Here you will find the precedents of the unicist evolutionary approach that allow establishing its context and understanding its essential functionality.

The unicist evolutionary approach erased the barriers between philosophy, science and action to deal with reality as a unified field using the Unicist Logic (double dialectical logic). It is based on the integration of Eastern and Western philosophies that requires using a superior abstraction and building a superior concretion. This gave birth to the Unicist ontological approach to complexity science to research and manage adaptive systems and environments.

Lao Tzu: The Tao Te Ching

Both the Unicist Double Dialectical Logic (Unicist Logic) and the TAO (pathway) deal with the principles that underlie nature.

The integration of Yin and Yang builds the triadic structure of the Unicist Logic. Both the TAO and the Unicist Logic explain the structure of the unified field of the functionality of a specific reality including its dynamics and evolution.

Tao gives birth to One,
One gives birth to Two,
The Two gives birth to Three,
The Three gives birth to all universal things.

http://www.with.org/tao_te_ching_en.pdf
Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching

Yang is homologous to the dialectics between the purpose and the active principle. It defines the active functionality of an entity.

Yin is homologous to the dialectics between the purpose and the energy conservation principle. It defines the energy conservation functionality.

The conjunction of both dialectics is defined by a triadic structure that integrates the ultimate functional purpose of the entity with the active principle and with its complement, defined by the energy conservation principle.

Both the TAO and the Unicist Logic are based on the use of the conjunction “and” excluding the use of the exclusive disjunction “or”. If you are not aware of the scientific use of the TAO, we recommend reading the book “Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra.

Charles S. Peirce: Triadism and the Universal Categories

Merely to say that Peirce was extremely fond of placing things into groups of three, of trichotomies, and of triadic relations, would fail miserably to do justice to the overwhelming obtrusiveness in his philosophy of the number three.

Indeed, he made the most fundamental categories of all “things” of any sort whatsoever the categories of “Firstness,” “Secondness,” and “Thirdness,” and he often described “things” as being “firsts” or “seconds” or “thirds.”

For example, with regard to the trichotomy “possibility,” “actuality,” and “necessity,” possibility he called a first, actuality he called a second, and necessity he called a third.

Again: quality was a first, fact was a second, and habit (or rule or law) was a third. Again: entity was a first, relation was a second, and representation was a third. Again: rheme (by which Peirce meant a relation of arbitrary adicity or arity) was a first, proposition was a second, and argument was a third.

The list goes on and on. Let us refer to Peirce’s penchant for describing things in terms of trichotomies and triadic relations as Peirce’s “triadism.”

If Peirce had a general technical rationale for his triadism, Peirce scholars have not yet made it abundantly clear what this rationale might be.

He seemed to base his triadism on what he called “phaneroscopy,” by which word he meant the mere observation of phenomenal appearances.

He regularly commented that the phenomena in the phaneron just do fall into three groups and that they just do display irreducibly triadic relations.

He seemed to regard this matter as simply open for verification by direct inspection. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/

Peter Belohlavek: The Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature

Ontogenetic intelligence defines the basic laws of evolution. It is a set of what can be called natural laws which rule the evolution of living beings.

It was researched in order to find an approach to forecast and influence evolution.

Ontogenetic intelligence is defined by two principles of nature:

• The action and entropic principle that sustains growth and evolution. It is driven by freedom.
• The energy conservation principle, which sustains survival and avoids involution. It is driven by security.

In the field of human behavior, the action principle gives birth to the verbal function, which makes the fulfillment of purposes possible. The entropy produced by action produces changes in the goal of purposes.

To avoid changes and sustain the purpose, the energy conservation principle produces a homeostasis. The homeostatic value complements the purpose and ensures that action occurs within the established limits.

But the consequence of this interaction is never deterministic. The change produced by the interaction of the living being with the environment produces evolution or involution.

In nature, both principles sustain the evolution of living beings. Their effects can be observed in bacteria, viruses, cells, and other living beings.

At a more operational level, besides the expansion and contraction principles, there are functions that provide security and functions that provide freedom to living beings. These functions are implicit in the upper level functions (expansion – contraction).

Ontogenetic intelligence provides the basic rules to adapt to an environment. It sustains the living being’s unstable equilibrium. When, for any reasons, the ontogenetic intelligence is inhibited, the living being loses its equilibrium and its survival is endangered.

These principles are active in individual beings and in the live environment they are part of.

Integrating Philosophy, Science and Actions

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 final solution integrated philosophy, science and actions. It allowed managing complex environments as a unified field.

The objective of the Unicist Approach to Complexity Sciences developed by Peter Belohlavek was to find a scientific approach to understand nature and provide a structure to emulate it when designing, building or managing complex adaptive systems.

Belohlavek developed the epistemological structure for complexity sciences, by developing the unicist ontological methodology for complex systems research, which substituted the systemic approach to research adaptive systems and was materialized in the unicist double dialectical logical approach to deal with adaptiveness.

Learn more: https://www.unicist-school.org/complexity-sciences/ontogenetic-intelligence-of-nature/

Comparison between
Universal Categories and Unicist Concepts

Peirce’s triadic concepts describe the ontogenesis of universal categories’ knowledge while Belohlavek’s triadic concepts describe and define the ontogenesis, functionality, dynamics and evolution of adaptive entities whatever their kind.

The Unicist Research Institute