The Functionality of Ontointelligence
Ontointelligence is necessary to manage reality as a unified field. This is necessary when dealing with complex adaptive system.
It determines the individual’s capacity to apprehend the underlying concept in a complex situation.
This is necessary to assume the responsibility for producing results when managing a complex problem.
It is characterized and measured by:
- Ethical Intelligence: the functionality of the individual’s “rules”.
- Strategic Intelligence: the way an individual faces the reality to which s/he seeks to adapt.
- Type of logical thinking: the individual’s mind mechanism used to solve the problems related to his adaptation to the environment.
No subordinate, opponent or dominant individual can apprehend a unified field. This is a restriction posed by the individual’s own mind.
Operating in a unified field of a certain reality calls for a previous capacity to apprehend such unified field.
Even though the unified field of a given reality includes its most abstract aspects; there is no chance to actually apprehend it if it does not encompass its most concrete aspects as well.
When the understanding of a unified field exceeds the possibilities of an individual, it is needed to divide it into its subsistems or objects.
Operation is the demonstration that one has apprehended the essence of a given reality.
The term “wisdom” stems from “the ability to do”.
Ontointelligence, Adaptiveness and Personal Strategies
It can be said that the level of ontointelligence an individual has defines her/his adaptiveness, which is acted out by the strategic capacity. It has to be considered that the use of ontointelligence is only possible if, at a level of reactive and active intelligence, the individual found a functional place in the environment.
Ontointelligence allows individuals to apprehend the nature of the environment they are dealing with and defines their adaptive behavior. Adaptiveness, as the purpose of human intelligence, is defined by the capacity of individuals to influence the environment in order to achieve an objective while being influenced by it.
1) 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 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.
Therefore the evolution of individuals’ ethical intelligence implies the increase of maturity which is based on higher levels of consciousness.
Ethical intelligence is the unique intelligence that has a structural evolution or involution process based on the maturity of individuals.
The exception is the stagnant survivors ethics which is the case of individuals who have built a parallel reality to stay.
Ethics of Survival
The ethics of survival is the type of ethics prevailing within the marginal areas of a culture or the marginal cultures.
Individuals that act according to this type of ethics exercises influence upon others who are in the same situation, based on survivor-pacts. Their time management is based on “the moment”, sustained by reactions based on intuition. They have a reactive tactical approach to reality. They focus on surviving and avoiding risks.
The Ethics of the Earned Value
This type of ethics seeks to add the minimal value possible to generate an earned value and to minimize costs in order to assure the subsistence level.
They are able to manage short-term problems. Short-term is the lapse between adding value and generating the corresponding earned value. They have a tactical active approach to reality. They focus on maximizing their benefits.
The Ethics of Added Value
This is the type of ethics that maximizes the added value to the environment seeking to optimize the relationship between added value and cost.
Such individuals manage the medium-term, which is the time to transform knowledge into added value. They develop medium-term strategies. They focus on the value they are adding.
The Ethics of Foundation
The ethics of foundation is used by individuals that consider that added value is secured by knowledge.
Such individuals manage the long-term, which is the time span between discovering a concept and transforming it into useful knowledge. They develop long-term strategies. They focus on the knowledge they are acquiring.
The Conceptual Ethics
This is the intelligence used to maximize the added value by using a high level of energy to materialize the need to give.
Individuals behaving according to this type of ethics exert influence on the entire environment because of their energy. They manage universal time that is the time of the cycles, with no time limitations.
They do not take into account their own existence. They develop strategies using the available, possible and expected forces. They focus on achieving the truth.
The Stagnant Survivors Ethics
Stagnant Survivors are individuals with a complex driven behavior that sustains the parallel reality they live in and the responsibility avoidance they need to exert to be in a comfort zone.The paradox is that their comfort zone is a conflict zone for those who surround them.
The stagnated status is based on a fallacious utopia that justifies their actions and forces them to exert power while they appropriate the value they need to feel comfortable. The justifications are built upon fallacies to sustain their actions, beliefs and needs.
2) Strategic Intelligence
The strategic intelligence establishes the individual’s approach to reality. The strategic intelligence operates as strategic styles. Strategic intelligence defines the natural approach to face conflicts. Therefore it defines the natural structures to deal with a reality when an adaptation is required.
Strategic intelligence is conditioned by the individual’s goals in life. Everyone has a natural goal and, when having achieved maturity in some field, acts complemented with others in order to face a conflict. Nevertheless if the situation is overwhelming, individuals turn back to their natural intelligence without complementing with others.
The discovery of human strategic intelligence was possible thanks to the research of the life histories of volunteers and the validation based on the history of 10 different battles and more than 30 commercial strategies of international organizations.
This discovery has a significant added value for those who develop personal, political or commercial strategies. Understanding the strategic intelligence of those involved in strategic analysis, increases the objectivity of the conclusions and increases the quality of the conclusions.
The knowledge of the strategic intelligence of competitor’s leaders makes the anticipation of their actions possible.
- The place of the freedom fighter
- The place of the flank defendant
- The place of the frontal
- The place of the empty space occupier
- Freedom fighters earn their place breaking rules.
- Flank defendants earn their place attacking the weaknesses of the members of the environment.
- Frontal seeks to impose their own rules, exerting their power on the members of the environment.
- Empty space occupiers establish the conditions so as to open a place among the members of the environment.
This synthetic description includes all the types of strategy adults use to adapt. Those who think that they can overwhelm their own unconscious with a rational effort, just use the same strategy they developed in childhood.
This barrier can only be avoided accepting one’s strategic intelligence and operating based on its characteristics.
Adolescence is a turning point in the development of strategic intelligence. Depending on how adolescence is “resolved”, strategic intelligence matures or stagnates.
Those who cannot surpass an adolescent approach to reality cannot be aware of their strategic intelligence. In this case strategic intelligence become unconscious and dominate the personal, institutional and social behavior of the individual.
Anarchic or authoritarian based cultures avoid their members to resolve their adolescence. They need to maintain their member in the stage of childhood. Only strong cultures foster adolescents’ evolution. Adolescence behavior fosters the change of the existent reality.
Strategic intelligence functions as a stereotype when adult individuals maintain an adolescent approach to reality. In this case they cannot perceive their own strategic intelligence and project their weaknesses on others.
3) Types of Logical Thinking Processes
A logical thinking process is applied intelligence, guiding the active adaptive behavior of individuals. Therefore cultures foster the types of thought necessary to adapt to a certain environment.
Principles of the Level of Logical Thinking
There are a set of principles that indefectibly occur in the development of thinking:
- The level of thinking is limited by the person’s identification model and the overcoming of that level brews guilt in that subject.
- The level of thinking is developed according to the individuals’ exposure to reality, by looking for the mechanisms that solve the problems they face.
- A change in the reality stimulates a change in the model of thinking; to the extent that it is deemed necessary, stable and in that the individual counts on an identification model as of which to begin.
- A change in the level of thinking implies a modification in the individuals’ personality as of the way in which they solve the problems that reality subjects them to.
Types or Levels of Logical Thinking Processes
The conceptual structure of how humans approach reality to solve problems was developed based on the conceptual model described in the “Unicist Theory of Evolution”. It describes both dualities individuals use to apprehend reality.
Hierarchical logic is related to the human need of security. The hierarchical structure itself hinders analytical mistakes. But relational logic implies synthetic thinking, induction. It implies personal freedom where everything can be related.
2) On the other hand, reality can be approached with a dualistic thinking approach or with an integrative thought.
Unicist thinking implies the integration of reality in its oneness. It implies comprehending reality accepting being part of it although one might be observing.
The integration of these two dualities defines four sets of different thoughts which are: The operational, the functional/analytical, the scientific and the conceptual.
Operational thinking is related to the facts-oriented-action. An individual using predominantly this type of thinking uses synthetic/syncretic thinking (relational logic), within the conditions of dual thinking (what is correct vs. what is incorrect).
This is how the operational level seeks responses to problems. In order to operate the individual tries to assimilate the problems to those he already knows and uses methods, as in the previous case, as if he were dealing with a “recipe”.
Ego, and consequently its security, is set on the solution applied.
Functional / Analytical Thinking
In functional/analytical thinking, actions are geared by ideas. Functional/analytical thinking is determined by hierarchical logic as far as analysis goes. It seeks solutions through existing information pursuant the corresponding discipline.
The ego of those that predominantly use the functional/analytical thinking is set on the science or on the technique they handle, where their security relies on.
Scientific / Systemic Thinking
Scientific or systemic thinking is related to the action oriented to understanding the structure of the reality, basically using hierarchical logic, but in terms of an integrative thinking (where reality is but one).
The one who predominantly uses this type of thinking is the one who, when faced with a problem of reality, relates sciences to find a solution. Scientific thinking will, in this way, seek the inclusion of different professionals for the development of one solution to the problem.
The security of the individual relies on the integration of sciences.
Conceptual thinking is related to the action steered toward understanding the reality in its essence, fundamentally by using relational logic within a concept of reality integration.
The individual that predominantly uses conceptual thinking uses conceptual models to approach reality, seeking to avoid the conflict between what is apparent and what is real by way of abstractions.
Conceptual thinkers seek for understanding the functionality beyond this conflict through the inclusion of concepts within the principles of nature or laws of nature.