The Unicist Research Institute


Unicist Corporation

Translate this page

Unicist Corporation

Translate this page

The Discovery of Ethical Intelligence and the Pleasure of Giving

If you feel sore give,
giving you will recover…

The research on the functionality of intelligence and the discovery of ethical intelligence developed at The Unicist Research Institute* opened new possibilities in the understanding of human behavior and its evolution.

In this context, approaching ethical intelligence helps to foster the development of the level of maturity and also respect its limits. This synthesis shows an excerpt of one of the segments of this research on ethical intelligence to provide an introduction to understand its nature.

The Nature of Ethical Intelligence

Ethical intelligence is the intelligence that structures stable and dynamic rules that determine the action of individuals in their environment. It determines their capacity to add value, their influence on the environment and on others and their time management.

On the one hand, the rules are stable since they respond to a purpose that is defined by the level of ethics within which the individual acts.

On the other hand, the rules are dynamic, because despite the fact that individuals are at a certain level, they are capable of determining alternative strategies that satisfy the objective they are seeking within that level.

Ethics is defined as a set of rules that are functional to a situation and to a certain perception of an accepted moral, and are supported by a complementary ideology.

Five levels of ethics have been found that sustain the behavior of the individuals:

  • Ethics of survival
  • Ethics of the earned value
  • Ethics of added value
  • Ethics of foundations
  • Conceptual ethics

The higher the level of ethical intelligence, the higher the level of consciousness an individual needs to have.

Ethical intelligence provides a set of rules that defines a specific framework in our behavior that can be functional to adapt to specific contexts. The knowledge of the prevailing ethical intelligence individuals have in a particular context shows how they add value, exert influence and manage time, helping to understand their adaptation to specific environments, and also how to manage their limits and possibilities.

Diana Belohlavek

*This synthesis is an excerpt of an introduction to the research on conscious intelligence led by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute. For more information, on the different types of intelligences and their functionality, you can access: https://www.unicist.org/conceptual-thinking/the-triadic-functionality-of-human-conscious-intelligence/

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

The Unicist Logic is an emulation of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature

The Unicist Logic is a synthetic logic that emulates the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and its maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to survive.

It was developed to validate the triadic functionality of natural and artificial complex adaptive systems and to design and build binary actions to manage them. 

The unicist logic was developed to manage consciously the unified field of complex adaptive systems. Conscious reasoning allows developing fallacy-free decisions and actions to ensure the results of what intends to be achieved.

This logic, which is based on human ontointelligence, allows dealing with the dynamics, evolution and nature of adaptive environments and provided the structure to build the unicist artificial intelligence. Non-adaptive environments are considered a “particular case” of adaptive systems.

The unicist logic allows understanding the functionality, dynamics and evolution of adaptive systems and environments. It is the basic knowledge needed to develop strategies in these environments. It applies to any kind of strategies.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute (TURI) is a world leader in its segment. Since 1976, it has been specialized in complexity sciences applied to the research on the roots of evolution and its application to social, institutional, business and individual evolution.

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

The Difference between Unicist Binary Actions (UBAs) and Manipulative Binary Actions (MBAs)

The Unicist Strategy is a value adding strategy while manipulation is its anti-concept that is driven by the need to control the environment to obtain benefits. Therefore, manipulative actions are the anticoncept of unicist binary actions. While the manipulative binary actions aim at controlling the environment, the unicist binary actions aim at generating added value. This is the difference between MBAs and UBAs.

Unicist Binary Actions

Double Dialectical Behavior is natural and “automatic” in any complex adaptive system. Perhaps it needs to be clarified that adaptive systems are those that are dominantly feedback dependent.

The discovery of the structure of the concepts that underlies these systems allowed understanding how these binary actions drive the evolution of such systems.  The use of unicist logic allowed defining, designing and using unicist binary actions to implement adaptive strategies.

Unicist binary actions integrate the actor with two synchronized actions including, on the one hand, the maximal strategy to foster growth and, on the other hand, the minimum strategy to ensure survival.

Unicist binary actions respond to the needs of the nature of what is being managed and therefore generate no reactions. The value generated by these binary actions demonstrates their functionality.

Binary actions are not such, but manipulations, when they are used to profit from the environment. Generating value and profiting from the counterpart is the pathway of unicist binary actions.

Manipulative Binary Actions

Manipulations are non-conscious actions to control the environment and obtain benefits at the expense of others. The manipulations of children are a paradigmatic example.

While the purpose of manipulations is to profit from the environment, the purpose of unicist binary actions is to add value to the environment. That is why manipulations are the anti-concept of unicist strategy and its binary actions. .

Manipulations are sustained by the needs of the environment and are catalyzed by exposing the weaknesses that are implicit in the strengths of the counterpart.

The binary actions developed by manipulators are:

Manipulative Binary Action 1

MBA Type 1a) – Exposing the implicit weaknesses of the counterpart as real weaknesses.

MBA Type 1b) – Making an implicit or explicit ambiguous promise of satisfying the needs of the counterpart.

Manipulative Binary Action 2

MBA Type 2a) – Trying to appropriate value based on fallacious justifications.

MBA Type 2b) – Exerting power by attacking the implicit weaknesses of the counterpart until the value is appropriated.

The manipulation process doesn’t fail when the intuition of the manipulator allowed discovering the needs and the implicit weaknesses of the counterpart and the manipulator has the necessary energy to pursue until the benefit has been obtained.

There are adults who have the habit of manipulating and others who have the addiction of doing so. None of these people can use a strategic approach or use unicist binary actions to add value to the environment, because they understand that the value is added at their expense. The origin of the habits and addictions can be found in their early education.

Manipulators build all the fallacies that are needed to justify their actions. Therefore, exposing manipulators is meaningless. They just need to be ignored or left aside. Nevertheless, they generate conflicts in the environments in which they participate.

It has to be considered that manipulations are extremely effective in the social field and might become installed in the fallacious myths of a culture, diminishing the capacity for generating value in an environment.

Conclusion

Manipulative Binary Actions are dysfunctional because they don’t generate added value and therefore are not adaptive actions but over-adaptive actions of individuals to take advantage of the environment.

Working with adaptive systems and environments requires developing synchronized Unicist Binary Actions that include maximal strategy actions to grow and minimum strategy actions to ensure results.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed.

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

A Logical Approach to Adaptive Systems and Environments

The unicist logical approach to adaptive systems and environments allowed making them reasonable, understandable, predictable and manageable. This approach is necessary to solve problems and manage conflicts at a social, business and personal level.

The power of the unicist logic lies in its simplicity. It only requires reasoning in terms of maximal strategies and minimum strategies and of complementation and supplementation. It implies moving from a dualistic approach towards a functionalist approach.

It is based on the discovery of the functionality of the intelligence of nature that drove to the development of the unicist logic, which allows managing the functionality, dynamics and evolution of adaptive systems with open boundaries.

The unicist logic allows emulating nature by developing binary actions that manage maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure results. It simplifies processes and actions by using objects and catalysts to ensure and accelerate the generation of results.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

Dualism in Adaptive Environments: Aprioristic Fallacies

Working with adaptive systems and environments requires developing synchronized actions that include maximal strategy actions to grow and minimum strategy actions to ensure results. Perhaps it needs to be clarified that adaptive systems are those that are dominantly feedback dependent.

When the results of a system depend on biunivocal relationships with the environment, the system is open and it is necessary to manage the concepts of what is being done and developing what we have named unicist binary actions (also called DDAs) to develop actions with a maximal strategy to grow and a minimum strategy to ensure survival.

Dualistic Actions vs. Unicist Binary Actions

  • Dualistic actions are functional in controlled environments. (1 actor, 1 action)
  • Unicist binary actions are necessary in adaptive environments (1 actor, 2 synchronized actions)

Dualistic actions are “solitaire” actions to influence the environment to produce results. They are functionally valid in controlled environments where the cause-effect relationships are being managed.

Dualistic actions are such because they integrate the actor and the action. These dualistic solitaire actions in adaptive environments generate spontaneous reactions that inhibit their functionality. These reactions adopt different shapes according to the environment.

Unicist binary actions integrate the actor with two synchronized actions including, on the one hand, the maximal strategy to foster growth and, on the other hand, the minimum strategy to ensure survival.

Unicist binary actions respond to the needs of the nature of what is being managed and therefore generate no reactions.

“Half a table is an expensive heap of wood”. Dualistic actions in adaptive environments are half a table, they generate costs and do not generate results.

It has to be considered that dualistic solitaire actions are installed in the fallacious myths of many cultures and environments. The saying “you didn’t try hard enough” implicitly fosters univocal dualistic actions to generate results, which is valid in controlled systems but fallacious in adaptive environments.

Dualistic actions are unavoidable in over-adapted environments, when the concepts of what is being done are unknown or when the individuals who develop these actions are marginals.

Dualistic fallacies ensure the comfort zone

Unicist binary actions (DDAs) can only be managed in adaptive environments when dualism does not prevail. Dualism is the most energy saving approach of the brain, which necessarily implies, at the end, the use of exclusive disjunctions that ensure the validity of what one is thinking or doing.

Fallacies are a palliative that allows building a comfort zone without considering the actual functionality of the environment. The building of fallacies becomes necessary when someone approaches the real world using a dualistic approach.

The paradox is that, at the end of a solution building process, a set of univocal actions needs to be developed to install the double dialectical process.

Aprioristic Fallacies

Aprioristic fallacies are fallacies of the collective intelligence of an individual. They are the consequence of using dualism to deal with adaptive environments. 
www.unicist.net/economics/unicist-anthropology-discovery-of-collective-intelligence/

This dualism generates spontaneous projections that are considered as valid knowledge. They provide information to build an “immediate” parallel reality that allows manipulating the environment one is acting on. As fallacies are unconscious lies, there is no feeling of guilt.

Aprioristic fallacies are extremely destructive and require using manipulation to “force” people into a parallel world where this manipulator is in control. Marginals, sociopaths and psychopaths are examples of compulsive users of aprioristic fallacies.

Truth Driven Fallacies

These fallacies are driven by a compulsive need for being right. In triadic terms, truth has no active function that endangers its validity. That is why projections are the drivers used to “convert” people to this truth. The Icarus syndrome is a natural consequence of this fallacy. Truth fallacies are the basic tool to build sects or groups with “absolute” ideologies. Truth driven fallacies are a palliative for “inferiority feelings”.

Self-perception Driven Fallacies

Self-perception fallacies are driven by a compulsive need for self-confirming ideas or needs. It implies dealing with the “here and now” that has no room for energy conservation. The Sisyphus syndrome is a natural consequence of this fallacy. In this context, the projects drive to manipulation to build and sustain this fallacy and enjoy the role of hero. Self-perception fallacies are a palliative for “superiority feelings”.

Recognition Driven Fallacies

These fallacies are driven by a compulsive need for recognition. This implies that the purpose of actions is left aside and replaced by the recognition of actions. These fallacies transform “means into ends” to obtain recognition that do not depend on the generation of results. The Aphrodite syndrome is a natural consequence of this fallacy. The projections that are generated sustain the comfort zone and imply empowering the role of operation disregarding functionality. Recognition driven fallacies are a palliative for “authority conflicts”.

Unicist Pilot Test Driven Reflection: the Antidote to Fallacies

Aprioristic fallacies can only happen in dysfunctional environments. An environment is dysfunctional when the participating members need to build a parallel reality in order to have a place.

Each aprioristic fallacy has its own nature: While self-perception fallacies are sustained by “heroic” actions, recognition fallacies are based on “subjectification” and truth fallacies are driven by “messianic” beliefs.

Unicist reflection is the methodology to deal with adaptive environments and the antidote to fallacies. It is driven by destructive and non-destructive tests in the real world that define the validity of knowledge. Its use hinders any kind of fallacies and the consolidation of dualistic fallacies. https://www.unicist.org/conceptual-thinking/unicist-reflection/

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

Conceptual Reasoning and Analogical Reasoning for Solution Building

Unicist abductive reasoning is necessary to build solutions in adaptive environments. Abductive reasoning, as defined by C. S. Peirce, is a process based on analogical reasoning. The unicist abductive reasoning is based on the integration of conceptual reasoning and analogical reasoning.

Unicist abductive reasoning was discovered and developed, based on the unicist double dialectical logic, by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.

Unicist abduction consists in inferring solutions based on experiencing, not observing, the actions of the active and energy conservation functions of any adaptive environment. It implies emulating the double dialectical actions implicit in the behavior of any adaptive system or environment.

This abductive process is based on using conceptual reasoning to apprehend the fundamentals that underlie these actions and analogical reasoning to manage the analytical and operational aspects of the solutions.

These conceptual and analogical reasoning processes imply using the deductive reasoning to define actions and inductive reasoning to validate their functionality. These processes need to be developed following synchronic and integrated steps:

Conceptual Reasoning

1) Abducing the fundamentals that underlie the actions of the adaptive environment to make them reasonable, understandable and provable. It requires transforming them into double dialectical actions. Conceptual reasoning uses the unicist double dialectical logic to explain the functionality of “things”.

Analogical Reasoning

2) Defining the specific univocal actions to achieve results.
3) Developing the necessary destructive and non-destructive tests to confirm the functionality.
4) Implementing the actions following the necessary synchronicity.

Aprioristic fallacies are unavoidable if both conceptual and analogical reasoning processes are not integrated.
Learn more: www.unicist.org/conceptual-thinking/the-roots-of-intelligence

Unicist Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

Greed Triggers Fallacies

The objective in the research on fallacies was to find the inhibitors and antidotes to fallacies that hinder or avoid the evolution of adaptive systems and environments.

Fallacies are unconscious actions with apparent conscious outputs. For this reason, the discussion of fallacies is a taboo. People cannot accept being interpreted by others unless they demand it in a counseling environment.

This research demonstrated that greed, as a universally recognized “sin”, triggers fallacies and makes their discussion fully unacceptable. Greed legitimates shortcuts to appropriate “things”.

These shortcuts are in fact fallacies that are built sustained by the “fears” an individual has. These fallacies are triggered by greed and, in the case of teamwork, are motivated by the envy the apparent success of others’ greedy actions generates.

There are three types of greed that influence human behavior:

  1. The emotional greed
  2. The materialistic greed
  3. The intellectual greed

The purpose of emotional greed is to obtain love and recognition; the purpose of materialistic greed is to accumulate and the purpose of intellectual greed is to be right and recognized.

The purpose of greed is acted out by the exertion of power and sustained by manipulation to ensure the achievement of results.

“Greeders” tend to accuse others for their greedy actions while they deny their own greed.

This is the paradigmatic case of greedy intellectuals who accuse greedy businessmen/women for their greedy doings.

The discovery of the inhibitors and antidotes of fallacies provided the necessary tools to ensure professional work in adaptive environments.

Excerpt of the book “The Origin of Fallacies” by Peter Belohlavek

Unicist Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 


Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

Discovery of the Ontogenesis and Functionality of Human Fallacies

The research on fallacies began in 1985/86 based on those fallacies that had notorious negative social and institutional consequences. The research was developed at The Unicist Research Institute and was led by Peter Belohlavek.

The discovery of perception, reasoning and conceptual fallacies demanded almost 17 years (2003), which contributed to the research on the roots of fallacies and their ontogenesis that developed their conceptualization after hundreds of “fallacious” hypotheses, until their final validation in 2019.

The research showed that all fallacies have the same purpose, which is to maintain the comfort zone of an individual. As fallacies are non-conscious processes, the people involved are not aware that they are trying to maintain a comfort zone. This process can be detected after a fallacy has been installed and the consequences became evident.

This research began based on a set of fallacies that the researcher experienced in the 1980s. The main ones were:

  • The paradoxical effect brought about by a set of drugs related to birth control.
  • The cyclical behavior in the evolution of four developing countries.
  • The decision of a French automotive industry to unify assembly lines, not automated at that moment, for all its range of products, which led to a production debacle.
  • A dysfunctional universal solution made by the International Monetary Fund.
  • The systematic destruction or nullification of information on reality that contradicted the fallacies which were functional to cultures.

Actions in adaptive environments, which have open boundaries, establish a framework of complexity that requires having a strict method to avoid fallacious decisions. Participants need to have the necessary knowledge of the issues that are being managed in order to avoid fallacious decisions.

Developing solutions in these environments requires simultaneously a competitive approach to expand the boundaries of knowledge and a cooperative approach to ensure the adaptation process.

On the one hand, this competition is what expands the quality of the solutions and allows going towards a superior level of functionality. The competitive approach is natural for human beings who are working on the solution of problems or developing new solutions.

On the other hand, cooperation is necessary to ensure that the adaptive process remains functional. This cooperation requires that the participants need to be internally complemented in order to be able to emulate a complementary cooperation in mind.

The generation of fallacies in adaptive processes is based on three core aspects:

Fallacy Avoidance
  1. The lack of the necessary understanding of the functionality of what is being done (knowledge).
  2. The functional requirement of a superior level of ethical intelligence than the one the participants of a process have.
  3. The lack of complementation of the logical type of thought, the conceptual intelligence and the strategic intelligence.

The definition of what is possible to be achieved is the first step to avoid fallacies. It makes fears unnecessary and guides the action processes.

The universal inhibitor of fallacy-building is the use of unicist conceptual engineering that integrates the fundamentals of “things” with the necessary technical knowledge to ensure the functionality of solutions.

The universal antidote for fallacies in the development of solutions in adaptive environments is the use of unicist destructive pilot tests to evaluate solutions.

Excerpt of the book “The Origin of Fallacies” by Peter Belohlavek

Unicist Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

Unicist Double Dialectical Logic: A Universal Logic

The unicist double dialectical logic is the integrator of all logical reasoning patterns. It is homologous with the “category theory”, which is the mathematics that integrates the different mathematics by using a superior level of abstraction.

The Unicist Double Dialectical Logic is an emulation of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature discovered by Peter Belohlavek. It emulates the intelligence and organization of nature and allows understanding the root causes and the unified field of processes, evolution and behavior.

This logic, which is based on human ontointelligence, allows dealing with the dynamics, evolution and nature of adaptive systems and environments. Non-adaptive environments are considered a “particular case” of adaptive systems.

Logic can be defined as the formalization of a fallacy-free reasoning process to solve specific categories of problems. There are as many logical reasoning patterns as there are different categories of problems that have been solved using a conscious reasoning process.

Ontointelligence is the human intelligence that allows discovering the concepts and fundamentals of things. It is integrated by an ethical intelligence, a strategic intelligence and the logical type of thought that allow managing a high level of abstraction and simultaneously a high level of concretion.

There are multiple logical patterns available to solve their homologous problems.

They can be classified based on the following categories: Propositional-logic approaches, Dualistic-logic approaches, Set-logic approaches, Fuzzy-logic approaches, Predicate-logic approaches and Integrative-logic approaches. The unicist double dialectical logic approach integrates them to deal with the dynamics, evolution and nature of adaptive systems and environments.

Triadic Functionality of Intelligence

The unicist double dialectical logic was created by Peter Belohlavek in 1986. Its application allowed its author to develop the structure of complexity sciences to study and deal with adaptive systems and environments.

It drove to the development of the unicist theory and to the discovery of the ontogenesis of evolution and established the basics to develop the unicist artificial intelligence. This logic provided the structure to develop the applied researches on social, individual and business evolution developed at The Unicist Research Institute.

Paradoxically, this unicist double dialectical logic requires both a superior level of abstraction to apprehend its structure and a superior level of operational thinking to apprehend the operation.

The use of the conclusions of this logical approach requires no abstractions, because they are self-evident. It only requires having experience in a specific action field.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons

Human Intelligence: The Nature of Adaptive Systems for Work

Businesses are typical adaptive systems. We use the word “business” as a synonym of “work”. Businesses need to adapt to the environment in order to achieve the permanence of their transcendent goals and the personal goals of their participants.

Adaptive systems for work are entities that interact with the environment having the characteristics of a complex system but with an implicit and explicit duty to produce a predefined result.

Work is an environment that generates the need of adaptive systems in order to produce results and administrative systems to use and control the methods used.

The maximal strategy implies achieving or overcoming the planned results using procedures with the necessary flexibility and controlling them based on the feedback of the market.

The minimum strategyis based on using strict methods that use rigid procedures and intrinsiccontrol systems based on accepted standards.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research to deal with adaptive entities and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of adaptive systems and environments. It was one of the precursors of the Industry 4.0 concept

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons