Homology between Unicist Concepts and Stem Cells

Print Friendly

The function of stem cells in the human body is homologous to the function of concepts in the field of human actions. While stem cells can give rise to specialized cells and thus organs, essential concepts allow building unicist objects.

Essential ConceptUnicist objects are adaptive systems that have a concept and generate added value within a quality assurance system to fulfill the purpose of the concept. Unicist objects are interdependent entities that integrate a complex adaptive system.

The knowledge of the essential concepts is basic to build unicist objects because these objects are the materialization of a concept.

Under certain conditions, organs can be transplanted and this is also the case of unicist objects that can be replicated as long as they belong to homologous and analogous entities.

Objects are inserted into processes to produce specific results. The same way stem cells have the potential capacity to give birth to human organs, concepts can give birth to objects to produce results.

The knowledge of the Unicist Theory allows using a double dialectical approach to reality to emulate the organization of nature using an object driven organization.

Nature is organized by objects which can be observed in the ecosystem. The human body is an example of the organization of nature, where organs are homologous to unicist objects. That is why the transplantation of organs became possible.

While the structure of the different organs of the body derives from the stem cells, the unicist objects derive from the essential function of an entity that is defined by its concept.

Properties of Stem Cells and Concepts

Stem Cells


They are unspecialized They are universal
They are capable of self-renewal They are timeless
They can give rise to specialized cells They allow building operational functions

Thus, stem cells and concepts are homologous. While essential concepts allow the construction of objects to insert into human adaptive processes, stem cells allow the building of organs that work as unicist objects to sustain the functionality of a complex adaptive system such as the human body.

Peter Belohlavek



The Unicist Theory solved the approach to complexity

Print Friendly

Unicist Theory, its Applications and Scientific EvidencesThe Unicist Theory made adaptive systems manageable and gave an epistemological structure to complexity sciences. As it is known, the management of complexity has been an unsolved challenge for sciences. This challenge has been faced in 1976 by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute, which became a pioneering organization in the development of concrete solutions to manage the complex adaptive systems by developing a logical approach that uses the Unicist Theory.

A double dialectical logical approach to manage complex problems has been discovered. This approach is based on the discovery that complex systems have a triadic structure that emulates the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, represented by a purpose, an active principle and an energy conservation principle and their integration. The Unicist Theory that solved the approach to complexity includes the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature, the Unicist Ontology, the Unicist Logic, the Unicist Conceptualization, the Unicist Ontology of Evolution, the Ontogenetic Maps and the Unicist Objects.

There are fields that are generally accepted as being complex such as: life sciences, social sciences, anthropology, political sciences, economic sciences, behavioral sciences, medicine, psychology, education, businesses, ecology and meteorology.

The complexity of a system is intrinsic, which means that it does not depend on the perception of an individual. But in order to apprehend a complex system it is necessary that the person emulates the system in mind, which fully depends on the individual. This required defining what a complex system is.

Science dealt with complexity using multiple palliatives but without achieving consensus of what complex systems are. The main problem to manage complexity is that all the elements of the complex system are integrated by bi-univocal conjunctions without the possibility of the existence of disjunctions, that the boundaries of the objects that integrate the complex system are open and that the system is open in itself. The only measurable facts are the results that such system produces.

The most difficult task was the completion of the scientific evidences to confirm the functionality of the solutions, which demanded thousands of applications until they could be synthesized. The scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory were: the functionality of amino acids, the structure of atoms, the structure of biological entities, the nervous system, the similarity between natural and social objects, the fact that unicist concepts behave as stem cells and that thinking processes are homologous to the functionality of electricity.

The Unicist Theory was used to develop applications in Life Sciences, Future Research, Business, Education, Healthcare and Social and Human behavior. Now complex adaptive systems became manageable and complexity science received its epistemological structure. Palliatives to deal with complexity will continue to be used until people accept that complexity needs to be approached in its nature.

Learn more: http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Basics

Executive Committee



Discovery of the Evolution and Involution of Human Intelligence

Print Friendly

The research on the possibilities of influencing the evolution of individual intelligence was based on the already demonstrated fact that the ethical intelligence evolves based on the maturity of individuals.

Evolution of IntelligenceThe intelligence used by the stagnant survivor ethics, survival ethics, value earning ethics, value adding ethics and foundation ethics that were discovered, defined different functionalities in the adaptation process. While, just born babies are driven by the ethics of survival, wise people, in their field of wisdom, are driven by conceptual ethics.

Ethical intelligence defines the true intentions of individuals and drives the long-term results of their actions.

While ethical intelligence defines the purpose, the true intentions of an individual, it influences the use of the strategic intelligence – that deals with actions and conflict solving – and of the logical intelligence – that deal with conceptualization, defining the concepts that guide the individual’s actions.

The question posed by this research was: how can the evolution of intelligence be stimulated? This question drove to develop multiple applications since 2003 that confirmed that the strategies individuals use when developing actions are the drivers of the evolution of intelligence.

The following table shows the equivalence of the different levels of intelligence.

(*) Ethical

(*) Logical
(*) Strategic
Influence /

Stagnant Survivor

Analogies /




Idea of the



Value Earning




Value Adding






(*) See paper on “The roots of human intelligence”:

The evolution of intelligence has two functionalities in itself:

  1. On the one hand, it upgrades the level of ethical intelligence. The use of a superior strategic intelligence, based on the development of repetitive actions of a comparative superior level that the ones the individual used to perform, fosters the development of a superior level of ethical intelligence.
  2. On the other hand, it the development of intelligence fosters an expansive attitude in everyday actions that drives individuals towards evolutive actions that increase their level of adaptiveness and influence.


The research demonstrated that the evolution of the strategic approach of individuals drives the evolution of their intelligence and can be considered the core of adults’ evolution.

The more influential the strategies are, the higher the level of ethical intelligence that is required. The systematic exercise of performing influential strategies expands the functionality of ethical intelligence.

It is important to clarify that the intelligence of an individual does not evolve based on strategic planning, it evolves driven by the planned actions an individual does. The success and the failure of these actions drive the evolution of intelligence when the individual does the necessary amendments in case of failure.

The stagnation of the level of use of strategic intelligence generates the degradation of ethical intelligence because the individual loses, step by step, her/his adaptation capacity, which drives necessarily towards a survivor ethics in order to avoid being excluded from the environment.

While the evolutionary process requires increasing the level of consciousness of actions, the involution process is fully unconscious, because “involution” is a personal and social taboo that cannot be accepted.

Intelligence evolves based on actions in the real world. The brain requires having a real need in order to expand the functionality of the neural system that guides human actions.

That is why the reading of books empowers the intelligence necessary to improve the reading capacity and not the doing capacity.

Intelligence CatalystsOne of the objectives of the research was to find personal methods that catalyze the expansion of an individual’s intelligence. What was discovered is that catalysts for the development of intelligence only work when the individual has a real need to generate value to influence an environment, s/he has an institutionalized attitude which means a role driven attitude, that implies that this search to add value is not subjective-driven and has the necessary reliable knowledge to generate such value.

In conceptual terms, this can be defined as being complementation building driven, assuming an adaptive leading role and being able to acquire the necessary knowledge to build such complementation.

Complementation Building (Unicist “Q” Method), Institutionalization (adaptive leadership) and Reliable knowledge Building (Unicist 5 Why Method) work as catalysts in the development of intelligence.

In this context, The Unicist Research Institute has decided to give free access to these technologies to the community through the Unicist Goodwill Network to foster equal opportunities for young people.

You can access the Unicist “Q” Method at:

The Unicist “5 Why” Method is available at:

The approach to “Adaptive Leadership” can be found at:

Introducing these catalysts requires having the necessary will and discipline to make this process work. It requires installing “evolution” in one’s lifestyle. The comfort zone needs to be displaced towards the satisfaction of generating value.

A Generic Solution to Expand Intelligence

The action-reflection-action process proposed by the unicist logical approach to complex environments is a way to deal with such environments but also a way to expand the intelligence of those who use this approach. This approach implies the use of the before mentioned methods (Unicist Q Method, 5 Why Method and Adaptive Leadership approach).

The final conclusion, in plain language, is that if someone wants to empower her/his intelligence, s/he should not imagine or study. Only actions will drive the evolution of intelligence; and the action-reflection-action process is the most powerful method to influence an environment while developing one’s intelligence. Ethical intelligence does not evolve based on moral thinking but on developing value adding actions.

Peter Belohlavek



Unicist Approach: How and why do social catalysts work?

Print Friendly

Social catalysts are unicist objects that accelerate human driven action processes. As catalysts, they are not part of the system, they are external entities to influence it.

The influence that catalysts exert is not based on an authoritarian impulse but on the adding of an energetic stimulus that accelerates a human action process. The use of drums to accelerate walking is a simple example of a social catalyst.

Social Catalysts work when the fundamentals of their ontogenetic map overcame the threshold that is needed to influence a specific human action process.

A social catalysts needs to fulfill a latent need that satisfies a basic human need.

The stimuli of catalysts need to be perceived as having a superior ethics, measured in terms of the value they add, which build up their authoritative and influential role.

But the influence of the social catalysts needs to be subliminal, meaning that it cannot be rationalized. If it is not subliminal, it produces a paradoxical effect.

Another example of social catalysts is the flag of a country. Depending on the functional context, the flag of a country works as a gravitational object, as a catalyst or as an entropy inhibitor.

Consider how flags are used in Olympic Games or Schools and you will be able to identify the different functionalities of the same flag.

Social catalyst building requires dealing with a superior ethics to influence the environment, but the use of social catalysts only requires understanding their functionality.

It has to be considered that catalysts are necessary to expand the boundaries of an activity and that if their energy does not suffice, they work as inhibitors.

Social and economic growth and maximal strategies in general, require the use of catalysts.

Peter Belohlavek



Evolution is Purpose Driven: The Discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature

Print Friendly

Darwins finchesThis research began in 1976 with the hypothesis that in nature there are mutations that are random but others that are driven by a purpose.

If this hypothesis was confirmed and there were a purpose, Peter Belohlavek concluded that there would have to be an intelligence that defined such purpose.

For this reason, Belohlavek researched on the essential structure implicit in nature’s intelligence to be able to predict and exert influence on the evolution of complex adaptive systems when possible.

Charles Darwin demonstrated the adaptation process of species that, having the same structural constitution, developed adaptive changes to live in a certain environment.

The hypothesis of Belohlavek’s research was that these changes were driven by an intelligence that underlies nature.

The Unified field of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of NatureHe concluded that each living creature’s evolution is ruled by its ontogenetic intelligence, that defines it as unique both in its species and individuality and that the essential structure of this intelligence is integrated by a purpose, an active principle (entropic function) and an energy conservation principle.

The research was focused on the unified field of living beings.

The basic assumption that sustains this development is that the evolution of living beings, their behaviors, actions and deeds are driven by the same logical structural framework.

This implies that there is an intelligence that defines the structural behavior of any entity that integrates this framework that allows predicting the behavior of all the entities where this intelligence is known.

You can find the complete document on the “Discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature” at: http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Basics

Unicist Press Committee



Unicist Research: Closing the gap between macro and micro behavior

Print Friendly

The Unicist Research closed the gap between macro and micro behaviour. The unicist complexity research approach implies dealing with applications while researching, which requires that the lapse of research time be very long in order to achieve fully accurate predicted results before validating a hypothesis.

discoveries-unicist-2013-2014As it has been done every year since its foundation, The Unicist Research Institute synthesized this January the researches that had been finished until that time. After 38 years, 2013/2014, can be considered the year in which the integration of macro and micro behavior could be confirmed.

The gap between the macro and the micro cosmos has been and is still a problem that theoretical physicists are closing. The integration of the field of macro and micro behavior, that has been solved by Peter Belohlavek, is homologous. It allows integrating social behavior with individual behavior, making human complex adaptive systems manageable.

The publication of Conceptual Economics, Conceptual Anthropology and Conceptual Psychology are some of the milestones of this process that included the researches developed in 2013-2014 (see image above).

You can access Conceptual Economics and Conceptual Anthropology at:

If you want to access the “Drivers of Human Behavior” that explain the structure of human intelligence, please access: www.unicist.org/repo/#Psychology

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist


Our best wishes for 2014: Happy New Year!

Print Friendly

“Cooperation in Diversity” is much more than our motto. It is a way of living.

Happy New Year 2014

Make your wishes come true.
Have a happy New Year!

The Unicist Research Institute


What are Complexity Sciences?

Print Friendly

The objective of the Unicist Approach to Complexity Sciences developed by Peter Belohlavek was to find a scientific approach to understand nature and provide a structure to emulate it when designing, building or managing complex adaptive systems.

Unicist Approach to Complexity SciencesBelohlavek developed the epistemological structure for complexity sciences, by developing the unicist ontological methodology for complex systems research, which substituted the systemic approach to research adaptive systems and was materialized in the unicist logical approach to deal with adaptiveness.

This is an excerpt comparing the different approaches that intended to deal with Complexity Sciences. It needs to be stated that the unicist approach developed the first integrated structure to manage complex adaptive systems.

Until the existence of this approach the methods of systemic sciences were used as a palliative to deal with complex adaptive behaviors.

The structure of the unicist approach to complexity sciences implies the integration of a unicist ontological approach, which defines the structure of the nature of a specific reality with the use of unicist objects that allow emulating the organization of nature to predict the behavior of complex adaptive systems, design them, built them or manage them.

Access to a synthetic comparison of the Unicist Approach with the different approaches based on their nature and functionality:

  1. Complex Adaptive Systems
  2. Ontologies
  3. Objects

Comparison of the Approaches to Complexity Sciences


Peter Belohlavek’s approach
to Complexity Sciences

Preexisting approaches: Bateson, Förster, Lorenz, Maturana, Morin, Prigogine
and others

Field of Study Complex adaptive systems Complex adaptive systems
Approach Pragmatic – Structural – Functionalist Empirical
Definition of the field of study A specific reality as a unified field that includes the restricted and wide contexts and the emergence of the system Based on the emergence of the system
Possibility of external observation Inexistent Inexistent
Research method Unicist Ontological Research Systemic research
Boundaries of the system Open Open
Self organization Concepts – analogous to strange attractors Strange Attractors / undefined
Structure Double Dialectics Dynamics
Purpose – active function – energy conservation function
Relationship between the elements Following complementation and supplementation laws Undefined
Evolution / Involution Based on the evolution/involution laws of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature Undefined
Processes Object driven processes Undefined
Certainty Dealing with possibilities and probabilities Dealing with probabilities
Demonstration Real applications Real applications
Emulation in mind Double dialectical thinking
(using ontointelligence)
Complex thought
Emergence Results Results
Chaos Inexistent Existent
Influence on the system Based on actions and driving, inhibiting, entropy inhibiting, catalyzing and gravitational objects. Based on actions
Validation Destructive and non-destructive tests (real applications) Systemic research validation methods


Comparison of Ontologies with the Unicist Ontology

Comparison of:

Ontology (Philosophy)
Aristotle, Wolff,
Kant and others

Ontology (Information Science)
Gruber, Sowa, Arvidsson and others

Unicist Ontology (Complexity Sciences)
Peter Belohlavek (*)

Purpose Knowledge acquisition Information and knowledge acquisition Managing complex adaptive systems and adaptive processes
Foundations Discovery Shared expert opinions Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and discovery of functionalities
Use in business To apprehend reality Artificial Intelligence  and building of complex information systems Manage human adaptive systems and adaptive processes
Scope of application Universal Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems Development of ontogenetic maps for the individual, institutional, business and social fields.
Language used Natural Web Ontology Language and others Unicist Standard Language and natural language
Results to be achieved True knowledge Valid knowledge and information Value generation
Evolution / Involution laws Inexistent Inexistent Unicist laws of evolution
Validation model Inexistent Inexistent Unicist logic
Taxonomic structure Inexistent Based on shared validation Defined by the Unicist Algorithms
Mathematic validation Inexistent Inexistent Following the Unicist logic
Deals with Ideas Categories and objects Algorithms and business objects
Oneness One ontology for each aspect of reality Depending on the consensus of the expert opinions One ontology for each functionality

Comparison of the different types of objects

Objects Oriented Programming

Main concepts of objects in IT programming

Complex Adaptive

Main concepts of
unicist objects

Adaptive Systems
in Nature

Main concepts of objects in nature (e.g. a tree)

Class Restricted Context Species
Object Business Object Entity
Inheritance Homologous Inheritance Inheritance
Method Method Functionality
Event Action Action
Message Information System Nervous System
Attributes Fundamentals Morphology
Abstraction Ontogenetic Map Genotype
Encapsulation Unified Field Phenotype
Polymorphism Polymorphism Polymorphism
Synchronicity Synchronicity
Critical Mass Critical Mass

Complexity Science Research

The unicist theory expanded the frontiers of sciences making the scientific approach to complex adaptive systems possible without needing to use arbitrary palliatives to transform complex systems into systemic systems in order to be able to research them.

Complexity Science ResearchParadoxically, this is a breakthrough and a back to basics. On the one hand, it is a breakthrough because it changed the paradigms of scientific research. On the other hand, it is a back to basics because it drives sciences to deal with the nature of reality.

The unicist logical approach opened the possibilities of managing complexity sciences using a pragmatic, structured and functionalist approach.

The unicist approach to complexity is based on the research of the unicist ontological structure of a complex adaptive system which regulates its evolution. This is based on emulating the structure of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature considering that every functional aspect of reality has a unique unicist ontological structure.

The approach to ontological structures of reality requires going beyond the dualistic thinking approach and being able to use the double dialectical logic to approach complex adaptive systems.

The research in complexity science needs to have its own format for its presentation that has a structural difference with the papers for systemic sciences (abstract, introduction, materials and methods, discussion, literature).


The unicist approach to complexity sciences is a pragmatic, structural and functionalist approach.

This approach establishes the framework for the research on complexity sciences but also for the unicist logical approach that uses the conclusion of the researches in their application in the field of complex adaptive systems.

The Unicist Research Institute



The basics of the Unicist Logical Approach to Complexity

Print Friendly

Homology between the unicist ontological structure, the atomic structure and biology


The objective of this synthesis is to provide the framework of the consistency between the unicist ontological approach and hard sciences to demonstrate not only that they are compatible but also their homology.

Ontogenetic Intelligence of NatureAfter the unicist ontology has been apprehended, it becomes evident that its structure is homologous to the structure of atoms and biology.

This homology allows dealing with the nature of the complex aspects of all sciences using the same unicist ontological structure defined by the ontogenetic maps to define the concept of what is needed to develop with a fully reliable approach.

Engineering, electronics, information technology, behavioral sciences, anthropology and architecture among other application fields need to use the unicist ontological structure and the corresponding ontogenetic maps in order to be apprehended in their nature. Without them concepts are just ideas and not concrete structures to be followed.


The ontogenetic intelligence of nature defines that every living being has a purpose, an active principle and an energy conservation principle.

Learn more at:

The purpose can also be defined as the substantive function, the active principle as the verbal function and the energy conservation principle as the adverbial function.

In physics atoms are defined by having a central nucleus, composed by positively charged protons and neutral neutrons, surrounded by negatively charged electrons.

The positively charged protons are homologous to the substantive function, the neutral neutrons are homologous to the adverbial function and the negatively charged electrons are homologous to the verbal function. An atom, having an equal number of protons and electrons, is electrically neutral.

Living beings are continuously evolving and involving which implies that there is always disequilibrium between their purposes and their active functions which is homologous to the disequilibrium of protons and electrons.

This disequilibrium is what defines the energy and the influence of an ontogenetic structure in the environment.

The active function and the purpose are antithetic and supplementary implying that both are charged with energy.

The energy conservation function and the purpose have a complementary relationship which is evident in atoms where the neutrons allow the integration of the protons.

The mass of an element is basically given by the nucleus of an ontological structure meaning that the mass is given by the purpose and its complementary energy conservation function. But the evolution of a living being is given by the power of the active function in the environment.

The Unicist Ontology of Biological Entities

The unicist ontology of a “biological entity” defines its structure and functionality in an environment.

The genotype defines the genetic structure of the entity that rules its evolution and generates the phenotype of the being. The objective of the genotype is to ensure the permanence of species, its reproduction and production.

The phenotype defines the morphologic, behavioral and materialistic characteristics of the entity.

It defines the functional characteristics, the functional power of the entity and the functional assurance.

Functionality defines the effectiveness of the phenotype measured as the consequence of the adaptation of the biological entity to the environment.

Functionality is measured in the capacity of adapting and growing on the one hand, and surviving, on the other hand.

The understanding of the ontology of “biological entities” helps to follow the laws of nature when dealing with genetic engineering processes and use it to apprehend the nature of beings with “artificial life” such as institutions.


This homology is just a demonstration that beginning with physics, continuing with biology and ending with human behavior the essential structures of these fields are necessarily compatible and homologous.

Peter Belohlavek



Dualism vs. Double Dialectical Logic to deal with reality

Print Friendly

The dualism of neural functionality makes dualistic logical approaches become the natural way to deal with reality. This dualism is functional in operational environments, ruled by cause-effect relationships where the actors dominate the consequences of their actions.

Knowledge of Adaptive SystemsCommon sense is the consequence of having found recipes using dualistic logic. Common sense rules are pre-concepts that work as recipes for the one who uses them.

At an abstract level, truth tables are also the consequence of the use of dualism. In the field of dualistic approaches things are true or false, good or bad, etc.

The disjunction “OR” is the basic rule when dealing with dualistic approaches in operational environments. This makes people feel powerful because they establish the “OR” they need.

But when dealing with adaptive aspects of reality there is no possibility to define actions using a dualistic approach because the triadic structure of reality cannot be apprehended with a binary model.

The triadic structure of reality, its concept, is defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function.

To apprehend this triadic structure with a binary mind it is necessary to be able to build a double dialectical approach in mind that emulates a specific reality.

This approach was named unicist double dialectical logic because it allows defining the unified field of adaptive systems in order to diagnose and influence them. It is based on the fact that in complex systems all the elements are integrated by the conjunction “AND”.

The Unicist double dialectical approach leaves behind the truth tables (True “OR” False) and replaces them with functional tables evaluating the functionality based on predefined purposes.

The unicist reflection process: action-reflection-action is the technology to be used to transform dualistic logical approaches into unicist double dialectical approaches in order to define the concepts of complex adaptive systems.

This technology allows starting with the use of disjunctions “OR” and ending with the use of conjunctions “AND”.

This process requires that those who have decided to deal with complex problems need to be fully focused on producing results, have sound knowledge of the problem and have decided to influence it in an adapted way.

The paradox is that at the end the diagnoses and solutions found need to be transformed into operational “recipes” in order to make them manageable by ordinary people.

But it has to be considered that without being able to manage the triadic structure of the concept of complex adaptive systems, the diagnoses and solutions developed are either palliatives or fallacies that cannot produce meaningful results.

Peter Belohlavek
