Monthly Archives: August 2010

Adaptive Systems solutions require dealing with complexity

Solution finding vs. problem solving sounds like a false dilemma. But it is in fact a different paradigm to approach reality.

Reality must be read and the interpretation of that reading must represent the real world. This interpretation is the basis to emulate in mind the evolution process in order to forecast what is going to happen to design the necessary strategies to influence reality.

To do so a special language has to be used to represent the nature of reality. That is the language of the unicist ontology of evolution, formalized into a unicist logical language that can represent and objectify the structure of reality in order to transform it into a reasonable, understandable and provable grounding.

A team of specialists is necessary to design the models that are necessary to apprehend complexity and influence it.

The Unicist Confederation is an orchestra that uses all the instruments that are necessary to deal with the solution of complex problems.

Synergy is basic in the solution of complex problems. Common sense, intuition are initial inputs, but actual knowledge is basic to be able to apprehend the nature of reality and deal with it.

This is an invitation to all those who, having decided to work in the world of complex problem solving, are willing to manage the unicist language that has been modeled to provide the “necessary musical staff” to enable an orchestra to play following the harmony and melody of reality.

Peter Belohlavek

Follow us on twitter


Unicist Ontology to Manage Artificial Adaptive Systems

Ontology describes the nature of some aspect of reality. The Unicist ontology is an ontological approach based on the Unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

It describes the essential structure of a given reality following the structure of the ontogenetic intelligence. This allows researching and defining the nature of artificial adaptive systems in order to influence them.

The Unicist ontology defines the fundamentals of an artificial adaptive system that define the possibility to influence it. The field of possibilities is called the “credibility zone”.

Human action has to occur within this field of possibilities. The probability to produce a concrete result depends on the capacity to focus the actions on the fundamentals within the limits of a minimum strategy established by a systemic approach.

This allows managing artificial adaptive systems considered as a unified field with the environment that exerts direct and indirect influence in order to produce results.

Peter Belohlavek

Follow us on twitter


Cooperation in institutional behavior sustains competition

Cooperation implies the capacity of sharing one’s space in order to develop activities. This sharing implies a complementary competition which drives towards evolution.

Without cooperation the internal competitiveness in institutions produces paradoxical results.

Cooperation implies sharing one’s vital space while having reserves some place where that is not shared with others.

Cooperation implies the integration of a sharing activity and a place for one’s security.

Without reserving a safe place individuals cannot cooperate and competition is transformed into an utopia.

Cooperation Ethics Code

to develop competitiveness

Building a cooperative environment requires:

Cooperating with others and sharing with them what they need

Sharing others’ successes

Fulfilling and making others fulfil their commitments on time

Being self-confident

Being predictable, reliable and secure

Respecting and demanding respect from others

Establishing complementarities

Managing the rules of diplomacy

Widening the shared vital space

Establishing strong functional and personal bonds

Cooperation is a catalyst for individual and institutional learning. The lack of cooperation transforms competition into institutional self-destruction.

Peter Belohlavek

Follow us on twitter


Institutional democracy is a condition for synergy

Institutions can only evolve based on synergy. Synergic behavior requires the integration of consensus, efficiency and trade-offs that have to be paid.

Institutional democracy implies organizing in a way individuals can participate as peers based on authoritative roles that lead towards higher levels of efficacy.

The acceptance that foundations have to be posed in order to allow dialoguing is basic.

“Monologuing” should be banned in group work. It naturally drives towards subjective conflicts.

By just installing the commitment with this ethic the organization will upgrade without noticing it:

Ethics of Foundations

to sustain democracy in Institutions

All members of a group agree to:

Explain the foundations of what is stated in an understandable, reasonable and provable way for the rest of the group.

Count on the “paperwork” supporting their proposals, and explain it clearly to the rest of the group.

Invite to participate in working groups only those individuals that have the capacity to understand the groundings of a problem.

Whenever the problem is complex give members the necessary time to be prepared to deal with such problem, and to understand the groundings of the rest of the group.

Have the necessary knowledge, beyond common sense, for solving the problems they are dealing with.

Explain the groundings when analyzing problems.

When evaluating actions, explain the synthesis but not the foundations that underlay them. However, upon request of the rest of the group, provide them with the groundings of the synthesis.

Take others’ groundings into consideration, and integrate them into yours, disregarding whom they come from.

Do not give an opinion when there is a lack of knowledge.When working in uncertain environments, approach the problem explicitly starting with a “groundless opinion”, but be responsible for obtaining the necessary knowledge to achieve a grounded one.

You will have started a continuous improvement to increase the synergy of group work by just installing these rules in your meeting room.

Peter Belohlavek

Follow us on twitter


Subjectivism is the key to fallacious self-esteem

Cultures, groups and people that are strongly influenced by individual complexes or by social evolutionary or self-valuation syndromes need to develop a personal subjectivist approach to feel in a comfort zone, without assuming responsibilities or feeling threatened by the environment.

This subjectivism is built upon Intuition, Beliefs, Experience and Rationalism / Emotions.

These individuals integrate in groups and work as accomplices to sustain their comfort zone. They are fundamentalists acting in the name of interests, ideologies, religions or whatever they need to sustain their comfort zone.

Subjectivism fosters the conditions that are needed in order to survive, such as Corruption, Authoritarianism and Anarchy.

To do so subjectivists need to disregard objective information. They need to degrade all that implies objectivity and assuming responsibilities.

Manipulation, Value Judgments and Quitting are the main tools subjectivists use to avoid the assumption of responsibilities.

Beware of them and do not argue with them; they are always right.

Peter Belohlavek

Follow us on twitter


Religion, Power and Science and the Tree of Knowledge

The tree of knowledge can be considered the triggering argument that sustains the conflict between religion, power and science.

It can be said that the knowledge needs to be shared in order to be legitimated. When the knowledge is “appropriated” by someone who is not part of the power structure, the individual becomes undesirable for the society.

Power and religion are natural complements that foster the avoidance of objectivity when dealing with human behavior.

Objectivity is the goal of science. Subjectivity is a comfortable parallel reality where absolute and fundamentalist ideas can be sold without being bothered by objective confrontations.

It can be seen that all fundamentalist approaches in power and religion hinder true learning of objective knowledge. They need to sustain empirical approaches in order to avoid needing to adapt to higher levels of objectiveness. These empirical approaches unavoidably lead to subjectivism.

The history of Galileo is just a paradigmatic example of this endless conflict.

The degradation of education and the misuse of language are natural consequences in cultures where the elites need to dominate.

Democracy is the natural antidote. But democracy doesn’t mean “eat excrements, millions of flies cannot be wrong”. Democracy implies being aware of a reality in order to pose grounded opinions.

Democracy implies knowledge. Subjectivity is necessarily anti-democratic.

Peter Belohlavek

If you would like to receive monthly information on this blog, please register here.

Follow us on twitter


Unicist Ontology: Eruditeness is the anti-concept of wisdom

Eruditeness is a paradigmatic case of a non-adaptive behavior produced by human essential complexes. It is an anti-concept of wisdom.

Erudite people are individuals whose purpose is the creation of a parallel reality where they can feel superior based on the accumulation of rational information and a hypothetical rational evaluation. They build all the fallacies they need to sustain their parallel reality.

Eruditeness is an addiction that is produced by the uncertainty, hopelessness and impotence of individuals to achieve the role they have in their fantasy.

Erudite individuals do not apply their knowledge to real life, because they cannot accept validating their knowledge. They need to be right.

They are driven by the truth they build in their parallel reality, based on the judgment of the information they accumulate. They always need to judge comparative information in order to feel superior with a sense of pleasure and domination.

The paradox is that they implicitly consider they can evaluate any knowledge whoever produced it.

They cannot deal with ambiguity because its understanding requires confronting with the actual reality.

Their superiority complex, sustained by a rationalization talent,  drives their accumulation of information and the Oedipus complex drives their confrontation with the people they need to judge. They need to produce endless power-games in order to demonstrate their superiority, destroy authoritative roles and abuse their complements.

Wisdom requires dealing with the concepts of reality. Concepts can only be discovered in real life. That is why eruditeness cannot deal with concepts because it just rationalizes them.

Erudite individuals judge wise people with the absolute impunity of their gifted rationalization. That is why eruditeness is the anti-concept of wisdom.

Peter BelohlavekIf you would like to receive monthly information on this blog, please register here.

Follow us on twitter