Translate this page

Search & Compare

Functionalist Approach

Translate this page

Search & Compare

Unicist Reflection

This article contains authorized excerpts from the books Unicist Logic. and Unicist Reflection by Peter Belohlavek.

Unicist Reflection in Everyday Life

The unicist reflection process was developed to allow people to access the nature of things by managing their concepts and fundamentals. It enables people to solve problems and build value-adding solutions in adaptive environments. This method applies to any kind of environment in the social, personal, professional, scientific, or business fields.

This became necessary in organizations that decided to take advantage of the 4th Industrial Revolution and need to develop adaptive business processes installing adaptability and customer orientation. This is the first industrial revolution that is focused on increasing the market value of processes.

The first industrial revolution was based on an operational mindset, the second, on an analytical mindset, the third on a systemic mindset and finally the fourth, on a conceptual mindset.

The management of the concepts and fundamentals of processes requires a superior level of organizational and personal maturity. To understand the levels of organizational maturity you can access:

Framework of the Unicist Reflection Process


Reflection Processes use Abductive, Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Unicist Reflection can be defined as the process that integrates abductive, inductive and deductive reasoning to define the functionality, dynamics and evolution of adaptive systems and environments. The final objective is to define the necessary actions that ensure the functionality of adaptive systems.

Unicist reflection is a pilot test driven reflection process that includes the initial pilot tests until a system is working, the destructive tests to extend the use of a system beyond the limits of the initial functional boundaries until the system becomes dysfunctional and the non-destructive tests that allow measuring the results that can be achieved within the functional boundaries.

The functionality of the different reasoning processes included in the unicist reflection process can be synthesized in:

Abductive reasoning is based on a conceptual mindset and allows:

  1. Managing complex adaptive environments
  2. Discovering new solutions
  3. Creativity
  4. Designing maximal and minimum strategies
  5. Backward/Forward chaining thinking
  6. Conceptual design
  7. Expanding the boundaries of knowledge
  8. Hypothesis based approach
  9. Bottom-up and Top-down approach
  10. Destructive and non-destructive testing
  11. Homological confirmation of knowledge

Inductive reasoning is based on an operational mindset and allows:

  1. Managing operational environments
  2. For integrating particular effects with universal causes
  3. Learning processes
  4. Testing maximal and minimum strategies
  5. Backward chaining thinking
  6. Functional design
  7. Confirming the boundaries of knowledge
  8. Observations based approach
  9. Bottom-up approach
  10. Destructive testing
  11. Functional confirmation of knowledge

Deductive reasoning is based on an analytical mindset and allows:

  1. Managing systemic environments
  2. Deducing from theories or premises
  3. Studying processes
  4. Planning maximal and minimum strategies
  5. Forward chaining thinking
  6. Systemic design
  7. Reasoning within existing boundaries
  8. Logic based approach
  9. Top down approach
  10. Non-destructive testing
  11. True knowledge based on theories or premises

The abductive approach implies managing the concepts and fundamentals of things. One must consider that the basic schooling systems are based on teaching inductive reasoning and mainly deductive (analytical) reasoning, disregarding the use of the abductive reasoning approach.

The unicist reflection process requires managing the unicist logic that allows integrating the abductive, inductive, and deductive processes. The unicist logic was developed to consciously manage 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.

Concepts are approached using unicist logic

The structure of a concept is approached using unicist logic, which is an emulation of the intelligence of nature.

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 the unified field of complex adaptive systems consciously. Conscious reasoning allows developing fallacy-free decisions and actions to ensure the results of what is intended 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. It is the basic knowledge needed to develop strategies in these environments. Non-adaptive environments are considered a “particular case” of adaptive systems.

A Metaphor of Unicist Logic

The cost of a glass is in its solid;
its value is in its hollow. 
Its cost has no value. 
Its value has no cost.
But both of hem are within the glass.

Access the Unicist Logic at:

The Unicist Reflection Process

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.

The reflection process covers five stages:

Everyday Life 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

Metaphor of Unicist Reflection

1) It reflects outside
2) It reflects inside
3) The outside vanishes
4) The inside vanishes
5) All is one

The Context for the Reflection Process

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.

Apprehension of 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

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 extrinsic 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, on the other hand, require the apprehension of their nature. The apprehension of their nature 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.

Conceptual Structure of Unicist Reflection

The structure of the reflection process can be described as follows:

Intuitive Projection

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

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 that allows influencing while being influenced.

It implies a great empathy effort since it is necessary that one develops 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.

Access the Unicist Reflection at:

The Use of the “Q” Method

The unicist “Q” method was develop for two different but compatible purposes. On the one hand, it was developed to solve the problem of dealing with apparent incompatible solutions, because it integrates them at a superior level.

On the other hand, it is a method to empower intelligence by integrating incompatibilities. It drives to a superior level of intelligence by driving towards a superior ethical intelligence, which generates the complementation of thinking processes.

The Functionality of the Method

Complex problem solving sometimes drives to opposite and incompatible positions.

These opposite positions provoke three possible behaviors:

  1. Denying the problem
  2. Using analysis to seek for solutions
  3. The integration of the opposite positions at a superior level

1) The denial of the problem

Avoiding conflicts drives naturally towards inaction. Therefore denial is a conflictive way to destroy businesses in the short or long run.

Confronting at an operational level is a sophisticated way of denial; it provides a natural way to avoid responsibility.

2) Analytical solutions for the problem

Analyzing problems is functional when some of the parts involved are wrong. This implies that in fact there is no confrontation: one is right and the other is wrong. If that is the case, the division of the problem into parts allows defining what is right.

When both parts are right and the difference is given by a non-compatible and not evident final purpose, analysis drives towards discussing the parts instead of solving the problem in its oneness. In this case the solution is necessarily a downgraded compromise.

3) Integration of the opposite

Integrating the opposite positions into a superior solution requires having the knowledge of the fundamentals of the solution.

At least one of the parts needs to have the conceptual knowledge but both parts need to consider that the other position might be right. This approach upgrades the solution developed.

Problem solving in teamwork requires both competition and cooperation.

Cooperation necessarily follows competition: “if cooperation is the starting point utopias will be the end”.

If competition prevails, inaction or degradation are the consequence but the personal risk of the competitors is not endangered.

Cooperation in diversity implies being able to integrate the evolution conflicts with power conflicts and with involution conflicts in order to transform them into actions to produce solutions for the parts involved.

Access the Unicist “Q” Method at:

Levels 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.

The ethical intelligence of people defines their potential energy. The personal ethical intelligence evolves with the maturity of a person.

Therefore, this ethical intelligence might evolve or involve. The advantage of the use of unicist logic and unicist reflection is that it fosters the evolution of the personal ethical intelligence of people empowering their maturity and thus their potential energy.

Ethics of Survival

The ethics of survival is the type of ethics prevailing within the marginal areas of a culture or the marginal cultures.

The functional structure of this type of ethics is based on the need to survive. People having this type of ethics permanently expect to avoid threats and use their strengths to compensate for their weaknesses.

For this reason, people behaving according to this type of ethics are always concerned with avoiding costs or passing them onto others to earn as much value as possible and thus securing their survival.

The individual that acts 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 minimum possible value to generate an earned value and to minimize costs to assure the subsistence level.

The individual behaving based on such ethics exercises influence upon the ones who behave in accordance with the ethics of survival and upon the ones that add less value than s/he does.

They can 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 are focused on maximizing their benefit.

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.

The individual who acts on the basis of this type of ethics exercises influence upon the ones who manage the ethics of survival, the ethics of earned value and upon those that need to add more value than what they are adding.

Such individual manages the medium-term, which is the time to transform knowledge into added value. They develop medium-term strategies and 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.

The goal of such ethics is that the foundations or groundings for work be reasonable, comprehensible, and proven.

The individuals behaving on the basis of such ethics bear influence on the ones who manage the ethics of survival, the ones using the ethics of the earned value, the ones using the ethics of added value and on those who have less knowledge than they have to act within their environment.

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 and focus on the functionality of 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.

In their decision processes they leave aside their own needs. They develop strategies using the available, possible, and expected forces. They focus on understanding the essential functionality to foster the evolution of things.

Search, Compare & Test it The Use of Binary Actions
Search, Compare & Test it The Use of Binary Actions