Unicist Standard


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

European Crisis: Fundamental Analysis is coming back 1

The European Crisis demonstrated a lack of risk management in the wide sense. Fundamental analysis has been left aside. Fundamental analysis is based on the ontological structures of a functional entity and allows forecasting its behavior. When it is integrated with technical analysis it provides fully reliable information for risk management.

Fundamental analysis was an early technology to manage opportunities and risks, but mathematical solutions were consistent enough to displace and transform it into a subjective and perhaps intuitive approach to opportunity/risk management.

It has to be considered that human adaptive systems have a three dimensional structure following the ontogenetic intelligence of nature: http://www.unicist.org/deb_uoin.php

An ontological approach is necessary to deal with opportunities and risks in the field of adaptive systems in order to manage their three dimensional ontogenetic algorithms.

As it is known, mathematical models for adaptive systems are necessarily based on “ceteris paribus” or empirical solutions that are based on historical information with sophisticated projections.

That is why we consider that time has come to integrate technical analysis with fundamental analysis to provide reliable diagnoses and prognoses to the markets. This will surely prove a security framework that will bring relief to them.

We invite you to be our guest at the Unicist Library: http://www.unicist.com

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became the major research organization in the world in the field of human adaptive systems. More than 4,000 unicist ontological researches were developed since 1976 until July 2011 in the field of individual, institutional and social evolution. They included the development of the unicist ontogenetic maps (DNA) of institutions.

Share

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

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

Unicist Ontology of Biological Entities

The unicist ontology of a “biological entity” defines its structure and functionality in an environment.

The genotype defines the genetic structure of the entity that rules its evolution and generates the phenotype of the being.  The objective of the genotype is to ensure the permanence of species, it reproduction and production.

The phenotype defines the morphologic, behavioral and materialistic characteristics of the entity. It defines the functional characteristics, the functional power of the entity and the functional assurance.

Functionality defines the effectiveness of the phenotype measured as the consequence of the adaptation of the biological entity to the environment. Functionality is measured in the capacity of adapting and growing on the one hand, and surviving, on the other hand.

The understanding of the ontology of “biological entities” helps to follow the laws of nature when dealing with genetic engineering processes and use it to apprehend the nature of beings with “artificial life” such as institutions.

Peter Belohlavek

Share

Unicist Hyperrealism for Business Modeling

The emulation of reality is a hyperrealistic construction. A business model is, by definition, a hyperreality.

Unicist hyperrealism becomes functional when the unified field of a business has been envisioned in its oneness, including the operational aspects that allow achieving the established goals.

Unicist hyperrealism requires being able to define a business model at an ontological (conceptual) level and describe its operational aspects.

This process requires integrating different contexts, including the person who is envisioning it, in a unified field. A reflection process is necessary because dualistic thinking doesn’t suffice to build a unified field; it hinders its building.

It has to be considered that the unicist reflection process is driven by real pilot tests.

This is what allows building the hyperreality of a business model. Without real pilot tests there is no possibility to validate a business model.

Until the emulation demonstrates its actual functionality, it is just a hypothesis or a projection of those who did it.

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

Unicist Ontological Structure of the Culture of USA

This is the first archetype that is being presented to apprehend influential cultures in the world. In this case, the objective is to provide information on the ontological structure of the culture of the USA in order to foster adaptation to the real world.

The Archetype of the USA is a paradigmatic example of how a culture can be leading in the world while strengthening its identity.

For this case, it is strongly recommended listening to the lecture you can find at: http://www.unicistinstitute.net/blog/unicist-future-research-the-archetype-of-the-usa/

Based on the research on the Archetype of the USA, its purpose is growth and its active function is given by the propensity to dare while achieving its “dream” within a credibility context.

The Maximal strategy implies that the culture is driven by daring actions to achieve its cultural “dream” within an institutionalized context.

The catalyst of the evolution of the American archetype is its institutionalization that accelerates its evolution. Institutionalization is materialized in the democratic rules of the society.

The icon of the cultural dream is the American Flag. Daring implies doing in terms of concrete operational actions to achieve growth and surpass the well-being achieved by the preceding generations.

The social pressure towards growth within a context of being a leading culture in the world generates uncertainty in the coming generations that fosters the need for addictions to avoid the responsibility to produce growth.

The minimum strategy of the archetype fosters thinking, driven by the personal objectives and within the limits of the personal credibility. That is why the USA archetype includes a multi-minority approach.

This minimum strategy provides the necessary context to develop hard technologies that sustain the economic activities of the maximal strategy.

Personal credibility is the entropy inhibitor of the American archetype. As wealth sustains the perception of security, personal credibility requires having solved the necessary financial situation that makes an individual credible.

Daring, dreaming, credibility and thinking integrated to achieve growth require a strong ethical environment that needs to be sustained by the judiciary system. Lying is unacceptable because it destroys the credibility and transparency of the archetype.

Understanding and respecting the archetype of the USA will be extremely useful to develop global and local businesses.

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

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:
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 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.

 

Share