Definition and Methodological Architecture of the “Intellectual Modeling Methodology”
What is the Intellectual Modeling Methodology?
Common name: MANHAJ.
Official name: Intellectual Modeling Methodology.
This page constitutes the published definitional and methodological presentation of the Intellectual Modeling Methodology. It presents the architecture of the methodology, its constituent theories, governing laws, and operational mechanisms as formulated and developed by Faouzi Messeoud.
This document is a reference for the architecture and methodological organization presented here. It is not a closed list of all theories, laws, models, or applications that the methodology may generate in subsequent research.
Version reference: Faouzi Messeoud, Definition and Methodological Architecture of the Intellectual Modeling Methodology, MyPortail, Version 1.0, 09 September 2026.
Relation to the glossary: The terminology used on this page is based on the Glossary of Intellectual Modeling Methodology Terms, which serves as the terminological reference for concepts and definitions, while this page presents the architectural framework showing how those concepts, theories, laws, and mechanisms are organized within the methodology.
Intellectual Modeling Methodology is neither a single theory nor a closed set of laws. It is a method of inquiry that applies mathematical and algorithmic reasoning to phenomena, constructing concepts, relationships, models, and laws that make their representation, analysis, and measurement possible.
It is an interdisciplinary methodology that is not confined to any particular field of knowledge. In methodological terms, it is a priori to disciplinary knowledge production: it does not necessarily assume the existence of the epistemic field through which a subject is approached as an unquestionable given. It can instead examine the existence of the epistemic field itself, its foundations, its references, and the rightness of approaching the subject through it before entering its detailed cognitive activity.
This a priori position follows from the Law of Rightness, which places the question of permissibility before the question of detail: is it permissible, in the first place, to establish such a field or to approach the subject through it? For this reason, the methodology cannot be reduced to merely applying its tools from within an existing epistemic field. Making the existing field the prior standard by which the methodology itself is judged, when that field may itself be the object of examination, can result in a methodological circularity: the framework under examination becomes the framework used to judge the instrument of examination.
Thus, at its a priori level, the methodology moves from examining foundations and rightness to accepting the field or questioning its foundation, and then to studying the cognitive activity within it and the knowledge, models, relationships, and results it produces. This a priori position does not mean that the methodology cannot be used within disciplines; it means that it is not bound by the internal assumptions of a field when that field itself is the object of examination.
In this architecture, the methodology is founded on three constituent theories and seven governing laws, alongside mental configuration systems, methodological mechanisms, and definitions. The three constituent theories are the Theory of Immaterial Linkage, the Theory of Doctrinal Centrality, and the Theory of Meaning, while the laws are distributed between the Laws of Approach and Foundation and the Mathematical and Systemic Laws.
Laws of Approach and Foundation:
- Law of Approach Centrality.
- Law of Dual Direction of Inquiry: A Priori and A Posteriori.
- Law of Rightness.
Mathematical and Systemic Laws:
- Law of the Coordinate Origin (0,0,0).
- Law of the Overall Duality of Mental Movement: Knowledge and Thought.
- Law of Exponential Growth of Immaterial Linkage.
- 7. Law of Derivation of the Epistemic Constant: d/dx(C) = 0.
The Functional-Coordinate Definition of a Concept belongs to the methodological mechanisms and definitions and is not included in the count of laws.
The methodological architecture is a structural conceptual design model (Conceptual Design Model) showing how the methodology moves from approach and foundation to mathematical and algorithmic modeling, then to interpretation and measurement, while leaving the field open to further models and laws that the methodology may generate in subsequent studies.
Common name: MANHAJ.
Official name: Intellectual Modeling Methodology.
Methodological characterization: An interdisciplinary methodology, a priori to disciplinary knowledge production, that applies mathematical and algorithmic reasoning to intellectual, epistemic, and human phenomena by transforming relationships, concepts, movements, and trajectories into structures that can be represented, analyzed, differentiated, integrated, and measured.
General principle: The methodology is not limited to any particular theory; the theories, laws, and models presented in this architecture are only some of what the methodology has produced and may produce. The architecture therefore remains a generative framework rather than a closed list of components.
This level is based on three constituent theories addressing interconnected but distinct aspects of influence, reference, and meaning: the Theory of Immaterial Linkage, the Theory of Doctrinal Centrality, and the Theory of Meaning. The page identifies the function performed by each theory within the methodology, while detailed treatment is referred to the dedicated pages.
Definition: A theory explaining the persistence of influence and dominance through immaterial links formed between actors and affected parties through culture, language, education, media, and other fields of influence. This linkage operates through the transmission of meanings, representations, values, and patterns of thought, allowing the effect of a relationship to persist without requiring a continuing direct material connection.
Theory structure: The relationship is represented as a network of nodes, links, actors, and affected parties. Nodes may be persons, institutions, concepts, or domains, while immaterial links allow influence to pass between them beyond direct material contact.
How it operates: Immaterial linkage is formed through systems of influence, with effects moving from an actor to an affected party through immaterial links. In the mental domain, this appears through mental bombardment, mental uprooting, and mental transformation, resulting in the reconfiguration of the affected party’s mental structure and a change in the reference framework within which it operates.
Growth property: Every immaterial linkage grows exponentially as the relationship continues and interactions accumulate. The amount of this growth that becomes visible varies according to the temporal span being followed and observed, not according to whether the linkage is exponential or non-exponential.
What the theory explains: It explains how immaterial influence can expand within a network of relationships, and how a relationship can evolve from a limited effect into an extended structure whose effect is reproduced through successive relationships and interactions.
Definition: A theory that examines how a particular intellectual and doctrinal system can become a center and superior reference against which values, ideas, and behaviors are measured. In applications to contemporary reality, it studies how a dominant system can become the reference against which the representations of other societies are measured, displacing the original reference and replacing it with another.
Doctrinal Centrality as an operating system: In the methodology, Doctrinal Centrality is not understood as a partial idea within the system, but as the reference operating system that determines the reference and coordinate origin around which the conceptual domain is organized, relative to which values, ideas, relationships, and meanings are determined.
Coordinate origin: Once the central reference is established mathematically, it represents the coordinate origin (0,0,0) against which the positions of meaning content and relationships within the conceptual domain are measured.
Conceptual domain: The center gives rise to a domain of meanings and relationships structurally analogous to a field; within it, the positions and directions of meanings are determined relative to the origin.
How it operates: When the original reference is displaced and another center takes its place, concepts do not lose their linguistic existence; rather, the positions of their meanings and relationships change within the new conceptual domain. The new center thereby becomes the reference for determining value, direction, distance, and deviation.
What the theory explains: It explains how the reference governing meaning can shift from one centrality to another, and how changing the center affects concepts, subordinate systems, and behaviors operating within the conceptual domain.
Definition: A theory, formulated and developed by Faouzi Messeoud within the Intellectual Modeling Methodology, that treats meaning as a subject in its own right for modeling, rather than merely as a property of a concept, language, or action.
Theory structure: It examines one and the same meaning through three levels of abstraction: meaning as material, meaning as path, and meaning as dialectic. These levels address the content of meaning, the change in the value of that content over time, and the process operating on its material and producing its change.
Representation: The reference content of meaning is represented by the vector 𝐌₀, while the content of meaning at time t is represented by the vector 𝐌(t). When the conceptual domain is fixed in the model under study, the equivalence 𝐌(t) ≡ 𝐏(t) is adopted between the representation of meaning and the coordinate representation of the position of its content.
Conceptual domain: The conceptual domain is the frame within which the meaning of a concept and its coordinate representation are determined; therefore, the mathematical formulation of meaning is defined within a specified conceptual domain.
What the theory explains: It explains how meaning can be examined in terms of its material, path, and dialectic, and how changes in the value of its content, its transmission, reception, and reproduction can be studied, while keeping changes in the conceptual domain as a separate modeling issue.
Details: Full Theory of Meaning page →
Systems that act upon the mental structure of the affected party. Education, cultural formation, and media are at the forefront as the principal circles of immaterial mental influence. This does not mean that they exhaust all levels of influence in reality.
A system responsible for building capacities of perception and reception and forming the frameworks within which the mind operates.
A system that influences the standards, symbols, patterns, and mental representations within which the individual and society are formed.
A system that influences the formation of representations, attitudes, narratives, and the direction of attention and public opinion.
Mental configuration operates through three interconnected stages:
- Mental Bombardment: Flooding the affected party with influential content, images, and concepts.
- Mental Uprooting: Displacing the references or previous structures within which the mind operated.
- Mental Transformation: Reconfiguring the mind and redirecting its meanings and relationships within the new domain.
Thus, configuration describes the operation of the system, while bombardment, uprooting, and transformation represent detailed stages in how it operates.
This level determines how inquiry should begin before entering epistemic details and what must be examined at the foundational stage preceding detailed research.
It calls for approaching a phenomenon through the centrality of the system and the idea rather than the centrality of the sample, and for treating the act as a temporal trajectory rather than as an isolated point. The aim is to raise the level of abstraction so as to encompass structure and trajectory instead of becoming bound to the details of a sample or isolated event.
Dimensions of the law: centrality of systems, centrality of the idea, and centrality of the act as a temporal trajectory.
A posteriori inquiry: Inquiry that starts from the existing epistemic field and operates within its frameworks; it is therefore dependent on the prior foundation presupposed by the field.
A priori inquiry: Inquiry that returns to the foundations preceding the formation of the epistemic field itself and does not merely accept the existing trajectory. In this model, it is integral intellectual inquiry, in contrast to a posteriori derivative epistemic inquiry.
This duality is connected to the duality of knowledge as derivation and thought as integration: knowledge moves from the origin toward details, while thought gathers domains and details back toward the overall foundation.
Rightness is an inquiry prior to entering epistemic details. It asks about the permissibility of addressing the subject in the first place before subjecting it to statistics, samples, specialists, and other tools of detailed research.
Structurally, it can be understood by analogy with determining the domain of existence of a mathematical function: before studying the function’s values and properties, its conditions of existence and definability must be verified. Likewise, the question of permissibility precedes the question of details.
The logical value of rightness: the binary permissible / impermissible. In this conception, it is an inquiry derived from doctrinal foundation and preceding the formation of the epistemic field.
What is impermissible cannot have valid details
This does not mean that scientific research within the field is necessarily incorrect; rather, it means that scientificity and epistemic correctness are not identical to rightness. A trajectory may be scientific in its tools while the question of the permissibility of its subject or framing remains prior to it.
At this level, the preceding principles are transformed into mathematical and algorithmic representations, laws, and mechanisms that can be applied and measured.
The origin is the coordinate center against which the positions of meaning content, relationships, systems, and behaviors within the conceptual domain are measured. Doctrinal Centrality is the reference occupying this point in the model.
Knowledge: Derivation — a movement from a known origin or reference toward particulars, details, and dependent relationships.
f(x) → f'(x) = df/dx
In this conception, derivation represents a mental movement from the origin or known reference toward the details, relationships, and results that branch from it.
Thought: Integration — a movement that gathers dispersed domains and details and reconnects them toward the overall foundation.
∫ f(x) dx = F(x) + C
In this conception, integration represents a mental movement that gathers what is dispersed and reconstructs relationships toward the whole and the foundation within which they are ordered.
Every immaterial linkage grows exponentially as the relationship continues and interactions accumulate. What becomes visible of this growth varies according to the extent of the temporal domain being followed and observed, not according to whether the linkage is exponential or non-exponential.
The law states that differentiating a closed meaning treated as a constant does not generate a change in value. In a context of dependency, importing a ready-made meaning as a constant and recycling it within a local system without re-establishing it produces sterile repetitive knowledge, which is connected to the concept of Chatter and the Sterility of Discourse.
Conceptual note: This does not mean that every fixed reference equals zero; the intended object is the closed epistemic constant whose meaning is not re-derived within the system.
A concept in itself is a shared, non-temporal linguistic common and is not reducible to a point or a node. But when the meaning of a concept is deployed within a given conceptual domain, its content is assigned a coordinate position within that domain relative to the origin. In the fixed conceptual-domain model, this position is represented by the vector 𝐌(t) ≡ 𝐏(t).
If P₀ represents the reference position of the concept’s meaning relative to the origin, and Pᵢ represents the position of an individual’s behavior related to that meaning, the vector separating the two positions is given by:
Vᵢ = Pᵢ − P₀
The vector Vᵢ represents the coordinate difference between the reference meaning and its position as realized in behavior. It can therefore be used to represent the meaning of the concept and measure the relationship between reference and behavior, rather than merely describing the concept linguistically.
Illustrative model — the concept of “Dignity”:
The general theory does not specify the number or nature of the vector’s dimensions; the representation may be multidimensional depending on the subject of study, and the detailed formulation of these dimensions is left to subsequent applied research.
Architectural Conclusion:
These five levels form a generative architecture for the Intellectual Modeling Methodology: the methodology begins by determining the nature of the approach and its foundations, then draws on its constituent theories and studies systems of mental configuration, before transforming phenomena into mathematical and algorithmic laws and representations that can be analyzed and measured. This architecture does not exhaust all the models and laws the methodology may produce.
See also other methodological comparisons:
More on the Glossary of Intellectual Modeling Methodology Terms:
Cite this Article
For researchers and graduate students who wish to cite this page in their academic work, two ready-to-use citation formats are provided: