Translate this page

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.
https://www.unicist-school.org/peter-belohlavek/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/turi.pdf

Share

Hegel, Marx and the Unicist Double Dialectic

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.

This 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 perception of dialectics

To perceive dialectics it is necessary to have a high abstraction capacity.

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

Instead of seeing the relation between B and C as an effect relation they consider the relation causal, because they perceive the effect limiting function of C as a cause of B’s functionality.

When causal relations cannot be perceived it is not possible to forecast the probabilities of success of actions.

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.
http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist

Share

Teamwork: are repairing actions necessary?

In a cooperative teamwork every damage produced by a member to another participant needs to be repaired. This repair is a cost the damager has to pay in order to reconcile with the group.

A repairing action implies regretting the damaging action, doing common good actions (for the members of the group) and substituting what has been damaged.

But this rule does not apply in competitive environments where competition prevails over cooperation. In these environments damagers are not responsible for the damage produced as long as they consider their actions as justified, unavoidable or necessary.

In actual teamwork many of the damaging actions are non-conscious. They are justified if they happen in a competitive environment, but require repair in a cooperative context, (intentions do not count).

The rules of an environment define the cooperative or competitive prevalence. Individuals need to follow these rules to be functional. For example the building of “spirit de corps” requires, on the one hand, the dominance of cooperation in the internal relationship in a group but, simultaneously, a strong competition with the external environment.

Cultures like the Japanese and the German are based on cooperation. The institution of “hara-kiri” is the expression of the need to repair in extreme conditions.

Depending on the goals, cooperation or competition have to prevail or need to be integrated to build social capital. Both are ethical behaviors with different functionalities.

Repairing actions are necessary to build social capital or to cooperate, but are unnecessary in competitive environments. In these environments damages are part of the rules of the game. Sorry, nothing personal… is a saying that suffices.

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/2015/04/turi.pdf

Share

Working with the wisdom of people

This synthesis is a foundation and justification of why, when dealing with strategic or conceptual aspects of work, it is necessary to work with the wisdom those that are participating have, in order to upgrade solutions to generate value. Everyone has some aspect in which s/he is wise, and this wisdom generates the context in which her/his behavior is adaptive.

Unicist Ontology of Doers

Almost 40 years ago I had the opportunity to develop an organizational process in a midsize organization which drove me to meet the people who drove the operation of their open salt mine.

These people demonstrated, without needing to demonstrate, that their leaders, even though they had hardly completed their elementary school, had the wisdom that is reserved for the “chosen ones”.

It was an extremely productive work, which was just the demonstration that there is no necessary relation between scholarship and wisdom. Scholarship might provide erudition, but wisdom needs to be earned step by step and brick by brick.

I never forgot this experience, which led me to the decision to always work with the wise part every individual has when dealing with the conceptual or strategic aspects of businesses.

Wisdom is a pathway with many masters

WisdomWisdom can be defined as the capacity of an individual to integrate idealism and realism with value adding actions.

Wisdom is a state that requires focusing on specific aspects of reality using questions to apprehend their nature and having the necessary knowledge of the environment in order to generate value.

Wisdom cannot be overcome because the nature of some aspect of reality has been understood and can be influenced.

But it has to be considered that wise people do not compete with others to have a place in the world. They earned their place in the world. That is why they remain masters in the field in which they are wise.

The characteristic of individuals who achieved wisdom is that they had multiple masters that had an authoritative role in their lives. These roles are still in force and the masters are still admired.

Admiration and functional envy are the concepts that allow achieving wisdom. Individuals who admire others’ achievements and deeds have the opportunity to achieve wisdom, but only if they pursue the objective of adding value in an environment. The functional envy drives individuals to achieve goals.

Individuals with conflictive relations with authority can never achieve wisdom. They might be extremely erudite, extremely efficient workers but they will never be able to integrate idealism and realism with a value-adding attitude in their environment.

The apparent paradox of wisdom is the need of multiple masters. It is said that disciples are those learners who overcome their teachers. But wisdom, defined as the space where an individual has been able to integrate idealism and realism with value adding actions, cannot be overcome.

Competing with an authority in a field where she/he is wise is a demonstration that the need to gain supersedes the need to add value. The existence of multiple masters make wisdom possible.

Achieving wisdom cannot be a goal for a wise person; wisdom is the consequence of the action of an individual but does not cause it. It is unwise to try to achieve wisdom.

That is why wisdom is a pathway with multiple masters. Masters are ordinary or extraordinary people who have achieved wisdom in some field. Look for them while you continue adding value.

To achieve wisdom you need to abandon your modesty and expand your humbleness.  Wise people do not need to be right, they just have to be functional.

What is the difference between Wisdom and Erudition?

Erudition

EruditionErudition is not analogous to wisdom; it is fallacious version of wisdom. Wisdom implies action while erudition does not.

Erudition is an addiction that drives people to build a parallel hypothetical reality where they consider themselves wise. It is a frequent addiction of rationally gifted individuals.

They are driven by envy which makes them accumulate data they use to judge the originators of the data while they try to demonstrate to others that they are wise.

This allows them confronting with others in their hypothetical reality and feel that their judgments make them wise.

They manipulate in order to ensure that their hypothetical reality prevails over actual facts.

Opinators: The pseudo-erudites

Opinators are individuals whose goal is to impose their opinions in their area of influence in order to obtain full recognition for their personal opinions.

OpinatorsThey use their pre-concepts to deal with reality and blame others for all what becomes dysfunctional when failure follows their groundless opinions.

Erudites are their implicit role model, although they do not have the energy to acquire the knowledge in order to have the rational information.

They suffer from innovation blindness, therefore they disregard any information that endangers the validity of their pre-concepts. That is why they cannot deal with the fundamental knowledge of things and always build an hypothetical solutions under the motto “why not”.

Opinators are fundamentalists in their field of influence who install “suspicion and doubt” on any action that endangers their subjective dominant position.

When they are very smart, they are notorious manipulators.

Conclusion

If you need to develop solutions in adaptive environments, you will need to work with the wisdom of people, and be aware of “Erudites and Opinators” who will try to foster hypothetical solutions in order to leave things the way they were before, while blaming others for what they cannot do.

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/2015/02/turi.pdf

Share

The Format of Papers on Research in Complexity Sciences

The unicist theory expanded the frontiers of sciences making the scientific approach to complex adaptive systems possible without needing to use arbitrary palliatives to transform complex systems into systemic systems in order to be able to research them.

Complexity Science ResearchParadoxically this is a breakthrough and a back to basics.

On the one hand it is a breakthrough because it changed the paradigms of scientific research. On the other hand it is a back to basics because it drives sciences to deal with the nature of reality.

The unicist logical approach opened the possibilities of managing complexity sciences using a pragmatic, structured and functionalist approach.

The unicist approach to complexity is based on the research of the unicist ontological structure of a complex adaptive system which regulates its evolution. This is based on emulating the structure of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature considering that every functional aspect of reality has a unique unicist ontological structure.

The approach to ontological structures of reality requires going beyond the dualistic thinking approach and being able to use the double dialectical logic to approach complex adaptive systems.

The research in complexity science needs to have its own format for its presentation that has a structural difference with the papers for systemic sciences (abstract, introduction, materials and methods, discussion, literature). It has to be considered that:

  1. A complex system has open boundaries which implies that the experiences cannot be reproduced they can only be emulated in homologous fields.
  2. Having open boundaries there is no possibility of building artificial experiences to research a complex adaptive system.
  3. As it has open boundaries it cannot be observed. The observers are part of the system. This implies that a peer review can only be made based on the use of destructive tests in homologous fields.
  4. The conditions of the environment change, (No one can bathe twice in the same river – Heraclitus) which means that an apparently same experience might produce different results.
  5. The elements of a complex adaptive system are integrated by the conjunction “and” with multiple bi-univocal relationships. Therefore there are no univocal cause-effect relationships; this implies that the only valid measurable aspects are the results obtained.
  6. Predictions of results and measurement of the achievements are the way the validity of the knowledge of the structure of a complex adaptive system is confirmed.
  7. The discussions with other opinions are meaningless because complex adaptive systems have open boundaries and only its application allows confirming the knowledge obtained.
  8. Multiple real applications in different homologous and analogous fields, preceded by a prediction of the results that will be obtained, need to be done to confirm the knowledge of a complex adaptive system. 
  9. The method of the research is in the application itself which has to correspond to the field of activity of the complex adaptive system.

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/2015/01/turi.pdf

Share

Erudition is an anti-concept of intellectual behavior

The Unicist Approach to knowledge management defines that the purpose of intellectuals is to adapt to the environment in the less energy consuming way. The paradox is that ordinary people consider erudition as a superior level of intellectualism and admire the erudite considering that s/he can transform data into actions.

Erudition is defined as the addiction of people who use data and information to judge others to build a hypothetical (parallel) reality where they are in control. Erudition is a way to avoid needing to adapt to the environment and expecting that the environment accepts the superior reality the erudite has in her/his mind.

It has to be considered that every activity includes intellectual aspects which allow individuals to understand what they are doing. On the surface, erudition is perceived by the majority as a superior level of knowledge while in fact it is an addiction that hinders the integration of the data the erudite has in mind with the external reality.

An erudite envies the people of the environment who succeed in what they do, having, hypothetically, an extremely lower level of understanding. Erudition as an addiction uses extreme dualistic thinking which is functional to the building of parallel realities. That is why they can only deal with analogical and hypothetical information.

Homologies, which allow integrating information to adapt to the environment, are out of the reach of erudition, because they require the use of a double dialectical logic.

Erudition drives nowhere. Erudite leaders are extremely dangerous when they are in charge of groups because they cannot adapt to the environment and need that individuals follow them into their parallel reality. They are the most dangerous leaders you can imagine, but they are excellent informants for non-erudite leaders.

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/2014/12/turi.pdf

Share

The unicist theory expanded the boundaries of sciences

The unicist theory expanded the frontiers of sciences making the scientific approach to complex adaptive systems possible without needing to use arbitrary palliatives to transform complex systems into systemic systems in order to be able to research them.

Paradoxically this is a breakthrough and a back to basics. On the one hand it is a breakthrough because it changed the paradigms of scientific research. On the other hand it is a back to basics because it drives sciences to deal with the nature of reality.

The unicist logical approach opened the possibilities of managing complexity sciences using a pragmatic, structured and functionalist approach.
Unicist Complexity Research

The unicist approach to complexity is based on the research of the unicist ontological structure of a complex adaptive system which regulates its evolution.

This is based on emulating the structure of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature considering that every functional aspect of reality has a unique unicist ontological structure.

The approach to ontological structures of reality requires going beyond the dualistic thinking approach and being able to use the double dialectical logic to approach complex adaptive systems.

The research in complexity science needs to have its own format for its presentation that has a structural difference with the papers for systemic sciences (abstract, introduction, materials and methods, discussion, literature). It has to be considered that:

1)      A complex system has open boundaries which implies that the experiences cannot be reproduced they can only be emulated in homologous fields.

2)      Having open boundaries there is no possibility of building artificial experiences to research a complex adaptive system.

3)      As it has open boundaries it cannot be observed. The observers are part of the system. This implies that a peer review can only be made based on the use of destructive tests in homologous fields.

4)      The conditions of the environment change, (No one can bathe twice in the same river – Heraclitus) which means that an apparently same experience might produce different results.

5)      The elements of a complex adaptive system are integrated by the conjunction “and” with multiple bi-univocal relationships. Therefore there are no univocal cause-effect relationships; this implies that the only valid measurable aspects are the results obtained.

6)      Predictions of results and measurement of the achievements are the way the validity of the knowledge of the structure of a complex adaptive system is confirmed.

7)      The discussions with other opinions are meaningless because complex adaptive systems have open boundaries and only its application allows confirming the knowledge obtained.

8)      Multiple real applications in different homologous and analogous fields, preceded by a prediction of the results that will be obtained, need to be done to confirm the knowledge of a complex adaptive system.

9)      The method of the research is in the application itself which has to correspond to the field of activity of the complex adaptive system.

The research work

As researchers are part of any complex adaptive system that is being researched, a unicist reflection process is needed to develop the process. This implies a full involvement of the researcher in the system following an action-reflection-action process to find the unicist ontological structure that regulates the evolution of the complex adaptive system.

The presentation of the knowledge of complex adaptive systems includes two different levels of information:

a)      The abstract: which includes the discoveries of the unicist ontological structures and the ontogenetic maps written in unicist standard language

b)      The research process: which describes the research process

The basic steps of the research process are:

1)      Develop the hypothetical structure of the ontology.

2)      Analyze the ontology and divide it into sub-ontologies following the laws of complementation and supplementation (only when necessary and possible).

3)      Define observable results that need to be considered to validate the ontology.

4)      Define the application fields of the ontology to validate its functionality.

5)      Develop the applications beginning with destructive and non-destructive pilot tests to forecast reality.

6)      Develop at least five experiences in the application field differing completely one from the other.

7)      Develop forecasts of at least three periods with full certainty.

8)      Restart the research process every time a deviation occurs.

Conclusion

It becomes evident that the field of researching complex adaptive systems is for doers, who assumed the responsibility for results and have the necessary inner freedom to emulate in mind adaptive systems that are in motion. The use of the knowledge does not require knowing how it was produced.

 

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

Share

Unicist Strategy: Believing to see or seeing to believe?

Believing to see or seeing to believe is a dilemma in human behavior but not in the field of strategies. Strategies begin to exist in the mind of the strategist having nothing to be seen.

Believing to seeThe driver of strategies is growth, which implies that strategies are expansive.

The development of a strategy is based on envisioning the unified field of the solution that will exist and is inexistent at the moment it is being designed.

That is why a high level of consciousness is needed to manage strategies, which implies believing before things can be seen.

Maximal Strategies are by definition expansive. 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.

Maximal Strategies require “believing to see”

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.

Minimum Strategies require “seeing to believe”

Minimum strategies work within the boundaries of an activity. That is why they do not deal with the unknown and there is no need to envision things that do not exist. That is why a medium level of consciousness suffices to manage them. They provide the security and safety of maximal strategies. They are conservative to sustain the boundaries of an activity in order to survive.

Seeing to BelieveConservative 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.

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

Share

Complex problem solving, psychic economy and over-adaptive approaches

The complexity of a problem is an objective / functional characteristic and not a matter of opinions. By just focusing on three aspects of complexity it is possible to define if a problem is complex:

Complex Problem Solving1) Does the problem have open boundaries or is it isolated?

2) Is it ruled by univocal cause-effect relationships or are they bi-univocal ones?

3) Is it integrated by variables or is it necessary to apprehend it as a unified field?

When the problem is complex, it is necessary to apprehend its concept in order to be able to manage the dynamics of its unified field. On the other hand, when the problem is simple, a systemic approach suffices because the problem can be managed as being static.

The psychic economy principle defines that the brain always uses the less energy consuming pathway to solve a problem. It is necessary to know the actual problem an individual is solving in order to understand if the pathway s/he chose is functional or not.

An adaptive approach to reality is an energy consuming activity, which requires making the effort of apprehending the concept that defines the “stem cell” of the solution in order to be able to solve a complex problem.

This is meaningful when individuals are truly solution focused, because the energy is reloaded as soon as “the solution” has been achieved. But this effort becomes meaningless when individuals are focused on developing “their solution” and not “the solution”.

Over-adaptive approaches are low-energy consuming activities that suffice to deal with systemic problems and to avoid personal risks when developing solutions. That is why individuals switch from an adaptive approach to an over-adaptive approach when they have no full commitment with the building of solutions and do not manage the concept of what is being done.

You can learn about the “Drivers of Human Behavior” at:
http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Psychology

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.
http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist

Share

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

Share