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

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

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 they still admire them.

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. Functional envy drives individuals to achieve goals.

Individuals with conflictive relations with authority can never achieve wisdom. They might be extremely erudite, extremely hard 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 masters. 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 a master in a field where s/he is wise is a demonstration of the prevalence of the need to gain over the need to add value. Multiple masters make wisdom accessible.

Erudition is not analogous to wisdom; it might be different or a fallacious “version” of wisdom. Wisdom implies action while erudition does not.

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 it you need to abandon your modesty and expand your humbleness.  Wise people do not need to be right, just functional.

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/turi.pdf

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

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

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

Corruption inhibitors in cultures and institutions

Corruptors profit from the degradation they produce.

Corruption degrades cultures until they become a group of survivors led by stagnant survivors. This implies that the final stage, which implies that cultures become to live in an endless transition of manipulative leaders, is that individualism, which is the driver of corruption, prevails over the needs of the culture.

The morality of intentions prevails over the morality of actions which drives individuals into the survival ethical intelligence. Survival has no rules nor codes unless people need accomplices to survive.

The Corruption Inhibitor

That is why evolving cultures have a structural corruption inhibitor that hinders that the society enters a massive survival attitude.

Corruption is inhibited when there is a functional ethics which implies that functionality prevails over intentions, the justice is focus on ensuring equal opportunities for all and the society is transparent.

Expansive justice implies that individual action is protected by social repair and not only individual repair and there is a social sanction of all actions that are not within the system of a society.

This is only possible if there is a social transparency of the actions and individuals are identified based on their actions and added value in a society.

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/turi.pdf

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

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

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

Unicist Predictors: Anticipating the future based on facts

Predictors are signs that can be read to anticipate the future. They are ambiguous signs that require to be read considering the conditions of the restricted and wide contexts.

PredictorsPredictors are observable events that make the fundamentals of specific aspects of reality observable.

The fundamentals of a specific reality are able to define a concept if there is a catalyst or a gravitational force that is influencing it.

Everyone uses predictors to interpret actions. For example a smile is a predictor of what can be expected.

Non-verbal communication necessarily includes the observation of “predicting signs” in order to act or react.

The rational use of predictors requires being aware of thee structure of fundamentals that rule a given reality and the external forces of the restricted and wide contexts that influence it.

It is necessary to use predictors to deal with complex adaptive aspects of reality. The unicist algorithms and the unicist ontogenetic maps provide the structure of predictors to be observed and measured to anticipate the future in order to react or exert influence to make things happen.

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/turi.pdf

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+