E) Structural Conflicts

Future Research: The Nature of Economic Freedom

September 21, 2015 in A) Country Archetypes & Scenarios / D) Unicist Future Research / E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots / Unicist Functional Design tagged Conceptual Economy / Country Future Research / Future Research / Social Scenario / The Unicist Research Institute / unicist anthropology / Unicist Confederation / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab / Unicist Logical Approach / Unicist Theory of Evolution by Unicist Future Research Lab

This work deals with the conceptual structure of economic freedom and its integration with economic democracy. It includes no ideological considerations or influence. It is based on the unicist approach to complexity science, which uses a pragmatic, structural and functionalist framework.

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

There are prejudices and fallacious myths installed in the world dealing with the concept of economic freedom.

Unfortunately, no literature could be found that approached economic freedom based on its concept to define its nature (the “stem cell” of economic freedom).

The existing approaches are strongly influenced by ideological positions.

This introduction, based on an excerpt from the book “The Future of Democracy and Capitalism” by Peter Belohlavek, provides a conceptual approach to capitalism, going beyond the beliefs deposited on facts by people to understand the nature and dynamics that define the present and future of Capitalism.

It can be said that Greece was the origin of political democracy in the West but was not an economic democracy because in those times the expansion of cultures was driven by military actions.

It can also be said that the United States of America are a paradigmatic example of evolutionary democracy that integrates social democracy, economic democracy and political democracy to manage the domestic affairs.

As an evolutionary democracy, the United States of America could be taken as a paradigmatic example of Economic Freedom and Capitalism. But Economic Freedom and Capitalism cannot be imported or exported. The unique structure of values that are implicit in a culture’s archetype are the demonstration that it is meaningless to copy any model to a foreign culture that has different structural values.

The understanding of the nature of economic democracy and capitalism allow defining the particular way in which a country can deal with economics and economic democracy considering its own characteristics.

This complete document includes:

Economic Democracy Ethics
The Structure of Capitalism
The Nature of Justice: The Catalyst and Entropy Inhibitor of Capitalism
The Future of Capitalism
Annex 1: The Nature of Economic Democracy
Annex 2: Corruption: The Anti-concept of Capitalism

Economic Democracy Ethics

Ethics defines the accepted rules of an environment. These rules satisfy the functional needs, the morality that is accepted in the environment and the ideology that underlies this ethics.

In the economic democracy, we have structured the four basic ethics that are accepted as existent:

The Statism
The Protectionism / Dirigisme
The Pre-capitalism
The Capitalism

The ontogenesis of these ethics is homologous to the phylogeny of the human growth processes. This is to say that Statism implies the childhood of economic behavior, protectionism / dirigisme is its adolescence, Pre-capitalism is its youth and Capitalism is its maturity.

Anarchy is the stage previous to these ethics. It implies that individuals develop their economic activities eluding the rules of the environment.

Statism

Economic Statism is based on using the drivers of rational morality to guide economic actions. As economic or materialistic behaviors belong to the field of individualistic attitudes, Statism necessarily needs to make others responsible for the results to be achieved.

It is a low productivity economic ethics, in which the fulfillment of the established rules prevails over the achievement of results. Statism installs economic behavior in the rules of childhood, which means that the “family” prevails over the individual desires. It achieves a superior level of productivity in environments that have a superior ethics driven collective intelligence and are highly disciplined.

This is not the case when dealing with the social aspects of Statism. Statism in economic behavior requires authoritarian dirigisme in order to define what needs to be done and is driven by the need to make people align in an environment where the property belongs to others.

Protectionism / Dirigisme

Economic protectionism / dirigisme is based on installing autonomous entities that live based on the exchange with other protected entities in order to survive and provide adequate living conditions for the members.

Protectionism is a typical adolescent organization that corresponds to an economic stage where the environment has not been organized as a democratic entity.

It is based on the self-sufficiency of the productive entities that cannot deal in an adapted way with the environment because the control on their protected organization prevails over the productivity that can be achieved.

As there is a need to be self-sufficient, there is no possibility of introducing innovations or adapting to the change of the external environment. Their productivity suffices for survival and their horizon is limited to the reality of their “private” entity. Economic protectionism achieves a superior level of productivity when it is driven by a superior ethics driven ideology.

Pre-capitalism

The economic pre-capitalism ethics implies that private property prevails over any other consideration in economic behavior.

Pre-capitalism implies, on the one hand, that the private initiative should prevail over governmental or State interventions and that all that hinders economic freewill is dysfunctional.

It is naturally the capitalist logic of non-democratic environments and, paradoxically, it represents the prejudices that non-democratic and non-developed countries have about capitalism.

Pre-capitalism is homologous to the behavior in youth where the voluntarism, omnipotence and energy prevail over a rational use of resources. It is a typical model for primary industry driven countries that have not known the meaning of a true democracy.

The productivity of pre-capitalism is based on the power of transferring costs to the participants of the economic activity.

Capitalism

Capitalism is the ethics that corresponds to a superior economic democracy, which is natural in democratic countries and not natural in countries that are developing towards a democratic environment.

Economic capitalism implies, on the one hand, the existence of a social economy where the society participates in the ownership of the productive entities through the stock market and, on the other hand, the existence of a newcomer’s place in which pre-capitalist rules apply within the general rules of capitalism

Capitalism is sustained by justice, which is the catalyst and entropy inhibitor of the system. Without a functional judicial system, capitalism degrades towards a pre-capitalist ethics.

The level of productivity in capitalism is catalyzed by the need to integrate shareholders and clients within the entities. Thus, those who achieve an adequate level of productivity succeed and those who do not, disappear.

The educational system is the driver to provide the necessary resources for R&D to maintain the competition at a superior level.

Unicist Future Research Lab

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-school.org/future-research/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/turi-1.pdf

The Unicist Ontology of Humor and Anti-Humor

January 19, 2015 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Conceptual Anthropology / Country Future Research / Intelligent Systems / Je suis Charlie / Social Evolution / Social Scenario / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab by Peter Belohlavek

“Je suis Charlie” has triggered a turning point in Europe and perhaps in the world.

Humor is an art that fosters personal and social balance. It builds a bridge to solve the conflict between idealism and realism.

By using an aesthetic communication, humor demystifies reality and establishes a conflict with the authority that embodies the values of the reality that is being idealized.

Illegitimate humor, anti-humor, is a communication that seeks the destruction of transcendent values of the environment that cannot be accepted.

It generates an unbalance of reality that produces extreme conflictive reactions.

Part 1 – Humor as a Driver of Social Evolution

Published: January 9, 2015

“Je suis Charlie” represents the need of people to accept humor as an art that fosters evolution. The unicist ontological approach to humor gives access to its concept and allows understanding its importance.

Humor is one of the mechanisms used by human beings to solve their adaptation to reality.

On the one hand, humor seeks to solve the conflict between the ideals an individual has and the reality s/he needs to deal with, and on the other hand, it provides a mechanism to allow individuals to integrate in groups.

“People are separated by their strengths and integrated by their weaknesses.”

Humor is a mechanism that allows projecting one’s weaknesses outside and integrating all kinds of people including those who belong to different social or cultural groups.

Humor is a way to solve individual or social problems

Laughing at oneself is a way to solve one’s problems or to manage them. It fosters functional behavior.

The Functional Concept of Humor

Humor is a human behavior that poses or tries to solve authority conflicts using an aesthetic demystification of reality.

About Authority Conflicts

Humor solves the authority conflict demystifying reality. This demystification seeks to establish a superior reality in which the individual assumes the role of a judge of the environment.

This demystification generates a high level of influential power and thus humor achieves the goal of empowering the people who use it. This demystification requires building smart fallacies to make people feel superior.

The authority conflict requires also annulling the ideal proposed by the authority, which is frequently done by the use of sophisms. This annulment of an ideal, implicit in the authority conflict, does not need to be harmonic.

Finally, the authority conflict implies developing a power game against the establishment, which basically covers all aspects that deal with human relationships. In this context, humor produces paradoxical results when dealing with religious faith.

About the Aesthetics

Humor can only exist when it is perceived as “aesthetic”, which means that people want to appropriate it in order to use it. A joke really works when the individual who learned about it uses it in her/his environment.

Humor also needs to be harmonic with the environment where it works. This is the case of each of the different types of humor, such as caricatures, jokes, the use of irony, etc., which require the adequate harmony with the environment in order to be accepted.

This harmony is defined by the culture, the moment, the group or the subjects involved. Rejection is the consequence of a humor that is not harmonic with its context.

About Demystification

Demystification is a power game. It seeks the destruction of those elements that bother an individual and thus fosters self-esteem. This power game opens two possibilities.

On the one hand, humor demystification allows solving the problem the individual has when dealing with a specific reality and, on the other hand, it allows individuals to avoid the need of assuming responsibilities in the environment.

Demystification needs to annul the influence an ideal exerts in an environment. When an ideal requires investing a high level of energy and is dysfunctional to the needs of a group, humor allows mitigating the stress produced.

Part 2 – Structural Segments of Humor

Three functions of humor could be defined:

The expansive humor that fosters the expansion of individuals or cultures.
The inhibiting humor that pretends to eliminate threats. It is a typical humor in authoritarian environments.
Anti-humor that seeks for the destruction of the transcendent values of individuals. The destructive humor needs to destroy a specific reality.

It has to be considered that there is a legitimate humor and an illegitimate humor. As humor drives an authority conflict, it is only legitimate when those who have been attacked are able to respond to the message through their actions. Therefore, humor becomes illegitimate when it attacks supernatural aspects that deal with religious faith.

Five structural segments of humor have been defined that characterize its influence in an environment. These functional segments include all the types of humor that exist. These segments are:

Aggressive Humor
Mordacious Humor
Projective Humor
Introjective Humor
Desacralizing Humor

Segments of Inhibiting Humor

The purpose of inhibiting humor is to destroy threats. These threats might be real or be part of a parallel reality of an individual. This humor is natural in environments where people feel submitted. It relieves the pressure produced by the need to over-adapt to an environment. It generates smiles.

The Aggressive Humor

The purpose of the aggressive humor is the destruction of a specific reality that is annoying a person or group. This type of humor might be subtle or violent but, in all the cases, it aims at the destruction of some aspects of the environment.

It exposes the weaknesses of a given aspects of reality making it appear as fully dysfunctional, which provokes smiles or laughter that disqualifies the aspects that are bothering.

This type of humor is functional to sectarian groups or extremely individualistic or marginal cultures.

The Mordacious Humor

It is the humor that seeks for the destruction of someone’s self-esteem or authoritative role. It uses subtle communication, including subliminal communication, and is built upon well disguised fallacies that allow installing fallacious perceptions.

It seeks to annul authoritative roles by attacking their implicit weaknesses, which sustain their strengths, destroying their legitimacy while creating the sensation of a superior intellectuality of the one who acts this mordacity out. This humor is functional among intellectual groups and inaction driven cultures.

Segments of Expansive Humor

The purpose of expansive humor is to solve the conflict between idealism and realism in order to better adapt to the environment. It is the humor that fosters personal and social evolution and generates smiles and laughter.

The Projective Humor

This humor allows individuals to project outside the personal problems they have to avoid having the need to adapt to the environment. It is the typical humor of bestselling comedies in theatres or movies.

The spectator shares the weaknesses acted out in the comedy, which liberate the spectator, who avoids the need to face the conflicts they generate in the real life. The projective humor is the best bridge to build social relationships.

The projective humor allows individuals to share their weaknesses, which allow building transitory relationships even between people who belong to different cultures or segments. It is the humor needed to participate in social events.

The Introjective Humor

It is the humor an individual uses to laugh at her/himself. It is a humor for the few and it is something that can be taken but not given. This means that the same humor that is perceived as projective by someone is used to laugh at her/himself by others.

It is a humor that cannot be perceived by those who cannot laugh at themselves. It is a typical humor of “doers” and groups who foster awareness. It doesn’t allow building bridges with others because it separates those who can laugh at themselves and those who cannot.

It has en extreme value for personal evolution and it also has a social value in those environments where “doing” is a dominant value.

Anti-humor (Illegitimate Humor)

It is the anti-concept of humor that seeks for the destruction of the transcendent values of a culture. It uses an apparent direct aesthetics, which works only when it includes subliminal communication, to install fallacious myths to destroy transcendent values. The anti-humor generates meaningless extreme conflicts. It is the humor used by fundamentalists. It generates rational adherence.

Desacralizing Humor

It is the humor that aims at the destruction of transcendent values that threaten the values of the one who is creating it. It pretends to establish an authority conflict with sacred institutions or aspects that deal with the faith of people. It is the kind of humor used by all types of fundamentalists.

Conclusion

The category of a humorous communication can only be measured by the reaction of those who receive it. Humor, like art in general, is a pathway to equilibrate the conflicts between individuals and society, which fosters a more functional adaptive behavior.

It also works as an internal equilibrator for an individual that has significant consequences on her/his personal health. The natural type of humor a culture uses is an indicator of its archetype.

On the one hand, humor is also used to destroy dysfunctional taboos, but produces paradoxical results when these taboos sustain the survival of a group or community. But, on the other hand, humor fosters personal evolution when it is used to eliminate growth taboos.

While humor generates the solution of problems, anti-humor is a fundamentalist action that generates extreme conflicts by fostering a parallel reality.

Since humor is an art, the development of humorous messages, includes a high level of non-conscious influences. The different categories of expansive, inhibiting, or illegitimate humor can only be confirmed through the reactions of the people.

This is an excerpt of the book on the Unicist Ontology of Humor published in 2004.

Peter Belohlavek

Humor as a Driver of Social Evolution

January 9, 2015 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Country Future Research / Future Research / Humor as a Driver of Social Evolution / Je suis Charlie / Social Scenario / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab by Peter Belohlavek

“Je suis Charlie” represents the need of people to accept humor as an art that fosters evolution. The unicist ontological approach to humor gives access to its concept and allows understanding its importance.

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

Humor is one of the mechanisms used by human beings to solve their adaptation to reality.

On the one hand, humor seeks to solve the conflict between the ideals an individual has and the reality s/he needs to deal with, and on the other hand, it provides a mechanism to allow individuals to integrate in groups.

“People are separated by their strengths and integrated by their weaknesses.”

Humor is a mechanism that allows projecting one’s weaknesses outside and integrating all kinds of people including those who belong to different social or cultural groups.

Humor is a way to solve individual or social problems.

Laughing at oneself is a way to solve one’s problems or to manage them. It fosters functional behavior.

The Functional Concept of Humor

Humor is a human behavior that poses or tries to solve authority conflicts using an aesthetic demystification of reality.

About Authority Conflicts

Humor solves the authority conflict demystifying reality. This demystification seeks to establish a superior reality in which the individual assumes the role of a judge of the environment.

This demystification generates a high level of influential power and thus humor achieves the goal of empowering the people who use it. This demystification requires building smart fallacies to make people feel superior.

The authority conflict requires also annulling the ideal proposed by the authority, which is frequently done by the use of sophisms. This annulment of an ideal, implicit in the authority conflict, does not need to be harmonic.

Finally, the authority conflict implies developing a power game against the establishment, which basically covers all aspects that deal with human relationships. In this context, humor produces paradoxical results when dealing with religious faith.

About the Aesthetics

Humor can only exist when it is perceived as “aesthetic”, which means that people want to appropriate it in order to use it. A joke really works when the individual who learned about it uses it in her/his environment.

Humor also needs to be harmonic with the environment where it works. This is the case of each of the different types of humor, such as caricatures, jokes, the use of irony, etc., which require the adequate harmony with the environment in order to be accepted.

This harmony is defined by the culture, the moment, the group or the subjects involved. Rejection is the consequence of a humor that is not harmonic with its context.

About Demystification

Demystification is a power game. It seeks the destruction of those elements that bother an individual and thus fosters self-esteem. This power game opens two possibilities.

On the one hand, humor demystification allows solving the problem the individual has when dealing with a specific reality and, on the other hand, it allows individuals to avoid the need of assuming responsibilities in the environment.

Demystification needs to annul the influence an ideal exerts in an environment. When an ideal requires investing a high level of energy and is dysfunctional to the needs of a group, humor allows mitigating the stress produced.

Conclusion

Humor, like art in general, is a pathway to equilibrate the conflicts between individuals and a society, which fosters a more functional adaptive behavior. It also works as an internal equilibrator for an individual that has significant consequences on her/his personal health.

On the one hand, humor is also used to destroy dysfunctional taboos, but produces paradoxical results when these taboos sustain the survival of a group or community. But on the other hand, humor fosters personal evolution when it is used to eliminate growth taboos.

This is an excerpt of the book on the Unicist Ontology of Humor published in 2004.

Peter Belohlavek

Germany: The New Role of Germany in the European Union

September 19, 2013 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Country Archetypes / European Union / Future Research / German archetype / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab by Unicist Press Committee

This is an excerpt from the research on the evolution of the European Union, led by Peter Belohlavek, that is being systematically developed at the Future Research Lab of The Unicist Research Institute.

The reach of one’s globalization is defined
by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

Considering that the power of a Nation is defined by its work, Germany is establishing a standard in this field that defines the future competitive capacity of the EU in the world and works a catalyst for the evolution of its members. As a catalyst it has its implicit prices to be paid.

You can access the German archetype at: http://goo.gl/6JPLai

“Cooperation in Unity” implies more than the subjective feeling of sharing a European Culture, which is driven by cooperation. It implies the need of a complementation between the members, which is necessarily driven by the materialistic aspects. This requires an “equalization” of the value of work in order to sustain an evolution to benefit all members.

To access the basics on Unicist Future Research please enter:
www.unicist.org/sdp.shtml

The Crisis 2008 Triggered this New Stage

The history of the crisis has two basic conditions and two main triggering causes.

The conditions are the fall of the communist system and the use of consumerism in order to sustain scarcity as an economic driver.

The two triggering causes were the technological plateau and shareholders dominance in economic organizations.

The dot.com “prelude” was a demonstration of the technological plateau and of shareholders’ dominance using the money of the “market”.

Access more:
http://unicist.org/ucu-es/unicist-root-causes-of-the-crisis-2008-2010/

The Power of Nations Depends on their Capacity to Work

Understanding that the power of a Nation depends on its capacity to work is something very difficult to accept because it is rather new.

And accepting that the archetype of a culture defines the level of work that is the standard in an environment sounds deterministic and for some people racist. Because it implies that every culture obtains what it produces; that underdevelopment is defined by the underdeveloped, development by the developed and emergent by the emerging.

Power = W/t: Power can be measured in Speed

Power can be measured in speed. That is why we say we can make a metaphor and measure the level of development in speed.

If developed cultures move at a speed of 100 km/hour, underdeveloped evolve more slowly.

That is why the gap between development and underdevelopment increases from day to day.

But emergent cultures are emergent because they move faster than the developed ones, which means that the gap between emergent cultures and developed cultures decreases from day to day, until the emergent cultures surpass the developed cultures.

About Wealth and Poverty

The purpose of wealth is to foster evolution to guarantee the opportunities for the next generations. Wealth/Social evolution depends on the working capacity limited by the social and institutional inertia of a culture.

Operationally, wealth depends on the working capacity, the technology, the education and the inertia of a culture. Poverty as such doesn’t exist. Poverty implies the absence of Wealth.

That is why it is commonly seen in underdeveloped countries that there are organizations who promote the “combat of poverty”.

You can combat thieves because they exist, you can combat enemies, but you cannot combat poverty. What you need to increase is wealth. The combat of poverty is just a fallacious myth to justify the distribution of an existing wealth.

The production of wealth must be fostered to reduce poverty. Combating poverty produces more poverty.

Poor countries have no power, because their working capacity is extremely low, that is why they are poor.

The Conflicts beneath “Cooperation in Unity”

The European Crisis began to clarify the motto “Cooperation in Unity”. This generates conflicts that are beneath the apparent unity because they affect different segments that can only react based on their own archetypes.

There are latent conflicts with the excluded, there are implicit conflicts with those who cannot consider themselves as being part of the EU, there are members who feel that they are left behind and, finally, there are members who cannot understand the situation and feel fully disoriented. Any observer of the European situation can install names in each of these categories.

Those who feel excluded are trying to go back to their past, and their people consider that they are paying an extreme price for belonging to the EU. Those who cannot be part consider that they have the right to demand repairing actions.

Those who are being left behind feel being treated unfairly because they cannot accept the gap between the members. And, finally, those who are disoriented because of their doubts of being part of the unity generate conflicts that arise from their uncertainty about the future.

The social conflicts that arouse are “explosions” and “implosions”. On the one hand, they are explosions in the case of the over-expansive conflicts of those who need to recover from the crisis but on the other hand, they are implosions in the case of those who feel excluded or cannot deal with the conflicts generated by the crisis.

Explosions occur when the conflicts are the consequence of the expansion of a country and implosions are the effects of persistent contractive actions.

The explosions occurred and will occur because people need to feel included in the benefits this new stage produces and consider unfair that the benefits are not noticeable in everyday life for everyone.

Synthesis

The EU is entering into a mature stage, which will allow establishing a stable dynamic equilibrium among the members.

Germany is one of the leaders of this new stage, which will end establishing a “European Archetype” that can truly provide the groundings for the concept “Cooperation in Unity”.

The other pathway is that the EU enters into a soft confederative concept, which allows building complementation based on conjunctural opportunities.

Germany can be considered as a benchmark for the power that the EU intends to have in the world economy and culture. Access “Made in Germany” at:
http://unicist.info/sdc-en/made-in-germany-an-example-to-understand-brand-power/

The solution of the conflicts that are implicit in the different roles the members of the EU assumed will define which of the two alternatives will prevail.

The conflicts need to be measured beyond the explicit opinions of the participants but in the spontaneous cultural responses of the population and the elites of these countries.

The uncertain question is how to deal with diplomacy with members who in fact do not share but the materialistic interest of belonging to the EU.

If you want to access more information about this study please contact
n.i.brown@unicist.org

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. http://www.unicist.org

Cultural confrontation: the clash between adaptive and over-adaptive cultures

August 6, 2013 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Adaptive cultures / Countries evolution / Country Archetypes / Cultural confrontation / Economic growth / Future Research / Intelligent Systems / Over-adaptive cultures / Social Evolution / Social Scenario / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Confederation / Unicist Corporate University / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab / Unicist Theory of Evolution by Peter Belohlavek

The root cause of the clash between cultures is in fact the confrontation between over-adaptive and adaptive cultures. Over-adaptive cultures are naturally driven by a dualistic approach which drives them to consider enemies all those that are different or have a superior level of adaptiveness.

The reach of one’s globalization is defined
by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

On the other hand, adaptive cultures are driven by integrative approaches that allow them influencing the environment while being influenced by it.

The apparent paradox is that while adaptive cultures include over-adaptive behaviors in order to accept the influence of the environment, over-adaptive cultures are dualistic and cannot accept adaptive behaviors within their boundaries.

That is why adaptive cultures are able to generate added value while over-adaptive cultures need to survive based on the appropriation of value.

Obviously, the confrontation is generated by the over-adapted cultures that need to transform the adapted ones into enemies in order to justify their attitude towards the appropriation of value.

This confrontation is in fact the battle between evolution and involution, which generates opposite and incompatible positions that can only be overcome by the acceptance that adaptiveness is a goal to be achieved.

Adaptiveness requires necessarily a double dialectical equilibrium that fosters change on the one hand while it provides an energy conservation function to establish a stable equilibrium.

Evolution – About adapted cultures

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.

The final objective of adaptive behavior is to grow. It is self-evident that if a system grows it is because it appropriates more energy than the energy the system consumes.

This concept of growth needs to be understood in order to be able to differentiate the cost of things from their value. Value judgments need to be left aside in order to apprehend the concept of growth.

It is necessary to be adapted to an environment in order to manage the growth equation in an equilibrated way making an institution grow based on the added value and not only on the appropriated value.

Value adding differentiation requires the use of technology and innovation. That is why cultural adaptiveness drives naturally towards the development of technologies and the fostering of innovations.

It implies necessarily going beyond existing boundaries which is a basic characteristic of the actions that drive towards growth.

This requires necessarily knowing the scenario where the expansion is taking place, the possibilities the environment offers and their evolution. Adaptive growth requires having a future scenario of the context and not only being driven by reactive actions.

The educational system of a culture defines if the future generations are being prepared to adapt to the environment.

Dynamic Equilibrium: Learning to adapt

Dynamic equilibrium implies adapting to reality which implies a permanent accommodation process in order to generate the necessary complementation or supplementation with the environment.

Dynamic equilibrium requires using the double dialectical logic to approach reality which is based on the conjunction “and” without the existence of disjunctions. This allows individuals to influence the environment while they are being influenced by it.

See more: www.unicist.net/clipboard

It requires having a structural approach in order to be able to apprehend the fundamentals of reality and a functional approach in order to measure them in terms of results. In a dynamic equilibrium environment things are not true or false, but functional or dysfunctional.

Dynamic equilibrium requires dealing with reality as a complex adaptive system. This implies that the structure of the complex adaptive system, defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function, needs to be apprehended.

This apprehension requires the use of the double dialectical logic which demands using the unicist double dialectical thinking. This approach allows apprehending complex adaptive systems in their nature and transforming them into systemic systems making the necessary compromises without leaving aside their essential structure while measuring the results that are being achieved.

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.

Involution avoidance – About over-adapted cultures

Involution is driven by the over-adaptation of a culture. Over-adaptive behavior hinders the possibility of the members of influencing an environment in an adaptive way.

Involutionary cultures are put into action by a survivors’ ethics that allows its members to survive within an environment they consider hostile. Over-adaptation is, by definition, a conflictive approach with the environment.

The cultures that are in an involution process need to deny it and transform the context into an enemy in order to be able to profit from the environment without needing to influence it by adding value.

The driver of over-adaptiveness is the submission to the myths and fallacious myths of a culture. While myths establish non-conscious rules for human behavior, fallacious myths are fallacies and utopias that are built to cover the weaknesses of a group or culture.

A culture becomes stagnated when it behaves in a fully submissive way. Involution is generated because the context evolves and the society stands still.

Dominating in order to profit from the environment is a natural behavior in stagnated cultures. Over-adaptation also requires eliminating all those who are different because they make the involution evident.

Conjunctural domination makes the societies feel that they are evolving. Domination is an attitude that is praised in these cultures.

The maximal strategy in involutionary cultures is to survive. Surviving is an extreme effort when a culture involves. That is why involution generates survivors. The paradox is that survivors cannot influence the environment to change the trend towards evolution.

The catalyst for cultural involving processes is given by the capacity of survivors to accumulate wealth and hold it.

That is why wealth in involving cultures needs to be tangible and controllable. Involving cultures do not believe in science and technology because they are abstract and cannot be held. Intellectual property is disregarded.

The educational system of a culture defines if the next generations are being limited in their adaptiveness or not.

Static Equilibrium: Teaching to over-adapt

The use of dualistic logic, based on the confrontation of positions, using the disjunction “or” to deal with reality, drives individuals to a static equilibrium where their opinions prevail.

Dualistic thinking, following the natural behavior of neurons, is the less energy consuming thinking process. This drives naturally towards an over-adaptive behavior which implies submitting, dominating or opposing to the environment.

Dualistic logic generates naturally aprioristic fallacies to deal with the environment which allows individuals to build a parallel reality that works as a comfort zone where they have no need of adapting. Domination, submission and oppositions are the alternatives they manage to feel safe.

Dualistic dialectics is the justification of the actions of individuals when they need to remain in a static equilibrium.

The positive aspect is that static equilibrium allows managing reality as a systemic model based on cause-effect relationships although complexity cannot be apprehended.

Static equilibrium is necessary to deal with methods and supernatural and religious thinking. That is why the basic educational system is based on teaching static processes in order to allow people to access the world of work.

Growing from Over-adaptiveness to Adaptiveness

The change of a culture from an involutionary trend towards an evolutionary trend is generated by the upgrade of the level of ethics in a culture.

This requires the installation of a heroic leader in the society. This heroic leader is a sort of messiah and that is why involving cultures are always seeking for a messiah.

Because of their need to change the trend, the members of these societies buy from psychopathic leaders the promise that they will introduce the change. The result is the next degradation.

If a hero appears and makes the turnaround of an involution trend, s/he has to “disappear” after his/her work is finished in order to make the stabilization of the trend possible.

Involution is maintained when heroes remain in power and are only “the other side of the coin”.

The confrontation with adaptive cultures is the natural alternative when the way to expand towards an adaptive behavior is perceived as impossible.

Peter Belohlavek

The problem of leading cultures and surviving cultures

May 23, 2013 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Countries evolution / Country Archetypes / Future Research / Intelligent Systems / Social Evolution / Social Scenario / The Unicist Research Institute / unicist anthropology / Unicist Confederation / Unicist Corporate University / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Theory of Evolution by Peter Belohlavek

The problem of the new generations of leading cultures is naturally the feeling of inferiority complexes to overcome the existing culture if they are in a leading environment.

Individuals have two alternatives: build upon the existing establishment or compete with it. Competition drives adolescents to guilt and the response requires needing to hate the situation and the individuals involved in it.

The paradox is that building upon an existing environment is also a competition. Building upon an establishment implies modifying the structure of the implicit weaknesses of a culture. This is something feasible for the next generation unless it was educated in an individualistic environment.

It has to be considered that individualism is the most degraded state of a culture. It implies that the interests of individuals prevail over the interests of the group.

A culture involves when individualism prevails. Surviving cultures include necessarily a dominant individualism. This is not the case of subsistent cultures where the group prevails over individuals. Surviving cultures produce survivors who necessarily are multi-addictive and need to behave as fundamentalists.

Evolution implies paying prices

Accepting the validity of the establishment is a condition for evolution.

Over-adaptation to the establishment implies its sanctification, and drives to the avoidance of the responsibility of improving the environment.

Cultures that foster rebel individualistic behaviors necessarily generate involution. Both over-adaptation and individualistic rebellion drive to involution.

Evolution implies competing with the establishment improving what has been received in order to ensure evolution and create an own place in order to satisfy the personal needs.

The first part, the improvement of what has been received is a work with a social responsibility, the second part deals with the ego of the person who has assumed the responsibility.

A culture is in involution if individuals begin with their own egocentric desires. In both extremes, leading cultures and surviving cultures, addictions of any kind become a natural response.

Guilt liberators produce paradoxical results when they sustain their clients by “insufflating air” into their clients’ ego.

It is up to you. The prices to be paid are never low. You must believe in your capacity and see the implicit weaknesses of what you inherited.

Peter Belohlavek

The European conjuncture has its roots in the 2008 Crisis

July 9, 2011 in D) Unicist Future Research / E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Unicist Evolutionary Approach by Peter Belohlavek

We are republishing the information included in the book “Growth Crisis 2008-2010!” to provide information on what we consider is the nature of the European conjuncture.

The history of the crisis has two basic preconditions and two main triggering causes.

The preconditions are the fall of the communist system and the use of consumerism in order to sustain scarcity as an economic driver.

The two triggering causes were the technological plateau and shareholders dominance in economic organizations.

The dot.com “prelude” was a demonstration of the technological plateau and of shareholders’ dominance using the money of the “market”.

Considering the forecast made using the unicist ontology of evolution, the recovery from the crisis will be based on a structural change of the rules of the game.

Economy will be much more institutionalized with two extreme different solutions.

Those who believe in bottom-up development will develop strong institutions to inhibit the entropy of the economic system.

Those who believe in top-down development will develop institutions to control the market. In the middle, there will be different solutions to catalyze the market growth.

Considering similar economic structures, bottom-up approaches will grow faster than top-down approaches. Top-down approaches will develop in a more secure and slower way and with a higher risk of corruption.

Feudalist capitalism, where there is no real participation of the market in the property of companies will develop naturally towards a top-down approach.

Denial of the crisis is a natural response when structures quake. Denial has two aspects. The positive aspect is that it avoids uncontrollable changes. The negative aspect is that it inhibits the evolution of counter-cycles.

Globalization, being a controversial word in the past, will begin to make sense in order to build the new economic system.

The different types of democracy will develop their bottom-up and top-down trade-offs in order to maintain their participation model.

Businesses have the responsibility to survive and at the same time to develop growth counter-cyclical strategies.

The necessary condition to build a counter-cycle is the development of a niche market. These niche markets behave like parallel realities.

To access a counter-cyclical effect it is necessary to change the concept of what is being offered to the market. The concept to be introduced might be redundant with the existing concept, with the implicit risk of cannibalization. It also might be complementary generating an adjacent market.

The introduction of a different concept of product or service does not generate a counter-cycle. Counter-cycles require also the existence of credibility and trust. Its implementation requires similar or complementary products and services but based on a different concept.

Counter-cyclical strategies require creativity and innovation.

Access or request a Unicist Tweetinar on this subject at:
http://www.academic.unicist.org/unicist_tweetinars.shtml

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the pioneering complexity science research organization developing solutions for complex adaptive systems using ontogenetic ontologies and object driven technologies. More than 3,500 ontological researches were developed since 1976 until September 2010 in the field of individual, institutional and social evolution.

A breakthrough in Social Sciences

June 10, 2011 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Unicist Evolutionary Approach by Unicist Press Committee

The major breakthrough of the Unicist Ontology applied to Social Sciences is based on the discovery made by Peter Belohlavek of the ontological structure of the social archetypes and their rules of evolution, and the finding of the cross-cultural “invariables” and their laws of evolution.

http://youtu.be/PS0KdriH-g8

Access or request a Unicist Tweetinar on this subject at:
http://www.academic.unicist.org/unicist_tweetinars.shtml

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Press Committee

The functionality of Taboos in Social Evolution

June 3, 2011 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Unicist Evolutionary Approach by Peter Belohlavek

The purpose of a taboo is to avoid destruction. Those who do not respect the taboos of a culture endanger the cultural survival, growth or identity. Therefore disregarding the taboos produces self-destruction and/or destruction.

Functionally, taboos provide a secure social environment to allow and foster actions and a secure individual environment to avoid uncertainty.

The paradox is that evolving cultures respect the taboos that are usually implicit in their protocols or rituals to prepare actions while involving cultures do not respect them.

Action requires preexisting protocols that are strictly respected in evolving cultures.

Involving cultures, on the other hand, lack protocols or generate protocols that produce fallacious myths. This means that the protocols disregard the taboos and foster non acceptable actions that degrade the culture.

At an essential operational level, the functionality of taboos requires the integration of the structuring of a secure social and individual environment based on extremely strict rules with a punishment system that includes both social and self-inflicted punishment.

Access or request a Unicist Tweetinar on this subject at:
http://www.academic.unicist.org/unicist_tweetinars.shtml

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Peter Belohlavek

Unicist Ontology of Social Viruses

April 29, 2011 in E) Structural Conflicts / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Unicist Evolutionary Approach by Peter Belohlavek

Social viruses are the consequence of the use of anti-intelligence. Anti-intelligence is a virus. Anti-intelligence is the use of intelligence without ethical purposes. It substitutes ethical intelligence with an utopia (this utopia is homological with to proteins viruses use).

The mutation of social viruses is produced by the functionality or dysfunctionality that the utopia poses in the environment. If the utopia can take advantage of the conditions of the environment there is no need to change. If it is dysfunctional, then utopias change and thus the complete structure of the social virus mutates.

Social viruses work as fallacious myths

Fallacious myths are beliefs built to create a parallel reality in order to sustain the hope of individuals, groups, institutions and cultures.

“People integrate based on their weaknesses and disintegrate based on their strengths.”

Fallacious myths avoid the perception of weaknesses and help to integrate the group where they work. They are built every time an individual bases his action on a minimum strategy, which implies beginning to use the energy conservation principle.

Fallacious myths are functional to the avoidance of assuming the responsibility of influencing an environment. Thus they have no purpose and work as viruses.

They need to be integrated with the necessary utopias to avoid perceiving the actual environment. Fallacious myths include a utopia and work as an absolute ideology that provides a fantasy of hope.

Request more information: n.i.brown@unicist.org

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 researches in complexity science, developed since 1976 until September 2010, applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Theory of Evolution.