Ukraine has basically evolved in a transition stage for centuries. Transition stages are such when there is more than one cultural nucleus seeking dominance in a culture. Transition stages drive naturally towards a need to survive to avoid being submitted to alien values.
In Ukraine there are now two different cultures in conflict. Now, this conflict assumed the extreme state of war, which in fact is the consequence of external interests that are associated with one of the archetypes of the population of Ukraine.
When there is a transition stage, the dominant values that ensure survival are individualism and materialism, which generate social dysfunctional behaviors. Dysfunctionality is always hidden behind fallacious cultural myths that avoid the perception of being endangered.
The chaos produced by war might generate three different consequences that cannot be predicted, because there is chaos, the influential forces are unclear, and there is an actual conflict of archetypes:
Solving the problem of the internal cultural dispute.
Generating an excision of the country
Degradation of the culture to a deeper survival stage without solving the conflict.
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.
The values of cultures are implicit in the values of their elites. Therefore, the understanding of the archetype of a culture implies researching the evolution of their establishment and the facts that were produced.
If you enter deeply in the history of a country, which is the way to try to discover the nature of a culture defined by its archetype, you will see that most of the changes happen at an operational level and not at a structural level.
But you can find turning points in culture like the one that was produced in Sweden more than 100 years ago. It might or not be the case of Ukraine. It fully depends on its establishment.
Peter Belohlavek
NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the world-leading research organization that introduced the functionalist approach to science to manage the functionality of the real world. www.unicist.org
The chaos generated in Afghanistan in August 2021, is a demonstration that there are cultures where there is a concept of religious democracy that differs totally from the concept of democracy of the developed counties of the West.
Religious democracy is a special case that refers to cultures or institutions that are centrally ruled by their religious beliefs. Their functionality does not deal with the social, economic and political aspects but with the transcendent, moral and political aspects.
The purpose of a religious democracy is to sustain the supernatural and natural transcendence of the members of a society. This transcendence is materialized in the morality of the members. The role of its political democracy is to ensure that the morality of the actions drives towards transcendence.
This implies that social democracy is implicit in the attitude towards transcendence and the economic scenario is acted out by the moral-driven actions of a community.
Their Functional Drivers
The driver of a religious democracy is to foster the supernatural transcendence of the members of a culture. This driver makes individual actions become extremely powerful because of the need to fulfill the religious beliefs to achieve this goal.
The supernatural transcendence implies a personal transcendence for those individuals who participate and the recognition of the community, which allows individuals to achieve a transcendent role integrating the supernatural, the personal and the social transcendence.
This fulfills the need of all members of a religious democracy and allows managing the transcendence in the materialistic world following the rules of morality that are implicit.
NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute (TURI) is a world leader in its segment. Since 1976, it has been specialized in complexity sciences applied to the research on the roots of evolution and its application to social, institutional, business and individual evolution.
Facileness
expands too fast in too many places in the world. Facileness becomes an
addiction when it is integrated with clientelism and paternalism.
When it
becomes an addiction, it forces the environment to adopt an over-adaptive
behavior which establishes a context where facileness, protected by a set of
fallacious myths, appears as a functional “way of life”.
About
Facileness
Facileness
implies making what one believes, wants or can do prevail over what is needed
to be done. Facileness degrades, marginalizes and kills social, institutional
and personal evolution.
About Clientelism
Clientelism
is the exchange of goods and services for support. Clientelism reverts the
slope of the asymmetry of the relation between authorities and members of a
group or culture.
The one
who receives the goods or services behaves as the client and the authority behaves
as a provider. This corrupts the relationships and establishes a structural context
for facileness.
About
Paternalism
Paternalism
is an action that limits a person’s or group’s freedom or autonomy.
Paternalism
is the consequence of two actions. On the one hand there is someone who wants
to control an environment and on the other hand there are people, who are
driven by facileness, that want to avoid assuming the responsibility for their
actions.
Paternalism
protects the people who adopt facileness as a way of life and uses clientelism
to ensure the sustainability of its power.
The
absence of paternalistic leaders is the solution for facileness driven environments.
It begins by generating chaos but ends in an upgrade if the preexisting
paternalistic leaders have established a structural approach.
If this is not the case, the new situation degrades the environment and a new paternalistic leader becomes installed.
Peter Belohlavek
NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed.
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 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
P=W/t
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 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 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 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 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.
Conclusion
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.
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.
To 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:
Fundamentalism
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.
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.
This work deals with the conceptual structure of economic freedom and its integration with economic democracy. It includes no ideological considerations or influence. It is based on the unicist approach to complexity science, which uses a pragmatic, structural and functionalist framework.
The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…
There are prejudices and fallacious myths installed in the world dealing with the concept of economic freedom.
Unfortunately, no literature could be found that approached economic freedom based on its concept to define its nature (the “stem cell” of economic freedom).
The existing approaches are strongly influenced by ideological positions.
This introduction, based on an excerpt from the book “The Future of Democracy and Capitalism” by Peter Belohlavek, provides a conceptual approach to capitalism, going beyond the beliefs deposited on facts by people to understand the nature and dynamics that define the present and future of Capitalism.
It can be said that Greece was the origin of political democracy in the West but was not an economic democracy because in those times the expansion of cultures was driven by military actions.
It can also be said that the United States of America are a paradigmatic example of evolutionary democracy that integrates social democracy, economic democracy and political democracy to manage the domestic affairs.
As an evolutionary democracy, the United States of America could be taken as a paradigmatic example of Economic Freedom and Capitalism. But Economic Freedom and Capitalism cannot be imported or exported. The unique structure of values that are implicit in a culture’s archetype are the demonstration that it is meaningless to copy any model to a foreign culture that has different structural values.
The understanding of the nature of economic democracy and capitalism allow defining the particular way in which a country can deal with economics and economic democracy considering its own characteristics.
This complete document includes:
Economic Democracy Ethics
The Structure of Capitalism
The Nature of Justice: The Catalyst and Entropy Inhibitor of Capitalism
The Future of Capitalism
Annex 1: The Nature of Economic Democracy
Annex 2: Corruption: The Anti-concept of Capitalism
Economic Democracy Ethics
Ethics defines the accepted rules of an environment. These rules satisfy the functional needs, the morality that is accepted in the environment and the ideology that underlies this ethics.
In the economic democracy, we have structured the four basic ethics that are accepted as existent:
The Statism
The Protectionism / Dirigisme
The Pre-capitalism
The Capitalism
The ontogenesis of these ethics is homologous to the phylogeny of the human growth processes. This is to say that Statism implies the childhood of economic behavior, protectionism / dirigisme is its adolescence, Pre-capitalism is its youth and Capitalism is its maturity.
Anarchy is the stage previous to these ethics. It implies that individuals develop their economic activities eluding the rules of the environment.
Statism
Economic Statism is based on using the drivers of rational morality to guide economic actions. As economic or materialistic behaviors belong to the field of individualistic attitudes, Statism necessarily needs to make others responsible for the results to be achieved.
It is a low productivity economic ethics, in which the fulfillment of the established rules prevails over the achievement of results. Statism installs economic behavior in the rules of childhood, which means that the “family” prevails over the individual desires. It achieves a superior level of productivity in environments that have a superior ethics driven collective intelligence and are highly disciplined.
This is not the case when dealing with the social aspects of Statism. Statism in economic behavior requires authoritarian dirigisme in order to define what needs to be done and is driven by the need to make people align in an environment where the property belongs to others.
Protectionism / Dirigisme
Economic protectionism / dirigisme is based on installing autonomous entities that live based on the exchange with other protected entities in order to survive and provide adequate living conditions for the members.
Protectionism is a typical adolescent organization that corresponds to an economic stage where the environment has not been organized as a democratic entity.
It is based on the self-sufficiency of the productive entities that cannot deal in an adapted way with the environment because the control on their protected organization prevails over the productivity that can be achieved.
As there is a need to be self-sufficient, there is no possibility of introducing innovations or adapting to the change of the external environment. Their productivity suffices for survival and their horizon is limited to the reality of their “private” entity. Economic protectionism achieves a superior level of productivity when it is driven by a superior ethics driven ideology.
Pre-capitalism
The economic pre-capitalism ethics implies that private property prevails over any other consideration in economic behavior.
Pre-capitalism implies, on the one hand, that the private initiative should prevail over governmental or State interventions and that all that hinders economic freewill is dysfunctional.
It is naturally the capitalist logic of non-democratic environments and, paradoxically, it represents the prejudices that non-democratic and non-developed countries have about capitalism.
Pre-capitalism is homologous to the behavior in youth where the voluntarism, omnipotence and energy prevail over a rational use of resources. It is a typical model for primary industry driven countries that have not known the meaning of a true democracy.
The productivity of pre-capitalism is based on the power of transferring costs to the participants of the economic activity.
Capitalism
Capitalism is the ethics that corresponds to a superior economic democracy, which is natural in democratic countries and not natural in countries that are developing towards a democratic environment.
Economic capitalism implies, on the one hand, the existence of a social economy where the society participates in the ownership of the productive entities through the stock market and, on the other hand, the existence of a newcomer’s place in which pre-capitalist rules apply within the general rules of capitalism
Capitalism is sustained by justice, which is the catalyst and entropy inhibitor of the system. Without a functional judicial system, capitalism degrades towards a pre-capitalist ethics.
The level of productivity in capitalism is catalyzed by the need to integrate shareholders and clients within the entities. Thus, those who achieve an adequate level of productivity succeed and those who do not, disappear.
The educational system is the driver to provide the necessary resources for R&D to maintain the competition at a superior level.
Unicist Future Research Lab
NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. http://www.unicist-school.org/future-research/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/turi-1.pdf
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 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.
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
This 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.
Conclusion:
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.
NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. http://www.unicist-school.org/future-research/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/turi-1.pdf
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 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.
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.
Institutions 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:
Defensive Justice
Protective Justice
Social Justice
Adaptive Justice
Level 1) Defensive Justice
The 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. http://www.unicist-school.org/future-research/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/turi-1.pdf
