E) Unicist Logical Approach

Homology between the Unicist Theory and the “TAO”

The homology between the Unicist Theory and the “TAO” allows understanding the level of integration that needs to be achieved to adapt to an environment to generate value.

Homology between the Unicist Theory and the TAOThis integration of the double dialectical logic that emulates the intelligence that underlies nature is the core of transforming movements into actions.

The energy is generated when the purpose is being achieved integrating the active principle and the energy conservation principle. This integration defines, at an essential level, the unified field of a given reality.

Apprehending reality as a unified field requires accepting that one is part of that reality and that there are no observers but participants when dealing in an adapted way with complex adaptive systems.

The Unicist Logic and the “TAO”

Both the Unicist Double Dialectical Logic (Unicist Logic) and the “TAO” deal with the principles that underlie nature.

Homology of the Unicist Logic and the TAO

The Tao gave birth to one.
One gave birth to two.
Two gave birth to three.
Three gave birth to all things.

Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu

The integration of Yin and Yang builds the triadic structure of the Unicist Logic. Both the “TAO” and the Unicist Logic explain the structure of the unified field of the functionality of a specific reality including its dynamics and evolution.

Yang is homologous to the dialectics between the purpose and the active principle. It defines the active functionality of an entity.

Yin is homologous to the dialectics between the purpose and the energy conservation principle. It defines the energy conservation functionality.

The conjunction of both dialectics is defined by a triadic structure that integrates the ultimate functional purpose of the entity with the active principle and with its complement, defined by the energy conservation principle.

Both the “TAO” and the Unicist Logic are based on the use of the conjunction “and” excluding the use of the disjunction “or”.

If you are not aware of the scientific use of the “TAO”, we recommend reading the book “Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra.

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.


Introducing Adaptiveness in Business is a Complex Problem

Complex problem solving is for the few. That is why the learning of complex aspects solving is for those who have assumed the responsibility of simplifying the processes to allow ordinary people to work with them.

Knowledge of Adaptive SystemsThe apprehension of complexity in business requires four basic conditions:

  1. Being driven by a superior ethical intelligence that drives actions towards value generation for “others”. It has to be considered that the mind inhibits the apprehension of concepts for one’s benefit. Only pre-concepts or anti-concepts are perceivable for those who seek for personal benefits.
  2. Being able to reflect until the “gamma brain waves” become accessible to apprehend concepts.
  3. Having both experiences and the necessary technical-analytical knowledge in the specific field that allow an intuitive approach without being driven by anti-intuition.
  4. Being able to consciously emulate the complex system in mind in order to become part of it which requires having the necessary language to do so.

These conditions are necessary but, anyhow, at the end, “there will be certainty of error and probability of nearness”.

If these conditions are not given, individuals become “observers” of a given reality and cannot apprehend the complex system as such and can only make systemic approaches leaving complexity aside.

Peter Belohlavek

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


Are Europe and the USA in a Distributionist crisis?

Distributionism drives towards involution. Distributionism implies that the concept of scarcity, which drives the minimum strategy of economic growth, has been left aside. It has to be considered that the declination of cultures has always been preceded by distributionism.

The unicist economic theory defines that the maximal strategy for economic behavior is driven by production and the minimum strategy is driven by distribution.

Economic evolution implies the prevalence of production, while using the distribution to ensure the minimum strategy for economic equilibrium and social well-being. Unicist distributionism is a concept that differs structurally from the Catholic use of the word.

State actions should provide the well-being of future generations while governmental actions, being driven by electoral needs, are naturally focused on present well-being.

In 50 years there will be nearby 9 billion inhabitants in the world. That is why the need for productivity is basic to ensure their existence without entering into endless survivor conflicts which necessarily drive towards an increase of fundamentalism with the corresponding consequences.

Nowadays neo-monetarism prevails; monetary disposal supersedes rational economic behavior. Countries’ external and internal debts that have not been the consequence of infrastructural investments are an indicator of lower or higher levels of distributionism.

Distributionism is focused on ensuring the distribution of materialistic resources without considering their relationship with the value generated. This necessarily generates structural crises and conflicts.

But there are also subtle aspects in distributionist behaviors. Incentivizing war-industry to increase the monetary circulation to reactivate an economy or speculative businesses are collateral damages of a distributionist attitude.

Distributionism begins when cultures consider that they achieved their “zenith”.

Where are we now  in the European Union and in the USA?

Peter Belohlavek


Innovation blindness: the trigger for stagnation

An innovative solution is the consequence of a creative personal action to overcome scarcity in a given context in an environment that has the expectation, trust and credibility that a new solution will be found.

All innovations imply change, but not all changes are innovations in the sense it was described. Innovations require the existence of a structural change of how a scarce element is being managed.

Inventions and discoveries are innovations only when they modify the management of scarcity. Inventions and discoveries only exist if the innovation can be apprehended.

The use of an innovation is a condition for its existence. Until this happens it is perceived as an expression of the inventor’s or discoverer’s ego.

A necessary condition to apprehend an innovation’s functionality is its operational recreation. This recreation requires a high level of adaptation to the environment in order to be able to “introject” the functions of the innovation.

Innovation blindness is an unconscious response of individuals who do not perceive the proposed change, when the conditions to make use of it are not given.

The functionality of innovation blindness is the avoidance of energy consumption to introduce a new task in an individual’s brain.

In order to avoid the innovation, the necessary fallacies are built. Thus those who do not have the necessary knowledge to apprehend a new reality are “blind” and those who do not have it but think they do, are blind and deaf.

The consequence of innovation blindness is that individuals cannot see an innovation and cannot hear about it.

Peter Belohlavek


See to believe or believe to see

Surviving requires seeing to believe

Conservative thinking requires seeing to believe. That is why when a new concept is being discussed and an individual asks for an analogical benchmark, it is because s/he is avoiding entering a new field.

Seeing to believe is necessary to deal with operational thinking. When operation has to be done it is necessary to deal with a credibility based on seeing. Seeing is used in a wide sense considering all the aspects that deal with sensory experiences to apprehend reality.

Seeing to believe is based on the past experiences of individuals to generate the credibility of present actions.

Forward-chaining thinking is the secure approach to reality which avoids having a high level of inner freedom because the external reality is apprehended through sensory experiences. The use of sensory information avoids the need to make decisions based on internal freedom.

1 + 1 = 2 is an arithmetic metaphor of forward-chaining thinking.

Minimum strategies, which need to ensure survival, require forward-chaining thinking and using the sensory experiences to believe.

Expansive actions require believing to see

Expansive actions require providing additional added value to the environment and thus they are implicitly innovative. The innovation is implicit in the additional added value.

Believing to see is necessary for conceptual thinking. Concepts are essential. Therefore they need to be approached based on abstract beliefs that need to be confirmed in their manifested operational actions.

Conceptual thinking implies reflection that goes beyond the sensory experiences of individuals. Homological experiences are the benchmarks to be used to apprehend new action fields.

Believing to see is an approach to the nature of a reality in order to influence the future evolution and develop present actions.

Backward-chaining thinking is necessary to approach any activity that deals with adaptive systems and complexity. The oneness can only be approached with backward-chaining thinking processes which are integrated in the unicist reflection process.

2 = Infinite Solutions is an arithmetic metaphor of backward-chaining thinking.

It requires the use of a high level of inner freedom, because there are no sensory parameters to confirm the validity of a process. That is why a “believing to see” approach needs to be sustained by destructive and non-destructive pilot tests.

Maximal strategies which allow expansion beyond the present boundaries of an activity require the use of backward-chaining thinking and using individuals’ beliefs that need to be validated with sensory experiences.

Doing within adaptive systems

Actions are the demonstration of a decision. There are unconscious, intuitive and conscious decisions. All actions include all the aspects but when we talk about “Doing” we imply actions ruled by conscious behavior.

Influencing adaptive systems requires integrating “believing to see and seeing to believe”.

But it has to happen following the ontological evolution law. An individual needs to believe in order to be able to see and then confirm what has been seen in order to validate the belief.

Managing adaptive systems implies beginning to apprehend the possibilities that can be achieved. To do so it is necessary to use backward-chaining thinking in order to apprehend the solution in its oneness. Therefore the first step to deal with adaptive systems requires the use of inner freedom to apprehend the actual reality. It requires “believing to see”.

This allows developing a maximal strategy that makes expansion possible.

After the concept has been grasped and used to develop a maximal strategy it is necessary to ensure survival developing minimum strategies. Minimum strategies are operation driven and use forward-chaining thinking as a tool that requires sensory experiences to confirm the validity of actions. Therefore it requires a “seeing to believe” approach.

The level of inner freedom required is minimal because actions are driven by sensory experiences.

Doing implies having the necessary inner freedom to be able to “believe to see” and the necessary discipline to follow a method to do, based on “seeing to believe”.

Businesses require “believing to see” to be defined, because they happen in the future that cannot be perceived through sensory experiences, and “seeing to be believe” in order to be administrated.

In business “seeing to believe” is a fallacy.

In operational activities “believing to see” is a utopia.

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 researches in complexity science, developed since 1976 until September 2010,  applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Ontology of Evolution.



Unicist Ontology of the Artificial Life of Institutions

Institutions are entities with artificial life. They behave as a species, meaning that their goal is to expand and perdure in time. This is self-evident when we consider a Nation as an institution.

Therefore, institutions have an ontology that is homologous to the one of biological entities: http://www.theoryofevolution.net/blog/the-unicist-ontology-of-biological-entities/

Their purpose is permanence which requires having transcendent goals while satisfying the personal goals of their members.

They need to minimize the energy they consume. To do so the integration of their adaptive systems with their administrative systems is based on a natural organization that considers the environment, the technologies and the business.

Their adaptation is sustained by their strategy including maximal strategies to expand and minimum strategies to survive.

The understanding of the ontology of institutions considered as beings with artificial life allows, on the one hand, accessing a metamodel to build institutions and, on the other hand, it allows managing their evolution.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 researches in complexity science, developed since 1976 until September 2010,  applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Ontology of Evolution.



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


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


The Ontology of Oedipus complex and the evolution of species

The Oedipus complex is a stagnated behavior to avoid assuming the responsibility of generational evolution. Its goal is to avoid the responsibility of the evolution of species.

This implies that the Oedipus complex avoids that individuals define how to overcome the generation of their parents.

Extreme conflictive supplementation implies the prevalence of a stagnated conflict with authoritative roles which implies an anarchic behavior sustained by fallacious utopias to avoid the assumption of responsibility.

Extreme symbiotic complementation is given by the building of stagnated links with the complementary roles that need to last forever.

To approach the Oedipus complex it becomes necessary to understand the drivers of personal evolution.

Peter Belohlavek

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

Follow us on twitter


The Unicist Ontology of Human Essential Complexes

Essential complexes are extreme stagnated childish behaviors of individuals to avoid interacting with the environment as an adaptive system in order to obtain pseudo-benefits to survive.

Human complexes avoid the possibilities of adapting to an environment. They create a parallel reality that hinders dealing with adaptive systems.

Complexes’ objective is to avoid the adaptation process of individuals, generating a parallel reality creating a comfort zone to live in.

Complexes are homologous to “cancer”. They develop at the expense of the individual and eventually kill it; the paradox lies in that in doing so they die as well.

Complexes make individuals or cultures act in the environment in such a way, that they transform outer reality into inner reality.

This way, individuals or cultures lose the capacity to adapt to the environment and confirm the “parallel reality” constructed by the complexes until they reach the point of being completely marginalized from the environment and become extinct or “die” in social terms.

Complexes are fed by fallacies and fallacious utopias that are constructed by women/ men to avoid responsibilities and to satisfy their own beliefs or needs.

We have identified two basic complexes at the level of ontointelligence: The Inferiority / Superiority Complex, to avoid personal responsibility, and the Oedipus complex, to avoid species responsibility.

The ontological approach to complexes is compatible with the psychological approach to them. This compatibility doesn’t mean being identical, because the ontological approach implies dealing with the structure of the nature of complexes without entering into their interpretative causes.

Peter Belohlavek

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

Follow us on twitter