Unicist Cobots

The Unicist Evolutionary Approach is the Antidote to Facileness in Leadership

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Evolutionary Approach / Leadership / Peter Belohlavek / Social evolution / The Unicist Research Institute by

Facileness degrades, marginalizes and kills social evolution. As is has been researched, facileness is the root cause that underlies involving environments and business failures. It oversimplifies reality by transferring risks and costs to others and avoiding conflicts. This makes the solution of the root causes of problems unnecessary and degrades the value propositions, the reliability and the brand attributes of any culture or business.

The Unicist Evolutionary Approach

While facileness generates involution through short-term maximization, the unicist evolutionary approach drives and catalyzes evolution. 

The unicist evolutionary approach avoids facileness by designing processes as a unified field, using value adding strategies, building objects to ensure results and developing pilot tests to confirm their functionality and learn from the environment.

The concepts and fundamentals that underlie social and business functions are the root-drivers of their functionality. The eventual dysfunctionality of the fundamentals is the root-cause of the problems of these functions.

This is an approach that catalyzes the adaptability of cultures and business, their speed of growth in an environment of customer orientation and sustainability. It is the necessary microeconomic approach in the 4th Industrial Revolution.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 



Social Catalysts, the Accelerators of Social Evolution

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Peter Belohlavek / Social Catalysts / Social evolution / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Anthropology by

All developed, developing and emergent cultures use social objects to foster their evolution. Social objects are “encapsulated” entities that regulate the functionality of cultures. Laws, regulations, and social, economic and political systems, including institutions, and organizations of any kind, are examples of social objects.

Objects in Adaptive Environments

The social functions are regulated by driving, inhibiting and entropy inhibiting objects. The catalysts are part of the restricted context of the process that is being catalyzed, while the gravitational objects are part of the wide context. These catalysts need to be redundant with the gravitational objects that sustain the basic framework of the functions involved.

In developed cultures, legality and legitimacy tend to be overlapped. These cultures use driving, inhibiting, entropy inhibiting, catalyzing and gravitational objects that establish the framework and administrate the operational rules of the environment. See “Microeconomics driven Development” www.unicist.net/economics/participate

The gravitational objects, like the constitution of a country, establish the basic framework of a culture considered as a system. The catalyzing objects establish the acceleration that ensures the synchronicity of actions for the evolution of any adaptive system.

The drivers, inhibitors and entropy inhibitors establish the operational rules that have to be followed to be part of the system.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 

Facileness, the Driver of Involution in Transitional Cultures

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged 50-Year Project / Peers in the World Program / Social evolution / Social Facileness / Stagnated Environments / The Unicist Research Institute by

Facileness as a behavior, represents the inherent tendency to minimize energy consumption in accomplishing tasks. This condition is a fundamental aspect of all living beings. In competitive environments, this approach is beneficial as it fosters competitive advantages. However, in non-competitive settings, it often settles into society’s comfort zone and may evolve into an addiction, becoming part of the fallacious-myths prevalent in culture. The compulsion to take shortcuts is a natural response to problems in environments driven by facileness.

Facileness

Facileness in over-adaptive and transitional environments,, becomes an addiction which drives their stagnation and involution. This behavior is driven by the submission to the fallacious myths of a society, is acted out by the actions of transferring risks and costs to others, and is sustained by the avoidance of conflicts.

Facileness is necessarily short-term oriented and cannot deal with structural approaches, institutionalization, the root causes of problems, or strategic approaches to reality.

Proposing utopias, making shortcuts, subjectifying, “buying time”, lying, and denying facts are typical actions in facileness-driven environments.

Facileness, as an addiction, is unconscious and develops the necessary defenses to maintain the status quo while following the fallacious myths of the environment.

As an addiction, it creates a parallel reality in the world where only those who share this addiction can participate as leaders.

The submission to the fallacious myths proposes behaviors that avoid facing the weaknesses that cannot be accepted by the environment.

Social Facileness

This social behavior is installed as an addiction in environments that are natural resources dependent without assuming an active role to increase the value of the resources.

It is also installed in extremely poor over-adaptive environments.

Facileness profits by transferring risks and costs to others, which installs distrust in the environment and reinforces extremely individualistic behavior.

As conflicts are drivers of change, this addiction requires avoiding conflicts to ensure that the parallel reality is not endangered.

Competing is the natural antidote for facileness because competitors need to improve to win. Therefore the installation of “sporting spirit” in cultures is a natural way to avoid the prevalence of facileness in a culture.

The “Peers in the World” Program to minimize Facileness

Minimizing facileness is a basic condition for social development, It requires that the leaders of the environment feel that they are “Peers in the World”, which do not need to be submissive or oppositional to evolve. The Peers in the World program fosters becoming a peer through competing with others.

This requires that they have an adaptive attitude, meaning they feel they can influence the environment while they are influenced by it.

The development of a “Peers in the World” attitude requires promoting a strategic approach, driven by the use of unicist binary actions, among young leaders of the environment in a way that they can perceive short-term results while a long-term approach is introduced.

You can access the Transgenerational 50-year Project at:
https://www.unicist.net/economics/participate

The Unicist Research Institute

Artificial Intelligence Interpretations added in November 2023

Bard Google Interpretation

The text provided highlights the negative consequences of facileness, particularly in transitional cultures. Facileness is described as an addiction that drives stagnation and involution, leading to the avoidance of conflicts and the creation of a parallel reality. The text identifies several key characteristics of facileness-driven environments, including:

  • Submission to fallacious myths: Facileness is driven by adherence to false beliefs and misconceptions about the world.
  • Transfer of risks and costs to others: Facileness involves shirking responsibility and shifting burdens onto others.
  • Avoidance of conflicts: Facileness seeks to maintain the status quo and avoid challenges that could disrupt the established order.

The text suggests that facileness is particularly prevalent in environments that are resource-dependent or extremely impoverished. In these settings, individuals may feel compelled to adopt facileness as a survival mechanism. However, the text emphasizes that facileness is ultimately a self-defeating strategy that leads to stagnation and decline.

To counteract the detrimental effects of facileness, the text proposes the cultivation of a “sporting spirit” in cultures. By embracing competition and the pursuit of excellence, individuals can break free from the cycle of facileness and drive progress and innovation.

Overall, the text provides a compelling critique of facileness and offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by transitional cultures. The emphasis on resilience, adaptation, and the pursuit of excellence can serve as guiding principles for individuals and societies seeking to overcome the obstacles of facileness and achieve sustainable progress.

ChatGPT Interpretation

The concept of “facileness” as you’ve described it is indeed a fascinating and complex topic. It delves into behavioral, social, and cultural dynamics, especially in the context of transitional or evolving societies. Let’s explore some of the key elements and implications of this idea:

  1. Facileness as Energy Minimization: This aspect touches on a fundamental biological drive, where living beings seek to accomplish tasks with minimal energy expenditure. In nature, this is often seen as an evolutionary advantage. However, in human societies, especially those without competitive pressures, this tendency can become counterproductive.
  2. Impact in Non-Competitive Settings: In environments where there is little competition or challenge, the inclination towards taking the easiest route can lead to a societal comfort zone. This comfort zone may gradually turn into a collective addiction to simplicity and shortcuts, fostering a resistance to change or innovation.
  3. Myth and Cultural Narratives: Facileness, as you describe, is often underpinned by certain cultural myths or fallacies that are accepted without question. These myths perpetuate the status quo and discourage critical examination of long-standing practices or beliefs.
  4. Short-Term Orientation and Avoidance of Structural Solutions: A society driven by facileness tends to focus on short-term solutions and immediate gratification, often at the expense of long-term planning or addressing the root causes of problems.
  5. Behaviors in Facileness-Driven Environments: The range of behaviors you’ve outlined—like proposing utopias, making shortcuts, denying facts—indicate a tendency towards avoidance of reality and complexity. Such behaviors can lead to a disconnect from actual challenges and needs.
  6. Addiction to Facileness and Parallel Realities: As an addiction, facileness can create a kind of parallel social reality where only those subscribing to the prevalent myths can lead or influence. This can lead to a homogenized leadership that resists change and innovation.
  7. Impact on Resource-Dependent and Over-Adaptive Environments: Facileness seems particularly detrimental in environments heavily dependent on natural resources or in extremely poor, over-adaptive societies. Here, the reluctance to innovate or challenge the status quo can lead to stagnation and decline.
  8. The Role of Conflict and Competition: You suggest that conflict and competition can be antidotes to facileness. Conflict can drive change and innovation, while competition can foster a spirit of improvement and growth.
  9. Cultural Antidote: The idea of instilling a “sporting spirit” in cultures as a way to combat facileness is intriguing. It implies promoting values such as fair play, striving for excellence, and continuous improvement.

In sum, facileness, as you’ve conceptualized it, poses significant challenges to cultural and societal evolution. It underscores the importance of fostering environments that value long-term planning, critical thinking, innovation, and a healthy spirit of competition. Understanding and addressing the roots and manifestations of facileness could be crucial for societies that aim to evolve and adapt effectively in an increasingly complex world.

The Concept of the 4th Industrial Revolution

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged 4th Industrial Revolution / Industry 4.0 by

The birth of an industrial revolution is triggered by new technologies, which produce a new industrial stage when they are able to satisfy latent needs of a society. The history of industrial revolutions show that they expand as such in environments where they satisfy the needs of an “establishment” of a culture.

4th Industrial Revolution Concept

As soon as they begin to have a viral expansion, the industrial revolutions demonstrate their true value and the underlying concepts can be perceived. In the case of the 4th Industrial Revolution, it becomes evident that its purpose is to introduce adaptiveness into industrial and business processes.

It has to be considered that adaptiveness, the concept that underlies flexibility, was always a goal in industry but could not be solved without increasing costs and affecting the quality of the produces. Industry 4.0, due to the now available technologies, introduced adaptiveness but also increased the productivity and quality of the produces.

This opened a new stage that was based on industrial processes, although it deals with businesses as a whole. It introduces adaptiveness by managing the concepts and fundamentals of business functions. This allows managing the root causes of the functionality of processes to increase their productivity and quality and to ensure their reliability.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research to deal with adaptive entities and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of adaptive systems and environments. It was one of the precursors of the Industry 4.0 concept

MDD Project – Country Brand

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Country Archtypes / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist School / Unicist Country Scenario Building / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Theory of Evolution by

The empowerment of the value of country brands is basic to manage sustainable globalization and exerting diplomatic power. When we talk about country brand we mean the value behind a single phrase or word: “made in Germany, USA, Taiwan, China, Japan, etc.” or the name of the country as a representation of its values.

Microeconomics driven development requires the empowerment of the brand of the country that decides to expand, which implies a definition where the country will be competing and how.

Brands are defined by the expectation of added value they generate, the uniqueness of their attributes and the consistency of their actions. The empowerment of country brands requires managing the concept, and of the under-promising and overdelivering attitude to install a consistent brand.

It requires several decades of significant investment in communication to empower a country brand which needs to be believed the members of the community in order to be consistent.

To be consistent, it is necessary that those aspects of the society that are chosen as representative of a countries positioning assume a world class positioning. The amplitude of the meaning of “world” defines the functionality of the brand.

Microeconomics Driven Development
Committee

MDD Project: Social Crises foster Growth or Degrade

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Long Term Planning / Peter Belohlavek / Social Crises / Survival Strategies / The Unicist School / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by

Social crises unavoidably foster the change of an environments. Crises happen when the security framework of a society or group becomes dysfunctional. Social crises always include economic, ideological and social aspects.

Crises force people to do things that would not have done before in order to survive. The palliation of crises is a spontaneous natural response that sustains the status quo of a society and, if palliation succeeds, all remains unchanged but degraded, towards a lower level of collective ethical intelligence.

Crises drive people towards a superior level of individualism to ensure their individual survival and the survival of the group they belong to. Those cultures that are subject to regular crises, whatever their kind, have a weak cultural nucleus.

Crises for growth

There is a different functionality of crises when they occur in an environment that has a long-term goal implicit in its archetype which drives the collective intelligence. Crises work as catalysts for growth when they happen in a society or group that has long term goals.

Crisis management for growth requires developing simultaneously two strategies: a maximal strategy to develop structural adjustments based on the lessons learned from a crisis and a minimum strategy to palliate the negative effects trying to minimize the dysfunctional effects of the increase of individualism.

In cultures that have been affected by regular crises for decades that first step is to install long term planning which, paradoxically, is considered as not feasible in such environments.

Microeconomics Driven Development
Committee

MDD Project: Startups vs. Butterfly Companies

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Conceptual Management / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist School / Unicist Business Architecture / Unicist Business Strategy / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by

Depending on the width of the application field of the innovation, there is a notorious difference between businesses that are built upon an invention or discovery. There is a high risk of building a butterfly company when the innovation has a specific use with a specific added value.

A butterfly company is defined as a business that has a beginning and an end within a short timeframe. Only innovations that create a category that has social added value where the trends expand their use can be considered as start-up businesses. A category has been created when a new concept has been installed.

If you read the history of Google, Apple, Ford, Siemens, Facebook, etc. you will find the description of startups that became corporations. There is no difference between them and the creation of a startup based on an innovation that has notorious social value, where the IP can be protected and that is able to build a growing market.

Isolated inventions need to be managed as opportunities that will be absorbed by the market and where the creators can make a larger or smaller profit depending on their negotiation capacity.

Microeconomics Driven Development
Committee

MDD Project: Research based Learning for Graduate Studies

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Evolutionary Economics / Peter Belohlavek / Reflection Driven Education / The Unicist School / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by

The objective is to install in postgraduate studies and doctorates the research-based learning approach focused on developing real solutions for unsolved problems.

The goal of this new standard is that the participants learn from the feedback of their decisions and are able to approach the solution of problems in adaptive environments.  It moves from an answer driven learning approach to a question driven learning approach.

More than 20 years ago, the unicist reflection driven learning approach was developed at The Unicist Research Institute. The objective of this approach was to provide an educational framework and a methodology to foster the learning of the management of root causes of adaptive systems and environments.

The final goal of this approach is that the participants develop real solutions for complex problems which include their implementation to confirm their validity.

This approach is homologous to the research-based learning approach when it is fully focused on developing and implementing a solution. It differs totally from a research approach based on literature surveys.

For the case that the standard of research-based learning cannot be installed as an educational standard, the MDD project includes the reflection driven education for the leaders of private organizations.

Microeconomics Driven Development
Committee

The Unicist Theory: A Paradigm Shift in Sciences

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Complex Adaptive Systems / Complexity Sciences / Evolution / Paradigm Shift in Sciences / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Theory by

The paradigm shift of the Unicist Theory is based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which is the intelligence that underlies nature. It establishes the basic structures of behavior in nature. The understanding of the unicist paradigm shift is necessary to accept the validity of the resulting applied technologies.

Giving Birth to Complexity Sciences

The final goal of the Scientific Research developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute was to find a structural solution for complexity as a universal problem.

The Unicist Theory gave birth to Complexity Sciences, providing both their epistemological structure and their integration with Systemic Sciences. This allowed developing a scientific approach to adaptive environments.

At an operational level the objective was to deal with complex adaptive systems. These systems might be natural systems or artificial complex adaptive systems like cultures, institutions or information systems.

The Paradigm Shift: The Path towards Double Dialectical Actions

The objective of the research works developed at The Unicist Research Institute has been the development of solutions to influence complex environments in order to foster their evolution. This research drove to a paradigm shift in science, which is based on emulating the maximal and minimum strategies that are implicit in the intelligence that underlies nature.

This allowed discovering the double dialectical behavior of nature and transferring this knowledge to its application to deal with adaptive environments in order to ensure the results that are being fostered.

The core application of the paradigm shift in sciences was the development of maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure survival using double dialectical actions to manage functions in complex environments in order to ensure results.

Dealing with Living Beings and Complex Adaptive Entities

The unicist approach to complexity emulates nature to deal with natural or artificial complex adaptive systems. Such emulation is based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that regulates the evolution of living beings and natural entities.

The Unicist Theory explains the dynamics and evolution of living beings and complex adaptive entities. It substituted empiricism by a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist approach and replaced knowledge falsification processes with destructive testing processes.

The four pillars of the paradigm shift developed by Peter Belohlavek are:

  1. The unicist theory, which explains the dynamics and evolution of living beings and complex adaptive entities.
  2. The unicist theory of evolution, which allows forecasting the future.
  3. The epistemological structure of complexity sciences, which allows managing the complex aspects of reality.
  4. The unicist theory of the unified field in nature, which allows managing the unified field of complex adaptive systems.

The Unicist Theory

The Unicist Theory explains the evolution and dynamics of complex adaptive entities whether they are natural beings or artificial entities. This theory is based on the discovery of the triadic structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

The purpose of this theory is to provide a framework to forecast the evolution of adaptive entities considering their restricted and wide contexts.

This theory describes the universal structure of the unified field in nature that is applicable to all complex adaptive entities whatever their kind. It needs to be considered that the unified field has a triadic structure that is homologous to the structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

The evolution of complex adaptive entities is based on the laws of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. This intelligence includes an active principle that drives the evolution and establishes the maximal strategy of the entity while it generates entropic effects. It also includes an energy conservation principle that establishes a minimum strategy to ensure the survival.

This theory allows emulating the organization of nature when dealing with adaptive environments. It is based on forecasting their future scenarios, defining the functional unified fields based on the knowledge of the ontogenetic map that defines their conceptual structure. This approach simplifies the management of complex environments.

Expanding the Boundaries of Sciences

As it is known, the management of complexity has been an unsolved challenge for sciences. This challenge was faced in 1976 by The Unicist Research Institute that was a pioneering organization in finding a structural solution for complexity without using artificial palliatives.

The paradigm shift, based on the emulation of nature, was developed to solve the need of having reliable knowledge to deal with complex environments. It was provoked by the fallacy of considering empirically-justified knowledge as reliable knowledge.

It allowed managing complex environments as a unified field.

The paradigm shift was triggered by the need to understand complex adaptive systems. The shift implies having subordinated the empirical approach to sciences to a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist approach to deal with complex environments that integrates, at an operational level, the preexisting empiricism.

History of the Evolution of Operational Knowledge

This is a superior level in sciences that integrates complexity sciences with systemic sciences using the double-dialectical logic to emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and using objects to emulate the organization of nature.

Scientific Framework of the Unicist Approach

The unicist approach to complexity science was developed in order to provide a methodology that is specific to deal with complex adaptive systems in order to avoid the extension of the use of methodologies that correspond to the field of researching systemic aspects of reality.

This drove towards the integration of a pragmatic, structural and functionalist approach to research in the field of complexity sciences that is the framework used in all the researches done at The Unicist Research Institute.

Access the scientific framework:
www.unicist-school.org/complexity-sciences/theoretical-framework/

The scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory

The objective of the scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory is focused on:

  • Confirming the existence and functionality of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.
  • Confirming that the unicist ontology emulates the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and allows defining the structure of complex systems.
  • Confirming the functionality of the unicist double dialectical logic to go beyond dualism, which hinders apprehending reality as a unified field, in order to be able to emulate the intelligence of nature in mind.
  • Confirming that concepts are defined by the ontological structure of an entity and, as Immanuel Kant already discovered, have a functional meaning that is the framework of any possible action.
  • Confirming the functionality of unicist objects that are built emulating the objects in nature like the organs in the human body.

The scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory that confirm its functionality to deal with complex systems are:

  • The functionality of amino acids
  • The functionality of the curing principles in medicine
  • The structure of atoms
  • The structure of biological entities
  • The nervous system
  • Similarity between natural and social objects
  • Unicist concepts as stem cells
  • Thinking processes and the functionality of electricity

Access the scientific evidences: www.unicist-school.org/complexity-sciences/scientific-evidences

 

A Synopsis of the Paradigm Shift in Science

(Before and After the Unicist Theory)

This synopsis describes the “before” and “after” the development of the unicist approach to complexity.

The Unicist Theory changed Sciences as they are known

Before: Sciences were based on an empirical cause-effect approach that was functional in systemic environments but dysfunctional to deal with complex adaptive environments that have open boundaries and bi-univocal relationships among their components.

After: The unicist approach to sciences is based on a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist framework that allows integrating the scientific approach to both complex and systemic environments. It subordinates the empirical approach to deal with operational aspects after the complex aspects have been managed using a unicist ontological approach. It integrates systemic sciences and complexity sciences in a unified field.

Example in Economics: The knowledge of the unicist ontogenetic maps allow defining the structural economic solution for an entity and the use of the technical-analytical tools allows defining and monitoring the operation.

Development of the Epistemological Structure of Complexity Sciences

Before: The category of complexity sciences was inexistent as such. The understanding of complexity was simplified by using artificial palliatives, to generate pseudo-systemic structures of variables. This implies using a dualistic empirical approach to reality.

After: All fields of reality where their evolution depends on the feedback from the context belong to the field of complexity sciences. Complexity Sciences provide solutions for adaptive environments.

Natural or artificial complex adaptive environments are approached as unified fields that are defined and regulated by their ontogenetic structures and are constituted by processes and objects that work as complex adaptive entities. This approach implies using a triadic, pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist framework.

Example: This is the case of natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences, economic sciences, political sciences, anthropology, behavioral sciences, etc.

Discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature

Before: The structure that regulates the evolution of nature was unknown.

After: The structure of nature that regulates its evolution is given by the triadic structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

This intelligence is defined by a purpose, an active principle and an energy conservation principle that are integrated in their oneness defining the functionality of the entity. The active principle drives the evolution while the energy conservation principle sustains the purpose. The ontogenetic intelligence of an entity defines its intrinsic concepts that regulates its evolution.

Example: 1) The structure of the human nervous system where the purpose is defined by the vital function, the active function is given by the motor system and the energy conservation is given by the sensitive system. 2) The structure of the atom where the purpose is given by the protons, the active function is given by the electrons and the energy conservation function is given by the neutrons.

Discovery that the Evolution of Living Beings is driven by a Purpose

Before: The evolution is random.

After: Evolution is purpose driven to sustain the survival of the species.

Example: The evolution of finches explained by Charles Darwin. The beak of the finches evolves to ensure the survival of the species.

Discovery of the Structure of the Unified Field in Nature

Before: The apprehension of the Unified Field has been an unsolved problem in sciences. The apprehension of nature was considered as part of intuition and an evidence of wisdom.

After: The Unicist Theory gives access to the triadic structure of the unified field in nature that defines the concept that regulates its evolution.

The discovery of the triadic functionality of ontointelligence allowed apprehending the unified field in nature. It solved the problem of the integration of solutions that are incompatible at an operational level.

This intelligence, that is used by individuals to apprehend the nature of a reality, is integrated by the ethical intelligence, the strategic intelligence and the logical thought. It requires being able to deal with the ambiguity implicit in any complex environment.

It opened the possibility to make reasonable, understandable and provable the emulation of nature. It defines the possibility of managing different levels of complexity in the real world.

Example: The ethical intelligence is the deepest intelligence of human beings that evolves with their maturity and defines the true intentions of individuals when dealing with the environment. It is functional when it is consistent with the ethical intelligence of the environment.

Discovery of the Basic Law of Evolution

Before: The structure of nature was unknown therefore there were no laws of evolution

After: The evolution implies that the active principle drives the evolution of an entity while the energy conservation sustains the status quo.

When the energy conservation principle prevails, the entity becomes stagnated in order to survive.

Example: 1) The change of the beak of finches is an example of evolution. 2) The encystment of microorganisms is an example of the prevalence of the energy conservation principle.

Application of the Unicist Ontology of Evolution to future research

Before: The evolution of living beings or complex adaptive environments was forecasted based on experiential benchmarks, the consensus of expert opinions or the use of intuition (Nostradamus and others).

After: The unicist approach to evolution is based on discovering the unicist ontological structure of an environment and using the signs and symptoms in order to infer the future using the principles of evolution. The opinions of experts are used as destructive tests, while pilot forecasts are used as non-destructive tests.

Example: The development of county future scenarios or business long-term planning.

Discovery of the Organization by Objects of Nature

Before: The Complex Adaptive Systems were managed as systemic systems to manage their processes and functions.

After: Complex adaptive systems, being natural entities or artificially created, are integrated by objects, which are integrated in a unified field.

Each object is an interdependent autonomous entity that fulfills a function and has a quality assurance that ensures its functionality.

Example: 1) The human body is integrated by objects that are evident to everyone and other objects that are not. The organs of the body are objects that are evident and the amino-acids belong to the category of not evident objects. 2) Countries are social entities organized by objects that function as institutional roles. 3) Institutionalized businesses are complex adaptive entities that are organized by objects and functional roles to ensure their permanence.

Development of the Research Framework for Complexity

Before: The Empiric frameworks were used in order to falsify hypotheses.

After: The use of a Pragmatic, Structuralist and Functionalist framework was the basis for the development of destructive tests to define the limits of knowledge and non destructive tests to confirm the functionality.

Example: 1) The research of complexity has to be done in a real environment and not in artificial environments. 2) The research of complex environments requires an ontological research focused on the objects that integrate a complex adaptive system.

Development of the Unicist Epistemology to Build Reliable Knowledge

Before: Empiric knowledge is validated by confirming its justifications.

After: Reliable knowledge of complex systems is validated using “foundations” to confirm the functionality of their concepts and justifications to confirm the operational aspects.

Example: The statistical validity of human behavior needs to be applied based on considering that each conceptual segment of a population is an independent universe.

Discovery of the Relationships between Elements in Nature

Before: There was no knowledge about the conceptual structure of the relationships in nature.

After: The relationships between the elements that integrate a unified field are complementary or supplementary.

There are no other types of relationships among the elements that integrate a unified field than those of complementation and supplementation.

Example: The purpose and the active function of a concept have a relationship of supplementation. The relationship between the purpose of the concept and the energy conservation function is based on a complementary relationship.

Discovery of the Structure of Extrinsic Concepts and Mental Concepts

Before: (1724 – 1804) Immanuel Kant defined that concepts have a functional meaning that is the framework of any action.

After: The concepts of non-living entities have the same structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function that define the extrinsic concepts.

These functions work as a unified field that drives human action. The extrinsic concepts define the functionality of things and are deposited by humans in order to manage their nature.

The structure of extrinsic concepts is timeless and cross-cultural; their credibility zone is defined by the environment and its conjuncture. They exist as long as the function exist. The mental concepts are the concepts that guide the actions of individuals and are stored in their long term memory.

Example: The concept of leadership is integrated by a purpose, which is to sustain the authority of an individual, its active function is given by the participation with the group and the energy conservation function is given by the power that an individual has to influence the context.

Development of the Unicist Ontology

Before: Ontology was an approach to apprehend the nature of reality, which belonged to the field of philosophy.

After: Unicist ontology is a structured approach to apprehend the nature of complex adaptive systems using an emulation of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

The unicist ontology is necessary to deal with Complexity Sciences because it allows defining the concepts that guide actions.

Example: The nature of any strategic approach to reality implies an emulation of nature meaning that there is a purpose to be achieved, the active function is given by a maximal strategy that drives beyond existing boundaries in order to provoke evolution, and the energy conservation function is given by a minimum strategy that ensures survival.

Discovery of the Structure of Complex Adaptive Systems

Before: The complex adaptive systems were considered as systemic systems. They were managed considering their functional elements as variables.

After: A complex adaptive system is considered as an open system, in which the conjunction of objects and/or subsystems determines the functionality of the unified field.

These systems have no variables but objects that are integrated by the conjunction “and”. In complex systems there is no “or” in the relationships of their objects.

Example: The human body is a paradigmatic example of a complex adaptive system that has no variables. It has objects that fulfill functions and processes that establish the relationships between these objects. The organs of the body are evident objects.

Discovery of the intelligence to deal with complexity

Before: The use of analogical thinking was dominant and critical thinking was a superior approach to adapt to the environment.

After: The ontointelligence to deal with the unified field of complex environments was discovered. This drove to the integration of analogical thinking, critical thinking and unicist thinking that allows apprehending the unified field and fundamentals of a given reality. Analogical thinking is spontaneous and based on genetic intelligence, critical thinking requires an analytical thinking process and unicist thinking demands the use of a unicist reflection process.

Example: The design of solutions of complex problems.

Development of the Double-dialectical Logic

Before: The logical approach to deal with sciences was based on empiricism, which requires the use of a dualistic approach in order to disregard the unified field of complex adaptive systems.

Dualism has two main justifications that sustain the artificial isolation of aspects of reality. On the one hand, the “Truth Tables” (True or False) are an example of dualistic logic that is functional to manage systemic functions. But they are dysfunctional to deal with the unified field of complex adaptive environments.

On the other hand, “Ceteris Paribus” is a fallacious solution to isolate variables or aspects of reality that is based on defining all other aspects of a problem as constants. It is used to confront adaptive environments without needing to adapt.

After: The double-dialectical logic is an integrative logic based on the use of conjunctions to define the structure of the unified field of complex adaptive systems using double-dialectical thinking.

The elements included in complex environments are not true or false. They are defined by their levels of functionality. Their functionality is defined by the value generated by the integration of their triadic functions that require the use of the logic of double-dialectics in order to be understood.

Example: Both the dialectics of Hegel and Marx have a dualistic basis using a thesis-antithesis model that drives to a resulting synthesis.

But cultures have homeostatic elements that participate in the social process which implies a triadic dialectical approach defined by a thesis-antithesis-homeostasis model.

To access a triadic approach with a dualistic mind-set (the neurons are on or off) it is necessary to use a double-dialectical model that integrates thesis and antithesis in the active function with the thesis and homeostasis in the energy conservation function.

The double-dialectical logic is a mind-set that needs to be used to emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature in order to manage concepts to deal with complex adaptive systems.

 

Scientific Contributions

In Scientific Research – 1980: Development of a unicist ontological methodology for complex systems research, substituting the systemic approach to research adaptive systems. 2014: The integration of the unified field of macro and micro behavior. 2015: Development of the destructive and non-destructive tests to research adaptive environments.

In Life Sciences – 1988: Discovery of the functional structure that regulates evolution and the unicist ontological structure of living beings as a unified field. 2006: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of evolution and involution. 2008: Discovery of the two types of integration, complementation and supplementation, of elements in complex adaptive systems.2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of biological entities. 2013: Confirmation of the unicist ontology of viruses. 2014: Discovery of the ontological structure of chronic diseases. 2014:Discovery of the structure of therapeutics. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of health. 2016: Development of the Scientific Foundations of Medicine.

In Complexity Sciences – 1998: Development of the unicist ontology emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. 2003: Discovery of the anti-concepts that work as antimatter. 2006: Development of objects to manage human adaptive systems emulating the structure of nature. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complex adaptive systems.2014: Discovery of the behavior of objects in complex adaptive systems. 2015: Discovery of the essential opposition but operational complementation between the active function and the energy conservation function of concepts.

In Information Sciences – 2002: Development of unicist ontogenetic based ontologies replacing the empirically structured ontologies. 2014: Development of unicist adaptive robotics. 2015: Development of prototypers. 2016: Discovery of the nature of conceptual design. 2018: Discovery of the ontogenetic map to emulate the unified field of adaptive environments. 2018: Development of the unicist cognitive systems.

In Future Research and Strategy – 1984: Modeling of the ontological structures that allow inferring the evolution developing the ontogenetic maps of human adaptive systems. 2014: Confirmation of the functionality of ethical intelligence in future research. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of personal strategies. 2016: Discovery of the nature of entrepreneurial strategies. 2017: Discovery of the double dialectical tactics.

In Logic – 1986: Development and formalization of the integrative and the unicist logic. 2013: Functionality of Dualistic Logic in complex environments. 2013: Discovery of the structure of aprioristic fallacies.

In Anthropology – 1986: Discovery of the “invariables” of human behavior. 1997: Discovery of the double dialectical behavior. 2008: Discovery of the anthropological lifestyles. 2010: Discovery of the institutional and social viruses. 2012: Discovery of the integration of ontogeny and phylogeny. 2012: Discovery of the stagnant survivors’ role in societies. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of aptitudes, attitudes and intentions. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of cultural adaptiveness & over-adaptiveness. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Anthropology. 2014: Discovery of the Cultural, Institutional, Individual and Social Archetypes. 2015: Discovery of the functionality of rationalism and subjectivism as social and individual addictions. 2016: Discovery of the nature of innovation processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of social dysfunctional utopias.

In Economic Science – 1989: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of Economics.1998: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of the price elasticity of demand. 2004: Discovery of the ontogenetic structure of economic models and their functionality. 2011: Discovery of the ontology of currency and inflation. 2012: Discovery of the ontology of the industrialization level. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of the overcoming of scarcity. 2012: Pricing of Futures and Options. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of speculative manipulation. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Economy. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of economic freedom.

In Political Science – 1990: Development of the ontological algorithm and the ontogenesis and phylogeny of ideologies and their functionality. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of Social, Economic and Political Democracy.

In Social Sciences – 1993: Discovery of the collective unconscious and the unicist archetypes of cultures. 2012: Discovery of the role of stagnant survivor elites in the stagnation of segments or cultures. 2016: Discovery of the nature of social networks.

In Linguistics – 2004: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithms of natural, ambiguous and figurative languages and the unicist ontology of words. 2014: Development of semantic objects. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of subliminal communication.

In Mathematics – 1996: Development of the conceptual basis of interdependent, dependent and independent variables. 2014: Development of the mathematical foundations of reality indicators.

In Philosophy – 1994: Development of the unicist ontology integrating philosophy, science and action in a unified field. 1997: Refutation of Hegel’s and Marx’s dialectics and the formulation of the laws of the double dialectics.

In History – 2000: Development of a historical analysis methodology based on the unicist double dialectics.

In Cognitive Science – 2001: Development of a methodology to construct knowledge with existing information through an integrative logic. 2002: Development of the unicist reflection methodology to deal with the nature of reality. 2006: Discovery of the object driven organization of mental processes and the development of cognitive objects. 2008: Development of the ontological algorithms of fundamental analysis. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of erudition and wisdom (observers vs. participants). 2014: Discovery of the structure of the emulation of reality. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conceptualization. 2018: Discovery of the triadic functionality of conscious intelligence. 2018: Development of the Unicist Artificial Intelligence.

In Education – 1979: Discovery of the ontogenetic algorithms of learning which has given scientific sustainability, amongst others, to Piaget. 2014: Discovery and development of learning objects. 2015: Development of Reflection Driven Education. 2016: Discovery of the nature of learning by teaching.

In Psychology – 1984: Discovery of human ontointelligence to deal with adaptive systems. 2003: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of fallacies, the functionality of anti-intelligence and anti-intuition. 2004: Discovery of the double dialectical thinking process. 2005: Discovery of the unicist ontology and evolution laws of human essential complexes. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conscious behavior. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complementation of thinking processes. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of psychopathy. 2014: Discovery of the structure of subliminal decision-making. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Psychology. 2015: Functionality of concepts as behavioral objects. 2016: Discovery of the nature of human metamorphosis. 2016: Discovery of the functionality of thinking processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of personal dysfunctional utopias. 2017: Discovery of the nature of self-criticism.

In Semiology – 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of semiosis as a complex adaptive system. 2015: Development of semiotic role objects. 2017: Development of the semiotic research groups.

Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research to deal with adaptive entities and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of adaptive systems and environments. It was one of the precursors of the Industry 4.0 concept.

Cultural Adaptiveness drives Social Expansion

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Adaptiveness in Cultures / Social development / Social evolution / Unicist Anthropology / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Theory by

Cultural adaptiveness is the central gravitational force that fosters expansion. It is homologous to institutional expansion processes. The core of the adaptive behavior is to make growth in an environment possible.

The unicist ontological structure of adaptiveness includes counterintuitive elements that make it difficult to apprehend because of the pre-concepts people have. The final purpose of cultural adaptiveness is to achieve growth using influence on the environment to produce it.

Over-adaptation works as a driver for cultural degradation but also as an energy conservation function in adaptive environments, a fact that can be considered counterintuitive.

That is why over-adaptation can only be apprehended if it is experienced.

Types of adaptiveness in cultures:

Four segments of adaptive behaviors have been identified. These segments are:

  1. Doers – Doing driven
  2. Members – Belonging driven
  3. Leaders – Sharing driven
  4. Innovators – Expanding driven

1) Doers

Adaptiveness is solution driven. Adaptive processes imply being able to integrate the environment with the individual in a value adding relationship.

That is why it generates a spontaneous solution approach that is the basic driver for doers. They accept to deal within the system of a culture assuming a dominant role in order to adapt through their actions.

The segment of doers is driven by their integration through their deeds. They are naturally value generation driven and profit from their counterpart. They naturally tend to marginalize those who tend to profit from the environment.

Doers seek for the expansion of the vital space through the prevalence of the culture as a system and the influence through actions.

2) Members

Their concept of belonging drives them naturally towards the exclusion of outsiders.

This is not a racist feeling they have but the feeling that all those who do not share the spirit de corps of a culture need to be excluded from the system.

This exclusion is not necessarily an active action but it always includes the establishment of the limits between those who belong and those who do not.

They are the conservative members of an Establishment that foster the maintenance of the original values that are included in the institutional or cultural archetypes.

Their submission to the system is based on the existence of barriers that separate the people that belong to the Establishment from those who do not.

Their behavior is fully institutionalized to foster the development of the culture in order to expand its vital space.

3) Leaders

This is the segment within an adaptive institution or culture that fosters its expansion based on developing the power of its social capital and the cooperation among its members.

The goal of these leaders is to expand the power of a culture to influence the external environment.

They develop their actions within a conservative context representing the values that are implicit in the institutional or cultural archetype.

They are participative, being able to share their vital space to foster the development of the social capital.

They represent the nationality of an institution or culture and are the leaders of their spirit de corps to expand the vital space.

4) Innovators

They are the members of an institution or culture that foster the evolution of the archetypes of such culture in order to increase its vital space in the environment.

They are driven by competitiveness in order make the expansion of the vital space through the introduction of innovative actions possible.

They propose new technologies that naturally influence the evolution of the dominant ideology and the dominant ethics of a culture.

These innovators are the natural heroes in the cultures and succeed if they are able to structure the innovations within the system.

They are the generators of the innovations that empower the social capital. This segment is accepted based on the expansion of the vital space it produces.

Their role in the system is the expansion of its boundaries which happens when they accept the limits of the cooperation in the institution or culture.

Conclusions

Adaptiveness has naturally a high level of entropy. The level of entropy is high because it needs to work within a complex adaptive system where the needs of the institution or culture and its environment need to be integrated.

Institutions and cultures need to establish the system that defines their structure. It can be said that the basics of countries considered as adaptive systems are given by their constitutions and the basics of institutions are given by their visions.

Constitutions and visions are functional when they are consistent with their real archetypes. They produce the conditions for a structural over-adaptation when they are not consistent.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research to deal with adaptive entities and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of adaptive systems and environments. It was one of the precursors of the Industry 4.0 concept.