Unicist Corporation

Translate this page

Unicist Corporation

Translate this page

Unicist Constructivism for Growth


The unicist evolutionary approach was developed to foster adaptability and expansion in adaptive environments. The unicist constructivism establishes the restricted context of the unicist evolutionary approach, and makes it possible, by managing the possibilities of what can be achieved in a given environment.

The unicist evolutionary approach requires using the unicist logic to define the functionality of the concepts and fundamentals that underlie a specific function, developing fallacy-free decision making and developing pilot test driven reflection processes that ensure the achievement of results.

Constructivism is only meaningful in adaptive environments where the unicist evolutionary approached is used to foster expansion.

The Unicist Evolutionary Constructivism

The unicist constructivism is an evolutionary approach. It is an approach to reality that fosters its evolution. It is based on building upon the functional aspects of a given situation, considering the possibilities of its evolution and the stages in which this evolution needs to take place.

This process is based on the knowledge of the concepts and fundamentals that define the functionality and the knowledge of the concepts of the restricted and wide context in which the evolutionary process will take place.

It is based the knowledge of the boundaries of an activity that can be expanded based on understanding the functionality and understanding its dynamics and possibilities of evolution. This necessarily requires defining a possible future scenario. 

The catalyst of a constructivist process is the management of possibilities and their functional stages. This catalyst increases the efficiency of actions and ensures the functionality of the solutions that are developed.

The Constructivist Framework itself is driven by a solution thinking method, while the maximal strategies are defined by the problem-solving method based on the management of root causes and the minimum strategy is ensured by the pilot test driven reflection method.

Here you will find the three methods that define the unicist constructivist approach:

  1. Unicist Solution Thinking
  2. Unicist Problem Solving
  3. Unicist Reflection

1) Unicist Solution Thinking

Unicist thinking is a solution thinking approach that is based on approaching problems based on the universal solution given by the ontogenetic map of the concept that underlies the function that is being managed.

Unicist Thinking implies beginning with a backward-chaining thinking process and recycling the solution until it produces the results that have been defined as possible.

Solution thinking implies beginning with the conceptual design of the solution, based on the ontogenetic map of the concepts that defines the process, and ending with the operational solution that can be managed by anyone without needing to know the concepts of what is being done.

It requires having a sound technical analytical knowledge and the knowledge of the fundamentals in order to develop the design of the conceptual solution.

Unicist thinking requires an empathic approach to the problem that is being managed in order to be able to emulate its functionality in mind. Solution thinking requires the use of different neural pathways than the one used when making systemic problem solving approaches.

Expansive actions require believing to see

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.

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.

1+1=2 is an arithmetic metaphor for forward-chaining thinking

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.

Surviving requires seeing to believe

Conservative 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.

Doing within adaptive systems

Actions are the demonstration of a decision. There are unconscious, intuitive and conscious decisions. All actions include all the aspects but when we talk about “Doing” we imply actions ruled by conscious behavior.

Influencing adaptive systems requires integrating “believing to see” and “seeing to believe”.

But it has to happen following the ontological evolution law. An individual needs to believe in order to be able to see and then confirm what has been seen in order to validate the belief.

Managing adaptive systems implies beginning to apprehend the possibilities that can be achieved. To do so, it is necessary to use backward-chaining thinking in order to apprehend the solution in its oneness. Therefore, the first step to deal with adaptive systems requires the use of inner freedom to apprehend the actual reality. It requires “believing to see”.

This allows developing a maximal strategy that makes expansion possible.

After the concept has been grasped and used to develop a maximal strategy, it is necessary to ensure survival developing minimum strategies. Minimum strategies are operation driven and use forward-chaining thinking as a tool that requires sensory experiences to confirm the validity of actions. Therefore, it requires a “seeing to believe” approach.

The level of inner freedom required is minimal because actions are driven by sensory experiences.

Doing implies having the necessary inner freedom to be able to “believe to see” and the necessary discipline to follow a method to do, based on “seeing to believe”.

Businesses require “believing to see” to be defined, because they happen in the future that cannot be perceived through sensory experiences, and “seeing to be believe” in order to be administrated.

In business “seeing to believe” is a fallacy.
In operational activities “believing to see” is a utopia.

2) Unicist Problem Solving: Root Cause Management

Introduction

The discovery of the intelligence that underlies nature and the structure of concepts that regulate the evolution of living beings and drive human actions opened the possibility of managing the root-causes of problems.

The consequence of these discoveries is that the root-causes of problems are defined by the dysfunctionality of the fundamentals that integrate the concepts that underlie the entity or action that cannot fulfill their purpose.

This approach became possible due to the use of unicist logic to define the nature of things by emulating the structure of the triadic intelligence that underlies nature. Thus, root-root causes became possible due to the knowledge of the unicist ontology of the entities that are being managed.

This unicist approach to causality has a different purpose than that of the philosophical approaches of Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Russell and others who tried to find the validity of the causality of things while the unicist approach is fully focused on understanding causality to generate value.

Dr. Ishikawa, who developed the root-cause management for industrial processes, introduced the use of the fundamentals of processes to identify and discover root causes.

The Unicist Logic applied to Problem Causality

The unicist logical approach to problem solving was developed to deal with complex adaptive systems such as social, economic and business processes.

On the one hand, the unicist management of causality in complex adaptive systems is based on the inexistence of univocal cause-effect relationships and the exclusive disjunctions “OR” among their elements, which are substituted by biunivocal relationships and the conjunction “AND” that integrate their elements.

On the other hand, these complex adaptive entities are not integrated by variables, which are based on univocal relationships, but by objects, which are autonomous adaptive systems that assume a role/function in these systems.

The Unicist Management of Causality

The unicist management of causality is based on the unicist ontology of the complex adaptive systems that describes their nature and defines the concepts and fundamentals that regulate their evolution.

A problem exists when a functionality, that has been defined as possible to be achieved, cannot be fulfilled.

The unicist approach to problem solving defines three types of causes that are integrated in the concept of problem causality.

  • Triggering causes: that define the operational causes that generate a problem.
  • Necessary causes: that define the root-causes of the problem.
  • The limit causes: that define the boundaries of what is possible to be achieved.

The Structure of Problem Causality

Limit causes define the limits of the solution that can be built. They define the necessary knowledge to achieve the solution and the functionality of the system that has to work to make them efficient.

It has to be considered that the unicist approach to problem causality includes the wide and restricted contexts of problems in order to develop a solution.

The wide context influences strongly the definition of the limit causes because of the power needed to influence it.

The restricted context provides the catalysts to deal with root-causes and establishes limit-causes when its influence is dysfunctional.

The Maximal Strategy

Necessary (root) causes explain the functional causes that are defined by the dysfunctionality of the underlying concepts and fundamentals. The unicist approach analyzes the functionality of the fundamentals of the maximal strategy of the entity that define their efficacy and of the minimum strategy that define their efficiency.

This conceptual analysis of the fundamentals needs to establish measurable standards to define which of these do not achieve the necessary threshold to ensure the functionality of the system.

The Minimum Strategy

The triggering causes define the operational causes that generate a problem. They are defined by the problems in the field of operational efficacy and in the field of operational efficiency.

It has to be considered that the approach to efficacy cannot include the “interpretation” of human actions because it naturally drives towards hypothetical causes. The approach to efficacy needs to be based on the description of the actions that generate problems because they are dysfunctional and their comparison with the actions that are needed.

The approach to efficiency needs to be focused on the quality assurance aspects of the systems that have to ensure their functionality.

Different Levels of Solutions:

The unicist approach to problems defines four levels of solutions that can be achieved according to the level of knowledge of the problems.

It has to be considered that people who need to avoid risks cannot deal with problem causality and substitute the knowledge of problems with pre-concepts that allow them to avoid facing the risks of developing solutions.

The four levels of solutions are:

  1. Repairs
  2. Palliatives
  3. Systemic Solutions
  4. Adaptive Solutions

Repair

The natural response of people when an urgent problem appears is to repair it, based on the negative consequences that need to be avoided. This is the short-term energy saving action to face the solution of problems.

If the root-problem is not being addressed, the problem will reappear when the root-causes act.

Palliatives

The natural response when people do not have the knowledge of problems is the use of palliatives to mitigate the consequences of problems. This is the short-term energy saving action when there is a lack of knowledge to solve problems.

The problem will continue existing mitigated by the palliatives that have been installed.

Systemic Solutions

It is the necessary approach when the problems deal with the efficiency of the processes. In this case, it solves the root-causes of the problem, but if the lack of efficiency was produced by dysfunctional efficacy, the problem will reappear due to the entropy of the solution.

This is an action that naturally drives towards finding the root-causes that includes both the problems with efficacy and efficiency.

Adaptive Solutions

This is the approach to develop structural solutions for problems. It drives to research the fundamentals of efficacy and efficiency and find a solution that integrate the problems, their restricted context and their wide context.

It is the most energy saving action because it hinders the reappearance of problems. It requires working within the boundaries established by the limit causes and it ends with a structural solution based on the functionality of the fundamentals of the problem and an operational solution that ensures operational results.

Synthesis

As concepts and their fundamentals define the root-causes in adaptive environments, it is necessary to know the structure of concepts to deal with the rout-causes to build solutions.

The unicist approach is an upgrade in problem solving that integrates a unicist logical approach that allows managing the root-causes of problems in complex adaptive environments.

This approach simplifies the development of solutions based on the knowledge of the root-causes and avoids establishing goals that cannot be achieved through the knowledge of the limit causes.

The Unicist Knowledge Groups (K-Groups) were developed to manage the root-causes in social and institutional environments. They are homologous to the original Quality Circles developed by Dr. Ishikawa.

3) Unicist Reflection

Unicist reflection is an approach to complex human adaptive systems to understand their nature, define the possibilities to influence them, apprehend the algorithms that allow exerting influence and generate added value.

Unicist reflection has no relationship with other introspective approaches like religious introspection, transcendent meditation, yoga or other technologies that have been developed for different purposes. Unicist Reflection has been developed to deal with complex human adaptive systems, such as businesses, to develop scenarios, diagnoses and strategies to achieve possible results.

Reflection covers five stages:

Business Problem Solving

0 – Focus on the solution

1 – Dealing with projections
– Beta brainwaves suffice
– Destructive pilot tests

2 – Dealing with Introjections
– Alpha brainwaves are needed
– Non-destructive – Destructive pilot tests

Universal Problem Solving

3 – Dealing with integration
-Theta brainwaves are needed
– Non-destructive pilot tests

4 – Dealing with communion
– Gamma brainwaves are needed
– Results validation

5 – Dealing with the unified field

Stages 1), 2) and 3) include pilot tests. Stages 4) and 5) imply real action.

Introduction

Reflection may only occur when there is a need to influence in an adapted way. There are three necessary conditions:

1) For this to occur there must be a serious condition of “hunger” to change something either in oneself or in the environment, without implying an aggression to the environment or to oneself.

2) On the other hand, there must be an absolute sense of responsibility as regards feeling both able to do it and responsible for it.

3) There must be a strong will, which enables the individual to dodge the obstacles placed by the environment and his/her own prejudices.

Reflection is a natural way when one feels the need to influence a reality and aims at doing it in an adapted way.

The structure of the reflection process

Reflection is the process to approach complex realities in their nature, finding their functional oneness.

The unicist approach defines that every functional reality evolves based on a unique concept that rules its evolution.

That is the reason of the name unicist: one functional reality = one concept.

To approach the nature of a reality it is necessary to enter into it based on one’s nature.

  1. Facts are understood comparing with facts.
  2. Reasons are understood thinking.
  3. Emotions are apprehended with one’s emotions
  4. Nature needs to be apprehended with one’s nature
Apprehension of Nature

This explains why the nature of reality can only be perceived living that reality. Living a reality implies being able to introject it, being part of it and not an observer.

This is a significant effort because concepts, which describe reality’s nature, are not human-built ideas. They are discovered preexisting functions of a specific environment.

Simple problems can be approached using a factual, reasonable and psychological approach. Complex problems require the apprehension of their nature. This apprehension requires the discovery or rediscovery of their concepts.

Apprehending the nature of a reality means exerting influence on the environment, which is limited by the inertia of such environment, in order to be able to achieve the results of the unicist reflection process.

The structure of the reflection process can be described as:

Intuitive Projection

The “reflecting outside” stage deals with the projection of our own preconceptions and implies comparing them with the reality facts or with other people’s preconceptions.

Conceptual Structure of Unicist Reflection

This is a natural human behavior. When one is giving an ungrounded opinion, one is making an intuitive projection of reality.  Common sense is a demonstration of the intuitive projection.

Rational Projection

The intuitive projection needs to be justified. This justification is what we call the rational projection. Justifications differ structurally from foundations.

While foundations are reasonable, comprehensible and provable arguments, justifications are demonstrations that one is right.

Rational projections are a necessary step to apprehend the nature of a reality. The accepted myths of cultures are expressions of rational projections.

Introjecting Reality

Reality is introjected to be able to influence the environment. The objective is to develop a strategy, which allows influencing while being influenced.

It implies a great empathy effort since it is necessary to develop the capacity to act in the environment having introjected such reality and being able to influence it.

Focusing on Reality

Focusing on reality implies the integration on two focuses. On the one hand, the focus on the environment, which means trying to integrate with it and accept its influence.

On the other hand, focusing on the influence one is trying to exert on the environment. This level of reflection requires a fully adapted behavior. One must be in peace with the environment one intends to influence.

Universalizing Reality

The essence of a reality has been apprehended when its universality has been discovered. It is the highest level of apprehension of nature.

When this level is achieved, the influence on the environment is harmonic.

Conclusion

The unicist evolutionary approach is a constructivist approach. The unicist constructivism is necessary to manage all aspects of the real world that are adaptive, where evolutionary approaches are needed.  

It cannot be used in extreme urgencies where it is necessary to develop breakthroughs to solve an urgent problem. But it is a natural complement that allows establishing a long-term environment to these urgent solutions.

It is extremely convenient to use the constructivist approach in the development of social, business and individual strategies where it allows defining what is possible to be achieved. This approach minimizes risks and failures.

The unicist strategy, which is a value adding strategic approach, uses the constructivist approach to ensure results, by developing future scenarios to manage what is possible to be achieved.

Share
Creative Commons
Creative Commons