Institutional Evolution

 

 

The Unicist Approach to Future Research

 in D) Unicist Future Research / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Conceptual Anthropology / Conceptual Economy / Countries evolution / Country Archetypes / Country Future Research / Future Research / Institutional Evolution / Intelligent Systems / Social Scenario / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab / Unicist Theory of Evolution by

The unicist approach to future research is based on knowing the nature of an environment that is found in its past and using the data of the present to infer the future based on the knowledge of the evolution laws.

The Unicist Approach to Future Research
The reach of one’s globalization is defined
by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

This approach is based on the fact that future and past are not symmetric. This is the case of all the environments that are evolving or involving. The past and the future are only symmetric in stagnated environments.

The Unicist Approach to Future Research is based on the research of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature that started at the beginning of the 80’s. It was developed at The Unicist Research Institute.

It was a step by step discovery based on the apprehension of the nature of social phenomena entering afterwards in the institutional and individual evolution. Its integration with biology and physics was the final stage that was achieved.

The objective of the unicist approach to future research is to define a future scenario in order to adapt and influence it.

When an individual “looks back” at the history, the events that occurred are reasonable, understandable and logical. Therefore when approaching the future what is required is having the “logic” that is evident when analyzing the events of the past.

The building of future scenarios is based on the fact that the structure of the unicist ontology of a specific environment needs to be found in the past and that the facts of the present are used to infer the future.

The unicist approach to future research is based on inferring the future based on the laws of evolution established by the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which allowed developing the unicist ontology of evolution.

This allows building reliable future scenarios.

The Unicist Ontology of Cultural Evolution

Introduction

The members of a culture that is evolving naturally accept that they might be involving. This concern is what avoids their involution.

The dominant ethics defines the evolution of a culture and defines its attitude towards influencing the environment. A culture is evolving when it has the capacity to adapt to the environment, meaning that it is able to influence it while it is being influenced.

This implies that the dominant cultural segments and the elite of the culture have a spontaneous attitude towards influencing the environment to generate growth.

As the habits of a culture evolve driven by the dominant ethics, an evolutionary culture evolves when the ethics of value adding prevails and the value earning ethics is the energy conservation function of the culture.

The synthesis

The driver of cultural evolution processes is the adaptation of a culture. This adaptation implies that a democratic attitude prevails, providing the necessary consensus to have social cohesion, being driven by a social efficiency, and making the necessary trade offs to maintain an efficient consensus.

The consensus of an evolutionary culture is oriented towards growth, which implies having a proactive attitude in the environment to generate value. Social efficiency means that the system is institutionalized having therefore a minimum level of entropy.

This institutionalization is materialized in the habits and in the myths and fallacious myths installed in a culture.

Trade-offs are implicitly conflicts and generate crises.

On the one hand, they can be evolution conflicts when they happen within the limits of efficiency and the value earning behavior. Or they can be involution conflicts, on the other hand, when the goal of these trade-offs is “buying” consensus.

In this case the culture enters a conjunctural involution which naturally eliminates the leaders that made this trade-offs if the value adding ethics prevails in the institutions.

If this is not the case, and a survivors’ ethics becomes necessary for the institutions, the culture will have entered into an over-adaptive behavior driving the culture towards involution.

The maximal strategy of evolutionary cultures is sustained by their value adding ethics.

This implies that the leaders of the dominant segments have a level of consciousness that allows them to be aware of the social processes and the long term consequences of the decisions that are made.

Social evolution requires participative processes within an authoritative environment that does not require the exertion of power to be efficient.

The catalyst of the evolution of a culture is given by the value earning behavior which includes a conscious value adding process.

This conscious value adding process is what accelerates the processes of the minimum strategy in order to sustain the adaptive behavior and the evolution of a culture.

The minimum strategy is based on a value earning behavior in order to ensure the wellbeing of a society.

The entropy inhibitor of this value earning process is given by the survivor ethics behavior of the members which ensures the wellbeing of the members of the society.

Levels of cultural evolution

The stability of the evolution of a culture depends on the attitudes of the culture. The spontaneous behaviors of the members of a culture are: Work driven behavior, Education driven behavior, Institution driven behavior, Technology driven behavior.

1) Work driven behavior

It is defined by the “purpose of life” of the members of a culture. Work driven cultures are those where pastime activities are only valid if the duties of work have been fulfilled. People feel guilt if they cannot do “their” work.

2) Education driven behavior

It includes a work driven attitude. The role of the members of a society depends on the educational level of its members. In this case, the central role of families, the introduction of the new generation in the society, is ensuring that they an education that allows them to overcome the level of their parents.

3) Institution driven behavior

It includes the education driven attitude. In these societies the behavior of the members is subordinated to the rules of institutions. Institutional behavior prevails over individualistic attitudes.

Freewill has the place established by institutional rules which have been established in a democratic way. The roles of the members are within the limits of the roles of the institutions.

4) Technology driven behavior

It includes the institutions driven attitude. As technology is the driver for growth, this requires that the members of the dominant segments of a culture need to be technology oriented.

This technology orientation implies seeking for new ways to produce more with less. This attitude fosters growth and drives towards permanent changes in order to upgrade the possibilities of a culture.

The capacity to generate or use innovative behaviors establishes the roles of the members of a culture. Democratic leaders are natural in this environment.

The Unicist Ontology of Social Mutation

The evolution of a biological entity is produced by “tiny” revolutions that produce small mutations that are integrated in the complex system generating the evolution or involution of this entity. Social environments also evolve based on small mutations.

A social mutation is produced when the functionality of a social entity has been lost, and there is the necessary available energy to generate a change. This can happen based on the persistence of social viruses type “A” that become chronic social diseases, generating a dysfunctional purpose that can be hardly limited by the exertion of power.

This chronic disease of an entity can be produced by inaction or by the continuous use of palliatives to neutralize its crises.

The mutation is produced by the appearance of a strange attractor that generates a change of the chaos, transforming it into a new and different functional behavior.

The strange attractor generates an unpredictable new order that exceeds the possibilities of the power to control it and mutates the existing chaotic credibility zone towards a different functionality. That is why mutations cannot occur in entities that are managed based on the exertion of absolute power.

This strange attractor disappears as such and evolves into an object as soon as the new credibility zone begins to exist.

This process can be understood by comparing, at the end of the first decade of the XXI Century, the evolution of the European Communist Countries and the evolution of Communist China.

Social strange attractors are social objects that have a lower ethics when the situation mutates towards a more instinctive and individualistic behavior.

Strange attractors generate evolution when they are objects that integrate a driver and catalyzing and gravitational aspects. In this case, they become fully unstable but conjuncturally functional, because catalysts and gravitational aspects cannot be part of a system.

It has to be considered that strange attractors disappear as such and are replaced by an object that is homologous to their driver as soon as the entity has mutated.

This new object generates the necessary complementary and supplementary functions in the environment using the energy generated by the dissolution of the original object.

The result of social mutations is unpredictable. All what can be predicted is the trend towards evolution or involution.

If this process includes the participation of change agents, they are excluded in the case of involutions and eliminated in the case of evolutions.

Strange attractors are defined by the change of the technology that sustains the ideology on which the social entity and its environment are based. The dysfunctionality of the existing technology is what generates the chaotic situation that requires the use of power in order to control it. The concept “technology” needs to be apprehended in the wide sense, meaning different ways, hard and soft, to improve the functionality of something.

The introduction of a new technology maximizes the existing chaos and generates the possibility of the appearance of the new strange attractor.

If the strange attractor does not appear, the chaotic entity explodes or implodes depending on the characteristics of the context. If it appears, the entity evolves or involves depending on the characteristics of the strange attractor.

Peter 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.

Future Research: the Era of Participation is changing the habits

 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots / Unicist Functional Design  tagged Era of Knowledge / Era of Participation / Future Research / Individual Evolution / Institutional Evolution / Intelligent Systems / Peter Belohlavek / Social Evolution / Social Scenario / The Unicist Research Institute / unicist anthropology / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab / Unicist Logical Approach by

The objective of people in the Era of Participation is to find a better place in the world, conserve it, expand it and avoid losing it. This era changes the way people deal with others. It generated a major change of habits that gives access to influential roles to all those who feel that they have something to say and drives towards an increasing transparency of public and private actions.

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

The unicist future research on the displacement of the “Era of Knowledge” by the “Era of Participation” was triggered by the need of knowing how to influence people in an adapted way. The notorious change in communication technologies, that gave most of the hidden villages in peripheral countries an access to the world, made evident that a new ideology was being introduced.

The research was led by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute using the Unicist Complexity Science Methodology. The research began in 2001 and included: Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, India, Israel, Korean Republic, Mexico, New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Norway, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, USA.

The closing of the conclusions was possible based on the experiences with Google, Greenpeace, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

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

Which technologies have given birth to the Era of Participation?

Internet (Sharing)

The sharing capacity of Internet changed the world of communication in the field of work and of pastime activities. Although it began as a tool to work it evolved towards a tool to access and share.

Cell Phones (SMS – Short Message Service)

The communication and influential capacity of messages when they are used to share weaknesses transformed cell phones into a weapon to generate both adaptive and over-adaptive participation.

Facebook – Twitter (Social networks)

Social networks became the natural tool to be used by all the segments of participants (publicity driven, bragging driven, utopia driven, recognition driven, action driven). They made the building and managing of superficial relationships possible, which were not possible before.

Linkedin (Professional Networks)

Professional networks became a way to position individuals in hypothetical roles in order to make them become real personal roles. Their use is based on providing hope to the participants who want to find or improve their place in the world.

Consequences of this New Era:

  1. The change of the depth of relationships making them basically superficial and based on fallacious myths
  2. The increasing importance of the word of mouth communication to install ideas
  3. The increase of the value of charismatic leadership and its dysfunctional counterpart: the “manipulative leadership”
  4. The substitution of structural participation (institutions) by conjunctural participation
  5. The loss of credibility of formal authorities and the empowerment of authoritative roles
  6. The increase of egocentrism and the demand of permanent sensorial and materialistic stimuli
  7. The increase of addictive behaviors to escape
  8. The increase of fundamentalist groups to ensure survival (religious, civil, military)
  9. The multiplication of sectarian movements
  10. The installation of over-adaptive behaviors as a standard in the world
  11. The existence of multi-minorities
  12. The installation of active inaction as a standard in underdeveloped environments

The Increase of the Influence of Public Opinion

Public opinion became the central power in democratic countries. Public opinion is now driven by the new technologies that are available and tends to install a dualistic approach in cultures defined by those who accept something and those who oppose to it.

Era of ParticipationAs public opinion is intuition driven, this conflict becomes extreme when untrue information or disinformation is used by the parts.

Public opinion has always integrated the structure of the governmental power integrated by the legislative power, the executive power and the judiciary power.

The role of the legislative power is that of the driver of maximal strategies. In this role, it needs to be compatible with the public opinion but at the same time foster expansion and equality of opportunities.

The executive power has two alternatives in this Era: covering both the needs of expansion and distribution or focusing on distribution becoming a populist government. The extreme situation occurs when Distributism prevails absolutely to sustain the power of the government itself.

The judiciary power equilibrates the conflict between the public opinion, the legislative power and the executive power.

In the Era of Participation, the direct influence of people in governmental decision becomes dominant.

The End of the Era of Knowledge

The Era of Knowledge implied that the access to personal and social evolution was basically sustained by the knowledge individuals had and was demonstrated by their credentials.

But the Era of Knowledge came to an end. An “ERA” is such when it establishes an imperceptible “gravitational force” that sustains the behavior of an environment.

It has to be considered that knowledge began being ruled by religions in order to avoid the deviation of human behavior from the moral rules, but became a value in itself with the appearance of the Industrial Era in the world.

The paradox is that industrialization empowered knowledge but at the end, the Era of Industrialization was exceeded by the Era of Knowledge. Nevertheless, knowledge is still an appendix of religions in pre-industrialized societies.

Internet opened a window that allowed making the access of knowledge massive. It expanded the use of data and information that gave access to any person who lives in a non-marginal environment.

Era of ParticipationInformation can be defined as any data that can be transformed into a meaningful entity and thus can be stored in the long-term memory of an individual. Knowledge is such when the information one has can be used to produce something.

Google, as a concept, made the access to information basically free for everyone. The paradox is that people now have all the information they are willing to search but the value generation, which is based on knowledge, depends on the concepts they manage.

This explains why the open access to information did not produce a significant increase in productivity and quality of work.

Thus, the functionality of knowledge as a driver for personal evolution became fallacious. Education became a hygienic key; it was necessary to open doors but did not suffice to drive personal evolution and provide a meaningful place in the world.

The occurrence of economic crises in the world was the trigger to the end of the Era of Knowledge. Every economic crisis generates the lack of opportunities for many and the degradation of the ethical intelligence of a culture in order to survive. When crises are not cured, but only palliated, they plant the seed of the next crisis and the degradation of cultures continues.

A consequence of these crises is a growing individualism, which drives people to develop a surviving attitude that diminishes the generation of value and installs an unstable social environment.

Another consequence is the exclusion of youth, the newcomers in societies, diminishing their possibilities to find a social role to evolve.

These consequences gave birth to the Era of Participation, which can be synthesized in a shout:

“I need a better place in the world”

What is the Era of Participation?

The objective of participation is to find a better place in the world, conserve it, expand it and avoid losing it.

What needs to be established is the social role an individual looks for, which can imply a structural or an incidental positioning. It implies that there has to be an acceptance of the reference group the individual accepts as a rule maker.

This reference group can be real, virtual or super-natural. All what matters is that it has to exist in order to make a participative process possible. Without a superior reference group’s acceptance, there is no true place in the world and the participation degrades towards achieving a role of active or passive opposition.

The social role individuals fight for needs to have a belonging group where the individuals feel at home. Belonging groups are what make a place in the world safe. Therefore, participation implies fostering the existence of belonging groups who share similar utopias while they share the same weaknesses they need to cover.

Era of ParticipationThe participation process becomes redundant when a place in the world, accepted by the reference groups and the belonging group, has been gained. However, as the satisfaction of needs generates new needs this is a never-ending process at an operational level. This process generates social evolution when individuals have a role in the world that allows them to evolve based on the value they add.

Adaptive Participation

Evolutionary participation requires beginning with a conscious adaptive process where the individual is looking for a place to be who s/he is. This makes the individual a differentiated person that needs to begin by participating through value adding actions (participation to do) while sustaining the identity of the role by having the necessary image that allows others to tag him/her properly (participation to appear).

Participation is only possible when the members who participate are able to recognize each other as part of the same group. In fundamentalist groups this tagging might include tattoos or similar timeless marks but in social groups individuals need to have the necessary “look & feel” in order to be tagged and recognized as members.

This appearance is extremely notorious in social and professional networks that establish the basics of the profile that need to be covered in order for the group to accept a possible member. That is why appearance, which is given by the personal brand or image, is the entropy inhibitor that makes expansive participation possible.

When the image has been positioned, the final objective of being a real member becomes possible.

Over-adaptive Participation

The apparent paradox is that over-adaptation is the minimum strategy. This requires an explanation. Adapting implies influencing while being influenced to achieve a goal, which in this case is to have a place in the world. Influencing is what we call adaptive participation and being influenced is what in this case is named over-adaptive participation.

Over-adaptiveness implies accepting the rules of the environment, which implies submission but beginning with a dominant participation in order to feel that one is not submitting but establishing the rules.

When the self-esteem has been conserved by this dominant participation, which mostly implies active inaction that allows judging the environment, an oppositional role becomes necessary to accept the rules of the game.

When individuals are able to feel superior by judging the environment, opposing to some aspects to preserve their self-esteem, then over-adaptive participation becomes functional. But, this functionality depends on its compatibility with the adaptive participation.

Segments of Participation

Era of ParticipationThere are different segments or participants that need to be understood in order to deal with them. Accessing profiles and activities on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn is very useful to identify the different segments, which are never pure but always have an implicit dominant trend that drives their participation.

  1. Publicity Driven
  2. Bragging Driven
  3. Utopia Driven
  4. Recognition Driven
  5. Action Driven

Conclusions

Paradoxically, the Era of Participation implies a prevalence of observation over true participation. This implies that this Era will represent implicitly a battle between observers and participants.

Over-adaptive participation is based on an observational attitude while adaptive participation is based on the synergy of the members to produce something.

The preexisting Era of Knowledge will be included as a secondary driver during the next decades to sustain, on the one hand, those who participate to build and, on the other hand, to sustain those who participate to expose the implicit weaknesses of the adaptive participants.

This makes this period a battle and an integration of these two groups. Dualism will be the driver for the mass that over-adapts while integralism will be the driver for the elites who adopt an adaptive participative approach. It is a battle of communication.

Adaptive Participation Building

The building of adaptive participation is the responsibility of the elite of cultures. It is an institutional role that needs to exist in order to make participative behavior meaningful.

Era of ParticipationThe purpose of adaptive participation building is to establish an influential social capital. Social capital is given by the strengths of the bonds among the members of a group or community that drive their value generating actions. Social capital implicitly implies the existence of a greater good to sustain the relationships among the members.

Adaptive participation requires the existence of a double ethical behavior in the community. On the one hand, there has to exist an internal ethics of the group which needs to be based on cooperativeness and, on the other hand, an external ethics with the environment is required, which needs to be driven by competitiveness in order to ensure survival.

This is evident in the behavior of countries that naturally have two different attitudes: one towards the environment and another towards the members of the culture. However, both ethics need to be integrated by a social capital, which establishes the participation rules for the members of the group towards other members and towards the environment.

If cooperation is replaced by competition among the members of a group or community, the social capital becomes corrupt and over-adaptiveness replaces adaptiveness.

Corruption and over-adaptiveness also prevails when competition is based on the destruction of the environment in order to take advantage of it.

Adaptiveness drives towards evolution and over-adaptiveness is the cause and consequence of involution.

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 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/turi.pdf

The Future of Democracy (Part 1): Understanding Social, Economic and Political Democracy

 in A) Country Archetypes & Scenarios / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Countries evolution / Country Archetypes / Future Research / Institutional Evolution / Levels of Democracy / Social Evolution / The Future of Democracy / The Nature of Democracy / The Unicist Research Institute / unicist anthropology / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Future Research Lab / Unicist Theory of Evolution by

Democracy is a social system that is based on the participation of the members of a society or institution in its government. Democracy is a system that has a natural structure, which includes mechanisms that drive its evolution or involution.

The Nature of Democracy

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

To understand the nature of democracy it is necessary to define that democracy is a system to deal with the domestic aspects of a society or institution. It adopts many shapes depending on the environment. Civil, military and religious environments have different ways to achieve consensus and thus democracy behaves differently in each one of these environments.

Understanding the nature of a society implies integrating a social scenario that defines the structure of social behavior, an economic scenario that deals with their materialistic aspects and a political scenario that deals with the establishment and administration of the ideologies and rules the members have to follow in order to be accepted as part of the community.

Thus, democracy has three integrated structures that define it; democracy includes a social, an economic and a political democracy.

The Unicist Logic of DemocracyA democratic process necessarily begins with the existence of a social democracy. The principles of the French Revolution are an example of social democracy. “Liberty, equality and fraternity” represent those values that are implicit in democracy considering the characteristics of the French archetype.

Democracy is built upon the social democracy of a society or institution. The economic democracy is the materialization of the social democracy in an environment. The triadic structure is then completed by the political democracy, which sustains the social democracy avoiding that the economic democracy changes the nature of the social democracy that represents the archetype of the culture.

The constitution of a country is the materialization of the social democracy of its society and establishes its basic rules. This means that when countries change their Constitutions they are making a re-foundation, which necessarily implies the destruction of what exists, and the building of something new, which implies a change in their archetype.

Constitutions should only be amended in order to respect the nature of the culture.

The Ontogenetic Map of Democracy

Social democracy can be defined as the integration of cooperation, participation and competition. The principles of the French revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity – are an example of a conceptual structure of the social democracy of a culture.

Every culture has its archetype that implicitly defines the structure of the social democracy, which drives the democratic system. Cultures that have an archetype that is still in transition cannot establish a fully democratic environment, because their social democracy is unstable and changing.

The Maximal Strategy

A democratic system naturally evolves or involves. Its evolution is driven by its maximal strategy, which is given by the economic democracy. Economic democracy exists when the productive entities of the environment are owned through the participation of their clients. In this case, clients and shareholders are “one”.

Economic democracy implies that the stock market integrates clients with shareholders and the market regulates the benefits of the entrepreneurs who do not participate in the stock markets.

The values implicit in the economic democracy are redundant with the values of social democracy while “enterprising” drives competition to an institutionalized superior level. In an economic democracy, the concept of shareholdership is redundant with cooperation, while the actions of the clients are a way of participation.

Depending on its presence or absence, Enterprising can either be the catalyst or inhibitor of democracy. Democracy cannot evolve without an institutionalized economic activity. This institutionalization needs to include rules to manage both enterprising and entrepreneurial activities.

The Minimum Strategy

When social and economic democracies are given, the existence of a political democracy becomes necessary. Political democracy implies that governmental actions have consensus among the members of a society, that they are efficient in terms of fulfilling their expectancies and that the necessary trade-offs are made to ensure that consensus and efficiency become possible.

Consensus does not imply efficiency and vice-versa. Therefore, trade-offs are the necessary entropy inhibitor that allows developing political democracy.

The risk of this entropy inhibitor can be seen in two extreme situations: on the one hand, when trade-offs are not used, they work as political inhibitors and, on the other hand, when used in extreme conditions, they drive towards corruption.

Political democracy establishes the limits of actions of economic democracy in order to ensure the achievement of the goals that are implicit in social democracy. It requires, as a basic condition, the separation of governmental actions from State actions.

Governments are in the hands of politicians who necessarily tend to be focused on elections, which drive them naturally to satisfy the short-term needs of the voters. This drives political democracy towards the inefficiency of “following the needs of the participants” without integrating the long-term possibilities and the needs of the following generations.

State administration is in the hands of officers who need to be focused on fulfilling the goals established using the procedures of the administration. Their goal is to make the administration of the public affairs effective and provide the actions that ensure the long-term objectives of the cultures.

The State action needs to be trans-governmental, which means that it has to fulfill its goals beyond the circumstantial needs of a government. When governments invade the organization of the State, there is no possibility to develop an evolutionary democracy.

Types and Levels of Democracy

In the research on the nature of democracy, four levels of adaptive democracy have been discovered together with one over-adaptive level that deals with authoritarianism, which uses manipulative actions to achieve consensus.

The Unicist Logic of DemocracyThe four levels are:

  1. Authoritative role driven democracy
  2. Public opinion driven democracy
  3. Institution driven democracy
  4. Participation driven democracy

First Level: Authoritative driven democracy

Democracy implies that people share a vital space and have a strong social capital and that there is a democratic alternation. The first level implies that people who have the necessary qualifications occupy the leading roles in a community. This level of democracy implies having a reliable system to ensure that those who achieve the role have the necessary talents to administrate the community’s interests. The role of the State organization is basic to ensure the effectiveness of this level.

Second Level: Public opinion driven democracy

This level includes the first level plus the characteristic that the public opinion prevails over the opinion of the politicians. It requires monitoring these opinions and making governmental actions transparent in order to allow people to understand what is happening. The weakness of public opinion is the long-term aspect of decisions, which is basically not considered in massive behavior. The role of the State organization limits the influence of public opinion to ensure the functionality of the administration in the long and short term.

Third level: Institution driven democracy

This level includes the second level plus the characteristic that the social, economic and political actions are institutionalized. It implies that the social, economic and political agents participate in the governmental decisions through the institutions they belong to.  It implies a structural democratic organization of the political parties in order to ensure that the democratic alternation provide a structural approach to the public affairs. It implies that the gap between alternating parties is small enough to allow a transition that does not drive to the annulment of the decisions of preceding governments.

Fourth Level: Participation driven democracy

This level includes the third level plus the organization of the direct participation of people in all the aspects that deal with their need to have a real vital space where they can evolve. This participation implies that the leaders assume a full responsibility for representing the interests of the community in their proposals. This level drives cultures towards a superior level of influence in the environment. Thus, it requires that all the conditions to live in an evolutionary democracy be given.

Democracy cannot be Imported / Exported

Importing political democracy from more democratic cultures only drives to the corruption of the preexisting system and the installation of a dualistic democracy in order to avoid anarchy. As it was presented in the research, the dualistic democracy has two extreme alternatives: populist / leftist democracies and liberal / rightist democracies.

When democracy needs to be upgraded, it is necessary to begin by developing social democracy, which requires beginning with education.

Democracy implies freedom and freedom implies responsibility.

Based on social democracy, the next step to upgrade democracy is to install a superior level of economic democracy, which will then drive naturally towards the need of a political democracy. This implies a spiral step-by-step evolution that demands generations.

Peter 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-school.org/future-research/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/turi-1.pdf

Made in Brazil: A brand that represents the power of a culture

 in A) Country Archetypes & Scenarios / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Countries evolution / Future Research / Future scenario of Brazil / Institutional Evolution / Intelligent Systems / Made in Brazil / Peter Belohlavek / Social Evolution / The Unicist Research Institute / unicist anthropology / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by

Introduction

The Future Research on Brazil was developed at the Future Research Lab of the Unicist Research Institute and led by Peter Belohavek. 25 years ago we presented in Brazil the future trends which considered that the country would become a world leader within the next 50 years. The assumption of a world leading role is happening now and the unavoidable side effects are becoming observable.

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

It has to be considered that 25 years ago Brazil was considered as a world champ in Carnival and Football (Soccer) while the institutional power of the country was not noticeable.

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

Building
“Made in Brazil”

During the last 10 years almost 40 million people accessed the middle class in Brazil. This is a structural change that modifies the economic, political and social scenario. This implied upgrading the social power and generating new expectations that require Brazil to become a brand in the globalized world. Without becoming a global brand Brazilians middle class is endangered.

Petrobras and Embraer are just examples of flagships in the process of installing “Made in Brazil” as a brand in the world.

Installing “Made in Brazil” as a brand requires three elements that need to coexist:

  1. A true technological and educational structure
  2. A reliable institutionalization
  3. An international recognition

This implies a long term investment that unavoidably leaves people behind until they, or the next generation, have the possibility of catching up.

The organization of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games are a way to demonstrate the power of “Made in Brazil”. They are a demonstration of technology, organization capacity and institutionalization. They might be the final step for the global positioning of the Country. That is why they generated many internal and external enemies.

Those that are left behind and those affected by the uncertainty this leading role produces in Brazil, necessarily generate conflicts to demand justice and participating in the benefits of the new role.

In the following we include the information on the Brazilian archetype which has been published recently:These conflicts have aspects in common with the conflicts in Turkey although they are not homologous with them. They are the opposite of the conflicts that occur in Spain and Greece which are based on the action of the “excluded” and the “impotent” who cannot influence the contraction of the environment.

Brazilian Archetype: describing the power of a global leader

Brazil is a world in itself. There is no other country in the world following the rules of the game that Brazil uses, nor portraying its results in the social, economic and political field.

Its orientation towards the future, the added value work as a way to assert people’s identity, its innovation and nationalism are components that integrate in light of a national project inserted in the culture, executed by the State and managed by politicians.

Consensus as a model

Brazil has a culture that operates on the basis of consensus. This generates, within the social, institutional and individual field a need to understand a reality before taking up a position regarding it.

Likewise, in Brazilian-Portuguese language there are several expressions that help avoid the usage of the first person singular in a conversation.

Brazilan ArchetypeThe Brazilian consensus model presupposes the development of a singular negotiating capacity regulated by negotiation rules that obviously include consensus as a goal, though not as a path.

The development of this negotiating capacity, based on a culture that came over to colonize rather than predate, generated what today is a world power, real to many, incipient to others.

This implied the end of economic, military or narco-terrorism. The end as far as social legitimacy goes, though not in real terms, for there will always be terrorists who, being marginal, would rather have destruction than acceptance of their own marginality.

This social behavior is based on expansion as a main objective. The creativity to accomplish this allows Brazil a dosage of “marginal” behavior, basis of both academic and technological innovation which is felt today and which was dreamed of 50 years ago.

Social Capital

A country’s development is set by its social capital, political consistency or stability and economic growth.

Out of these three elements, the one that bears most weight is social capital, then comes political stability and last, the necessary, though of least relative weight, economic growth.

Brazil is characterized by its immense social capital if compared with that of other countries in the region, and if compared with those other countries Brazil competes with.

Its difference is outstanding in the region; Brazil has a slightly smaller social capital than the one in developed countries. Society conceives itself as a community.

This community feeling makes the notorious synergy there is among institutions and people possible, while it works as a significant support to political stability and economic growth.

Orientation towards the future

What characterizes Brazil is its orientation toward the future and its great capacity to pay for the price of mistakes.

There are many study centers in this country that are devoted to developing projects, action plans and forecasts of what lies ahead.

This is completely atypical in Latin America, that is why one can say that Brazil is a continent in itself, with own values and a path different from that of the region.

It grows because of its consistent investment in an academic technology model of its own, an acceptance of diversity and an “expansion compulsion”. There is room for everyone in Brazil as long as the rules of the game are abided.

One of the best diplomacies in the world

Brazil is a power with a very strong collective unconsciousness that consolidates in an identity that goes beyond political ideologies.

Consensus to grow is their primary objective, their second objective is to grow, and their third as well. Brazilian culture does not conceive the idea of being worse today than it was the day before.

That is why Brazilians “go crazy” in light of their defeats. Diplomacy, the mechanism to influence outside Brazil in order to uphold such a growth, is settled, and carries a political, commercial and social sense comparable to those of the best diplomacies in the world.

Diplomacy is its main tool to create, almost imperceptibly, a legitimated hegemony in its capacities.

Expansion Conflicts: No pain, no gain

The conflicts that arouse in Brazil are predictors showing that a cultural change is happening in the country. This change, transforming a developing country into a global leader is the consequence of a long term planning that unavoidably has negative side effects in the short term.

Cultural-Conflicts Predictors

The social conflicts that arouse are “explosions” and not “implosions”.

Explosions occur when the conflicts are the consequence of an 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 role produces and consider unfair that the benefits are not noticeable in everyday life for everyone.

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

The Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature drives Evolution

 in D) Unicist Future Research / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Individual Evolution / Institutional Evolution / Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature / Peter Belohlavek / Social Evolution / The Unicist Research Institute / unicist approach / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Ontology of Evolution by

A living being’s evolution is ruled by its ontogenetic intelligence we call concept. The concept is the functional logical structure of a living being that defines it as unique both in its species and individuality.

Each living being has a central concept that regulates its evolution and describes its purpose, the procedure under which it faces adaptation to reality and the action guide within which it develops the procedure so as not to trespass the limits of its purpose.

The ontogenetic intelligence is defined, on one hand, by a purpose and an action principle that puts the purpose into action sustaining its functionality and evolution or involution.

On the other hand, the same purpose is sustained by the energy conservation principle that complements the purpose to avoid it being changed by the action principle.

The concept describes a living being’s functionality. It defines its intrinsic concept.

Living beings naturally transfer this functionality to the environment where they act, depositing functions that have the living being’s same logical structure and that generate the existence of extrinsic concepts.

The concept arranges the living beings’ chaos. It is the attractor which structures the chaotic behaviors of a living being’s environment and arranges them to make them operable and functional to evolution or involution, should any be the case. These concepts have the same logical structure but they are not implicit in inanimate beings; they are deposited by the living beings they are functional to.

Access a synthesis on the “Discovery of the Unicist Ontology of Evolution” that is available at the Scientific Dissemination Program. You will find there other syntheses that might be of your interest:
http://www.unicist-school.org/future-research/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ontology_nature_reality-1.pdf

Diana Belohlavek

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

Future Scenario Building based on Logical Inferences

 in D) Unicist Future Research / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots  tagged Future Research / Individual Evolution / Institutional Evolution / Intelligent Systems / Logical Inferences / Peter Belohlavek / Social Evolution / unicist approach / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature by

The Unicist Approach to Future Research is based on the research of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature that started at the beginning of the 80’s.

It was a step by step discovery based on the apprehension of the nature of social phenomena entering afterwards in the institutional and individual evolution. Its integration with biology and physics was the final stage that was achieved.

This approach is based on the fact that future and past are not symmetric. This is the case of all the environments that are evolving or involving. The past and the future are only symmetric in stagnated environments.

The objective of the unicist approach to future research is to define a future scenario in order to adapt and influence it.

When an individual “looks back” at the history, the events that occurred are reasonable, understandable and logical. Therefore when approaching the future what is required is having the “logic” that is evident when analyzing the events of the past.

The building of future scenarios is based on the fact that the structure of the unicist ontology of a specific environment needs to be found in the past and that the facts of the present are used to infer the future.

The unicist approach to future research is based on inferring the future based on the laws of evolution established by the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which allowed developing the unicist ontology of evolution.

Access a synthesis on the “Discovery of the Unicist Ontology to Infer the Future” that is available at the Scientific Dissemination Program. You will find there other syntheses that might be of your interest:
http://www.unicist-school.org/future-research/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ontology_infer_future-1.pdf

Diana Belohlavek

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