Dear Betty,
Your response is a surprise. I didn't expect derision from someone like yourself. I do not, and did not, refer to Wikipedia
Your claim that Vöegelin follows the Socratic-Platonic model is faulty on its face. I know that it is popular for Voegelinists to make the claim, but in fact Voegelin owes more to Rousseau than Plato. It is true he didn't develop a system, but that is a failing and not a virtue. When you cite his "30 books" you commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
But I don't want to change the subject. Can we get back on track here? In my last to you, I averred that "world" is not a subject matter for science. I have not yet heard your opinion of that. So while I'm waiting, may I elaborate further here?
Science deals with direct observables under controlled conditions. How can "world" be a direct observable, or controlled for? The only way we human beings can view the world, to observe it, is from the "inside," as parts and participants of it. There is no Archimedian point on which anyone can stand wholly "outside" the world so to view it "entire," complete, in all its movements in time, past, present, and future. (We cannot see what hasn't happened yet; and yet presumably the world does have a future, which from our standpoint in time has not yet been realized.) In short, "world" cannot be an object for scientific study. Partial operations in/of the world may be so viewed; but not the world entire.
It is the multiplicity of partial views gained by human experience articulated in language over millennia that gives us our sense of "the world" today, not science. Science has no standing to object to the great hierarchy of being — which turns out to be a constantly articulated framework of understanding of world and man's place in it cross culturally — one is tempted to say universally — regardless of the cultural contacts or lack thereof in widely dispersed geographical regions. Thus the "myth" or "model" of the great hierarchy of being has empirical basis because it is rooted in direct human experience and language.
Because it is rooted in human experience, it is not a "doctrine." A doctrine, if anything, is a substitution for direct experience.