H) Unicist Objects


Mutations are structural changes to survive

We define mutation to all structural change in the purpose of a being, or of any of its “vital subsystems”. We refer to mutation every time that a subsystem is somehow annulled for some non-“traumatic” reason, and this is hence transmitted to future generations.

Modifications of functions will cause different effects according to the role the functions comply with. Mutations occur when the purpose of given concepts change.

If there is a modification in the adverbial function mutations could take place, and even if there is none, the system has lost stability and will generate a change in the verbal function.

Mutation may occur because of evolution or because of involution. In the first case mutations are based on the action of the verbal function to fulfill its purpose. Involution is produced by the inability of the verbal function to produce results.

Evolution implies that the verbal function, representing a more functional intelligence, turns to be the purpose of a concept.

Involution implies a structural change in the functionality of a concept. The verbal function sub-concept replaces the concept.

Socially, there is mutation when there is a change in the habits of a given society. The purposes of a society are implicit in its habits.

Fifth evolution law: The law of mutation

Mutation occurs when a living being or a being with artificial life is marginalized and his survival is threatened. In this context, living beings mutate and adapt again when they have the necessary energy to do so.

This law can be observed in the evolution of diseases. Viruses mutate frequently. They mutate when they need to find new ways to survive hostile environments.

Mutations occur in chaotic contexts. It is hardly impossible to influence mutations to cause evolution.

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.
https://www.unicist-school.org/peter-belohlavek/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/turi.pdf

Share

Conditions for a Sustainable Globalization

Designing a global structure requires being able go beyond the interest of one’s country and enter the field of common interests with other countries and specifically the understanding of each of them. This requires an extreme diplomatic effort in order to build a global structure that allows all the participants sustain their own National Interests.

In order for a globalization to be sustainable it requires that the national interest be covered.

There has to be a strong State permitting a powerful diplomacy and there must also be, within the vital space within which the culture operates, a globalization concept that permits to include other cultures.

National Interest

The national interest is the sustainable globalization‘s ultimate purpose. All unstable globalizations ended up collapsing as a result of their lack of coverage of the national interest of one or several of its members.

The national interest is measured in concrete terms regarding the social structure’s functionality, so much so that it ensures its members and their future generations an atmosphere of development in which to grow.

The national interest implicitly refers to evolution, much in the same fashion that the whole sustainable globalization concept does. When there is involution globalization is not possible becoming, in the best of cases, an alliance.

Access the content of the book “Globalization, the new tower of Babel?” at the Unicist Library: http://www.unicist.com/books-pages/en/globalization_sint_en.php

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a global decentralized world-class research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. https://www.unicist-school.org/peter-belohlavek/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/turi.pdf

Share

Why are Civil Guerrilla Wars extremely cruel?

When hopelessness becomes widely and deeply spread in some segments an explosion or implosion in the society needs to happen.

This can be seen in “The lack of hope triggers social cathartic conflicts”: http://www.theoryofevolution.net/blog/the-lack-of-hope-triggers-social-cathartic-conflicts/

This explosion or implosion happens making all the members feel guilty because of their incapacity to find solutions to integrate their fellows.

As guilt is a feeling that cannot be borne, it is transformed into an extreme anxiety first, and then into hate at the end, in order to allow individuals to adapt.

Guerrilla wars are fundamentalist wars

Guerrilla wars require a high level of hate in order to legitimate the killing of fellows. External wars happen in order to obtain a booty, whatever the kind. But booties are illegitimate in civil wars. Therefore “hate” is needed to legitimate booties in civil guerrilla wars. But, on the other hand, hate also makes them extremely irrational.

This situation drives naturally to addictive behaviour.

Addictions are a natural response to an uncertain environment in which a person feels hopeless, impotent and without identity.

When these conditions are given, individuals enter the shelter of addictions.

Addictions help to deal with these self-destructive feeling in a paradoxical way. While the individual is installed in the parallel world s/he feels fulfilled, but, after returning to the real world, s/he feels worse than before and the need for addictive stimuli rises.

On the one hand, the rebels need to build a parallel reality based on their utopia. On the other hand, the establishment enters into a parallel reality to solve a conflict they cannot deal with in a rational way.

Fundamentalism is an addiction with many benefits

  1. It creates a real world to live in which appears to be the parallel world one is seeking.
  2. It creates social bonds among the members of the group sharing the same belief.
  3. It generates or empowers the development of a micro-cosmos in which addicts feel free of addictions and the self-destruction is deviated towards “the rest of the world”.

Considering the level of self-destruction or destruction, four segments can be characterized:

  1. Pleasure addictions: providing instants of extreme pleasure.
  2. Rational/spiritual addictions: providing the sensation of absolute empowerment.
  3. Suicidal addictions: providing the power of “dancing” beyond human limits.
  4. Terrorist addictions: providing the power of feeling God.

Conclusions

Stagnated hopelessness fosters guerrilla wars in extremely individualistic countries that lack institutionalization and therefore cannot have a conservative/liberal alternation.

The level of institutionalization can be measured in the separation between the Government and the State of a country and the “social sanction” for illegal behavior of individuals.

In highly institutionalized countries hopelessness drives towards a marginal violent behavior that works as a catharsis until the alternation conservatism/liberalism provides a solution.

Legitimacy is all what matters to overcome the wounds of civil wars.

Peter Belohlavek

Share

Functionality of Fallacious Myths in Cultures and Business

Fallacious myths are social constructions to avoid the disgregation of a group or community, hindering the perception of significant dysfunctional behaviors.

Fallacious myths are necessarily built to cover:

a)      Implicit weaknesses that cannot be accepted.
b)      Weaknesses that cannot be solved nor faced.

They transform social chronic dysfunctions into acceptable characteristics.

Fallacious myths are necessary to build cohesion

Humans integrate based on their weaknesses and collide based on their strengths. This is self-evident, although it is also a taboo.

But in extreme cases people cannot explicitly accept that they join based on their weaknesses.

Fallacious myths are built to join people without needing to face taboos. Their purpose is to integrate people in spite of existing unbearable weaknesses.

Groups would disgregate if the fallacious myths had not have been built.

That is why they are extremely functional in any culture.

The Ontology of Fallacious Myths

The purpose is disgregation avoidance. Therefore no interaction with the “external” environment is necessary. As no interaction is necessary, utopias do not need to foster actions.

Their utopias are apparent active functions that are coincident with the energy saving fallacies. As they are coincident, no action is necessary and the fallacious myths avoid disgregation without requiring any action.

The interaction happens among the members of a group. The purpose of this interaction is to confirm the validity of the fallacious myths. People who do not share the fallacious myths of a culture are aliens and cannot be part of the group.

Access or request a Unicist Tweetinar on this subject at:
http://www.academic.unicist.org/unicist_tweetinars.shtml

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the pioneering complexity science research organization developing solutions for complex adaptive systems using ontogenetic ontologies and object driven technologies. More than 3,500 ontological researches were developed since 1976 until September 2010 in the field of individual, institutional and social evolution.

Share

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.

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.

Access or request a Unicist Tweetinar on this subject at:
http://www.academic.unicist.org/unicist_tweetinars.shtml

Learn more about the trend of ontology based solutions for businesses:
http://www.unicist.net/obs.shtml

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,500 ontological researches in complexity sciences, 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.

Share

Discover the Magic of "Doing" the New Year…

Click on the image above to download your present for the New Year.

Executive Committee

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, 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 Theory of Evolution.

Share

Crisis 2008-2010 – PIIGS: consequence of distributionism

Growth requires having the values of a culture focused on producing. Welfare States’ weakness is their need to focus on distribution in order to have consensus with the public opinion.

Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain are suffering the consequence of having focused on distribution to sustain the power of their governments.

One of the consequences of the widespread democracy in the world has been the importance of public opinion in the stability of governments.

The structure of a State’s government is given by the Parliament, the Executive power and the Judiciary power. But the fourth power is public opinion which is represented by the communication media and the public expression.

The organization of the States should be focused on equilibrating the relationship between the possibility that production opens and the distribution to provide welfare and equal opportunities for all. This is the core of an expansive action of the States.

The prevalence of distribution implies that Governmental actions prevail over State organization, meaning that the present prevails over the future.

Peter Belohlavek

Share

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

Share

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

Share

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

Share