A Spectrum of Beliefs
Structure of the Essay
1 Introduction
1.1 How do you account for your bias?
1.2 Why not ground your arguments in established sources?
1.3 What is your message?
1.4 Toward a Model
2 The Dimensions (Axes of the Model)
2.1 Important Considerations
2.2 The Axes
1st Axis: Orthodoxy vs Heterodoxy
2nd Axis: Holodoxy vs Pathodoxy
• Weak Holodoxies
• Subtypes of Pathodoxy
3rd Axis: Prodoxy vs Redoxy
4th Axis: Persuasive vs Coercive
5th Axis: Compatibility (Tolerant vs Seditious)
• Subtypes of Sedition
3 Other Considerations
3.1 On Orthogonality
3.2 On Coercion and Consensus
3.3 On Recursion
3.4 On Value Judgment
3.5 Quick Reference Guide
4 Conclusion
Personal Note
Along the Way
1 Introduction
After my first essay, several readers offered thoughtful critiques.
Before getting into the core of the model I’m proposing, I want to take a moment to address three of these questions.
1.1 How do you account for your bias?
My goal is not to deny that I have biases. We all do. By contextualizing them, I help the reader evaluate my perspective. That is, I include personal anecdotes, and I try to adopt a tone that implies that I do not claim to know the truth. I aim to balance clarity with humility and to keep the text enjoyable to read for a wide audience.
1.2 Why not ground your arguments in established sources?
It is not my aim to prove things beyond doubt. I am inspired by many thinkers, but the best articulation I found on the subject has been the one by Robert Nozick. In his book, Philosophical Explanations, Nozick embeds a meta-philosophical posture about how arguments should operate in philosophy.
A few central features of Robert Nozick’s methodology which I adopt:
Explanations over proofs:
Nozick shifts the ideal of philosophy from the classical “proof” model (i.e. axiomatic demonstration, airtight deductive derivation) to the ideal of “explanation.” He treats philosophical theories as explanatory frameworks that make sense of a cluster of intuitions, counterexamples, possibilities, and perplexities, rather than as systems to be strictly derived from a set of premises.
Context sensitivity and “relevance”:
In many of his discussions, Nozick emphasizes that relevance is context-dependent: what is a relevant counterexample or possible world is determined by what we take as “nearby” or “pertinent.” This lets him exclude fringe or wildly remote possible worlds from excessive weight.
Non-closure logic:
His methods deny closure principles, acquiring new information can defeat previous claims that looked solid. This is aligned with his explanatory rather than proof-driven style.
Incremental, “patching” approach:
Nozick often works by incremental revision: present a candidate explanation, test it against intuitions and counterexamples, revise or patch it, allow “blemishes,” and proceed. He does not demand that the first pass be perfect. This is part of his more modest, fallibilistic vision of philosophical work.
Essentially, I am attempting to illuminate possibilities, to respect a pluralism of truths, and to promote epistemic humility.
1.3 What is your message?
My main goal is to promote epistemic humility. I believe that extending our consideration outside of a single framework, model, paradigm or lens, is crucial for us to get closer to the truth. That sentiment is well embodied in Karl Popper’s quote: “I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.”
1.4 Toward a Model
There seems to be a paradox in adopting a meta-framework and advocating not to limit yourself to a single framework. There is indeed a difficulty with the way we categorize underlying structures using words, and yes, this meta-framework could be said to be a framework. But this is easily dismantled when you consider the self-criticizing attitude of that meta-framework, asking you to look outside of it, even asking you to consider the virtues of hermetic frameworks. This meta-framework is thus better categorized as an attitude rather than a framework. From now on I will simply call it what it is; open-mindedness.
In this essay, I establish a model that centralizes jargon to describe the spectrum of belief systems. I’m arranging key terms as coordinates representing the ends of conceptual dimensions. Some of these words are neologisms that I coin, some are pre-existing, but I ask for you to consider them as part of this model, as they could mean something else outside of this model.
2 The Dimensions
2.1 Important Considerations
How I intend my model to be used: It should be used to assess how systems are, rather than what they purport to be.
The aim is to look at the relationship between:
- People and other people within their system
- People and people outside of their system
- People and the institutions or structures that organize the system
- People and the canon, dogma, or ideas that define it
- People and truth: how they build it, handle it, and relate to it
- People and their values: what they consider good, fair, or worth protecting
- The system and other systems: how they coexist, compete, or depend on each other
- The system and reality: how it adapts when its beliefs are tested
- The system over time: how it evolves, resists, or reforms
- The system in time and space: narrowing to a specific moment and space to generate a contextually relevant analysis
In short, this model is meant to help us see the constitution of systems, how they spread, and how they survive.
We can think of it in two main ways that are both relevant and complementary: the system in time, and over time. The distinction is best shown with an example, e.g., in time: analyzing Christianity in France in the year 1000 and analyzing Christianity in France in the year 2000, over time: analyzing how Christianity in France evolved between the year 1000 up until today.
Using this model requires an effort to maintain orthogonality, meaning that we should do our best to treat each axis independently, but it is important that we think of the emerging result of the relationship between each axis as well. This same principle ties in with an important question we need to ask ourselves: Is this system part of a bigger system in a symbiotic way?
Would the study of an organ be complete without the study of the interaction it has with other organs comprising the human body?
If we take, for example, the American Senate, but we fail to appreciate its relationship with other “organs” comprising the American System, we might conclude that it is flawed when it is in fact healthy within the larger system. The analysis is incomplete and misleading without considering the largest body. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t useful, but we should beware of drawing conclusions from a mereological fallacy (i.e., projecting the qualities or properties of parts onto the entirety of the system). The whole can matter as much as the atoms comprising it. Which perspective is most useful to our analysis in the moment depends on the task at hand, but rarely, if ever, would it benefit us to exclude the whole or its parts from our consideration, unless our goal is to misrepresent an issue. So we heed each axis, but also the emerging properties of the whole.
2.2 The Axes
1st Axis: Orthodoxy vs Heterodoxy
How rigid or flexible the system’s beliefs and practices are internally.
Orthodoxy
Rigid, rule-bound, loyal to canon
Heterodoxy
Flexible, open to reinterpretation, pluralistic
Use:
Measuring rigidity vs flexibility within a system.
Note 1:
While Orthodoxy is contrasted with Orthopraxis in other contexts, within this framework both elements, practice and doctrine, are assessed under the same umbrella. The focus lies not only on the interpretation of belief (literal vs figurative), but also on the qualities of adherence (rigid vs flexible).
Note 2:
Systems exist both within and alongside other systems. One system can be Heterodox toward the outside system it resides in. Yet, it may well be Orthodox in the way its Heterodoxy is carried out. This tension is resolved by the compatibility axis, and by restraining the use of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy to the internal relationship of its members to its norms, rather than the system’s relationship to the norms of other systems.
2nd Axis: Holodoxy vs Pathodoxy (neologisms)
How balanced or “epistemically healthy” a system’s truth modeling is.
Holodoxy
Balances:
Correspondence (fits evidence/reality)
Coherence (internally logical)
Consensus (socially agreed upon)
Weak Holodoxies
Weak Holodoxies are examples rarely seen, if ever. It is very likely that
Submissive Holodoxy:
Consensus forced by authority, be it centralized, institutional, or collective: mafia boss, totalitarian state, group-think (e.g., drug cartels, authoritarian regimes, radical “progressivism,” etc.).
Pathodoxy
Rejects one or more of those three pillars of epistemology.
Sub-types of Pathodoxy
Self-Referential Pathodoxy:
Rejects correspondence to maintain coherence (e.g., ideological purism, Lysenkoism, etc.).
Paradoxical Pathodoxy:
Coherence depends on contradiction; rejects coherence (e.g., mystical faith, radical postmodernism, etc.).
Solipsistic Pathodoxy:
Isolates truth within the self. It rejects consensus as a source of validity, viewing collective agreement as corruptive or morally dubious (e.g., unknown).
Bureaucratic Pathodoxy:
Coherence preserved procedurally while correspondence and consensus decay. Rules continue to operate even when they contradict purpose or reality: collapsing welfare systems, paralyzed public sectors, or authoritarian bureaucracies (e.g., late Soviet Union, Venezuela, the NHS (U.K.), U.S. immigration backlog, Italy’s Justice System, etc.).
Superficial Holodoxy:
Appearance of balance between correspondence, coherence, and consensus maintained through formal procedures or institutional authority: academia, government oversight, legal systems (e.g., peer review, audits, commissions) performed ritualistically rather than substantively.
Use:
Evaluating epistemic balance and how systems handle truth, falsifiability, and correction.
Note 1:
I’ve included the idea of weak Holodoxies, where one of the three branches is weakened not by a rejection, but by the consequence of the method through which it operates.
Note 2:
In Submissive Holodoxies, coercion undermines the trust people have in assessing the motives of others, thus making the consensus fragile as opposed to consensus built on hearing people phrasing their beliefs in an environment that doesn’t chastise dissent. Now, there is a reversal to this, and that is a system that moralizes change as inherently good and treats conservatism as inherently bad. I’ve put “progressivism” in quotes because it amounts to a Radical Orthodoxy. Whether unity is enforced through fear of punishment or fear of moral condemnation, both forms of coercion impair epistemic transparency. People may agree, but it’s hard to tell who truly agrees because of the pressure to self-censor.
Note 3:
I would be well advised to include a short explanation here as some people will raise an eyebrow reading that “progressivism” can be Orthodox. If the doctrine is “change things no matter what”, and the interpretation is literal, and it’s enforced rigidly, that’s an Orthodoxy. Interestingly, it’s partly counter-intuitive because “progress” suggests a natural trend toward good, which gives a positive spin to “change”, a neutral word. To be specific, I am talking about radical progressivism, the kind that paints any conservatism as morally inferior.
Note 4:
When Holodoxies reach societal scale, they depend on checks and balances to remain healthy. We see this in science through peer review, and in governance through audits and investigative commissions. We must not take these institutions for granted; their authority makes them potentially dangerous. Academia and the justice system, among others, can be hijacked to simulate Holodoxy; going through the motions while serving private interests. Thus emerges Superficial Holodoxy; a sub-type of Pathodoxy.
Note 5:
In Bureaucratic Pathodoxies, intention remains intact, but the effects of bureaucracy begin working against the very goals it seeks to achieve. When the pursuit of procedural integrity replaces the pursuit of truth or justice, consensus erodes. While bureaucracies stabilize Holodoxy by enforcing fairness and predictability, they depend on a balance between workload and processing capacity to remain effective.
Note 6:
When consensus emerges through Solipsistic Pathodoxy, uniting individuals around the shared conviction that consensus itself is illegitimate, it becomes a Self-Referential Pathodoxy.
Note 7:
A system that claims to “correspond to reality” can do so incompletely. It may accept empirical feedback when it confirms its worldview but reject it when it contradicts it, or it may celebrate the outcomes of its practices as proof of truth without questioning whether those outcomes stem from false premises.
Consider the ancient theory of humors. Before the discovery of germs, illness was attributed to imbalances of bodily fluids or to invading “humors.” Suppose people noticed that washing wounds with alcohol reduced infection and concluded that humors avoided alcohol because it was “sinful” to them. The practice would have worked; infection rates would drop, yet the reasoning would remain entirely mistaken. The belief system would thus correspond to reality in its effects but not in its explanation: a functional truth built on a false ontology. There is incomplete correspondence when success conceals error, and consequence replaces understanding.
A far more tragic case is Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. Soviet agricultural doctrine rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of a Lamarckian theory that better fit Marxist ideology. When crops failed, the evidence was not used to revise the theory but reinterpreted as proof of sabotage or ideological impurity. Millions died of famine because correspondence with what was happening in the fields threatened coherence with party dogma. Consensus was enforced by Stalin’s authority, and if you weren’t inspired by his great promises, you were likely inspired by fear to keep your mouth shut.
Note 8:
Some Self-Referential Pathodoxies maintain their coherence through unfalsifiable claims; assertions so elastic that no possible observation could contradict them. This self-referential structure allows the system to appear consistent while rejecting correspondence altogether.
However, unfalsifiability does not inherently condemn a system to Pathodoxy. The distinction lies in the attitude toward its own limits. Mystical or symbolic systems can remain Holodoxic if they openly acknowledge that their metaphors, parables, and myths serve as illustrative tools, not empirical descriptions. When the story points beyond itself rather than claiming to be reality, the system retains epistemic honesty.
Early Buddhism provides a historical example. In some traditions, the Buddha’s teachings were presented as useful stories. Parables about karma, rebirth, or enlightenment were not meant as literal cosmology but as pedagogical metaphors guiding ethical and psychological development. In that time and context, Buddhism functioned Holodoxically. It is only when metaphors are mistaken for ontology that a mystical Holodoxy becomes a Self-Referential Pathodoxy.
Note 9:
The distinction between Pathodoxy and Holodoxy serves not only to understand the behaviors they breed, but also to diagnose the health of a system. A belief system that cannot update itself may function well for a time yet perish when external conditions change faster than it can reform. Imagine someone with a compromised immune system who isn’t sick, although their health is fragile.
Holodoxy is not morally superior, but more resilient.
3rd Axis: Prodoxy vs Redoxy (neologisms)
How relationships inside the system affect human flourishing.
Prodoxy
Cooperative, collaborative generation, positive-sum (growth and mutual benefit).
Redoxy
Extractive, zero-sum (gain through the loss of others).
Use:
Measuring relational economy, whether the system grows through generosity or exploitation.
Note:
We cannot expect systems and the people in it to align perfectly, but we can differentiate between “false” Prodoxy and “true” Prodoxy by looking at the systems of checks & balances that keep it self-correcting. When a system loses its efficiency to repair injustices, even if it is “well meaning”, it inevitably becomes more Redoxic than a system that is able to compensate for injustices.
4th Axis: Persuasive vs Coercive
How the system enforces or maintains consensus.
Persuasive
Voluntary participation, inspiration, reasoning.
Coercive
Enforced conformity through fear, shame, or punishment.
Use:
Describing method of diffusion and cohesion, gentle or forceful.
Note:
Some philosophical perspectives argue that consent loses validity wherever power structures exist. Yet if consent is never valid, ethics become unfalsifiable. No act could ever be justified since every interaction would already be coercive. That leads to an intellectual dead end.
Power itself is morally neutral. What matters is how it is wielded. This is precisely why the Persuasive vs. Coercive axis is essential: it distinguishes between the presence of power and how it is used. In practice, no system is purely one or the other. Coercive systems still contain moments of genuine inspiration and autonomy, while Persuasive ones inevitably produce individuals who feel, or even are, coerced.
The real question is whether coercion is encouraged or discouraged, and whether there are checks and balances to contain it. We all live within societies that use coercion (laws, policing, imprisonment) that also protect us from unrestrained coercion by malevolent actors. We can differentiate between benevolent and malevolent coercion, where benevolence is defined by its intention and effectiveness toward reducing coercion done Redoxically (or malevolently).
This axis therefore demands nuance. It should reveal which aspects of a system are coercive and which are not, rather than serving as a slogan for judgment.
5th Axis: Compatibility (Tolerant vs Seditious)
How systems interact with other systems.
Tolerant
Possible coexistence, compatible with other belief systems
Seditious
Seeks to undermine or destroy others.
Sub-types of Sedition
Overt:
A system is Overtly Seditious when there is significant public mention and demonstration that the aim is to subdue or destroy other belief systems or to subdue or kill the members of other belief systems
Covert:
A system is Covertly Seditious when there are significant secretive or conspiratorial efforts to subdue or destroy other belief systems or to subdue or kill the members of other belief systems
Insidious:
A system is Insidiously Seditious when there is unwitting or accidental significant undermining, subduing or death of another system’s or its people because of a Pathodoxic trend or nature. Remember that Pathodoxy relates to a system’s relation to truth, and sedition relates to a system’s relation to another system (via its people, understandably).
Use:
Measuring systemic relationships, competition vs coexistence.
Note 1 (Caveat to tolerance):
Tolerating intolerance, or sedition, is potentially harmful to the system and its proponents. Defending one’s system against external pressures is warranted and does not reduce the status of tolerance. It is when a system and its adherents apply pressure on tolerant systems that they lose or undermine their status of tolerance.
Note 2 (On defining significance):
A single individual can represent a serious threat, even if his motivations are idiosyncratic. The challenge is to respond proportionally, and to distinguish between an isolated anomaly and a symptom of something systemic. It becomes reasonable to question whether the framework from which such idiosyncratic views emerged is itself breeding the problematic, especially when similar “individuals” begin to appear with increasing frequency.
3 Other Considerations
3.1 Clarifying the need for Orthogonality
As I mentioned before presenting the axes, using this model requires orthogonality, but complete orthogonality is rarely possible. Some dimensions inevitably overlap. By keeping such relationships as sub-axes rather than full axes, the model acknowledges these intersections without collapsing its structure.
3.2 Note on the Relationship Between Coercion and Consensus
While consensus may be reached within both Holodoxic and Pathodoxic systems, its quality depends on how it is achieved. There exists a significant relationship between the Persuasive vs Coercive axis and the Holodoxy vs Pathodoxy axis, particularly with regard to consensus.
One cannot assume that consensus carries the same epistemic strength when it arises from coercion rather than inspiration. A coerced agreement can produce social stability yet remain epistemically fragile, as its members may comply without internalizing the logic or truth claims of the system.
This tension means that even a system that appears Holodoxic (balancing correspondence, coherence, and consensus), may in fact be only Submissively Holodoxic; sound in structure, but weak in conviction. The distinction matters because a Holodoxy sustained by fear or obedience lacks the resilience of one grounded in understanding and voluntary assent in which people are cognizant that others say their convictions Autonomously rather than Heteronomously (i.e., out of their own goodwill, rather than transactionally, such as to protect one’s life.)
3.3 Note on Recursion
This model inevitably reflects its own assumptions. It privileges systems that are self-correcting, falsifiable, and adaptive. In that sense, it cannot claim neutrality. To remain consistent, it must also turn these same criteria back on itself: if new insights reveal limits in this framework, it should evolve accordingly. What keeps it from becoming self-referentially or paradoxically Pathodoxic is precisely this willingness to revise itself, maintaining coherence through updating the framework rather than reframing reality to protect its coherence.
Once I apply the model to itself, we find that it is:
Heterodox:
The model is meant to serve the user, not the other way around. It allows reform and critique. Though some structural rigidity exists in how it’s applied, its spirit remains Heterodox because it invites challenge and revision.
Pathodoxic:
While it balances coherence and correspondence, it currently lacks consensus; for now it’s only me proposing it. However, it isn’t Solipsistically Pathodoxic, since I’m seeking consensus rather than rejecting it. This makes the framework epistemically fragile, yet it remains a potent seed precisely because it seeks to appeal to other people’s interests. Its survival depends on whether others adopt, modify, or refute it.
Prodoxic:
Sharing this framework enriches others without diminishing anyone. I doubt anyone will feel compelled to dominate others through it; it thrives on dialogue, not control. It is non-zero-sum.
Persuasive:
Seriously, you don’t have to read this if you don’t want to.
Tolerant:
Designed as a descriptive tool rather than a doctrine. It can easily coexist with other tolerant frameworks and doesn’t demand exclusivity.
3.4 Note on Value Judgment
The goal is not to use this model as a tool of inherent judgment, but as an instrument of analysis. If we decide that the better system is Redoxic and the worse one is Prodoxic, the model will still describe that relationship accurately. The direction of the moral arrow is chosen by us, not dictated by the framework. The model remains morally neutral, it measures structure, not virtue.
3.5 Quick Reference Guide
This section summarizes the axes and their defining features for ease of reference.
Axis 1: Orthodoxy / Heterodoxy
How rigid or flexible are beliefs and practices within the system?
Axis 2: Holodoxy / Pathodoxy
How balanced is the system’s approach to truth (correspondence, coherence, consensus)?
Axis 3: Prodoxy / Redoxy
How are power and resources acquired (positive-sum cooperation or zero-sum extraction)?
Axis 4: Persuasive / Coercive
How is the system promoted and controlled?
Axis 5: Tolerant / Seditious
How does the system relate to other systems?
4 Conclusion
Unoriginally, I call this framework the Sampson Model of Analysis of Systems of Belief, or simply, the Sampson Model.
I first intended to make it far more comprehensive, but I’ve learned that when I dive too deeply into writing, I can lose my balance. So I’ve chosen to keep these explorations shorter (essays, proposals, small experiments in thought). That choice, born of self-preservation, seems to have given the work a certain simplicity, and perhaps even greater accessibility.
I expect to revise it as others challenge and refine it, keeping with Nozick’s incremental “patching” approach. I’ll also begin applying it in future essays, to bring it from abstraction into practice.
Personal Note
While the model itself remains morally neutral, I don’t claim to be. I personally dislike systems that thrive on exploitation. I’ve called them Redoxic, and although the term carries no built-in moral charge, I personally admonish such systems.
To close, I’ll follow my eclectic instinct (this is for you, Samantha) and end with a poem.
Along the way
It is better to take the long walk towards the city,
where meals of love are nutritious and plenty.
First, we starve, parched to be seen,
wondering, was the gamble worth it?
But along the way, without the pressure of the world,
we discover someone within.
With all her flaws and all her beauty,
his dullness and his strength.
And only then we take notice
of others walking along the way.
No time to waste, we are starving,
on a pilgrimage of silent suffering.
But something changes.
Those who love us at our worst
walk along,
quenching our thirst.
Some we walk with from a distance,
others for whom we even slow down.
Some will meet us for a while,
and will part ways in due time,
not out of spite, but out of love.
And along the way we realize.
Along the way, we hurt, we love, and we die.