com) |

---

## 1. Introduction: Overcoming Semiotic Biases in Complex Decision-Making

Decision-making in complex environments structurally collides with the limitations of human mental models and the semiotic biases inherent in organizational cultures. The Value Hexagram (Hexagramme de Valeur) proposes an integrative resolution space, modeling 290 concepts from philosophical, scientific, and spiritual traditions (both Western and Eastern) around 16 fundamental tension axes and 6 meta-tensions.

This document is addressed to the research community (management sciences, sociology, cognitive sciences, philosophy, ethical AI) to map the different forms of utilization of this epistemological tool. It is not a prescriptive algorithm, but a heuristic framework designed to broaden the perceptual field and generate integrative solutions—that is, solutions that transcend compromise by producing a new systemic equilibrium.

---

## 2. Epistemological Foundations

The Hexagram relies on the postulate that so-called "insoluble" problems or ethical dilemmas stem from a reductionist approach that obscures certain dimensions of reality. Four foundations structure the tool's architecture. The tool is in permanent research and therefore does not claim exhaustiveness of axes, graphs, concepts, or methods for seeking solutions. On the contrary, it invites supplementation by any contribution.

---

### 2.1. The Logic of Tensions: Moving Beyond the Binary

**Historical and Conceptual Depth**
The first epistemological foundation is the substitution of Aristotelian binary logic (the principle of non-contradiction: A is not non-A) with a logic of dynamic tensions (A *and* B). Historically, this approach takes root in pre-Socratic thought (Heraclitus and the unity of opposites), extends into Hegelian dialectics, and finds its contemporary expression in Edgar Morin's complex thought (dialogics). In the Eastern tradition, it echoes the Taoist Yin-Yang, where opposing forces are complementary and interdependent.

The Hexagram structures this complexity through **16 fundamental tension axes**: True ↔ Just, Signal ↔ Meaning, Misalignment ↔ Alignment, Demonstration ↔ Experience, Babel ↔ Jerusalem, Individual ↔ Collective, Closed ↔ Open, Individual ↔ Ecosystem, Analysis ↔ Synthesis, Immanence ↔ Transcendence, Human ↔ Computational, Representation ↔ Enaction, Mechanical ↔ Living, Cycle ↔ Spiral, Tradition ↔ Singularity, and Productive ↔ Contributive.

These axes are complemented by **6 transversal meta-tensions** (Structure vs Finality, Part vs Whole, Past vs Future/Act, Performance vs Robustness, Materiality ↔ Metaphysics, Chronos ↔ Kairos) that connect the spaces together. These tensions are not anomalies to be corrected, but constitutive properties of any living human system.

**The Relationship between Dimensions, Axes, and Human Values**
Each tension axis is the theater where simplified worldviews clash. When a social actor defends a "value" (for example, security), they often position themselves at the extremity of an axis, obscuring the opposite pole (freedom). The Hexagram demonstrates that human values (in the sense of Schwartz or pragmatic "engaging values") do not float in a vacuum: they only have meaning when placed in tension with their counterpart. The 16 dimensions thus force the decision-maker to reintegrate the opposing value, transforming a simplified (dogmatic) worldview into a systemic (balanced) one.

**Resonance by Discipline**

| Discipline | Epistemological Resonance |
| --- | --- |
| **Philosophy** | Operationalizes Morinian dialogics and dialectics without definitive resolution (tension is maintained as a vital motor). |
| **Cognitive Sciences** | Overcomes dual thinking (Kahneman) by forcing the transition from binary heuristic processing to paradoxical analytical processing. |
| **Sociology** | Maps controversies (Latour) by showing that social actors often clash on the poles of the same axis. |
| **Management Sciences** | Models the theory of organizational paradoxes (Smith & Lewis, 2011): performance arises from the dynamic management of tensions, not their elimination. |

**Blind Spots and Research Axes**
The blind spot of this foundation lies in the selection and weighting of the 16 axes: are they truly universal or culturally situated (Western-centric bias)? A major research axis consists of empirically testing the validity of these 16 axes in non-Western cultural contexts (Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia) to verify if new fundamental tensions emerge or if certain ones fade.

---

### 2.2. The Transdisciplinary Corpus: 290 Concepts as a Meta-Language

**Historical and Conceptual Depth**
The history of human thought is fragmented into disciplines (hard sciences vs. human sciences) and geographical areas (East vs. West). The second foundation is the constitution of a corpus of 290 concepts acting as a semantic "bridge". This corpus draws from cybernetics (Wiener, homeostasis), the laws of the living (Geneviève Vaughan on the gift economy, Véronique Levy), phenomenology (Husserl), the sociology of emotions (Hochschild), but also Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

The Hexagram uses these concepts not as a static dictionary, but as a network of interdependencies. They provide a rich vocabulary to name what, in simplified worldviews, often remains unspeakable or unconscious ("semiotic biases").

**The Contribution of LLMs Facing Multidimensionality**
Despite the semantic shortcomings and hallucinations inherent in current neural networks, the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) brings an indispensable computing capacity to process this multidimensionality. The human mind struggles to simultaneously hold 16 tension axes and 290 concepts. By injecting this structured corpus (via an 8-level meta-prompt and a JSON database) into a generative AI, it is provided with rare philosophical material. The AI then acts as a "perception amplifier": it identifies hidden isomorphisms (e.g., the "part vs. whole" tension is found in biology, computer science, and governance) and establishes transversal bridges that human analysis alone would not have detected.

**The Relationship between Dimensions, Axes, and Human Values**
The 290 concepts "dress" the 16 tension axes. For example, on the "Control vs. Letting go" axis, the corpus summons the cybernetic concept of *feedback* on one side, and the Taoist concept of *Wu Wei* (non-action) on the other. By associating precise concepts with human values (especially "engaging" values that push to action), the Hexagram avoids the pitfall of catch-all words (like "freedom" or "justice") that generate misunderstandings. It anchors each value in a precise conceptual tradition.

**Resonance by Discipline**

| Discipline | Epistemological Resonance |
| --- | --- |
| **Comparative Philosophy** | Operationalizes intercultural translation (Ricoeur) and offers a practical framework for a non-dogmatic universal ethics (Nussbaum). |
| **Cultural Anthropology** | Allows mapping of semiotic biases: concepts missing in a culture (e.g., the absence of "privacy" in holistic cultures) become visible by contrast. |
| **Linguistics and Semiotics** | Illustrates Peirce's semiosis: the meaning of a concept is not fixed; it emerges from its dynamic relationship with the other 289 concepts in the network. |
| **Information Sciences** | Constitutes a computational ontology (Semantic Web) structuring human knowledge for AI, enabling semantic interoperability. |

**Blind Spots and Research Axes**
The main blind spot of this corpus is its structural incompleteness and the risk of "abusive translation" (superimposing a Western concept onto an Eastern reality, or vice versa). Empirical research must focus on: 1) Evaluating the fidelity of concept translation (ontology) by current LLMs; 2) Integrating the thought modes of indigenous peoples (e.g., the Andean *Buen Vivir*, *Ubuntu*, animist cosmologies) which are currently underrepresented in the 290 concepts.

---

### 2.3. Spatial Modeling: The 5 Conceptual Graphs (G1 to G5)

**Historical and Conceptual Depth**
To map complexity, the Hexagram deploys across five spatial graphs (G1 to G5) totaling 290 concepts, 16 tension axes, and 6 meta-tensions. This layered architecture echoes ancient ontologies (like the *koshas* in Hinduism or Aristotle's great chain of being) while relying on modern graph theory. It allows decomposing human reality into five distinct epistemological spaces, from the societal to the cosmological:

- **G1 — Man & Society (Homme & Société):** This graph explores the fundamental polarities of human thought and the way we construct meaning, values, and institutions. Its structuring axes oppose Individual to Collective, True to Just, and Computational to Embodied.

- **G2 — Information:** It maps research on semiotics, dialogue, cognition, and artificial intelligence. Its tension axes oppose Signal to Meaning, Closed to Open, and Representation to Enaction.

- **G3 — The Living (Le Vivant):** This space explores biology, ecology, and process dynamics. It puts in tension Misalignment and Alignment, Individual and Ecosystem, as well as Mechanical and Living.

- **G4 — Spirituality & Sacred (Spiritualité & Sacré):** This graph catalogs contemplative traditions, process philosophy, and transhumanism. It explicitly represents the spiritual domain through axes opposing Profane to Sacred, Tradition to Singularity, and Dissolution to Incarnation. It captures the beliefs and worldviews that drive (often unconsciously) the lower layers.

- **G5 — Mandala of World Knowledges (The Sphere) [Mandala des Savoirs Mondiaux]:** G5 is the ultimate integration graph. It maps the thought traditions of the entire world: Analytical North, Relational East, Decolonial South, Indigenous West. It has two representations. Its 3D cylindrical form (the Mandala) is a symbolic map of totality. The 2D form (the Dynamic Spiral) integrates the Temporal Spiral (four civilizational eras of Saloff-Coste) and introduces structuring dimensions inspired by the works of Julien Freund, notably the Cosmological Time axis (Linear/Cyclic).

**The Relationship between Dimensions, Axes, and Human Values**
The major contribution of this modeling (particularly the transition to the G5 spiral) is to show that values are not flat. A decision made within a "linear" vision of time (oriented towards infinite progress, typical of the West) will clash head-on with a decision made within a "cyclic" vision of time (oriented towards harmony and return to equilibrium, typical of the East), even if both actors share the same surface value. G5 allows visualizing these cosmo-temporal distortions.

**Resonance by Discipline**

| Discipline | Epistemological Resonance |
| --- | --- |
| **Philosophy of Religion** | G4 operationalizes Mircea Eliade's work on the universality of the experience of the sacred, without taking sides on the content of dogma. |
| **Philosophy of Time** | The Linear/Cyclic Time axis of G5 aligns with Paul Ricoeur and Bergson: it explains international cooperation failures caused by cosmological desynchronizations. |
| **Analytical Psychology** | G4 resonates with Jung's archetypes: deep beliefs act as strange attractors that structure mass behaviors. |
| **Political Sociology** | The dimensions of G5 (notably Tradition/Singularity from Julien Freund) offer a non-normative framework to analyze contemporary political polarizations. |

**Blind Spots and Research Axes**
The blind spot of this modeling is the difficulty of quantifying or "measuring" the dimensions of G4 and G5, which are qualitative and sensitive. The research axis consists of developing metrics (via NLP and semantic analysis of verbatim records) capable of objectively positioning an actor's discourse on the axes of G5 (e.g., mathematically detecting the predominance of a linear time vision in a corpus of corporate texts).

---

### 2.4. The Generation of Integrative Solutions: Beyond Compromise

**Historical and Conceptual Depth**
The fourth foundation is the resolution mechanism. Historically, conflict resolution oscillates between domination (law of the strongest) and compromise (zero-sum game where everyone loses a little). The Hexagram draws directly from the thought of Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), a pioneer of organizational theory, who theorized **integration**: a new solution that fully satisfies the deep interests of both parties by redefining the problem. Faced with each configuration of tensions, the Hexagram generates 8 integrative solutions of this type.

**The Relationship between Dimensions, Axes, and Human Values**
The generation of the 8 solutions is not random. It proceeds from a strict combinatorics of the 16 axes and the 290 concepts. By forcing the intersection of seemingly incompatible values (e.g., "technological innovation" and "respect for ancestral traditions"), the tool acts as a conceptual innovation engine. It forces the human mind (or the generative AI assisting it) out of its usual neural grooves to conceive unprecedented action scenarios.

**Resonance by Discipline**

| Discipline | Epistemological Resonance |
| --- | --- |
| **Management Sciences** | Operationalizes Follett's thought and "both/and thinking" (Smith & Lewis, 2022): resilient organizations cultivate paradoxes rather than settling them. |
| **Negotiation Theory** | Automates the principle of principled negotiation (Harvard, Fisher & Ury): moving beyond surface positions to integrate deep interests. |
| **Design Thinking** | Aligns with the TRIZ method (Altshuller): radical innovation is born from resolving technical or social contradictions, not bypassing them. |
| **Applied Ethics** | Simulates John Rawls's "veil of ignorance": by generating solutions from 8 different perspectives, the tool ensures an equitable exploration of all stakeholders' interests. |
| **Artificial Intelligence (XAI)** | Offers a native framework for Explainable AI (XAI): each integrative solution generated by the AI can be traced back to the precise tensions and concepts that motivated it, making the "black box" auditable. |

**Blind Spots and Research Axes**
The blind spot of integration is the risk of utopianism: an integrative solution generated conceptually may prove inapplicable in the field due to physical or political constraints (asymmetrical power relations). The research axis consists of developing *ex post* evaluation methodologies: measuring, in the field, the survival and actual implementation rate of integrative solutions generated by the Hexagram compared to classical compromise solutions.

**The Research Agenda: Exploring the Frontiers (The Empty Octants)**
The Hexagram formalizes this empirical effort via its "Research Agenda" (Agenda de recherche). Spatial analysis of the graphs reveals "empty octants"—areas where no concept yet exists. Following Mary Parker Follett, these voids are not simple oversights, but the signal of unresolved tensions by academic research. For example, the absence of concepts at the intersection of "Collective × Computational" in G1 reveals that our computational thought developed in an individualistic framework, leaving the field of "participatory algorithmic governance" theoretically blank. The Research Agenda transforms these structural voids into questions of creative integration for researchers.

---

## 3. Synthesis: Epistemological Positioning of the Hexagram

The Value Hexagram sits at the intersection of several major intellectual traditions. It borrows from dialectics without adopting its teleology, from phenomenology without adopting its idealism, from cybernetics without adopting its mechanism, and from Eastern wisdoms without adopting their dogmatism.

| Tradition | What the Hexagram Borrows | What it Does Not Adopt |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Hegelian Dialectics** | Tension as the engine of thought | Definitive resolution in a final synthesis |
| **Complex Thought (Morin)** | Contradiction as a property of reality | The impossibility of action in the face of complexity |
| **Cybernetics (Wiener)** | Regulation by feedback and homeostasis | The reduction of the human to a mechanical system |
| **Eastern Wisdoms** | Cyclical time, interdependence, non-dualism | Absolute relativism or esoteric mysticism |
| **Capabilities Ethics (Nussbaum)** | The universal dimensions of human flourishing | The prescriptive hierarchy of values |

---

## 4. Typology of Use Cases in Research and Intervention

The Value Hexagram can be mobilized according to four main intervention modalities, with a particular emphasis on **transversality**. The tool acts as a "bridge" between the hard sciences (which model graphs G1 to G3) and the human sciences (which explore G4 and G5), allowing researchers from hermetic disciplines to collaborate on the same object of study.

### 4.1. Strategic Facilitation and Governance

In the context of executive or governance committees, the Hexagram serves as a cognitive "de-siloing" tool. When a decision is blocked (e.g., short-term profitability vs. ecological sustainability), the tool forces the exploration of blind spots.

The tool models tensions according to different circles of values (personal, familial, societal, planetary). It allows decision-makers to visualize how an optimal decision in one circle (e.g., company profitability) can create a rupture of homeostasis in another (e.g., public health). The Hexagram acts here as a prosthesis for systemic empathy.

### 4.2. Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence (Agentic AI)

With the advent of multi-agent systems (Agentic AI), the challenge of ethical alignment becomes central. The Hexagram offers an explainable and auditable value framework to govern the behavior of autonomous agents.

| AI Issue | Hexagram's Contribution |
| --- | --- |
| **Algorithmic Black Box** | Provides an explainable framework: the agent's decision can be traced back to the resolution of a specific tension (e.g., transparency vs. security). |
| **Single Optimization Bias** | Forces the agent to evaluate its action across the 16 tension axes before execution. |
| **Machine-to-Machine Interaction (MCP/NanDA)** | Structures the ethical "proof". When a consumer agent queries a brand's AI, the Hexagram provides a justification based on values (and not solely on margin optimization). |

### 4.3. Sociological Analysis and Conflict Resolution

In sociological research, the Hexagram allows mapping public controversies or social conflicts. By analyzing the verbatim records of actors (via tools like Wassati reputational intelligence), the researcher can project discourses onto the 16 tension axes.

This makes it possible to identify not surface positions, but the deep values in conflict (e.g., individual freedom vs. collective security). The 8 integrative solutions generated by the tool then serve as a basis for dialogue for mediation, proposing paths that respect the fundamental values of both parties.

### 4.4. Instructional Design and Socio-Emotional Learning

In the field of education and training (e.g., programs related to Gross National Happiness or *Social Emotional Learning*), the Hexagram is a support for learning complex thought. It trains students or professionals to recognize the validity of divergent perspectives and to build syntheses that integrate cultural and semiotic diversity.

---

## 5. Limitations and Methodological Precautions

It is crucial to emphasize that the Value Hexagram **is not a machine for producing truth**.

The integrative solutions generated (whether produced manually or via a generative AI using the Hexagram's meta-prompt) are only **proposals to support human facilitation**. The perception modeled by the tool remains a partial representation of the reality on the ground. The results must systematically be subjected to dialogue, criticism, and confrontation with the real societal context to be refined. The tool raises awareness of the problem; it does not replace the responsibility of the decision.

Furthermore, the corpus of 290 concepts, although ambitious in its diversity, remains marked by an overrepresentation of Western and Asian philosophical traditions (Buddhism, Confucianism). The integration of African, Native American, and Oceanian epistemologies constitutes a priority research site for future versions.

---

## 6. Research Perspectives (COST Action / Horizon Europe)

The future development of the Hexagram is part of a process of empirical validation and European standardization (notably via the COST network). Priority research axes include the intercultural validation of the 290 concepts (deeper integration of Asian and African epistemologies), the longitudinal evaluation of the quality of decisions made with and without the Hexagram in executive committees, and the technical integration of the Hexagram as an ethical governance layer (DEMS — Data Excellence Management System, registered trademark of Global Data Excellence) in agentic AI architectures.

---

## Key Intellectual References

| Author | Work | Link with the Hexagram |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Edgar Morin | *La Méthode* (6 vol., 1977–2004) | Complex thought, contradiction as a property of reality |
| Mary Parker Follett | *Creative Experience* (1924) | Integration vs. compromise in conflict resolution |
| Paul Ricoeur | *Time and Narrative* (1983–1985) | Narrative time, intercultural translation |
| Mircea Eliade | *The Sacred and the Profane* (1957) | Universality of the categories of the sacred |
| Martha Nussbaum | *Creating Capabilities* (2011) | Universal capabilities, human flourishing |
| Wendy Smith & Marianne Lewis | *Both/And Thinking* (2022) | Management of organizational paradoxes |
| Norbert Wiener | *Cybernetics* (1948) | Regulation, homeostasis, feedback |
| Baruch Spinoza | *Ethics* (1677) | Conatus, power of acting, affects |
| Carl Gustav Jung | *Psychology and Religion* (1940) | Archetypes, individuation, shadow |