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 TAOThe 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. http://www.unicist.org/repo/index.php#Unicist

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

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

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

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. 
http://www.unicist.org/turi.pdf

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

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 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.
http://www.unicist.org/turi.pdf

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+

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.
http://www.unicist.org/turi.pdf

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+