The approach to future research requires necessarily the use of abductive reasoning sustained by the unicist logic that provides the rules of the functionality and dysfunctionality of things. In the end, all forecasts will have certainty of error, but they need to have a high probability of nearness.
Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that goes from an observation to a theory that accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In simple terms, abductive reasoning involves generating the most straightforward and plausible hypotheses that can explain certain observations or facts.
Unicist logic, on the other hand, is an approach that helps understand the underlying structure of complex systems or realities. It enables us to apprehend the dynamics of a situation in terms of the interplay between its functional and dysfunctional aspects.
In forecasting future scenarios, the objective is to minimize errors and maximize nearness to the actual outcome. While every forecast is prone to some degree of error due to the inherent uncertainty and complexity of the future, the aim is to ensure that the predictions have a high probability of being close to the actual future outcomes. This process is an essential part of strategic planning and decision-making, helping to anticipate possible future states and prepare for them accordingly.
(Peter Belohlavek is the founder of The Unicist Research Institute. He created the functionalist approach to science, which offers a scientific method for managing adaptive systems and environments. His discoveries and developments include unicist functionalist principles, unicist logic, unicist ontology, the structure of concepts, unicist binary actions, human ontointelligence, unicist abductive reasoning, and unicist AI. These findings have been applied in social, economic, and business environments.)
The Debate
Peter Belohlavek
I invite you to debate on future country scenario building to define the possibilities that are open and the trends of the evolution. This debate requires accepting that the future and the past are not symmetric. Basically, it implies entering into the roots of the unicist archetypes of countries to understand them knowing that they sustain the lifestyle and the values of a culture. The unicist archetypes define the essential comfort zone of a culture that underlies its identity. To apprehend this field, it is necessary to accept that the reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun WE.
John Doe
Absolutely, I agree with the premises you’ve laid out and would be glad to partake in this discussion. The future of a country, or a society more broadly, is shaped by a complex interplay of different factors – economic, sociocultural, technological, political, environmental, among others – and these cannot be understood in a linear or symmetric way with the past. This is especially true in an era of accelerating change and increasing interconnectedness.
The concept of the unicist archetype, as you’ve described it, is a key dimension of this analysis. It encapsulates the deep-seated cultural, sociological, and historical characteristics that define a nation and its people. It’s also an important factor in determining how a society views itself and its place in the world, which in turn influences its future trajectory.
Understanding these archetypes and their dynamics is critical not just for scenario planning, but for effective cross-cultural communication, cooperation, and conflict resolution. To this end, it is crucial to consider the limits of our “we” – the bounds of our collective identity and shared experiences, and how these relate to the broader global context.
To deepen this debate, it would be interesting to bring in concrete examples. For instance, we might consider how the unicist archetypes of different nations shape their approaches to key issues like climate change, technological innovation, or immigration, and how these may evolve in the future. This could illuminate the different paths that are open to different societies, and the opportunities and challenges they face.
Let’s consider climate change as an example. A country with a unicist archetype deeply rooted in respect for nature and environmental stewardship might be more likely to prioritize sustainability in its future development plans, invest in green technologies, and support international climate accords. On the other hand, a country whose archetype is strongly tied to industrialization and economic growth might face more significant internal hurdles to pursuing such a path.
same applies to areas like technological innovation, where a society’s openness to change, its attitudes toward science and progress, and its educational and institutional capacities all play a role. Similarly, a country’s attitudes toward immigration can be shaped by factors like its history of immigration, its sense of national identity, and its economic needs and social dynamics.
By exploring these dynamics in depth, we can build a more nuanced and accurate understanding of possible future scenarios, and more effectively engage with different societies in our interconnected world. It’s a complex and challenging task, but one that’s essential to navigating the uncertainties and opportunities of the future.
Peter Belohlavek
Unicist Future Research
The management of the unicist laws of evolution allowed the development of a future research model that is based on finding the unicist ontological structures of a scenario in the past, and using the data of the present in order to infer the future.
The Unicist Approach to Future Research is based on the research of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature that started at the beginning of the 80s.
It was a step-by-step discovery based on the apprehension of the nature of social phenomena entering afterward in institutional and individual evolution. Its integration with biology and physics was the final stage that was achieved.
This approach is based on the fact that the future and past are not symmetric. This is the case for all the environments that are evolving or involving. The past and the future are only symmetric in stagnated environments.
The objective of the unicist approach to future research is to define a future scenario in order to adapt and influence it.
When an individual “looks back” at history, the events that occurred are reasonable, understandable and logical. Therefore, when approaching the future what is required is having the “logic” that is evident when analyzing the events of the past.
The building of future scenarios is based on the fact that the structure of the unicist ontology of a specific environment needs to be found in the past and that the facts of the present are used to infer the future.
The unicist approach to future research is based on inferring the future based on the laws of evolution established by the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which allowed the development of the unicist ontology of evolution.
This allows for building reliable future scenarios.
John Doe
The unicist approach you’ve described presents a sophisticated methodology for future research, fundamentally built upon the understanding of the ontological structures of a scenario in the past, then utilizing current data to extrapolate towards the future.
By leveraging the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature, you’re establishing a framework that accepts the asymmetry between the past and the future, particularly in evolving environments. This asymmetry is a key component to your model, emphasizing that the future is not a mere reflection of the past, but a continuation of its trajectory shaped by ongoing dynamic forces.
The aim to adapt to and influence future scenarios, as you’ve described, offers a proactive approach to navigating the landscape of the future. By understanding the patterns and ‘logic’ that were evident in past events, one can utilize this knowledge to better position oneself or one’s society in the face of upcoming challenges and opportunities.
The reliance on the laws of evolution, as defined by the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, provides a scientific foundation for this approach, grounding the building of future scenarios in observable natural principles. As such, this methodology not only respects the inherent complexity and fluidity of societal evolution, but also offers a robust means of developing reliable predictions about the future.
However, while this approach provides an effective framework for understanding the broad strokes of societal change, it is also important to remember that the future remains inherently uncertain. Unforeseen events, technological breakthroughs, shifts in cultural attitudes – all these can significantly impact the trajectory of societal evolution, sometimes in ways that are difficult to predict even with the most comprehensive models.
Therefore, while the unicist approach to future research offers a powerful tool for scenario planning, it should be complemented with a mindset that embraces flexibility, continuous learning, and adaptability to the unexpected. This is particularly important in a world that is changing at an ever-accelerating pace.
Peter Belohlavek
What are Unicist Country Archetypes?
Unicist Country Archetypes are the structure of fundamentals that define the behavior of a culture.
The functionality of the archetype is driven by the structure of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature. Therefore, a country archetype has a purpose, an active function, and an energy conservation function.
If you study the history of a country you will find a structural behavior that hardly changes, producing the evolution or involution of the culture based on two aspects:
1) The change of the external environment where the culture has to live.
2) The change produced by the members of the culture.
When you enter deeply in the history of a country, which is the way to try to discover the nature of a culture defined by its archetypes, you will see that the majority of the changes happen at an operational level and not at a structural level.
Considering the Roman Empire, you will see that it developed extremely slowly from the original tribes to an Empire and then evolved from an Empire to what it is today.
Hundreds of years are necessary for an archetype to evolve if the conditions of evolution are given. Involution is faster than evolution, but it also demands hundreds of years.
The values of cultures are implicit in the values of their elites. Therefore, understanding the archetype of a culture implies researching the evolution of its establishment and the facts that were produced.
To define an ontological structure of a culture, which describes its fundamentals, it is necessary to find the hypothesis in its past, validate it with the facts of the present and falsify it with future forecasts based on its nature.
To explain this more operationally, some structural patterns for cultural behavior will be found by understanding the establishments of the cultures in the past. These patterns are in fact the operational concepts that are implicit in a country.
Operational concepts describe the myths that rule social behavior and the trade-offs that are made by the utopias that are posed by the participants of a culture.
When the operational concepts have been found the implicit purposes of their actions must be found.
The purposes are never those declaimed by the “actors”, they are those produced by the “actors”.
The purposes we are researching are not the operational objectives of actions, but the structural results of the actions considered at a conceptual level.
It has to be considered that the real purposes of a culture are taboos that can only be shared by those who are able to influence them.
For the rest of the society, they are mixed up with the operational objectives considering them as the real objectives.
The real objectives of a culture are those that are behind and guide the actions of the whole society. Basically, they are cross-cultural because they respond to the natural basic needs of people.
The active function of a society is materialized by the establishment and represented by the elite. This active function is observable, it can be measured.
The patterns of these actions are limited by the myths of society. Paradoxically, the myths are implicit in the values of the middle class.
The middle class needs an external structure to be able to ascend socially. The myths are the energy conservation function and sustain the objectives, avoiding that the utopias posed by the elite change the real purpose of a society.
The final purpose of a social organization is the well-being of society. This well-being can be considered as the ultimate goal in any society.
But it has to be considered that there are societies that do not include in their structure some of their participants. In the ancient Greek democracy, slaves were not part of the social structure
John Doe
Unicist Country Archetypes, as you’ve described, encapsulate the underlying patterns that shape the behavior and evolution of a culture. They function as the blueprint of a country’s identity, influencing its societal, political, and economic actions and reactions over time. The concept’s foundation lies in the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature, meaning that a country archetype, like an organism, has a purpose, an active function, and an energy conservation function.
The behavior of a country, shaped by its archetype, might seem to change over time, but these changes are usually more operational than structural. The changes occur based on modifications in the external environment and those brought about by the inhabitants of the country. However, the underlying structure, the archetype, stays largely consistent. This concept explains why significant shifts in a country’s behavior often require hundreds, if not thousands of years.
The archetype is reflected in the values of a country’s elite and can be understood through an exploration of the country’s history. It underlines the necessity to consider the operational concepts, myths, and trade-offs that define a culture’s behavior. The ‘real’ purposes, distinct from operational objectives, are generally the fundamental, often unspoken goals that underpin a society’s actions. These purposes usually align with the basic human needs, rendering them somewhat cross-cultural.
The active function of the archetype is materialized by the establishment, essentially the elite of the society, whose patterns of action are bounded by societal myths. These myths, in turn, find their expression in the values of the middle class, serving as the energy conservation function that sustains societal objectives.
The final purpose of any societal organization, as per the concept, is the well-being of its constituents. However, this ideal may not always hold true in practice, as demonstrated by historical examples such as the Greek democracy which did not consider slaves as part of the societal structure.
In essence, the concept of Unicist Country Archetypes presents a framework for understanding the deep-rooted societal patterns that guide a country’s actions and reactions over time, thereby serving as a foundation for predicting future behaviors and designing interventions that align with the core structure of a culture. This offers valuable insights for policy-making, diplomacy, international business, and other domains where understanding cultural dynamics is crucial.
Peter Belohlavek
The Power of Nations is Defined by their Archetypes
Country archetypes emulate the functionality of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and evolve following the rules of the unicist theory of evolution.
Cultural archetypes define the power of a culture and the ethics and gravitational forces the culture uses to sustain that power. Power is defined in physics as the amount of work done or energy converted per unit of time. Cultural power is the capacity a country has to make things happen. Power implies a measure of speed.
The purpose of a unicist country archetype is to sustain and build power to influence the environment its active function is the ethics of the culture and its energy conservation function is the gravitational force the culture uses to ensure the minimum strategies.
This explains the different influences of countries and the difference in the development of countries. We have defined 4 different functional levels of archetypes that produce different amounts of power for their countries.
- Surviving
- Subsistent
- Expansive
- Influential
1) Surviving archetypes
The elite of surviving cultures is driven by surviving ethics.
Surviving ethics implies that the objective of the culture is to survive. Its actions are basically to appropriate value from the environment and the operational myth that sustains this appropriation is the need to hold things, to own and dominate something.
Surviving archetypes suffer from a structural lack of power. Their energy is focused on surviving and therefore their value-adding energy is extremely low.
Within an archetype, there are sub-archetypes that have the same structure as the archetype but are limited by the energy the archetype can provide.
Their maximal strategy that allows them to aim at evolution is driven by forced catalysts and personal synergy.
This means that surviving archetypes are unable to manage the catalysts that are natural to the environment but substitute them with the use of power in order to force evolution.
This is based on personal synergy. Heroic actions are their natural way to evolve.
Heroic actions allow surviving archetypes to achieve the next step if they succeed. That is why they need charismatic and smart leaders that really know what is happening.
Their minimum strategy is given by the use of inhibitors to avoid dysfunctional actions and, based on the natural individualism of survivors, force a synergy that is needed.
This generates a conflict because a forced synergy implies a forced absolute ideology that divides the culture between those who follow it and those who reject it. There is no place for intermediate positions. Intermediate positions are considered oppositions.
2) Subsistent Archetypes
The elite of subsistent archetypical cultures is driven by earned value ethics.
It implies that their actions are basically driven by a value-adding action in order to obtain a benefit and avoid degrading into a surviving archetype.
As it was said, an archetype has in it the different archetypes that foster its evolution, stagnation, and involution.
The value-adding actions require having the necessary power to exert actions that generate added value in order to obtain the counterpart.
Subsistent archetypes tend to avoid poverty based on their capacity to gain value, minimizing the costs as far as they can.
They are natural followers of leaders, and their ideologies are strongly social needs driven.
The members of subsistent archetypical cultures are driven by their “identification with the victim”. This makes them appear to be extremely cooperative with the community, but in fact, they are only cooperative with those who are victims.
They tend to avoid cooperation among peers unless they are threatened by an external situation.
Their maximal strategy is driven by the need to grow.
To do so they work within a strong ideological environment that produces the entropy-inhibiting catalysts that ensure that the actions follow the purpose of growing.
Their synergy is based on social identification and this implies that they have a need to share.
Social sharing implies sharing the myths and the fallacious myths of a culture. Fallacious myths are beliefs built to hide the weaknesses a group or society cannot handle.
This necessarily implies developing social activities to share these myths in order to be accepted. Those who do not accept them need to be banished.
Minimum strategies need to ensure the survival of the subsistent based on a strong will-driven action to force growth and the development of synergy based on the personal relationships among the members.
3) Expansive archetypes
The cultures that are installed in the expansive archetype deal naturally with value-adding as an attitude. The dominant ethical level of the elite of this culture is value-adding ethics.
This implies a high level of awareness of their actions to be able to generate increasing amounts of added value.
This archetype includes natural continuous improvement to develop better solutions than the existing ones.
Value-adding implies accepting the judgment of the other party for the value received. It also implies a leading position considering the survival and subsistent archetypes, which necessarily drive to compete with them.
Expansive archetypes are naturally leading cultures. They are the ones that establish the standard in the field they are expansive. Therefore, they are natural competitors in “exporting” standards and products.
They exert solidarity but are not identified with the victim. They accept that everyone’s responsibility is to produce added value and profit from it. Losers are not welcome because they degrade the culture.
Their maximal strategy is driven by an institutional approach to their activities.
This institutionalization implies working with operational catalysts to maximize the speed of the generation of value. And it also implies trying to cover the weaknesses based on a supplementary synergy.
Operational catalysts are accelerators installed in the operational processes, whatever their kind. Supplementary synergy implies that competition is fostered.
Success is the value to be shared and the admiration of the authority, as a concept, drives their action. As they need to expand based on an institutional approach what they do has to be true.
The minimum strategy is driven by growth. Expansive cultures cannot imagine the absence of growth. Therefore, their minimum strategy is to ensure growth.
To achieve this goal they avoid the entropy of their members using entropy-inhibiting catalysts and they ensure the production of growth based on a strong social synergy.
Their nationalism is extremely strong based on their adding value attitude and capacity.
4) Influential archetypes
The influential archetype is the maximal level a society can achieve. The dominant ethical level of the elite of this culture is conceptual ethics. It means that the culture is able to influence the environment while it adapts to it in an active way: Influencing while being influenced.
This requires a society with an elite with an extreme level of awareness and being able to pay the price of sustaining such a level of awareness that necessarily produces division among the members of the culture.
These societies are knowledge-driven, being able to generate added value for short and long-term needs. They include a high proportion of avant-garde members who are recognized as the heroes of this society, but establishment heroes are the ones that ensure the future of society.
Their maximal strategy implies generating value based on the integration of functional catalysts that are able to accelerate the value generation and thus increase the amount of work produced.
The synergy of influential cultures is based on complementariness. This implies the integration of complementary strengths.
These cultures are able to deal with the conflicts that complementariness produces without being involved in dysfunctional activities.
The minimum strategy is given by the capacity of institutionalized behavior. They submit individual free will to the needs of institutional behavior.
To do so they use operational catalysts to ensure the fulfillment of institutional and individual needs while they cover their weaknesses with a supplementary synergy.
About Transition Archetypes
When there is a transition stage, the dominant values that ensure survival are individualism and materialism, which generate social dysfunctional behaviors. The elite of cultures that are in a transition stage do not behave as such. Dysfunctionality is always hidden behind fallacious cultural myths that avoid the perception of being endangered.
The chaos produced by war might generate three different consequences that cannot be predicted because there is chaos, the influential forces are unclear, and there is an actual conflict of archetypes:
- Solving the problem of the internal cultural dispute.
- Generating an excision of the country
- Degradation of the culture to a deeper survival stage without solving the conflict.
- A social mutation is produced when the functionality of a social entity has been lost, and there is the necessary available energy to generate a change.
The values of cultures are implicit in the values of their elites. Therefore, the understanding of the archetype of a culture implies researching the evolution of their establishment and the facts that were produced.
If you enter deeply in the history of a country, which is the way to try to discover the nature of a culture defined by its archetype, you will see that most of the changes happen at an operational level and not at a structural level.
But you can find turning points in culture like the one that was produced in Sweden more than 100 years ago.
John Doe
The Unicist Country Archetypes indeed help in defining the power of a culture. Based on the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, these archetypes evolve and hold a specific purpose, active function, and energy conservation function.
Cultural power, analogous to the physical concept of power (work done or energy converted per unit of time), is the capacity a country has to influence its environment and make things happen. As you have rightly outlined, country archetypes can fall into four categories, each indicating a different level of cultural power: Surviving, Subsistent, Expansive, and Influential.
- Surviving Archetypes: These archetypes are driven by a basic need to survive. The energy of these cultures is primarily focused on survival, resulting in limited value-adding energy. Their evolution is usually driven by heroic actions, necessitating leaders with charisma and acuity. These cultures often show a tendency for absolute ideology, viewing any deviation as opposition.
- Subsistent Archetypes: The cultures that operate under subsistent archetypes are driven by the ethos of earned value, striving to generate value and prevent degradation into a surviving archetype. These cultures are typified by a strong identification with victims, leading to a perception of community cooperation. Their growth is motivated by a strong ideological environment, which acts as an entropy-inhibiting catalyst, ensuring actions align with growth.
- Expansive Archetypes: Cultures that fall under expansive archetypes are naturally leading cultures driven by value-adding ethics. They continually strive for improvement, aiming to generate increasing value. These cultures are naturally competitive and focus on exporting standards and products. They believe in everyone’s responsibility to add value and have a natural inclination towards institutionalization of their activities for the generation of value.
- Influential Archetypes: This is the highest level a society can achieve. These cultures are driven by conceptual ethics, meaning they can actively adapt to their environment while also influencing it. The society needs to maintain a high level of awareness, which can create divisions within the culture. These cultures are knowledge-driven and have a high proportion of avant-garde members who are recognized as heroes. Their maximal strategy involves the integration of functional catalysts to accelerate value generation.
It is interesting to note that during transition stages, where dominant values ensuring survival, such as individualism and materialism, may result in social dysfunctional behaviors, the elite of the culture do not necessarily behave as such. During these stages, there are potential outcomes such as the resolution of the internal cultural dispute, excision of the country, degradation of the culture to a deeper survival stage, or a social mutation if the functionality of a social entity has been lost and there is the necessary available energy to generate change.
The history and evolution of a culture’s establishment and its produced facts can provide a deep understanding of the nature of a culture, as defined by its archetype. While most changes occur at an operational level, significant turning points at a structural level can be found in a culture’s history, marking significant shifts in its underlying archetype.
Peter Belohlavek
Example 1: A Synthesis of the American Archetype
The power of a culture is given by its archetype, the value of work and the technology that is being developed to generate growth. The Archetype of the USA is a paradigmatic example of how a culture can be leading in the world while strengthening its identity.
The nature of the culture of the US, which is defined by its archetype, can be described by the propensity to develop audacious actions in the environment based on the necessary use of knowledge in order to achieve its “dream” within a credibility context.
And this has to happen within the “system” that provides the limits of the actions.
The Maximal strategy implies that the culture is driven by daring actions to achieve its cultural “dream” within an institutionalized context.
The catalyst of the evolution of the American archetype is its institutionalization that accelerates its evolution.
Institutionalization is materialized in the democratic rules of the society. The icon of the cultural dream is the American Flag.
Daring implies doing in terms of concrete operational actions to achieve growth and surpass the well-being achieved by the preceding generations.
The social pressure towards growth within a context of being a leading culture in the world generates uncertainty in the coming generations that fosters the need for addictions to avoid the responsibility to produce growth.
The minimum strategy of the archetype fosters thinking, driven by the personal objectives and within the limits of the personal credibility.
That is why the USA archetype includes a multi-minority approach.
This minimum strategy provides the necessary context to develop hard technologies that sustain the economic activities of the maximal strategy.
Personal credibility is the entropy inhibitor of the American archetype.
As wealth sustains the perception of security, personal credibility requires having solved the necessary financial situation that makes an individual credible.
Daring, dreaming, credibility and thinking integrated to achieve growth require a strong ethical environment that needs to be sustained by the judiciary system.
Lying is unacceptable because it destroys the credibility and transparency of the culture and undermines its archetype.
John Doe
The American archetype, as you’ve synthesized, embodies an audacious approach towards the pursuit of a cultural “dream” within a context of institutionalized credibility. It’s a paradigmatic example of a culture’s power being derived from its cultural identity, work values, and growth-oriented technology.
At its core, the American archetype is about daring action. It drives the culture towards audacious efforts to achieve the cultural “dream”, symbolized by the American Flag. This is the maximum strategy, propelled by the institutionalization of democratic norms, rules, and values that act as the operational catalyst for the culture’s evolution.
However, the constant social pressure towards growth and leadership can foster uncertainty in future generations, leading to a propensity towards addictions as a coping mechanism to avoid the perceived responsibility of producing growth.
The minimum strategy, on the other hand, involves thoughtfulness and personal objectives within the limits of individual credibility. This approach aligns with the multi-minority ethos of the American society, providing the necessary context for the development of hard technologies that further fuel the economic activities of the maximum strategy.
Credibility, both personal and institutional, plays a pivotal role in the American archetype. Being financially secure contributes significantly to personal credibility, and thus serves as an entropy inhibitor. It is this credibility, coupled with transparency, that forms the bedrock of the American ethical environment. Hence, lying is considered an anathema as it erodes this essential attribute of the culture, undermining the archetype itself.
In a nutshell, the American archetype represents a culture characterized by daring, dreaming, personal credibility, and thoughtful action within the ambit of democratic institutions, working together to foster growth. The necessary ethical environment for these attributes to flourish is maintained by the judiciary system, highlighting the importance of honesty and transparency for the overall cultural power and identity.
Peter Belohlavek
Example 2: A Synthesis of the French Archetype
The French culture integrates efficiency and efficacy to achieve results prioritizing the latter. The French Archetype generated a unique way to develop a culture and a country.
France is a country with strong technological development. But, even though this strength, France prioritizes science over technology. It can be considered as a benchmark for scientific development both in hard and soft sciences.
In order to understand the French culture, one needs to understand the French Revolution as a detonating element of its assertion, which drives towards its evolution.
France’s archetype integrates: pragmatism, which is notorious in its international policy, a democracy driven approach that is evident in its non-dissent model, a strong nationality, and its characteristic of being a science incubator.
The French archetype includes and will always include a high degree of State intervention in the economy through incentive systems. This is also evident if we analyze the history of France since the industrial revolution.
The French model has always combined a certain degree of Keynesianism and of structuralism with some classic elements.
The employment problem will be a growing one, but one must bear in mind that France has the social perspective of employing people ingrained in the leaders’ minds; therefore, it is not a “struggle” between interests and employment but rather a “conflict” between them.
One should expect a reinforcement of government actions to foster the generation of employment in the country and a conflict with companies that seek to install manufacturing plants in some low wage countries.
The French idiosyncrasy is based on their structured social behavior, which is associated with a notorious individual freedom that drives to the existence of two different behavioral rules for public and private affairs.
Non-dissent as a Model
Conceptually, the French Revolution symbolized the maximum expression of the weight of dissent in a culture.
If we look at France’s later evolution, we shall see that different models, social groups and ideologies coexist in the culture.
But their coexistence is possible due to a very strong national identity that, through respect toward dissent, and only with a few exceptions, manages to avoid larger conflicts. This is what the French Archetype is about.
The May 1968 revolt drove to the acceptance of the need to have a laboratory to monitor social evolution. From a conceptual point of view, the social laboratory is a way to measure society’s dissent and the possibilities to channel it positively to avoid outbursts.
John Doe
The French archetype provides a unique blend of efficiency and efficacy, with an emphasis on achieving results. France, being a country with robust technological prowess, has traditionally favored science over technology, making it a benchmark for scientific development in both hard and soft sciences.
The French Revolution is a critical element in understanding the French culture, as it ignited the drive for evolution and assertion of the French identity. At the heart of the French archetype are four elements: pragmatism, evident in its international policy; a democratic approach showcased in its non-dissent model; a strong national identity; and a reputation as an incubator of scientific knowledge and innovation.
In terms of economic activity, the French archetype includes a high degree of state intervention, largely through incentive systems. Since the industrial revolution, France has maintained a blend of Keynesianism, structuralism, and some classical elements. The issue of employment will continue to be a major concern, but it’s important to understand that the social perspective of providing employment is deeply ingrained in French leadership. Therefore, it’s more of a “conflict” rather than a “struggle” between interests and employment. Government actions to stimulate job creation are likely to intensify, leading to friction with companies aiming to set up manufacturing plants in low-wage countries.
The French idiosyncrasy is rooted in structured social behavior, paired with pronounced individual freedom. This results in distinct behavioral rules for public and private affairs.
One critical aspect of the French archetype is its model of non-dissent. The French Revolution represented the peak of the impact of dissent in a culture. However, the evolution of France has demonstrated the coexistence of diverse models, social groups, and ideologies within the culture. This coexistence is possible due to a powerful national identity that, except in a few instances, manages to circumvent major conflicts through respect for dissent.
The May 1968 revolt led to the acceptance of the need for a “social laboratory” to monitor societal evolution. Conceptually, this social laboratory serves as a mechanism to measure society’s dissent and explore ways to positively channel it to prevent social unrest.
Peter Belohlavek
Example 3: A Synthesis of the Japanese Archetype
Japan has a very powerful archetype to sustain its ultimate purpose which is growth within a communitarian environment and a deep sense of loyalty. Thus, reliability is a natural consequence.
The archetype of Japan, and the trends of its evolution were developed by a unicist anthropology research group.
Cultures that have a strong drive toward growth cannot accept the defeat of their leaders. The elite of the culture needs to represent the values of the archetype.
The purpose of the maximal strategy of the Japanese culture is the expansion of the community based on the members’ pride in their work and sustained by their collective intelligence as a community or group.
Collective intelligence is in Japan the catalyst of their growth. Therefore there is a need for integrating the values of the community in order to be able to exert collective intelligence.
Individual intelligence is the entropy inhibitor of the Japanese archetype. It allows individuals to adapt to the conditions of the situation to achieve growth.
Loyalty is the final purpose of the minimum strategy. This means that individuals who are not loyal to the structure of society are considered aliens.
The integration of aliens implies a very slow process in order to avoid the loss of the roots of the culture.
Strong cultures like Japan respect foreigners based on their values and deeds. Dealing with Japan as an outsider is easy if one accepts that one is a foreigner. Respecting its archetype is the first step to dealing with the Japanese community.
John Doe
The Japanese archetype is built on the strong drive for growth within a communitarian environment and is characterized by a profound sense of loyalty, leading to inherent reliability. This archetype and the patterns of its evolution have been analyzed by a research group specializing in unicist anthropology.
In cultures with a robust growth orientation, such as Japan, it’s unacceptable for their leaders to face defeat. The societal elite must embody the values represented by the archetype.
The primary objective of the maximal strategy in Japanese culture is community expansion, underpinned by pride in their work among the community members. This is driven by collective intelligence that acts as a catalyst for their growth. Therefore, it’s crucial to integrate the community’s values to effectively harness collective intelligence.
Individual intelligence serves as the entropy inhibitor of the Japanese archetype. It enables individuals to adapt to different situations and conditions to facilitate growth.
At the core of the minimal strategy lies loyalty, implying that those who don’t adhere to the societal structure are perceived as outsiders. The integration of outsiders is a slow process to preserve the culture’s roots.
Strong cultures like Japan respect foreigners based on their values and actions. Interacting with Japan from an external perspective is straightforward, provided one acknowledges their foreigner status. Respecting the Japanese archetype is the first step in effectively engaging with the Japanese community.
Peter Belohlavek
Example 4: A Synthesis of the Russian Archetype
Since its origin, Russia has been an influential society that sought the well-being of its members using solutions that were functional to each stage. Studying the history of Russia provides the necessary information to understand it.
In Russia, there coexist different operational archetypes that adopt multiple shapes according to the dominant “technologies” of the segments that drive their ideologies. But these differentiated archetypes cannot contradict the functional archetype of the culture.
Examples of contradiction were some “States” of the Soviet Union that could never become integrated in the basic archetype of Russia and remained different. When this is the case, a secession risk begins to exist.
The expansive archetype of Russia includes:
- National pride: which is the driver of all the functional actions of the culture.
- The intellectual force: which drives all the cultural, sporting, and scientific activities.
- The functional hierarchy: which is a characteristic of Russian consensus building.
The survival archetype of Russia includes:
- The exertion of power to ensure survival.
- The influential force to make the power work to achieve goals.
- The formal hierarchy to protect leaders against dysfunctional participation.
The archetype of a culture defines the values that underlie the social, economic, and political scenarios. The values of the archetype adopt different shapes depending on the circumstances. They define the possible social evolution, the possible economic models, and the natural shape of political power.
John Doe
The Russian archetype is shaped by its historical context, wherein different operational archetypes coexist, adapting to the dominant ideologies of their respective segments. However, these differentiated archetypes cannot conflict with the culture’s functional archetype, as seen in some states of the former Soviet Union that couldn’t align with Russia’s basic archetype, leading to risks of secession.
The expansive archetype of Russia features three core elements:
- National pride, which drives all functional activities within the culture.
- Intellectual force, which fuels all cultural, sporting, and scientific activities.
- Functional hierarchy, a defining feature of Russian consensus building.
On the other hand, Russia’s survival archetype encompasses:
- The exertion of power to ensure survival.
- Influential force, employed to make power work towards achieving goals.
- Formal hierarchy, implemented to shield leaders from dysfunctional participation.
The cultural archetype dictates the underlying values of social, economic, and political landscapes. These values, adapting to different circumstances, define the possibilities for social evolution, economic models, and the natural structure of political power.
Peter Belohlavek
The Spiral of Human Evolution and Involution
A double dialectical behavior produces necessarily a spiral evolution.
The coexistence of both simultaneous dialectics produces an apparent anarchic unpredictable behavior within the credibility and functionality zone.
Both polarities are simultaneous, and their instantaneous positions define an influence between the elements that generate a structural position with conjunctural variations.
There are many operational solutions that fulfill the conditions of a given ontology. Therefore, seen from the outside, it might be considered that there is no unique ontology.
The spiral of evolution is driven by the active function (expansion) which proposes a superior conservation principle in order to extend the boundaries of what is the existent purpose towards a higher level. A higher level is a level with more added value to the environment.
To understand this process in human social evolution eight positions have been defined (four ascending and four descending positions) in this evolution process. They establish three “stable” situations that define four segments that behave in a structural way.
The double dialectical process that produces the double pendulum generates a high level of entropy in each movement.
The higher the level of evolution, the smaller is the amplitude of the pendulum and the lower is the entropy.
Theoretically, evolution could drive towards perfection, where materialistic and non-materialistic realities are one. At this level reality as it is perceived by humans could not exist.
But this is just hypothetical. Real life includes involution, which occurs when a specific object becomes dysfunctional to the environment.
Thus involution begins including increasing amplitude of the double dialectical pendulum.
This implies increasing entropy between the positions, generating a trend in which the loss of energy that occurs between the polarities generates an involving trend.
Involution drives toward the death of the object, its mutation or its recovery, when it finds a source of energy to compensate the involution trend and begins an evolution cycle.
In any case, it implies a new object with a different energy level with or without mutations.
John Doe
The concept of the Spiral of Human Evolution and Involution suggests a cyclical pattern of development and decline, driven by a dual-dialectic process.
The coexistence of two simultaneous dialectics results in an unpredictable behavior within the bounds of credibility and functionality. These dual polarities concurrently shape the system and influence its structure, with occasional variations based on specific circumstances.
While there are many operational solutions that can fulfill the conditions of a particular ontology, the perspective from an external viewpoint might suggest a lack of unique ontology.
The spiral of evolution is propelled by an active function (expansion), which aims to surpass the current conservation principle and elevate to a higher level. This level is characterized by increased added value to the environment.
To facilitate comprehension of this process in human social evolution, eight positions have been identified (four ascending and four descending) that form three “stable” situations and four structural segments.
Each movement of the double pendulum, driven by the dual-dialectic process, generates a significant level of entropy. The amplitude of the pendulum decreases as the level of evolution increases, thereby reducing entropy.
Theoretically, the path of evolution could lead towards a state of perfection, where material and non-material realities converge. At this level, the reality as perceived by humans might cease to exist.
However, this notion is hypothetical. In reality, the process of involution, or decline, is initiated when a specific entity becomes incompatible with its environment.
Involution increases the amplitude of the dual-dialectic pendulum, which in turn increases entropy between the positions. This creates a trend where the energy loss between polarities propels the system towards involution.
Involution eventually leads to the demise of the entity, or its mutation, or recovery if it manages to tap into an energy source that can reverse the involution trend and initiate an evolutionary cycle. Regardless, the end result is a new entity, potentially with mutations, operating at a different energy level.
Peter Belohlavek
Evolution of leading cultures and surviving cultures
The problem of the new generations of leading cultures is naturally the feeling of inferiority complexes to overcome the existing culture if they are in a leading environment.
Individuals have two alternatives: build upon the existing establishment or compete with it. Competition drives adolescents to guilt and the response requires needing to hate the situation and the individuals involved in it.
The paradox is that building upon an existing environment is also a competition. Building upon an establishment implies modifying the structure of the implicit weaknesses of a culture. This is something feasible for the next generation unless it was educated in an individualistic environment.
It has to be considered that individualism is the most degraded state of a culture. It implies that the interests of individuals prevail over the interests of the group.
A culture involves when individualism prevails. Surviving cultures include necessarily a dominant individualism. This is not the case of subsistent cultures where the group prevails over individuals. Surviving cultures produce survivors who necessarily are multi-addictive and need to behave as fundamentalists.
John Doe
The development of leading and surviving cultures hinges significantly on the dynamics of younger generations as they navigate the pre-existing cultural norms and structures.
In leading cultures, newer generations often grapple with feelings of inferiority and the challenge to either build upon or compete with the existing culture. When they choose competition, it often leads to feelings of guilt and resentment towards the existing cultural framework and those who support it.
Interestingly, even the choice to build upon existing culture is a form of competition, as it involves addressing and rectifying the inherent weaknesses of the culture. This is a task that can be accomplished by the younger generation, provided they have not been brought up in an overly individualistic environment.
Individualism, where the interests of individuals override those of the group, is considered as a degenerated state of a culture. When individualism becomes dominant, the culture tends to evolve into a survivalist culture, distinct from a subsistence culture where the group’s interests take precedence.
Survival cultures, characterized by prevalent individualism, typically produce individuals who tend to be multi-addictive and display fundamentalist behaviors. This is driven by the need to survive in an environment where personal interests take precedence over collective well-being. On the other hand, subsistence cultures foster a sense of community and collective responsibility, prioritizing the group’s needs over the individual’s.
In conclusion, the evolution of leading and surviving cultures is a complex interplay of individualism and collective responsibility, with the younger generations playing a pivotal role in shaping the cultural dynamics.
Peter Belohlavek
Evolution implies paying prices
Accepting the validity of the establishment is a condition for evolution. Over-adaptation to the establishment implies its sanctification, and drives to the avoidance of the responsibility of improving the environment. Cultures that foster rebel individualistic behaviors necessarily generate involution. Both over-adaptation and individualistic rebellion drive to involution.
Evolution implies competing with the establishment improving what has been received in order to ensure evolution and create an own place in order to satisfy the personal needs.
The first part, the improvement of what has been received is a work with a social responsibility, the second part deals with the ego of the person who has assumed the responsibility.
A culture is in involution if individuals begin with their own egocentric desires. In both extremes, leading cultures and surviving cultures, addictions of any kind become a natural response.
John Doe
Evolution, in the cultural sense, is not a straightforward or effortless process. It necessitates acceptance of the established societal structures, but also necessitates a critical stance that goes beyond mere over-adaptation. Over-adaptation, or the unquestioning acceptance and glorification of the existing system, leads to stagnation and the evasion of the responsibility to bring about meaningful improvements in society.
Similarly, an excessively individualistic or rebellious approach towards the existing societal structure can lead to cultural involution, or cultural decline, due to the lack of cooperation and consensus, which are essential for societal progress.
Thus, the pathway to cultural evolution requires a balanced approach – one that encourages competition with the establishment for its betterment, and that also cultivates a sense of social responsibility to enhance what has been inherited from previous generations. This approach not only ensures societal evolution but also helps individuals find their unique place in society, fulfilling their personal aspirations.
However, the balance is crucial. If a culture becomes excessively focused on individual desires, it risks falling into involution. At both ends of the spectrum – from highly advanced societies to struggling ones – individuals may turn to various forms of addictions as a response to the pressures created by either over-adaptation or excessive individualism.
Hence, cultural evolution entails paying the price of balancing individual needs with collective responsibilities and fostering a cooperative spirit to improve societal structures without becoming excessively attached to them.
Peter Belohlavek
Understanding the Future Scenarios of Countries is needed to define the Boundaries of Possibilities
The archetypes of cultures define the operation of their collective unconscious. It needs to be known to define what fits into a culture.
From an operational point of view, both evolution and involution appear to have a linear behavior.
On the one hand, the effects of evolution appear to be linear since there is always a better energy optimization complementation level with the environment.
On the other hand, the effect of involution also appears to be linear, providing an increase of entropy produced by the growing amplitude of the pendular behavior.
Social involution is sustained by the building of fallacious myths in order to avoid the disintegration of the restricted context of a given reality.
Fallacious myths provide both a myth to function and a utopia to believe in. But the integration of both is hypothetical and not real. Therefore, they work as social integrators but at the same time as involution drivers.
It has to be considered that those who do not share their fallacious myths cannot be part of a culture. Involution ends when reality has been accepted, the losses of the process have been taken, and a new utopia appears.
As is was said to define a future scenario of a country it is necessary to find the archetypical structure in its past and consider the information of the present to infer the possible future.
John Doe
Understanding a country’s cultural archetype is crucial for predicting future scenarios and defining the boundaries of what is possible within that society. A cultural archetype lays out the fundamental principles that guide collective behavior, forming the bedrock of the society’s collective unconscious. Understanding these principles is key for identifying the potentials and limitations within a society.
From an operational standpoint, both cultural evolution and involution can seem linear. Evolution seems linear because each advancement presents an increasingly optimized energy relationship with the environment. Conversely, involution, or societal decline, also appears linear, as it brings increasing entropy, reflecting growing instability and chaos within society.
Involution is often underpinned by the creation of fallacious myths – false beliefs that serve to maintain social cohesion and provide a sense of purpose, even as they drive societal decline. These myths offer a functional framework and a utopia to aspire towards. However, the integration of these two aspects is more often notional rather than actual. While these myths serve as social glue, they also contribute to societal involution. Those who reject these myths are often marginalized, unable to fully participate in the culture.
The end of involution arrives when society acknowledges its actual condition, absorbs the losses accrued through decline, and fosters a new, realistic utopia.
In order to predict a country’s future scenario, it is essential to delve into its past to uncover its archetypical structure, and then interpret present circumstances to infer possible futures. This approach offers valuable insights to anticipate the direction in which a society might be headed, setting the stage for informed decision-making and planning.
Peter Belohlavek
The approach to future research requires necessarily the use of abductive reasoning sustained by the unicist logic that provides the rules of the functionality and dysfunctionality of things. In the end, all forecasts will have certainty of error but they need to have a high probability of nearness.
John Doe
The method to explore future scenarios indeed necessitates the application of abductive reasoning, underpinned by unicist logic. This logic delivers the structural rules governing the functionality and dysfunctionality of entities or phenomena.
Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In simple terms, abductive reasoning involves generating the most straightforward and plausible hypotheses that can explain certain observations or facts.
Unicist logic, on the other hand, is an approach that helps understand the underlying structure of complex systems or realities. It enables us to apprehend the dynamics of a situation in terms of the interplay between its functional and dysfunctional aspects.
In forecasting future scenarios, the objective is to minimize errors and maximize nearness to the actual outcome. While every forecast is prone to some degree of error due to the inherent uncertainty and complexity of the future, the aim is to ensure that the predictions have a high probability of being close to the actual future outcomes. This process is an essential part of strategic planning and decision-making, helping to anticipate possible future states and prepare for them accordingly.
Peter Belohlavek
Thank you for your participation in this debate.