Developments


MDD Project – Country Brand

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

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

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

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

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

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.


The Structure of Unicist Economic Scenarios

Unicist Economic Scenarios deal with the concepts that drive production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. They deal with the materialistic aspects of a society to ensure its survival and growth while providing a basis for the evolution of the coming generations.

The unicist conceptual economy considers that the core objective of economy is the organization of work processes in a culture or institution. Economic Scenarios can only occur within the level of the archetype of a culture and based on the values of work .

The purpose of an economic scenario is to generate wealth, its active function that puts this purpose into action is the generation of social added value, which makes wealth become useful, and the energy conservation function is the generation of wealth with growth.

This synthetic definition requires entering the definition of the three elements that integrate economics in order to define the sub-concepts/fundamentals that integrate it. It has to be considered that each of the concepts that define conceptual economy need to reach a threshold according to the expectations that are implicit in the social scenario that are finally based on the values implicit in the archetype of a culture.

The Ontogenetic Map of Economic Scenarios

Conceptual economy organizes what is possible to be achieved. Crises occur when any concept becomes dysfunctional and does not work within its credibility zone and cannot be compensated by its energy conservation function.

The final purpose of conceptual economy is the generation of wealth, which can only be achieved if the culture is driven by the value of work as a value generating action and not only as a way to survive.

But work as a value can only generate wealth if it is sustained by the necessary technology that allows dealing in a competitive context. Technology implies necessarily innovation.

Work and technology can only establish a meaningful integration when people are driven by the need to learn. This implies that the environment needs to foster the generation of value and improvement in order to evolve and thus a learning context is given.

Levels of Functionality of Economic Scenarios:

The four levels of effectiveness of economic scenarios are:

Level 1) Incentive driven

Level 2) Technology driven

Level 3) Market driven

Level 4) Transcendence driven

At an operational level, economic scenarios need to consider the conjunctural and structural aspects to provide employment and foster innovation and the development and use of technologies.

Level 1) Incentive driven

It is the segment of the economic activity that needs incentives to foster consumption and to use technologies that increase its effectiveness.

Level 2) Technology driven

It is the segment of the economic activity that is fully technology dependant to achieve the generation of growth and wealth. It requires strong investments in education to foster innovations and improvements in work processes.

Level 3) Market driven

It is the segment of the economic activity that is competitive in terms of value and price, which allows following the needs of the markets.

Level 4) Transcendence driven

It is the segment of economic activity that has achieved a level of maturity that allows managing structural investments to ensure the wellbeing of the coming generations.

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.


Unicist Country Scenario Building

At a conceptual level, there are three integrated scenarios that drive the evolution of a country: the social scenario, the economic scenario and the political scenario.

It is not easy to apprehend the concept that the economic scenarios are the drivers of the new utopias of a culture. The active function fosters utopias, the energy conservation function is based on cultural myths and the concepts of social scenarios are taboos.

Administrating the evolution of a country requires integrating the social, economic and political scenarios in their oneness. Evolution is inhibited if any of the concepts that are included does not achieve the necessary threshold of energy in order to influence the environment.

There are different levels of concepts and fundamentals that drive the evolution of countries.

It has to be considered that these fundamentals are based on the dominant lifestyles (which are consistent with the archetype), work attitudes and technologies.

Lifestyles define the boundaries of social scenarios, work attitudes define the boundaries of economic evolution and the technological scenarios define the evolution of ideologies.

Below the fundamentals of social, economic and political scenarios and the lifestyles, work attitudes and technologies there is a cultural archetype that establishes the core values of a culture.

The cultural archetype establishes the taboos that need to be respected, the utopias that need to be fostered and the myths that need to be followed in order to be an accepted member of the society.

The Structure of a Country Scenario

The archetype defines the transcendent goals of a culture. Although the archetype is evolving, it has to be considered as a driver and a limit for social behavior.

The educational system defines the possibilities for social evolution and transforms the transcendent goals included in the archetype into operational solutions and behavioral patterns.

The institutionalization of the different roles in a country provides the energy conservation context that makes the achievement of the transcendent goals possible.

Maximal Strategy

The expansion of the boundaries of a culture is driven by the economic scenario. The purpose of the economic scenario is the generation of wealth, which implies having the necessary innovative technology and a learning driven educational system within a context of value adding work.

Wealth generation becomes meaningful when there is a context of distribution. The economic social added value covers the basic materialistic needs of the members of a culture.

It includes work in terms of employment, the satisfaction of the needs of a population, while there is a consistency of the distribution that recognizes the value that is being generated and the benefits that are being distributed.

An evolutionary environment has been built when this context is given. Then the economic activity needs to generate materialistic growth that ensures wealth generation and provides an expanded starting point for the coming generations.

It has to be considered that growth generation is the catalyst of the evolution of a country. As such, paradoxically, when it is below the necessary threshold to sustain stability, it works as an inhibitor of evolution.

Minimum Strategy

The political scenario provides the minimum strategy of a culture. It has to be considered that the nature of the political scenario aims at ensuring the existence of social capital, social justice and social mobility.

Social capital is defined by the competitiveness to grow and cooperation to build synergy within the culture to sustain the national identity of a culture.

Social justice is what upgrades the ethics of a culture by generating equal opportunities, providing social repair when damages have been produced and social punishment for those who disregarded the rules of the culture.

Social mobility is the entropy inhibitor of a cultural scenario. It minimizes the waste of energy because it provides a reward for the efforts and actions of the community.

Social mobility implies the existence of social competitiveness, equal rights and an access to reference groups based on value generation. When social capital becomes stable, the goals implicit in the archetype can be defined.

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.


Transcendence, the Driver of Social Growth

Transcendence is the fundamental that puts permanence of societies and institutions into action. Without an “instinct” of transcendence there is no possibility to make things grow.

Transcendence is a basic instinct that sustains the survival of any species.

As it is said in Ethology when the individual survival instinct prevails over the species survival instinct, a species is in extinction.

Lonely wolves are the demonstration of the consequence when individual goals prevail over group needs.

In human behavior, being influenced by rational conscious drivers, the spirit of transcendence is limited to those that are included in the pronoun “we”.

Human transcendence

Human transcendence includes four types of transcendence:

  • The transcendence through species
  • The transcendence through deeds
  • The transcendence through people
  • The individual transcendence

Transcendence through the species

The transcendence through the species is what provokes the necessary personal actions, including sacrifices, in order to ensure the survival of the species.

But people do not consider all other humans as part of their species. Slavery is a demonstration of this fact. That is why we say that “the reach of one’s globalization is given by the limit of the pronoun WE”.

Institutions need to be considered as part of the species of their members. Those individuals who take advantage of institutions are provoking its disappearance.

When “species” prevail over individual needs, the “species” is in evolution.

Transcendence through deeds

Doers transcend basically through their deeds. Their deeds have two different components, on the one hand they add value to the species and on the other hand, through such deeds Doers gain value to grow.

Individuals grow because the value of what their deeds add is higher than the energy they spend to produce the deeds. This is the meaning of gaining value.

Transcendence through deeds is what makes institutions and communities expand because it is the fundamental for science, technology, innovation and production.

Transcendence through people

Communities and institutions are integrated by people. Those individuals that transcend because of the recognition they get from people are necessarily those who sustain the subjective integration of the “species”.

This transcendent attitude has two different approaches that need to be integrated. On the one hand, the transcendence needs to be based on the community to make it grow.

But on the other hand, it must include the transcendence of individuals to make it possible. “Technology ensures results, but people make the difference” is a concept that shows transcendence through people.

When there is no interest in transcending through people “species” are in extinction.

Transcendence through people makes the distribution of spiritual, emotional o materialistic benefits possible.

Transcendence through individuals

Individual transcendence is part of life. Individuals need to have their own identity to be part of a community or institution.

When the individual identity is “erased”, we are in a sect that needs to prevail in spite of their members.

Individual transcendence is what ensures the minimum strategy of transcendent behaviors. Individuals need to have their place in order to “feel” that what they are doing is worth it.

Individual transcendence is at the same time the driver of “heroic” behavior. When individual transcendent goals prevail over the goals of the institution, the institution is in involution.

When this attitude becomes a habit, the institution has already disappeared, although its materialistic aspects might still exist.

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.


Economic Power puts Archetypical Power into Action

The Power of Nations is based on the construction capacity which is given by work and sustained by the non-exerted destruction capacity that we call dissuasion power.

This implies that the economic power has to provide the maximal strategy, the possibility of upgrading to the next step while the dissuasion power developed by the administrative authorities of the country provides the necessary secure environment to grow.

It has to be considered that the economic power is basically individualistic oriented. In the materialistic world the same “thing” cannot be shared. Money is in my pocket or it is in your pocket. It cannot be in both at the same time.

That is why the nature of the materialistic world is the dualism which naturally drives towards fostering activities based on individual initiatives.

This is not necessary at a subsistence level but it is a must if a culture fosters expansion and influence in the environment.

Diana Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist