Unicist Future Research Lab

The Era of Conceptualization is Here

The Era of Knowledge ruled the evolution of the central world for decades, almost a century, and expanded marginally to the peripheral world, except for the “emerging” countries, where it became installed. It implied the prevalence of science and technologies over ancestral cultural values.


The expansion of political democracy in the world triggered the introduction of the Era of Participation that finally exploded driven by communication technologies. Cell phones, Internet and Social Networking were the milestones of this new stage.

This explosion occurred generating immediate paradoxical side-effects. “To be liked” began to prevail over “being functional”; apparent consensus became more important than true consensus.

The Birth of the Era of Conceptualization

The Era of Conceptualization began when individuals were able to manage the root-causes of things in order to develop structural solutions. This Era was triggered by two discoveries:

On the one hand, the discovery of the intelligence that underlies nature allowed defining the structure of the intrinsic concepts that regulate the evolution of living beings and the structure of the functional (extrinsic) concepts that define the functionality of things, which made the management of concepts possible.

On the other hand, the research on human intelligence drove to the discovery that “mental concepts” drive human actions and that the conceptual short-term memory triggers the reactions of individuals.

This implies that human actions follow the concepts people have. The integration of the knowledge of functional concepts and the functionality of human intelligence allowed understanding the concepts of processes that allows understanding their nature and develop structural solutions.

It has to be considered that the structure of functional concepts is cross-cultural and timeless but their functionality is environment dependent.

The Proposal

Growth is the challenge in the world to provide a safe framework for the following generations. Growth requires managing the concepts of what is being done to ensure that it is possible and to know how to make it happen.

That is why a change in College Education needs to be promoted to go from the traditional theory-practice model, which is functional to develop tasks at an operational level, to an action-reflection-action model that allows every person to deal with the generation of value in their field of expertise.

Unicist Conceptual Management is also part of the Era of Conceptualization. It applies both to personal management and to business management.

Unicist Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in using a unicist ontological approach to deal with complexity. It introduced a paradigm shift in sciences emulating the triadic intelligence of nature, integrating complexity sciences with systemic sciences. This research allowed developing unicist technologies to manage the complex aspects in the social, business and individual fields.


Trends: Work as the driver of the Power of Nations (*)

The Power of Nations is now based on the construction capacity which is given by work and sustained by the non-exerted destruction capacity that we call dissuasion power. This trend also applies to any institution that intends to influence the environment or the market. This is a new trend that requires a new perspective where the value added to the environment and its consistency defines the influential power and the dissuasion power is the core of the defensive strategy.

The Power of Nations

The legitimacy of military expansion became illegitimate in the world. A new power became evident: Work. Work became the power of a nation and technology its catalyst. Military became the necessary dissuasion power to defend the power of Work.

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

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

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

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

Materialistic activities are naturally driven by individual responsibility. This means that the institutions that develop materialistic activities need to understand and manage the individual needs of their members in order to be successful.

The economic power of a country is strongly influenced by the individual value of work of the culture. Individuals expand the power of a Nation when it is implicit in the archetype.

When it is not the case, the power of a Nation diminishes.

The Power of Country Archetypes is defined by Work

Work implies the capacity of displacing facts in nature in order to generate a usable added value for a society.

Therefore it is implicit that the fundamentals of work are consistent with the different levels of archetypes. We will describe in the following the fundamentals of work in the different archetypes:

1) Social Value of Influential Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in elites of influential archetypes is to generate added value in their societies. To do so their active function is driven by the transforming of nature and the energy conservation function is the need to overcome resource scarcity.

If we see it at an operational level we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elites is to transform nature driven by the energy focused on knowledge and the personal need that sustains their actions is the self-affirmation of their deeds.

The minimum strategy to overcome resource scarcity is driven by the energy of their capacity to produce and the personal need that sustains their actions is the capacity to manage the time to make things happen.

2) Social Value of Expansive Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in elites of expansive archetypes is to earn value in their societies. To do so their active function is driven by earning money and the energy conservation function is the need to survive.

If we see it at an operational level we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elites is to earn money driven by the energy focused on their efforts to do so and the personal needs for recognition sustain their actions.

The expansive work driven segments are conservatives that use work “for a living”. Their drivers are the benefits they receive as a counterpart for work.

They influence the subsistent and survival driven segments. Value adding is their utopia.

The minimum strategy is to ensure subsistence, which is driven by the energy of their capacity to collect from the environment and the personal need that sustains their action is the need to “have” things.

3) Social Value of Subsistent Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in elites of surviving archetypes is to follow the rules of survivors’ ethics. To do so their active function is driven by survival actions and the energy conservation function is the need to transfer costs.

 If we see it at an operational level we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elite is to survive driven by the energy focused on collecting and the personal need “to have” of the elite sustains their actions.

The minimum strategy of the elites that belong to this segment is to transfer costs to the environment and is driven by the energy focused on minimizing efforts.

This minimum strategy is sustained by the personal needs to fulfill their basic needs.

Subsistent work segments are driven by over-adaptive behaviors that make them do what is necessary to obtain the materialistic benefits to survive. They expect to be “adopted” by the environment and judged by their intentions.

4) Social Value of Survivors Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in surviving archetypes is to gain, based on the necessary justifications exerting all the necessary power to obtain the benefit. This is the ethics of stagnated survivors. To do so the active function that drives their survival is the transfer of costs and the energy conservation function is the value appropriation.

If we see it at an operational level, we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elites is to transfer costs driven by the energy focused on minimizing the efforts and the personal satisfaction of the basic needs sustains their actions.

The minimum strategy is to appropriate value from the environment that is driven by the necessary justifications and sustained by the personal exertion of power.


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 culture 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

(*) An excerpt from the book “Unicist Conceptual Economy” by Peter Belohlavek

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.


Exercise: How do Fundamentalists build Sects?

Sectarian behavior is the dominant characteristic of fundamentalism. Sects are not necessarily religious. There are all kinds of sects: religious, military, political and social sects.

SectTo understand fundamentalism it is necessary to find our own fundamentalist behavior. The one who considers that never behaved as one should buy a mirror, because he is probably endangered by the question and is acting as one at the moment.

First step:

The need of a parallel reality

The first step to build a sect is to understand that one needs to create a parallel reality and find people who have the need of the particular reality one is creating.

Second step: Finding the members

The second step is to identify the potential members of the sect. They must be “survivors”. Survivors are individuals who cannot adapt to an environment because of psychological, spiritual, organic or materialistic reasons.

Survivors are everywhere, beginning with marginal individuals and ending in the upper class. One has to know that a survivor is a person who acts like a “black hole” absorbing all the energy he can.

Survivors are “infinite” takers. Nothing ever suffices. To avoid the fear of death, which dominates survivors, they are keepers; they take just for the pleasure to have. Their fear of failure is so dominant that they gather everything, “just in case…”

Third step: Defining the sect model

There are many possible models. The success of a sect is given by the consistency of the sect model with the needs of its members.

The unicist ontology of a sect describes the nature of sects. They all have in common one simple characteristic:


Sects are fundamentalistic and fundamentalists always belong to a sect, including the individualistic ones.

Sects are functional to themselves and their members. They create a parallel world with parallel rules. This parallel rules make them powerful if they succeed in the “survivors-raising” process.

Sects require the management of four central concepts:

  • Power
  • A superior moral
  • An Education – indoctrination model
  • A benefit sharing model

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 Nature of Economic Freedom

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 Nature of Economic Freedom

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.

The Unicist Logic of DemocraciesIt 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.

Economic Democracy EthicsIn 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.


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.


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 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.


The 20-Year Future Scenario of Adaptive Leadership

Conceptualization: the Core of Adaptive Leadership

In April 2011 the Unicist Future Research Lab, led by Peter Belohlavek, began a process to define which will be the possible evolution of the types of leadership in the world. The objective of the research was to find the trends in leadership that are driven by the upgrade of technologies.

The 20-Year Future Scenario of Adaptive Leadership

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

The unicist approach to future research applied to leadership is based on an inferences based methodology to describe possible scenarios based on the knowledge of the concept of leadership and the laws of social evolution considering the evolution of the technologies and their consequences.

To access the basics on Unicist Future Research please enter:

Trends in Leadership

The influence of technology generates a strong segmentation of leadership. This segmentation implies a differentiation of cultures and activities based on the dominant collective intelligence.

Three different levels of functional leadership are expected to evolve which will establish differentiated habits that make them work as clusters. This means that there will be dominant types of leadership based on the culture and the available technologies.

The three dominant clusters will be:

  • Manipulative Leadership
  • Operational Leadership
  • Adaptive Leadership

The Cluster of Manipulative Leadership

Leadership maturityThis cluster is functional to segments that are driven by the need of survival.

This segment is based on over-adaptive behavior which implies rotating the roles of dominance, opposition and submission.

The acceptance of over-adaptiveness as a habit requires a strong subjective support for the participants that naturally drives towards manipulation in order to sustain the integrity of groups and avoid disgregation.

The Cluster of Operational Leadership

This cluster is functional for the massive operational activities in all fields. It is based on the development of two alternative leadership styles: the charismatic and the authoritarian roles. These roles are functional and accepted to influence operational environments.

Both roles are implicitly conservative and therefore functional to lead in stable environments where there is no need for change, innovation or expansion. The integration of both roles sustains the integrity of groups and avoids disgregation.

The Cluster of Adaptive Leadership

Adaptive leadership begins to be the “star” based on the need of assuming a role that supersedes the use of technology and allows expanding activities towards a superior level of productivity. It is driven by the need to save energy to develop sustainable groups and organizations.

This cluster is based on having the concepts of what needs to be done in order to use the available technologies or develop new technologies integrating peopleware with software and hardware to generate added value. They are constructive and creative leaders in their environment.

This role is basically occupied by doers who exert their leadership based on the functionality of their solutions and the building of peopleware to build sustainable groups and organizations.

Adaptive Leadership – The Next Generation of Leaders

In 20 years the technologies that are now incipient will have become mature and will have changed the way leaders have to exert their role.

Technology is making the operational aspects fully transparent, which implies the appearance of a new scenario in which there is a need of having the personal reliability and the capacity of adjusting the behavior to the requirements of the problems that are dealt with. This is the definition of adaptive leadership.

Conceptualizing and having a mature strategic approach are the core aspects that are needed to be adaptive. Conceptualizing allows focusing on solutions and the mature strategic approach allows transforming concepts into reliable results.

Adaptiveness requires having the concept of what one is doing. This concept, installed in the long-term memory allows integrating the information received from the outside and transforming it into adaptive actions within the functional concept of the situation.

The new role of leadership requires going beyond the “preaching by example” approach, because now it is necessary to have the concept of what is being done and have the mind open to the different alternatives the available technologies enable.

It implies dealing with the complex aspects that are implicit in any conceptualization and transform them into simple operational processes that can be either automated or handcrafted.

When dealing in developed or emergent environments, adaptive leadership needs to be focused on organizing peopleware, software and hardware using a role driven model that allows establishing responsibilities for results while the technology generates most of the operational solutions.

But there will be always room for operational and manipulative leadership in the world depending on the culture and type of activities. These types of leadership will remain dominant in many regions of the world.

Access the complete report at: http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Future

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.


The Unicist Approach to Future Research 1

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.

Inferring the FutureWhen 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


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

Cultural EvolutionThe 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.

Cultural EvolutionThe 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

Unicist Logic of Cultural EvolutionThe 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.

Unicist Logic of Social MutationA 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. http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist


The Nature of Justice: The Catalyst and Entropy Inhibitor of Capitalism

The purpose of justice in a culture is to provide a safe environment to allow that roles fulfill their objectives within an institutionalized environment. In other words, the purpose of justice is to foster and inhibit the dysfunctional activities of institutionalized environments.

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

Justice can either work as the catalyst or as the entropy inhibitor of social behavior. Justice only exists as an external entity in a community and ensures the functionality of those institutions that allow the society to work as a system.

The concept of Justice does not refer to the judicial system of a culture. It includes all the individual, social and institutional actions that are developed to sustain the functionality of the system.

Justice is naturally driven by “common sense” which implicitly includes the values of the cultural archetype, the life-style and the moral of a culture. Justice works as a rigid framework that defines what is functional or dysfunctional in an environment.

Justice has two different roles that need to be integrated in order to sustain institutionalization: justice as a catalyst and justice as an inhibitor.

On the one hand, there is a catalyzing justice that has the responsibility of fostering the equality of opportunities that allow expanding the boundaries without endangering the institutionalization.

But, on the other hand justice has the role of inhibiting dysfunctional actions, which drives towards ensuring equal rights to all the members of a community. This avoids the entropy in institutions and establishes the framework to develop minimum strategies.

The Ontogenetic Map of Justice

The purpose of justice is to foster the existence of transcendent roles in a society in order to make institutionalization possible and avoid its corruption. An institution becomes corrupt when it needs to degrade the environment in order to profit from it.

The Nature of JusticeInstitutions are driven by transcendent goals. Therefore, the driver of justice is to confirm the achievement of the transcendent goals of a culture. These transcendent goals are included in the Constitution of a country.

This process is materialized when justice provides the framework to sustain the functionality of the country as a system. However, this is only possible if both the individual roles of the entities and the individuals of the culture are protected.

When the legal framework and the social and judicial system have solved these aspects, it becomes possible to deal with the active function of justice to provide equal opportunities for all.

The final purpose of justice is the fulfillment of the transcendent roles of a society and ensuring the functionality of society as a system. This is only possible if the individual roles have been assumed in order to make the institutionalization real.

It has to be considered that the judicial system of a society only punishes those aspects the society considers punishable.

The Maximal Strategy

The maximal strategy is given by the catalyzing justice of a culture that needs to provide equal opportunities for the members of a community.

Equal opportunities require the existence of a democratic environment that fosters cooperation. That is why justice is an essential part of democracy and democracy is the necessary environment for justice.

When the intention of ensuring equal opportunities has been confirmed, it becomes necessary to accept that there has to be a social repair to respond to the deviations produced by injustices in the real world. Therefore, social repairs need to be sustained by the judicial system in order to make them functional.

Equal opportunities become possible if they include the social repair for the dysfunctional actions that hindered the possibility of an individual or group to access such opportunities. Social repair needs to recognize the opportunities lost and not only the costs that were produced.

When social repair exists, it becomes possible to confirm the existence of social sanctions that sustain the equal opportunities. This implies that the society punishes those who limit others to achieve goals.

The catalyzing justice requires the existence of social sanctions for all those behaviors that endanger equal opportunities. These social sanctions sustain equal opportunities and are the catalyst for the existence of justice. In democratic environments legal justice does not sanction what is not sanctioned by society.

The Minimum Strategy

The equality of rights, as the purpose of the minimum strategy, needs to achieved in order to sustain the institutionalization of a society. This requires individual repair for all the dysfunctional actions an entity has suffered.

The individual repair has to fit into the limits of acceptance of a society. If it is below, it has no effect as a dissuasive object, but if it is above, it generates a “judicial profitable business” that produces paradoxical results in the judicial system.

The legal sanction is the entropy inhibitor of justice. Legal sanctions imply that they need to be in accordance with the dysfunctional behavior and its consequences. Legal sanctions are a way to punish actions and to dissuade their repetition.

The legal framework and its application establish the entropy inhibitor that avoids the corruption of the institutionalization of a culture. The entropy inhibitor is the basic price to be paid to ensure the functionality of justice.

The Types and Levels of Justice

We have synthesized the different levels of justice in four segments. These segments are:

  1. Defensive Justice
  2. Protective Justice
  3. Social Justice
  4. Adaptive Justice

Level 1) Defensive Justice

The Nature of JusticeThe first level of justice is the defensive justice that allows providing individual repair through the different alternatives the judicial system provides. This justice provides every member of the community with a defensive system to sustain the right the individual has according to the legal framework of the community. Defensive justice seeks individual repair in order to ensure that individuals have the right to recover part of the damages produced by someone’s dysfunctional behavior. Defensive justice allows individual to recover from unfair damages produced by third parties.

Level 2) Protective Justice

It includes level 1. The second level is the protective justice, which provides a framework that allows protecting individuals and entities from the dangers of the environment. Protective justice implies a legal framework to protect from direct actions or the collateral side effects of actions. Protective justice is simple to install when providing support for unprotected people, like children, but needs to include all the participants of a community in order to provide a safe environment to live in. It is based on providing protections for individuals to prevent the existence of dysfunctional behaviors. Protective justice is natural in the field of crimes but difficult to apply in civil and commercial affairs.

Level 3) Social Justice

It includes level 2. The third level implies the existence of social justice to exclude socially all the members who behave beyond the rules of a community. This justice exceeds the limits of the legal framework and deal with the acceptance of the social rules to limit the actions of individuals. Social justice implies both the existence of social sanctions and social repair to equilibrate the actions and ensure social institutionalization.

Social justice implies the existence of a social sanction produced by dysfunctional behaviors that have social consequences. It implies that the private damage is considered in terms of its social consequences in order to dissuade its repetition. Social justice implies considering the greater good when dealing with dysfunctional behaviors.

Level 4) Adaptive Justice

It includes level 3. The fourth level implies the existence of a justice that is able to interpret the spirit of laws and the spirit of a society in order to provide equal opportunities for all including the equality of rights. Adaptive justice is the justice that allows institutions to evolve towards a superior level by accepting and fostering behaviors that are beyond the standards of a culture but foster the expansion of the community. Adaptive justice implies paying the prices of individual felonies considering the greater good and the consequences in the environment. Adaptive justice implies considering the field of individual actions as part of social dysfunctional actions in order to find the better way to manage justice.

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 1

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


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


Unicist Anthropology: The Archetype of Japan


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

Japan has a very powerful archetype to sustain its ultimate purpose that is growth within a communitarian environment and a deep sense of loyalty. Thus reliability is a natural consequence.

The archetype of Japan, and the trends of its evolution were developed by a unicist anthropology research group led by Peter Belohlavek

To understand the Japanese archetype we recommend listening to the lecture you find at:

Cultures that have a strong drive towards growth cannot accept the defeat of their leaders. The elite of the culture needs to represent the values of the archetype.

The purpose of the maximal strategy of the Japanese culture is the expansion of the community based on the members’ pride for their work and sustained by their collective intelligence as a community or group.

Unicist Archetype JapanCollective intelligence is in Japan the catalyst of their growth. Therefore there is a need for  integrating the values of the community in order to be able to exert collective intelligence.

Individual intelligence is the entropy inhibitor of the Japanese archetype. It allows individuals to adapt to the conditions of the situation in order to achieve growth.

Loyalty is the final purpose of the minimum strategy. This means that individuals who are not loyal to the structure of the society are considered as aliens.

The integration of aliens implies a very slow process in order to avoid the loss of the roots of the culture.

Strong cultures as Japan respect foreigners based on their values and deeds. Dealing with Japan as an outsider is easy if one accepts that one is a foreigner. Respecting its archetype is the first step to deal with the Japanese community.

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.


The Future of Democracy (Part 2): It is an evolutionary vital space that provides an identity to the members

The Ethics of Democracy

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

The ethics of democracy is what introduces democratic behavior into the habits of a community.

It has to be considered that there exist no democracies in environments that are not driven by democratic habits.

This ethics is integrated by:

  1. Conceptual democracy, which drives towards building a strong social capital.
  2. Systemic democracy, which sustains the effectiveness of democratic actions.
  3. People driven democracy, which is based on the efficacy of the participants.

The Ontogenetic Map of the Ethics of Democracy

The purpose of conceptual democracy is to live is an evolutionary vital space that provides an identity to the members.

The Ethics of DemocracyThis vital space is implicit in the archetype of a culture or institution. It is materialized in the social capital of a culture that empowers the relationships among the members building a growing synergy of actions.

It implies an alternation of the leadership in order to ensure that the institutional aspects prevail over personal beliefs and that the democracy does not degrade into authoritarianism or an anarchic authoritarianism.

The Maximal Strategy

The maximal strategy is based on a systemic democratic approach, which needs, at a first stage, the true commitment with consensus.

This requires that the environment have the necessary culture to develop a functional consensus that is not driven by manipulation.

After there is a true trend towards consensus, the effectiveness of actions needs to be promoted. This implies that democracy needs to have qualified “politicians” and an adequate organization of the State in order to provide the required effectiveness of actions.

The lack of effectiveness is what generates democratic alternation, but when the lack of effectiveness is structural, the culture evolves towards an anarchic authoritarianism.

Systemic democracy is sustained by the development of catalytic trade-offs that allow ensuring consensus while accelerating processes to empower effectiveness.

These trade-offs are the catalyst of the ethics of democracy. The building of catalytic trade-offs is the core activity of politicians, which requires having the knowledge of what is happening in an environment and what is possible to be achieved.

When the catalyst has been installed consensus becomes meaningful and the systemic democracy works and evolves.

The Minimum Strategy

The minimum strategy is supported by the efficacy of people to manage the evolution conflicts that are implicit in democracy. It begins with the acceptance of the need to deal with evolution conflicts in order to manage the adaptation process.

Once this has been accepted, the minimum strategy is based on the efficacy of people, which includes both the leaders and the participants.

“Efficacy” in a culture implies the functionality of the concept of “work”, the concept of “knowledge” and the concept of “justice” in order to foster equal opportunities for all.

This unavoidably generates evolution conflicts. These evolution conflicts, which are complementation conflicts, naturally generate collateral involution and power conflicts. This requires making entropy inhibiting trade-offs in order to avoid that the culture degrade into an environment where zero-sum confrontations prevail.

The adaptiveness of conceptual democracy has been assured when the evolution conflicts can be managed, and the ethics provides the rules for an evolutionary democracy.

Types and Levels of Ethics of Democracy

The Ethics of DemocracyFive levels of democracy can be conceptually defined:

  1. Individualistic democracy
  2. Belonging group-based democracy
  3. Elite-based democracy
  4. Integration-based democracy
  5. Adaptive democracy

First Level: Individualistic democracy

Individualistic democracy is based on the satisfaction of the materialistic needs of the participants. This democracy is individual leaders driven, because people do not rely on institutions. It is implicitly a submissive democracy, where the consensus exists when the materialistic needs are satisfied and, when not, individualists become opposers. Submissiveness is complemented with dominant attitudes where the individual needs of participants prevail over the common good.

Second Level: Belonging group-based democracy

The second level includes the first level, which implies that the individual needs are covered, but based on the limits established by the rules of the groups where individuals belong. This is the case, for example, of multi-minorities democracies where the consensus is based on the differentiated characteristics of each group. This level of democracy implies an adherence based democracy and the existence of the needs of individuals to belong to a group in order to participate and have a place in the community.

Third Level: Elite-based democracy

The third level includes the second level but includes the acceptance of reference groups, which lead a society. This elite-based democracy allows expanding the boundaries of the belonging group and is materialized in a debate-based democracy.

The core of the functionality of this level of ethics is that the different elite groups be within the limits of the evolution conflicts required to develop democracy but that the distance between the positions of such groups be narrow enough to avoid the annulment of each other in case of democratic alternation.

The existence of elites ensures the necessary stability given by an accepted establishment.

Fourth Level: Integration-based democracy

The fourth level includes the third level but also includes institutionalization as a driver towards evolution. The integration-based democracy implies an institutionalization that structures the integration. Institutions filter the incompatibilities and permit a smooth evolution towards effective consensus. This level is the most mature level of democracy and requires a fully functional justice in order to avoid that people behave beyond the limits of a democratic system. The institutions need to have transcendent goals in order to make this level work adequately

Fifth Level: Adaptive democracy

Adaptive democracy implies the integration of the four preceding levels according to the context of the members and the situation. It is a way to manage democracy fostering all its levels based on the archetypes of the individuals and institutions within the archetype of the country. It makes the different levels compatible in order to achieve the goals implicit in the archetype of the culture.

The Double Ethics of Countries and Institutions

Countries and institutions need to have two different ethical approaches in order to expand.

  1. A cooperative ethics to deal with domestic relationships.
  2. A competitive ethics to deal with third parties.

1) Cooperation, the Driver of Democracy

It has to be considered that democracy is a social system for adapted environments. All environments have adapted and over-adapted aspects, but the prevalence of adaptation is a condition for the evolution of democratic environments. Over-adaptation drives naturally towards dominance, submission and opposition, which hinder the existence of a democratic context.

The driver of a democratic system is the existence of cooperation among the members of the society, culture or institution.

Cooperation building is the driver of democracy. This implies that cooperation is basic to build an evolutionary democratic environment.

2) Competition is the Driver of the Relationships with the Environment

While cooperation is the driver for domestic activities, competition is the driver for those activities that countries or institutions develop beyond the boundaries of their entity. This needs to be understood in order to accept that all countries and institutions have two different ethics.

A cooperative ethics is used to deal with the domestic aspects and, on the other hand, a competitive ethics drives the external aspects. This is basic to allow the expansion of the wellbeing of cultures and needs to be accepted in order understand that democracy is not a magic solution for universal problems.

International relations become expansive when they are managed within the limits of sustainable globalization, which allows integrating the interests of the parts involved.

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.