Beyond Dualism: The Unicist Triadic Approach

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature opened the possibilities to deal with adaptive systems without needing to treat them as systemic systems. It established that every living being is regulated by an intelligence that establishes its purpose, its active principle to evolve and its energy conservation principle to sustain its purpose.

Biological EntitiesIt established that these elements in their oneness behave in a double dialectical way: The purpose is put into action by the active function having a relationship ruled by the supplementation law.

The purpose is sustained by the energy conservation principle having a relationship based on the complementation law.

This discovery established the basics that allowed approaching adaptive systems based on their unicist ontologies and building their ontogenetic maps which emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. The ontogenetic maps remain unchanged as long as a function exists.

Dualistic Dialectics vs. Unicist Dialectics

Modern dialectics began based on an idealistic and materialistic voluntaristic approach to reality (Hegel – Marx).

Simple dialectic developed as an explanation of the evolution of human idealism and as the grounding of human materialism.

This is the way of natural dualistic thinking. It produces rationalistic conclusions of reality that sound incredibly simple and make the producer feel extremely powerful in the sense that with a “push” it is possible to change an existing reality.

The Unicist Dialectic is based on the mental emulation of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that allows a valid emulation of adaptive systems. Its application to human adaptive systems made the emulation of individual, institutional and social evolution possible.

The Fallacy of Hegel’s and Marx’s dialectics

Dialectic as defined by Hegel is contradictory with the concept of complex systems. Complex systems are integrated based on the conjunction “and”, and their evolution includes the complementation between the apparent opposites.

Fallacy of Dualistic DialecticsThis dialectical thinking of Hegel, who considers the synthesis as a result of the opposition between a thesis and an antithesis, permits the construction of parallel realities based on the disintegration of the real world and the construction of a world where the limitless evolution of ideas drives towards an ideal. Hegel builds an apparently upgrading fallacy.

Marx’s perceives the fallacy implicit in Hegel’s approach but he can not get rid of his dualistic approach to reality and his need to build a better future that only depends on the promotion of an adequate antithesis.

But his materialistic approach hindered him to accept an ethic of added value in the real world.

He built a dialectic based on the definition that thesis is given by an existent myth and the antithesis is a utopia that will change the myth creating a new environment. This implied considering that the utopia is a response to the existing myth.

But in real life, myths limit utopias, sustaining an underlying purpose which is considered a taboo.

Utopias are not responses to myths but reactions to taboos. They are born to change an existing purpose to be achieved.

Marxist dialectic drove to human declination because the fallacy he had built required materialistic absolute ideologies to sustain it.

The Triadic Dialectics – The double dialectical behavior

The Double Dialectics allows dealing with human adaptive systems managing the integration of their double dialectical behavior.

With this double dialectical approach (purpose – active function, purpose – energy conservation function) one can understand the structure of an adaptive system and its evolution.

Double Dialectical BehaviorUnicist Dialectics is based on the emulation of adaptive systems, emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature (purpose, active principle, energy conservation principle).

Its application to human adaptive systems made the emulation of individual, institutional and social evolution possible.

Those who do not have the abstraction capacity consider the dialectical behavior based on observable facts of reality. They cannot differentiate essential correlations from cause-effect relations.

Individuals who have the necessary functional intelligence and the will to add value to an environment, and are able to see the double dialectics, develop two different actions to ensure results: on the one hand, they impulse action and on the other hand, they develop actions to inhibit entropy.

Individuals who approach reality using unicist thinking define strategies based on concepts and planed actions to influence the environment.