Group 1 - The article emphasizes the need for a shift from a binary thinking model to a non-binary understanding of the relationship between individuals and the world, highlighting that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts [1] - It discusses the evolution of organizational forms from "machines" to "robots," indicating that this transition may create anxiety among individuals as they adapt to new roles within organizations [2][3] - The book "Symbiotic Philosophy" aims to explore how organizational evolution can enhance individual meaning and purpose [4] Group 2 - Organizations serve three essential functions: ensuring goal achievement, providing meaning to individuals, and ensuring sustainability, which cannot be achieved by individuals alone [5][6][7] - The article critiques the traditional focus on "profit maximization" in organizations, suggesting that in the digital age, organizations must redefine their goals to include societal betterment [8] - It argues that organizations should not view themselves in a subject-object relationship with others but rather collaborate with both partners and competitors to create greater social value [8] Group 3 - The prevalence of "profit maximization" as an organizational goal is rooted in human self-interest and the historical context of private property rights [9][10] - The article questions whether the profit maximization goal can change, suggesting that socially responsible companies are those that embrace social responsibility [11] - It introduces the concept of "symbiotic functionality," proposing that human evolution includes both self-interest and altruism, which should inform organizational goals [11][12] Group 4 - The emergence of digital technology necessitates a reevaluation of organizational goals, emphasizing the importance of understanding the public nature of data and the collaborative aspects of modern technology [12] - The article posits that as organizations evolve, the goal of profit maximization can be adjusted, focusing on establishing symbiotic relationships within and outside the organization [12]

Group 1 - The core argument emphasizes the need for companies to adapt to the complexities of the digital age by shifting from traditional binary thinking to a non-binary cognitive model that fosters holistic and interconnected understanding [1][7][8] - Companies are facing significant challenges as the traditional binary cognitive model, which divides the business landscape into opposing categories, becomes increasingly inadequate in the context of digital transformation [7][8] - The transition to a non-binary cognitive model requires companies to embrace ecological symbiosis, dissolve organizational boundaries, and recognize non-linear relationships in the business environment [9][10][11] Group 2 - The non-binary cognitive model is supported by advancements in quantum physics and philosophical theories that emphasize the interconnectedness of individuals and their environments, challenging traditional reductionist views [11][12][13] - Companies must recognize the dynamic nature of relationships in the digital age, moving away from static perceptions of the external world to a more interactive and collaborative understanding [14][15] - Establishing a dynamic holistic cognitive framework can help alleviate anxiety and confusion caused by outdated cognitive paradigms, enabling companies to better navigate uncertainties and complexities in the market [16]

Group 1 - Traditional industries are facing significant pressure, while emerging industries and companies are experiencing substantial growth, often reaching trillion-dollar valuations, driven by strong knowledge productivity [1] - Knowledge has fundamentally changed its significance, becoming the primary production factor, with capital and labor taking a secondary role, leading to the emergence of knowledge workers [3][4] - The application of knowledge has resulted in new business models and industries, exemplified by the electric vehicle sector, which revitalizes traditional industries through innovative knowledge [5] Group 2 - Knowledge can be categorized into meaningful knowledge, productive knowledge, and behavioral knowledge, with a particular emphasis on the importance of behavioral knowledge [4] - The value of knowledge is distinct from tangible assets, as it can be created, destroyed, and enhanced through collaboration [6][9] - Knowledge has unique characteristics, such as its ability to transcend material existence, empower other factors, shape individuals and society, promote sharing and inclusivity, and possess disruptive qualities [10][11][12][13]