Double Dialectical Approach

Take opportunities using Greek + Chinese philosophy


According to the Greek mythology, Kairos was the god for the right or opportune moment (the supreme moment) that allowed humans exceed the limits of their fate.

The Greeks had two words to refer to time: chronos and kairos. The first one refers to chronological or sequential time, the latter signifies a time between, a moment of indeterminate time in which something special happens.

Chronos was a quantitative measure while Kairos had qualitative nature.

As it can be seen on the image of Kairos, the god of opportunities was bald on the back of his head. This meant that opportunities could only be taken when they were coming. When they were going there was no way to grasp them.

That is why an apportunity can only be seized if one’s mind is prepared and the person is able to see it before it passes. Opportunities are such because they change the fate of people.

The Chinese Perspective

Chinese philosophy considers that any crisis is integrated by a threat and an opportunity.

Crisis - Opportunity

The question we want to explore is: why can not people see the opportunities Kairos brings about?

Our hypothesis is that the Chinese are right; the opportunities always come together with a threat, and unfortunately most of the people see the threat of the opportunity and cannot see the chance that is being opened.

When fear prevails, people need to wait until the threat passes before trying to grasp the opportunity. But, paradoxically, then they cannot grasp it because the head is bald and the opportunity has been lost.

By integrating both aspects we can see that only those whose minds are prepared and have the courage to manage the threat that is implicit in any opportunity are able to grasp the hair of Kairos when he is coming.

Peter Belohlavek – Diana 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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:

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.


Unicist Strategy Building: an Emulation of Nature

The unicist strategy building process, using the double dialectical logic allows emulating the organization of nature in order to optimize processes, maximizing the possible results and minimizing the energy consumed. This approach is necessarily preceded by diagnoses and followed by designing the necessary architectures to make the strategies become business processes.

Specific strategies are based on the input provided by the wide context scenarios and the restricted context scenarios.

Specific Strategy Building

These scenarios have to provide the information of the gravitational forces that influence the specific activity, the possibilities for developing them, the catalyst that may exist and the inhibitors that need to be avoided or accepted as limits for the strategy building.

A business is equilibrated when maximal strategies are being developed while minimum strategies are built to ensure the survival.

Maximal strategies are designed to expand the boundaries of an individual or organization, while minimum strategies happen within the boundaries of an organization.

That is why maximal strategies require dealing with uncertainty and risks and only a conscious knowledge of the unified field that integrates the wide context, the restricted context, the specific strategy and the architecture of the solution allows managing it.

To deal with maximal strategies it is necessary to have a high level of consciousness that allows dealing with backward-chaining thinking that allows envisioning the solution.

Backward-chaining thinking implies approaching a strategy with a hypothetical solution and beginning a falsification and validation process that allows building a final solution.

Minimum strategies are those that happen within the known boundaries of an individual’s or organization’s activity working in a context of certainty.

Therefore, in these types of strategies, only a medium level of consciousness is required. Minimum strategies are based on forward-chaining thinking that allows working step by step based on the known methods of a known field.

Ontogenetic Map of Specific Strategy Building Processes

When an individual or organization has only minimum strategies, it tends to disappear. Minimum strategies are necessary either to ensure growth once the maximal strategy has been achieved, or for marginal survival.

The influence an individual or organization has on the environment functions as a catalyst for the development of a minimum strategy. The lack of influence acts as an inhibitor and endangers survival.

Growth as a trend of the environment and as a need of the individual or organization is the driver of the minimum strategy.

Minimum strategies are driven by the need to grow and are catalyzed by the influence the organization or the individual has in the environment.

When there is neither a driver nor a catalyst, the minimum strategies become desperate survival efforts to permit an organization or individual to be alive the next day.

In that case there are no strategies, but there are just intuitive and common sense driven actions to ensure survival.

Segmentation of Strategies

The four structural operational segments of strategies will be defined considering them as static. Each one of them develops a different type of strategy:

  1. Surviving Strategies
  2. Defensive Strategies
  3. Dominant Strategies
  4. Influential Strategies

These segments can be described in unicist standard language as follows:

1) Surviving Strategies

Strategy BuildingThese are the strategies that aim to survive within the boundaries of an activity.

They are based on a win-win approach that has to be managed as a zero sum strategy in order to avoid appropriating value from the environment.

These strategies are natural for marginal activities developed by people who work at the “border” of their environment. The price they pay is that surviving activities have no critical mass that sustains them. Therefore they need to be continuously active in order to ensure survival. They need to work 24/7.

2) Defensive Strategies

They aim to defend the boundaries of their activity against true threats. They are based on establishing the necessary operational and control systems to defend the “borders” of their activity.

They are power driven because they need to exert power in order to defend their activity. They are focused on paying the necessary prices to sustain their business. The prices they pay sustain their survival and at the same time hinder their expansion.

They work necessarily with strict zero-sum low cost, self-sufficient activities because they cannot trust others to defend their business.

3) Dominant Strategies

Dominant strategies are based on the influence the individual or the organization has in an environment.

They are focused on developing the necessary value propositions that can be sustained with their influence. They tend to impose functional monopolies that allow them to establish the standard for their activities in the environment.

They need to invest a high level of energy in developing their influence through image building and the exclusion of the individual or organizational competitors that do not accept their standards.

They work with value adding strategies in order to legitimate their dominance.

4) Influential Strategies

They are based on exerting influence by improving the value proposition of their competitors.

They are based on having the necessary speed to be “faster” than the competitors which allows them winning in their environment.

Their value propositions are innovative and they are successful when they have the necessary critical mass to influence the environment. They are innovation driven in order to exert the influence of a higher value proposal.

They naturally build alliances in order to obtain the necessary influence for their value propositions.


Maximal strategies are based on adding value to the environment while winning in the specific environment they work in and are sustained by the power they have to influence the context.

Maximal strategies define two positions in the environment:

  1. On the one hand, maximal strategies are natural to leaders that exert a dominant position in the environment.
  2. On the other hand, they are natural to influential individuals or organizations.

Minimum strategies are based on developing win-win strategies and paying the prices necessary to survive.

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.



Did you know that comprehending implies emulating reality?

Comprehending a problem requires being able to emulate its functionality in mind. To emulate a problem in mind it is necessary to have a sound knowledge of all the operational and structural aspects that make it work. But a problem can only be truly understood when the individual has an actual solution in mind.

emulation-realityComprehending is the stage that precedes action. When a problem has been comprehended, action becomes a simple step that materializes what has been emulated in mind. The thinking process of Nikola Tesla can be considered a role model to be followed.

Emulation requires building a homologous reality in mind that needs to have the same concept of the actual external problem.

It also requires being able to envision reality from a functional point of view while experiencing it. Envisioning implies seeing the positive functionality of a solution. People who see “the glass half empty” cannot deal with solutions.

Cause-effect relationships can easily be emulated. That is why the understanding of systemic entities, which may become complicated because of the quantity of variables involved, is essentially simple because dualistic thinking is functional to build the emulation.

But complex problems, that include no cause-effect relationships, have to be considered as unified fields, that require the use of the double dialectical logic in order to emulate them.

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.


From Dualism to Double Dialectical Approaches

The dualism of neural functionality makes dualistic logical approaches become the natural way to deal with reality. This dualism is functional in operational environments, ruled by cause-effect relationships where the actors dominate the consequences of their actions.

Common sense is the consequence of having found recipes using dualistic logic. Common sense rules are pre-concepts that work as recipes for the one who uses them.

At an abstract level, truth tables are also the consequence of the use of dualism. In the field of dualistic approaches things are true or false, good or bad, etc. The disjunction “OR” is the basic rule when dealing with dualistic approaches in operational environments. This makes people feel powerful because they establish the “OR” they need.

But when dealing with adaptive aspects of reality there is no possibility to define actions using a dualistic approach because the triadic structure of reality cannot be apprehended with a binary model.

The triadic structure of reality is defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function:  To apprehend this triadic structure with a binary mind it is necessary to be able to build a double dialectical approach in mind that emulates a specific reality.

This approach was named unicist double dialectical logic because it allows defining the unified field of adaptive systems in order to diagnose and influence them. It is based on the fact that in complex systems all the elements are integrated by the conjunction “AND”.

The Unicist double dialectical approach leaves behind the truth tables (True “OR” False) and replaces them with functional tables evaluating the functionality based on predefined purposes.

The unicist reflection process: action-reflection-action is the technology to be used to transform dualistic logical approaches into unicist double dialectical approaches in order to define complex adaptive systems. This technology allows starting with the use of disjunctions “OR” and ending with the use of conjunctions “AND”.

This process requires that those who have decided to deal with complex problems need to be fully focused on producing results, have sound knowledge of the problem and have decided to influence it in an adapted way.

The paradox is that at the end the diagnoses and solutions found need to be transformed into operational “recipes” in order to make them manageable by ordinary people.

But it has to be considered that without being able to manage the triadic structure of complex adaptive systems, the diagnoses and solutions developed are either palliatives or fallacies that cannot produce meaningful results.

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.