TRANSDISCIPLINARITY PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

1. The war of definitions

a. ow transdis!i"#inarit$ was %orn Transdisciplinarity is a relatively young approach: it emerged seven centuries later than disciplinarity, due to the Swiss philosopher and psychologist Jean Piaget (189 !198"#. The word itsel$ $irst appeared in %rance, in 19&", in the tal's o$ Jean Piaget, (rich Jantsch and )ndr* +ichnerowic,, at the international wor'shop -.nterdisciplinarity /Teaching and 0esearch Pro1lems in 2niversities3, organi,ed 1y the 4rgani,ation $or (conomic 5o! operation and 6evelopment (4(56#, in colla1oration with the %rench 7inistry o$ 8ational (ducation and 2niversity o$ 8ice1. .n his contri1ution, Piaget gives the $ollowing description o$ transdisciplinarity: 9%inally, we hope to see succeeding to the stage o$ interdisciplinary relations a superior stage, which should 1e 9transdisciplinary9, i.e. which will not 1e limited to recogni,e the interactions and or reciprocities 1etween the speciali,ed researches, 1ut which will locate these lin's inside a total system without sta1le 1oundaries 1etween the disciplines9:. This description is vague, 1ut has the merit o$ pointing to a new space o$ 'nowledge -without sta1le 1oundaries 1etween the disciplines3. ;owever, the idea o$ a -total system3 opens the trap o$ trans$orming transdisciplinarity in a super! or hyperdiscipline, a 'ind o$ -science o$ sciences3. .n other words the description o$ Piaget leads to a closed system, in contradiction with his own re<uirement o$ the insta1ility o$ 1oundaries 1etween disciplines. The 'ey!point here is the $act that Piaget retained only the meanings -across3 and -1etween3 o$ the +atin pre$i= trans, eliminating the meaning -1eyond3. .n such a way, transdisciplinarity is >ust a new, 1ut -superior3 stage, o$ interdisciplinarity. . thin' that Piaget was $ully conscious o$ this alteration o$ transdisciplinarity, 1ut the intellectual climate was not yet prepared $or receiving the shoc' o$ contemplating the possi1ility o$ a space o$ 'nowledge beyond the disciplines.
?

Pu1lished in Moving Worldviews - Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development, 547P)S (ditions, ;olland, :"" , edited 1y @ertus ;aver'ort and 5oen 0ei>nt>es, p. 1A:!1 . 1 Apostel et al., 1972. 2 Piaget, 1972, p. 144.

The proo$ is that, in his introduction to the Proceedings o$ the wor'shop, Pierre 6uguet honestly recogni,es that some e=perts wanted, in preliminary meetings, to see the word -transdisciplinarity3 in the title o$ the wor'shop, 1ut authorities o$ the 4(56 re$used to do so, 1ecause they were a$raid to con$use some representatives o$ the mem1er countriesB. .n his contri1utions, (rich Jantsch, an )ustrian thin'er living in 5ali$ornia, $alls in the trap o$ de$ining transdisciplinarity as a hyperdiscipline. ;e writes that transdisciplinarity is -the coordination o$ all disciplines and interdisciplines o$ the teaching system and the innovation on the 1asis o$ a general a=iomatic approach3A. ;e clearly situates transdisciplinarity in the disciplinary $ramewor'. ;owever, the historical merit o$ Jantsch was to underline the necessity o$ inventing an a=iomatic approach $or transdisciplinarity and also o$ introducing values in this $ield o$ 'nowledge. %inally, the approach o$ )ndr* +ichnerowic,, a 'nown %rench mathematician, is radically mathematical. ;e sees transdisciplinarity as a transversal play, in order to descri1e -the homogeneity o$ the theoretical activity in di$$erent sciences and techni<ues, independently o$ the $ield where this activity is e$$ectuated3C. )nd, o$ course, this theoretical activity can 1e $ormulated, he thin's, only in mathematical language. +ichnerowic, writes: -The @eing is put 1etween parentheses and it is precisely this non!ontological character which con$ers to mathematics its power, its $idelity and its polyvalence.3 The interest o$ +ichnerowic, $or transdisciplinarity was accidental, 1ut his remar' a1out the non!ontological character o$ mathematics has to 1e remem1ered. . descri1ed in some detail the three di$$erent positions o$ Piaget, Jantsch and +ichnerowic, concerning transdisciplinarity, 1ecause they can 1e $ound again, a <uarter o$ a century later, in what . call -the war o$ de$initions3. The word -war3 does not 1elong to the transdisciplinary voca1ulary. @ut . use it on purpose, 1ecause it appeared in the issue -Duerre et pai= entre les sciences: disciplinarit* et transdisciplinarit* E Far and Peace @etween Sciences: 6isciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity3 o$ a %rench maga,ine. .n this issue, one o$ the authors as'ed $or the interdiction o$ the word -transdisciplinarity3.& ;is desire was o1viously not satis$ied. . would li'e to add, in this discussion a1out the incipient phase o$ transdisciplinarity, the name o$ (dgar 7orin. ) short time a$ter the 8ice meeting, 7orin 1egins to use the word
Duguet, 1972, p. 13. Jantsch, 1972 a, p. 108. The same ideas are expressed in Jantsch, 1972 b. 5 Lichnerowicz, 1972, pp. 130-131. 6 Ibid., pp. 127. 7 Alain Caill, in Guerre, 1996.
3 4

-transdisciplinarity3 and he even leads a transdisciplinary la1oratory in human sciences, in the $ramewor' o$ a prestigious %rench research institution. .t is true that 7orin did not give a de$inition o$ transdisciplinarity. %or him, transdisciplinarity was, in that period, a 'ind o$ messenger o$ the $reedom o$ thin'ing, a go!1etween discipline. 1. &e$ond dis!i"#ines . proposed the inclusion o$ the meaning -1eyond disciplines3 in 198C8 and . developed this idea over the years in my articles and 1oo's and also in di$$erent o$$icial international documents. 7any other researchers over the world contri1uted to this development o$ transdisciplinarity. ) 'ey!date in this development is 199A, when the 5harter o$ Transdisciplinarity9 was adopted 1y the participants at the %irst Forld 5ongress o$ Transdisciplinarity (5onvento da )rrG1ida, Portugal#. This idea did not come $rom heaven or >ust $rom the pleasure o$ respecting the etymology o$ the word trans, 1ut $rom my long practice o$ <uantum physics. %or an outsider, it might seem parado=ical that it is $rom the very core o$ e=act sciences that we arrive at the idea o$ limits o$ disciplinary 'nowledge. @ut $rom inside, it provides evidence o$ the $act that, a$ter a very long period, disciplinary 'nowledge has reached its own limitations with $ar reaching conse<uences not only $or science, 1ut also $or culture and social li$e. The crucial point here is the status o$ the Su1>ect. 7odern science was 1orn through a violent 1rea' with the ancient vision o$ the world. .t was $ounded on the idea H surprising and revolutionary $or that era H o$ a total separation 1etween the 'nowing su1>ect and 0eality, which was assumed to 1e completely independent $rom the su1>ect who o1served it. This 1rea' allowed science to develop independently o$ theology, philosophy and culture. .t was a positive act o$ $reedom. @ut today, the e=treme conse<uences o$ this 1rea', incarnated 1y the ideology o$ scientism, 1ecome a potential danger o$ sel$!destruction o$ our species. 4n the spiritual level, the conse<uences o$ scientism have 1een considera1le: the only 'nowledge worthy o$ its name must there$ore 1e scienti$ic, o1>ectiveI the only reality worthy o$ this name must 1e, o$ course, o1>ective reality, ruled 1y o1>ective laws. )ll 'nowledge other than scienti$ic 'nowledge is thus cast into the in$erno o$ su1>ectivity, tolerated at most
8 9

Nicolescu, 1985. Charter.

as a meaningless em1ellishment or re>ected with contempt as a $antasy, an illusion, a regression, or a product o$ the imagination. (ven the word -spirituality3 has 1ecome suspect and its use has 1een practically a1andoned. 41>ectivity, set up as the supreme criterion o$ Truth, has one inevita1le conse<uence: the trans$ormation o$ the Su1>ect into an 41>ect. The death o$ the Su1>ect is the price we pay $or o1>ective 'nowledge. The human 1eing 1ecame an o1>ect H an o1>ect o$ the e=ploitation o$ man 1y man, an o1>ect o$ the e=periments o$ ideologies which are proclaimed scienti$ic, an o1>ect o$ scienti$ic studies to 1e dissected, $ormali,ed, and manipulated. The 7an/Dod has 1ecome a 7an/41>ect, o$ which the only result can 1e sel$!destruction. The two world massacres o$ this century, not to mention the multiple local wars and terrorism H are only the prelude to sel$!destruction on a glo1al scale. .n $act, with very $ew e=ceptions / ;usserl, ;eidegger or 5assirer / modern and post! modern thin'ers gradually trans$ormed the Su1>ect in a grammatical su1>ect. The Su1>ect is today >ust a word in a phrase1". The <uantum revolution radically changed this situation. The new scienti$ic and philosophical notions it introduced / the principle o$ superposition o$ <uantum -yes3 and -no3 states, discontinuity, non!separa1ility, glo1al causality, <uantum indeterminism / necessarily led the $ounders o$ <uantum mechanics to rethin' the pro1lem o$ the complete 41>ect E Su1>ect separation. %or e=ample, Ferner ;eisen1erg, 8o1el Pri,e o$ Physics, thought that one must suppress any rigid distinction 1etween the Su1>ect and 41>ect, 1etween o1>ective reality and su1>ective reality. -The concept o$ -o1>ective3 and -su1>ective3 / writes ;eisen1erg / designate JKL two di$$erent aspects o$ one realityI however we would ma'e a very crude simpli$ication i$ we want to divide the world in one o1>ective reality and one su1>ective reality. 7any rigidities o$ the philosophy o$ the last centuries are 1orn 1y this 1lac' and white view o$ the world.311 ;e also asserts that we have to renounce the privileged re$erence to the e=teriority o$ the material world. -The too strong insistence on the di$$erence 1etween scienti$ic 'nowledge and artistic 'nowledge / writes ;eisen1erg / comes $rom the wrong idea

10 11

Descombes, 2004. Heisenberg, 1989, p. 269.

that concepts descri1e per$ectly the -real things3 JKL )ll true philosophy is situated on the threshold 1etween science and poetry.31: 7y line o$ thin'ing is in per$ect agreement with that o$ ;eisen1erg. %or me, -1eyond disciplines3 precisely signi$ies the Su1>ect, more precisely the Su1>ect!41>ect interaction. The transcendence, inherent in transdisciplinarity, is the transcendence o$ the Su1>ect. The Su1>ect can not 1e captured in a disciplinary camp. The meaning -1eyond disciplines3 leads us to an immense space o$ new 'nowledge. The main outcome was the $ormulation o$ the methodology o$ transdisciplinarity, which . will analy,e in the ne=t section. .t allows us also to clearly distinguish 1etween multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Multidisciplinarity concerns itsel$ with studying a research topic in not >ust one discipline only, 1ut in several at the same time. )ny topic in <uestion will ultimately 1e enriched 1y incorporating the perspectives o$ several disciplines. 7ultidisciplinarity 1rings a plus to the discipline in <uestion, 1ut this -plus3 is always in the e=clusive service o$ the home discipline. .n other words, the multidisciplinary approach over$lows disciplinary 1oundaries while its goal remains limited to the $ramewor' o$ disciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity has a di$$erent goal than multidisciplinarity. .t concerns the trans$er o$ methods $rom one discipline to another. +i'e multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity over$lows the disciplines, 1ut its goal still remains within the $ramewor' o$ disciplinary research. .nterdisciplinarity has even the capacity o$ generating new disciplines, li'e <uantum cosmology and chaos theory. Transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the di$$erent disciplines, and beyond all discipline. .ts goal is the understanding o$ the present world, o$ which one o$ the imperatives is the unity o$ 'nowledge1B. )s one can see, there is no opposition 1etween disciplinarity (including multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity# and transdisciplinarity, 1ut a $ertile complementarity. .n $act, there is no transdisciplinarity without disciplinarity. .n spite o$ this $act, the a1ove considerations provo'ed, around 199", a more a less violent war o$ de$initions. This war is not yet $inished.
12 13

Idem, pp. 363-364. Nicolescu, 1996.

There is a speci$ic di$$erent approach o$ transdisciplinarity, characteri,ed 1y the re$usal o$ $ormulating any methodology and 1y its e=clusive concentration on >oint pro1lem!solving o$ pro1lems pertaining to the science!technology!society triad. This approach is represented 1y $igures li'e 7ichael Di11ons1A and ;elga 8owotny1C. The point o$ view o$ this transdisciplinary current was largely e=pressed at the MNrich 5ongress, held in the year :"""1 . This version o$ transdisciplinarity does not e=clude the meaning -1eyond disciplines3 1ut reduces it to the interaction o$ disciplines with social constraints. The social $ield necessarily introduces a dimension -1eyond disciplines3, 1ut the individual human 1eing is conceived o$ as part o$ a social system only. .t is di$$icult $or us to understand why 9>oint pro1lem solving9 must 1e the uni<ue aim o$ transdisciplinarity. .t is certainly one o$ the aims 1ut not the only aim. The use o$ singular seems to us dangerous, as in religion, as allowing unnecessary wars and unproductive dogmatism. .s transdisciplinarity concerning only society, as a uni$orm whole, or, in the $irst place, the human 1eing which is (or has to 1e# in the center o$ any civili,ed societyO )re we allowed to identi$y knowledge with production of knowledgeO Fhy the potential o$ transdisciplinarity has to 1e reduced to produce 91etter science9O Fhy transdisciplinarity has to 1e reduced to 9hard science9O .n other words, the Su1>ect ! 41>ect interaction seems to us to 1e at the very core o$ transdisciplinarity and not the 41>ect alone. . thin' that the unconscious 1arrier to a true dialogue comes $rom the ina1ility o$ certain transdisciplinary researchers to thin' the discontinuity. . will give an image in order to e=press what . have in mind. %or them, the 1oundaries 1etween disciplines are li'e 1oundaries 1etween countries, continents and oceans on the sur$ace o$ the (arth. These 1oundaries are $luctuating in time 1ut a $act remains unchanged: the continuity 1etween territories. Fe have a di$$erent approach o$ the 1oundaries 1etween disciplines. %or us, they are li'e the separation 1etween gala=ies, solar systems, stars and planets. .t is the movement itsel$ which generates the $luctuation o$ 1oundaries. This does not mean that a gala=y intersects another gala=y. Fhen we cross the 1oundaries we meet the interplanetary and intergalactic vacuum. This vacuum is $ar $rom 1eing empty: it is $ull o$ invisi1le matter and energy. .t introduces a clear discontinuity 1etween territories o$ gala=ies, solar systems, stars and planets. Fithout the interplanetary and intergalactic vacuum there is no 2niverse.
Gibbons, 1994. Nowotny, 1994 and The Potential of Transdisciplinarity. 16 Thompson Klein et al., 2001.
14 15

.t is my deep conviction that our $ormulation o$ transdisciplinarity is 1oth uni$ied (in the sense o$ uni$ication o$ di$$erent transdisciplinary approaches# and diverse: unity in diversity and diversity through unity is inherent to transdisciplinarity. 7uch con$usion arises 1y not recogni,ing that there are a theoretical transdisciplinarity, a phenomenological transdisciplinarity and an experimental transdisciplinarity. The word theory implies a general de$inition o$ transdisciplinarity and a well!de$ined methodology (which has to 1e distinguished $rom 9methods9: a single methodology corresponds to a great num1er o$ di$$erent methods#. The word phenomenology implies 1uilding models connecting the theoretical principles with the already o1served e=perimental data, in order to predict $urther results. The word experimental implies per$orming e=periments $ollowing a well!de$ined procedure allowing any researcher to get the same results when per$orming the same e=periments. . classi$y the wor' done 1y 7ichael Di11ons and ;elga 8owotny as phenomenological transdisciplinarity, while my own wor'1&, as well as the one o$ Jean Piaget and (dgar 7orin18, as theoretical transdisciplinarity. .n its turn, e=perimental transdisciplinarity concerns a 1ig num1er o$ e=perimental data already collected not only in the $ramewor' o$ 'nowledge production 1ut also in many $ields li'e education, psychoanalysis, the treatment o$ pain in terminal diseases, drug addiction, art, literature, history o$ religions, etc. The reduction o$ transdisciplinarity to only one o$ its aspects is very dangerous 1ecause it will trans$orm transdisciplinarity into a temporary $ashion, which . predict will disappear soon as many other $ashions in the $ield o$ culture and 'nowledge have indeed vanished. The huge potential o$ transdisciplinarity will never 1e accomplished i$ we do not accept the simultaneous and rigorous consideration o$ the three aspects o$ transdisciplinarity. This simultaneous consideration o$ theoretical, phenomenological and e=perimental transdisciplinarity will allow 1oth a uni$ied and non!dogmatic treatment o$ the transdisciplinary theory and practice, coe=isting with a plurality o$ transdisciplinary models.

'. For()#ation of the (ethodo#o*$ of transdis!i"#inarit$

a. The a+io(ati! !hara!ter of the (ethodo#o*$ of transdis!i"#inarit$

17 18

Nicolescu, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002. Morin, 1999.

&

The most important achievement o$ transdisciplinarity in present times is, o$ course, the $ormulation o$ the methodology o$ transdisciplinarity, accepted and applied 1y an important num1er o$ researchers in many countries o$ the world. Transdisciplinarity, in the a1sence o$ a methodology, would 1e >ust tal'ing, an empty discourse and there$ore a short!term living $ashion. The a=iomatic character o$ the methodology o$ transdisciplinarity is an important aspect. This means that he have to limit the num1er o$ a=ioms (or principles or pillars# to a minimum num1er. )ny a=iom which can 1e derived $rom the already postulated ones, have to 1e re>ected. This $act is not new. .t already happened when disciplinary 'nowledge ac<uired its scienti$ic character, due the three a=ioms $ormulated 1y Dalileo Dalilei in !reat World "ystems#$: 1. There are universal laws, of a mathematical character% :. These laws can be discovered by scientific experiment% B. "uch experiments can be perfectly replicated. .t should 1e o1vious that i$ we try to 1uild a mathematical 1ridge 1etween science and ontology, we will necessarily $ail. Dalileo himsel$ ma'es the distinction 1etween human mathematics and divine mathematics:". ;uman mathematics constitutes, he says (through Salvati#, the common language o$ human 1eings and Dod, while divine mathematics is connected with the direct perception o$ the totality o$ all e=isting laws and phenomena. Transdisciplinarity tries to seriously ta'e this distinction into account. ) 1ridge can 1e 1uilt 1etween science and ontology only 1y ta'ing into account the totality o$ human 'nowledge. This re<uires a sym1olic language, di$$erent $rom mathematical language and enriched 1y speci$ic new notions. 7athematics is a1le to descri1e repetition o$ $acts due to scienti$ic laws, 1ut transdisciplinarity is a1out the singularity o$ the human 1eing and human li$e. The 'ey!point here is, once again, the irreduci1le presence o$ the Su1>ect, which e=plains why transdisciplinarity can not 1e descri1ed 1y a mathematical $ormalism. The dream o$ the mathematical $ormali,ation o$ transdisciplinarity is >ust a phantasm, the phantasm induced 1y centuries o$ disciplinary 'nowledge. )$ter many years o$ research, we have arrived:1 at the $ollowing three a=ioms o$ the methodology o$ transdisciplinarity:
Galileo, 1956, 1992. Galileo, 1992, p. 192. 21 Nicolescu, 1996.
19 20

ialogue on the

i. The onto#o*i!a# a+io(: There are, in &ature and in our knowledge of &ature, different levels of Reality and, correspondingly, different levels of perception% ii. The #o*i!a# a+io(: The passage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the logic of the included middle% iii. The !o("#e+it$ a+io(: The structure of the totality of levels of Reality or perception is a complex structure' every level is what it is because all the levels exist at the same time% The $irst two get their e=perimental evidence $rom <uantum physics, 1ut they go well 1eyond e=act sciences. The last one has its source not only in <uantum physics 1ut also in a variety o$ other e=act and human sciences. )ll three are in agreement with traditional thin'ing, present on the earth $rom the 1eginning o$ historical times. )=ioms can not 1e demonstrated: they are not theorems. They have their roots in e=perimental data and theoretical approaches and their validity is >udged 1y the results o$ their applications. .$ the results are in contradiction with e=perimental $acts, they have to 1e modi$ied or replaced. +et me note that, in spite o$ an almost in$inite diversity o$ methods, theories, and models which run throughout the history o$ di$$erent scienti$ic disciplines, the three methodological postulates o$ modern science have remained unchanged $rom Dalileo until our day. +et us hope that the same will prove to 1e true $or transdisciplinarity and that a large num1er o$ transdisciplinary methods, theories and models will appear in the $uture. +et me also note that only one science has entirely and integrally satis$ied the three Dalilean postulates: physics. The other scienti$ic disciplines only partially satis$y the three methodological postulates o$ modern science. ;owever, the a1sence o$ rigorous mathematical $ormulation in psychology, psychoanalysis, history o$ religions, law theory and a multitude o$ other disciplines did not lead to the elimination o$ these disciplines $rom the $ield o$ science. )t least $or the moment, not even an e=act science li'e molecular 1iology can claim a mathematical $ormulation as rigorous as that o$ physics. .n other words, there are degrees of disciplinarity which can respectively ta'e into account more or less completely the three methodological postulates o$ modern science. +i'ewise, the process o$ more or less ta'ing completely into account the three methodological pillars o$ transdisciplinary research will generate di$$erent degrees of transdisciplinarity% +arge avenues are open $or a rich and diverse transdisciplinary research. The a1ove three a=ioms give a precise and rigorous definition of transdisciplinarity. This de$inition is in agreement with the one s'etched 1y Jean Piaget. 9

+et me now descri1e the essentials o$ these three transdisciplinary a=ioms.

%. The onto#o*i!a# a+io(, #e-e#s of Rea#it$ and #e-e#s of "er!e"tion The 'ey concept o$ the transdisciplinary approach to 8ature and 'nowledge is the concept o$ levels of Reality. ;ere the meaning we give to the word -0eality3 is pragmatic and ontological at the same time. @y -0eality3 we intend $irst o$ all to designate that which resists our e=periences, representations, descriptions, images, or even mathematical $ormulations. .n so $ar as 8ature participates in the 1eing o$ the world, one has to assign also an ontological dimension to the concept o$ 0eality. 0eality is not merely a social construction, the consensus o$ a collectivity, or some inter!su1>ective agreement. .t also has a trans! su1>ective dimension: $or e=ample, e=perimental data can ruin the most 1eauti$ul scienti$ic theory. 4$ course, one has to distinguish the words -0eal3 and -0eality3. Real designates that which is, while Reality is connected to resistance in our human e=perience. The -0eal3 is, 1y de$inition, veiled $or ever, while -0eality3 is accessi1le to our 'nowledge. @y -level o$ 0eality3, . designate a set o$ systems which are invariant under certain laws: $or e=ample, <uantum entities are su1ordinate to <uantum laws, which depart radically $rom the laws o$ the macrophysical world. That is to say that two levels o$ 0eality are di$$erent i$, while passing $rom one to the other, there is a 1rea' in the applica1le laws and a 1rea' in $undamental concepts (li'e, $or e=ample, causality#. There$ore there is a discontinuity in the structure o$ levels o$ 0eality, similar to the discontinuity reigning over the <uantum world. (very level o$ 0eality has its associated space!time, di$$erent $rom one level to the other. %or e=ample, the classical realism is associated with the A!dimensional space!time (three dimensions o$ space and one dimension o$ time#, while the <uantum realism is associated with a space!time whose num1er o$ dimensions is 1igger than $our. The introduction o$ the levels o$ 0eality induces a multidimensional and multire$erential structure o$ 0eality. ) new (rinciple of Relativity:: emerges $rom the coe=istence 1etween comple= plurality and open unity in our approach: no level of Reality constitutes a privileged place from which
22

Nicolescu, 1996, pp. 54-55.

1"

one is able to understand all the other levels of Reality. ) level o$ 0eality is what it is 1ecause all the other levels e=ist at the same time. This Principle o$ 0elativity is what originates a new perspective on religion, politics, art, education, and social li$e. )nd when our perspective on the world changes, the world changes. The great @ra,ilian educator Paulo %reire asserts, in his (edagogy of the )ppressed:B, that saying a true word is e<uivalent to the trans$ormation o$ the world. .n other words, our approach is not hierarchical. There is no $undamental level. @ut its a1sence does not mean an anarchical dynamics, 1ut a coherent one, o$ all levels o$ 0eality, already discovered or which will 1e discovered in the $uture. (very level is characteri,ed 1y its incompleteness: the laws governing this level are >ust a part o$ the totality o$ laws governing all levels. )nd even the totality o$ laws does not e=haust the entire 0eality: we have also to consider the Su1>ect and its interaction with the 41>ect. The ,one 1etween two di$$erent levels and 1eyond all levels is a ,one o$ non!resistance to our e=periences, representations, descriptions, images, and mathematical $ormulations. Puite simply, the transparence o$ this ,one is due to the limitations o$ our 1odies and o$ our sense organs H limitations which apply regardless o$ what measuring tools are used to e=tend these sense organs. Fe there$ore have to conclude that the topological distance 1etween levels is $inite. ;owever this $inite distance does not mean a $inite 'nowledge. Ta'e, as an image, a segment o$ a straight line / it contains an in$inite num1er o$ points. .n a similar manner, a $inite topological distance could contain an in$inite num1er o$ levels o$ 0eality. Fe have wor' to do till the end o$ times. This open structure o$ the unity o$ levels o$ 0eality is in accord with one o$ the most important scienti$ic results o$ the twentieth century concerning arithmetic, the theorem o$ Qurt DRdel:A, which states that a su$$iciently rich system o$ a=ioms inevita1ly leads to results which are either undecida1le or contradictory. The implications o$ DRdelSs theorem have considera1le importance $or all modern theories o$ 'nowledge, primarily 1ecause it concerns not >ust the $ield o$ arithmetic, 1ut all o$ mathematics which include arithmetic. The DRdelian

23 24

Freire, 1968. Nagel and Newman, 1958.

11

structure o$ levels o$ 0eality implies the impossi1ility o$ a sel$!enclosed complete theory. Qnowledge is $orever open. The ,one o$ non!resistance corresponds to the sacred H to that which does not su1mit to any rationali,ation. Proclaiming that there is a single level o$ 0eality eliminates the sacred, and sel$!destruction is generated. The unity o$ levels o$ 0eality and its complementary ,one o$ non!resistance constitutes what we call the transdisciplinary 41>ect. .nspired 1y the phenomenology o$ (dmund ;usserl:C, . assert that the di$$erent levels o$ 0eality are accessi1le to our 'nowledge than's to the di$$erent levels o$ perception which are potentially present in our 1eing. These levels o$ perception permit an increasingly general, uni$ying, encompassing vision o$ 0eality, without ever entirely e=hausting it. )s in the case o$ levels o$ 0eality, the coherence o$ levels o$ perception presupposes a ,one o$ non!resistance to perception. The unity o$ levels o$ perception and this complementary ,one o$ non!resistance constitutes what we call the transdisciplinary "ub*ect. .n a rigorous way, we see that -levels o$ perception3 are, in $act, levels of Reality of the "ub*ect, while -levels o$ 0eality3 are, in $act, levels of Reality of the )b*ect% @oth types o$ levels imply resistance. The two ,ones o$ non!resistance o$ transdisciplinary 41>ect and Su1>ect must 1e identical $or the transdisciplinary Su1>ect to communicate with the transdisciplinary 41>ect. ) $low o$ consciousness that coherently cuts across di$$erent levels o$ perception must correspond to the $low o$ in$ormation coherently cutting across di$$erent levels o$ 0eality. The two $lows are interrelated 1ecause they share the same ,one o$ non!resistance. Qnowledge is neither e=terior nor interior: it is simultaneously e=terior and interior. The studies o$ the universe and o$ the human 1eing sustain one another.

25

Husserl, 1966.

1:

The ,one o$ non!resistance plays the role o$ a third 1etween the Su1>ect and the 41>ect, an .nteraction term, which acts li'e a secretly included middle which allows the uni$ication o$ the transdisciplinary Su1>ect and the transdisciplinary 41>ect while preserving their di$$erence. .n the $ollowing . will call this .nteraction term the ;idden Third. 4ur ternary partition T Su1>ect, 41>ect, ;idden Third U is, o$ course, di$$erent $rom the 1inary partitionT Su1>ect vs. 41>ect U o$ classical realism. The emergence o$ at least three di$$erent levels o$ 0eality in the study o$ natural systems ! the macrophysical level, the microphysical level and cy1er!space!time (to which one might add a $ourth level ! that o$ superstrings, uni$ying all physical interactions# ! is a ma>or event in the history o$ 'nowledge. @ased upon our de$inition o$ levels o$ 0eality, we can identi$y other levels than the ones in natural systems. %or e=ample, in social systems, we can spea' a1out the individual level, the geographical and historical community level ($amily, nation#, the cy1er!space!time community level and the planetary level. +evels o$ 0eality are radically di$$erent $rom levels o$ organi,ation as these have 1een de$ined in systemic approaches: . +evels o$ organi,ation do not presuppose a discontinuity in the $undamental concepts: several levels o$ organi,ation can appear at one and the same level o$ 0eality. The levels o$ organi,ation correspond to di$$erent structures o$ the same $undamental laws. The levels o$ 0eality and the levels o$ organi,ation o$$er the possi1ility o$ a new ta=onomy o$ the more than 8""" academic disciplines e=isting today. 7any disciplines coe=ist at one and the same level o$ 0eality even i$ they correspond to di$$erent levels o$ organi,ation. %or e=ample, 7ar=ist economy and classical physics 1elong to one level o$ 0eality, while <uantum physics and psychoanalysis 1elong to another level o$ 0eality. The e=istence o$ di$$erent levels o$ 0eality has 1een a$$irmed 1y di$$erent traditions and civili,ations, 1ut this a$$irmation was $ounded either on religious dogma or on the e=ploration o$ the interior universe only. The transdisciplinary 41>ect and its levels o$ 0eality, the transdisciplinary Su1>ect and its levels o$ perception and the ;idden Third de$ine the transdisciplinary model o$ 0eality. @ased on this ternary structure o$ 0eality, we can deduce other ternaries o$ levels which are e=tremely use$ul in the analysis o$ concrete situations:
26

Camus et al., 1998.

1B

+evels o$ organi,ation / +evels o$ structuring / +evels o$ integration +evels o$ con$usion / +evels o$ language / +evels o$ interpretation Physical levels / @iological levels / Psychical levels +evels o$ ignorance / +evels o$ intelligence / +evels o$ contemplation +evels o$ o1>ectivity / +evels o$ su1>ectivity / +evels o$ comple=ity +evels o$ 'nowledge / +evels o$ understanding / +evels o$ 1eing +evels o$ materiality / +evels o$ spirituality / +evels o$ non!duality . $ormulated the idea o$ levels o$ reality already in 19& , during a post!doctoral stay at +awrence @er'eley +a1oratory, a$ter stimulating discussions with Deo$$rey 5hew, the $ounder o$ the 1ootstrap theory and other colleagues. 7y main motivation was the $act that this idea o$$ered a logical solution to the incompati1ility 1etween the theory o$ relativity and <uantum mechanics. . interpreted this incompati1ility as the necessity o$ enlarging the $ield o$ 0eality, 1y a1andoning the classical idea o$ a single level o$ 0eality. .n 1981, . was interested 1y the idea o$ veiled reality o$ @ernard dS(spagnat :&, 1ut . reali,ed that his solution is not satis$actory and . there$ore decided to pu1lish my $indings in an article pu1lished in 198::8 and later, in an ela1orated $orm, in 198C, in the $irst edition o$ my 1oo' We, the particle and the world:9. .n 1998, . had a 1ig surprise to discover the idea o$ V levels o$ 0eality W, e=pressed in a di$$erent $orm, in a 1oo' 1y Ferner ;eisen1erg, (hilosophy - The manuscript of #$+,B"% This 1oo' had a <uite astonishing history: it was written in 19A: 1ut it was pu1lished in Derman only in 198A. . read the %rench translation o$ the 1oo' in 1998. There is not yet, to my 'nowledge, an (nglish translation o$ this 1oo'. The philosophy o$ ;eisen1erg is 1ased on two main ideas: the $irst is the notion o$ levels o$ 0eality corresponding to di$$erent modes o$ em1odying o1>ectivity in terms o$ the respective process o$ 'nowledge and the second is the gradual erasing o$ the $amiliar concept o$ B!dimensional space and 1!dimensional time. %or ;eisen1erg, reality is - the continuous $luctuation o$ the e=perience as captured 1y consciousness. .n that sense, it can never 1e identi$ied to a closed system J...L3B1. @y - e=perience 3, he understands not only scienti$ic e=periments 1ut also the perception o$ the

d'Espagnat, 1981. Nicolescu, 1982, pp. 68-77. 29 Nicolescu, 1985. 30 Heisenberg, 1998. 31 Idem., p. 166.
27 28

1A

movement o$ the soul or o$ the autonomous truth o$ sym1ols. %or him, reality is a tissue o$ connections and o$ in$inite a1undance, without any ultimate $ounding ground. - 4ne can never reach an e=act and complete portrait o$ reality 3B: ! writes ;eisen1erg. The incompleteness o$ physical laws is there$ore present in his philosophy, even i$ he ma'es no e=plicit re$erence to DRdel. ;eisen1erg asserts many times, in agreement with ;usserl, ;eidegger and 5assirer (whom he 'new personally#, that one has to suppress any rigid distinction 1etween the Su1>ect and 41>ect. ;e also writes that one has to renounce the privileged re$erence to the e=teriority o$ the material world and that the only way to understand the nature o$ reality is to accept its division in regions and levels. The similarity with my own de$inition o$ reality is stri'ing, 1ut the di$$erences are also important. @y - region o$ reality 3 he understands a region characteri,ed 1y a speci$ic group o$ relations. ;is regions o$ reality are, in $act, strictly e<uivalent to the levels o$ organi,ation o$ contemporary systemic thin'ing. ;is motivation $or distinguishing regions and levels o$ reality is identical to my own motivation: the 1rea' 1etween classical and <uantum mechanics. ;eisen1erg classi$ies the numerous regions o$ reality in only three levels, in terms o$ the di$$erent pro=imity 1etween the 41>ect and the Su1>ectBB. ;e deduces that the rigid distinction 1etween e=act and human sciences has to 1e a1andoned, a $act which sounds very, very transdisciplinary. ;eisen1ergSs $irst level o$ reality corresponds to $ields which em1ody o1>ectivity in an independent way $rom the 'nowledge process. 5lassical physics, electromagnetism and the two theories o$ relativity o$ (instein 1elong to this level. The second level corresponds to $ields insepara1le $rom the 'nowledge process: <uantum mechanics, 1iology, the sciences o$ consciousness (li'e psychoanalysis#. %inally, the third level corresponds to $ields created in connection with the 'nowledge process. ;e situates there philosophy, art, politics, the metaphors concerning Dod, the religious e=perience and the artistic creative e=perience. .$ the $irst two levels o$ ;eisen1erg totally correspond to my own de$inition, the third one mi=es levels and non!levels (in other words, the ,ones o$ non!resistance#. The religious e=perience and the artistic creative e=perience can not 1e assimilated to levels o$ 0eality.
32 33

Ibid., p. 258. Ibid., p. 372.

1C

They merely correspond to crossing levels in the ,one o$ non!resistance. The a1sence o$ resistance and especially the a1sence o$ discontinuity in the philosophy o$ ;eisen1erg e=plain the di$$erence 1etween his approach and mine. ) rigorous classi$ication o$ regions in levels can not 1e o1tained in the a1sence o$ discontinuity. ;eisen1erg insists on the crucial role o$ intuition: -4nly an intuitive thin'ing / writes ;eisen1erg / could 1ridge the a1yss 1etween old and new conceptsI the $ormal deduction is impotent in reali,ing this 1ridge JKL3BA. @ut ;eisen1erg did not draw the logical conclusion concerning this impotence o$ $ormal thin'ing: only the non!resistance to our e=periences, representations, descriptions, images or mathematical $ormalisms can 1ridge the a1yss 1etween two levels. This non!resistance restores the continuity 1ro'en 1y levels.

!. The #o*i!a# a+io(, the in!#)ded (idd#e The incompleteness o$ the general laws governing a given level o$ 0eality signi$ies that, at a given moment o$ time, one necessarily discovers contradictions in the theory descri1ing the respective level: one has to assert ) and non!) at the same time. This DRdelian $eature o$ the transdisciplinary model o$ 0eality is veri$ied 1y all the history o$ science: a theory leads to contradictions and one has to invent a new theory solving these contradictions. .t is precisely the way in which we went $rom classical physics to <uantum physics. ;owever, our ha1its o$ mind, scienti$ic or not, are still governed 1y the classical logic, which does not tolerate contradictions. The classical logic is $ounded on three a=ioms: 1. The axiom of identity: ) is ). :. The axiom of non-contradiction' ) is not non!). B. The axiom of the excluded middle: There e=ists no third term T (-T3 $rom -third3# which is at the same time ) and non!). Qnowledge o$ the coe=istence o$ the <uantum world and the macrophysical world and the development o$ <uantum physics have led, on the level o$ theory and scienti$ic e=periment, to pairs o$ mutually e=clusive contradictories () and non!)#: wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separa1ility and non!separa1ility, local causality and

34

Idem, p. 261.

glo1al causality, symmetry and 1rea'ing o$ symmetry, reversi1ility and irreversi1ility o$ time, and so $orth. The intellectual scandal provo'ed 1y <uantum mechanics precisely consists in the $act that the pairs o$ contradictories that it generates are actually mutually e=clusive when they are analy,ed through the interpretive $ilter o$ classical logic. ;owever, the solution is relatively simple: one has to a1andon the third a=iom o$ the classical logic, imposing the e=clusion o$ the third, the included middle T. ;istory will credit St*phane +upasco (19""!1988#BC with having shown that the logic o$ the included middle is a true logic, mathematically $ormali,ed, multivalent (with three values: ), non!), and T# and non!contradictoryB . .n $act, the logic o$ the included middle is the very heart o$ <uantum mechanics: it allows us to understand the 1asic principle o$ the superposition o$ -yes3 and -no3 <uantum states. ;eisen1erg was $ully conscious o$ the necessity o$ adopting the logic o$ the included middle. -There is / writes ;eisen1erg / a $undamental principle o$ classical logic which seems to need to 1e modi$ied: in classical logic, i$ one assertion has a meaning, one supposes that either this assertion or its negation has to 1e true. 4nly one o$ the sentences -There is a ta1le here3 and -There is no ta1le here3 is true: tertium non datur, i.e. there is not a third possi1ility and this is the principle o$ the e=cluded middle. JKL .n <uantum theory, one has to modi$y this law o$ the e=cluded middle. .$ one protests again any modi$ication o$ this 1asic principle, one can immediately argue that this principle is implicated in the ordinary language JKL. 5onse<uently, the description in ordinary language o$ a logical reasoning which does not apply to this language would mean simply a sel$!contradiction.3B& 4ur understanding o$ the a=iom o$ the included middle H there e=ists a third term T which is at the same time ) and non!) H is completely clari$ied once the notion o$ -levels o$ 0eality3, not e=isting in the wor's o$ +upasco, is introduced. .n order to o1tain a clear image o$ the meaning o$ the included middle, let us represent the three terms o$ the new logic H ), non!), and T H and the dynamics associated with them 1y a triangle in which one o$ the vertices is situated at one level o$ 0eality and the two other vertices at another level o$ 0eality. The included middle is in $act an included third. .$ one remains at a single level o$ 0eality, all mani$estation appears as a struggle 1etween two
Badescu and Nicolescu (ed.), 1999. Lupasco, 1951. 37 Heisenberg, 1971, pp. 241-242 ;
35 36

1&

contradictory elements. The third dynamic, that o$ the T!state, is e=ercised at another level o$ 0eality, where that which appears to 1e disunited is in $act united, and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non!contradictory. .t is the pro>ection o$ the T!state onto the same single level o$ 0eality which produces the appearance o$ mutually e=clusive, antagonistic pairs () and non!)#. ) single level o$ 0eality can only create antagonistic oppositions. .t is inherently sel$!destructive i$ it is completely separated $rom all the other levels o$ 0eality. ) third term which is situated at the same level o$ 0eality as that o$ the opposites ) and non!), cannot accomplish their reconciliation. 4$ course, this conciliation is only temporary. Fe necessarily discover contradictions in the theory o$ the new level when this theory con$ronts new e=perimental $acts. .n other words, the action o$ the logic o$ the included middle on the di$$erent levels o$ 0eality induces an open structure o$ the unity o$ levels o$ 0eality. This structure has considera1le conse<uences $or the theory o$ 'nowledge 1ecause it implies the impossi1ility o$ a sel$!enclosed complete theory. Qnowledge is $orever open. The logic o$ the included middle does not a1olish the logic o$ the e=cluded middle: it only constrains its sphere o$ validity. The logic o$ the e=cluded middle is certainly valid $or relatively simple situations, $or e=ample, driving a car on a highway: no one would dream o$ introducing an included middle in regard to what is permitted and what is prohi1ited in such circumstances. 4n the contrary, the logic o$ the e=cluded middle is harm$ul in comple= cases, $or e=ample, within the economical, social, cultural, religious or political spheres. .n such cases it operates li'e a genuine logic o$ e=clusion: good or evil, right or le$t, heaven or hell, alive or dead, women or men, rich or poor, whites or 1lac's. .t would 1e revealing to underta'e an analysis o$ =enopho1ia, racism, apartheid, anti!semitism, or nationalism in the light o$ the logic o$ the e=cluded middle. .t would also 1e very instructive to e=amine the speeches o$ politicians through the $ilter o$ that logic. There is certainly coherence among di$$erent levels o$ 0eality, at least in the natural world. .n $act, an immense sel$!consistency H a cosmic 1ootstrap H seems to govern the evolution o$ the universe, $rom the in$initely small to the in$initely large, $rom the in$initely 1rie$ to the in$initely long. ) $low o$ in$ormation is transmitted in a coherent manner $rom one level o$ 0eality to another in our physical universe. The included middle logic is a tool $or an integrative process: it allows us to cross two di$$erent levels o$ 0eality or o$ perception and to e$$ectively integrate, not only in thin'ing 1ut also in our own 1eing, the coherence o$ the 2niverse. The use o$ the included third is a trans$ormative process. @ut, at that moment, the included third ceases to 1e an 18

a1stract, logical tool: it 1ecomes a living reality touching all the dimensions o$ our 1eing. This $act is particularly important in education and learning. .t is important to note that the com1ined action o$ the ontological and logical a=ioms engender the notion o$ paradox. The parado= is the suspension o$ the contradictories (), non!)# in the space 1etween two levels o$ 0eality. There$ore, there is no need to introduce parado= as a Ath a=iom o$ transdisciplinarityB8. 0ecent $indings in the physiology o$ the 1rain give a particularly deep understanding o$ the action o$ the included middle. ;igh technology tools, li'e the single photon emission computed tomography, allow to rigorously visuali,ing the 1lood $low patterns in the 1rain during so di$$erent activities li'e solving a mathematical pro1lem or Men meditation. 6i$$erent speciali,ed ,ones o$ the 1rain are now identi$ied. 4$ course, the notion itsel$ o$ -reality3 is empty without the 1rain participation. This does not necessarily mean that the 1rain creates reality. 7erely we can say that we have inside ourselves an apt apparatus o$ perceiving reality. @ased on these neurophysiological discoveries, )ndrew 8ew1erg and (ugene dS)<uili introduced a series o$ cognitive operators, which descri1e the general $unctions o$ the human mindB9. @etween them, o$ particular interest $or us are the 1inary operator and the holistic operator. The 1inary operator means the -human 1rainSs a1ility to reduce the most complicated relationships o$ space and time to simple pairs o$ opposites / a1ove and 1elow, in and out, le$t and right, 1e$ore and a$ter, and so on3 and it -gives the mind a power$ul method o$ analy,ing e=ternal reality3A". The 1rain constructs in such a way, during the evolutionary process, a 1inary representation o$ the world, very use$ul $or survival in a hostile environment. ;owever, culture e=tended this 1inary representation, in terms o$ e=clusive contradictories, to ethical, mythological and metaphysical representations, li'e good and evil, the space!time 1ac'ground o$ such representations 1eing erased. The 1inary operator

Paul, 2003. Newberg et al., 2001. 40 Idem, p. 63.

38 39

19

descri1e, in $act, the neurological operations o$ the in$erior parietal lo1e A1. The classical logic is a product o$ the in$erior parietal lo1e. .n its turn, the holistic operator -allows us to see the world as a whole. JKL The holistic operator most li'ely rises $rom the activity o$ the parietal lo1e in the 1rainSs right hemisphere.3A: The holistic view is also a product o$ the evolutionary process. Fhen our ancestors where con$ronted with a wild animal, the 1inary representations were not su$$icient $or survival. .$ our ancestors spent their time in analy,ing the di$$erent parts o$ the wild animal and the associated pairs o$ the mutually e=clusive contradictories, they would 1e simply 'illed and we would not 1e here to thin' a1out e=cluded or included middle. The holistic operator erases contradictories and there$ore is connected with the action o$ the included middle.

d. The !o("#e+it$ a+io(, the )ni-ersa# interde"enden!e There are several theories o$ comple=ity. Some o$ them, li'e the one practiced at the Santa %e .nstitute, with the general guidance o$ 7urray Dell!7ann, 8o1el Pri,e o$ Physics, are mathematically $ormali,ed, while others, li'e the one o$ (dgar 7orin, widely 'nown in +atin )merica, are not. .n the conte=t o$ our discussion, what is important to 1e understood is that the e=isting theories o$ comple=ity do not include neither the notion o$ levels o$ 0eality nor the notion o$ ,ones o$ non!resistanceAB. ;owever, some o$ them, li'e the one o$ (dgar 7orinAA, are compati1le with these notions. .t is there$ore use$ul to distinguish 1etween the hori-ontal complexity, which re$ers to a single level o$ reality and vertical complexity, which re$ers to several levels o$ 0eality. .t is also important to note that transversal complexity is di$$erent $rom the vertical, transdisciplinary comple=ity. Transversal comple=ity re$ers to crossing di$$erent levels o$ organi,ation at a single level o$ 0eality.

Ibid., p. 51. Ibid., p. 48. 43 Nicolescu, 1996, 1998, 2000. 44 Morin, 1977, 1980, 1986, 1991, 2001.
41 42

:"

.n a parado=ical way, in $undamental physics, comple=ity is em1edded in the very heart o$ simplicity. .ndeed, popular wor's state that contemporary physics is a physics where a wonder$ul simplicity rules (in $act, more rigorously said, simplexity rules#, through $undamental -1uilding!1loc's3 ! <uar's, leptons, and messengers o$ the physical interactions. @ut $or physicists wor'ing inside physics, the situation appears as in$initely more comple=. %or e=ample, according to the superstring theory in particle physics, physical interactions appear to 1e very simple, uni$ied, and su1ordinate to general principles i$ they are traced within a multidimensional, 11!dimensional space/time (1" dimensions o$ space and 1 dimension o$ time# and involve an incredi1le energy, corresponding to Planc'Ss mass. @ut comple=ity appears at the moment o$ descri1ing our $amiliar world, which is characteri,ed 1y $our dimensions and 1y low energies. 2ni$ied theories are at their strongest at the level o$ general principles, 1ut they are very poor at descri1ing the comple=ity on our own level o$ reality. .t is interesting to note in passing that the superstring theory has emerged than's to string theory, which in turn emerged $rom the bootstrap theory, which em1odies a particular $orm o$ the old principle o$ universal interdependence. @ootstrap descri1es not only the interdependence o$ all e=isting particles, 1ut also o$ the general laws o$ physics. %rom a transdisciplinary point o$ view, comple=ity is a modern $orm o$ the very ancient principle o$ universal interdependence. This recognition allows us to avoid the current con$usion 1etween comple=ity and complication. The principle o$ universal interdependence entails the ma=imum possi1le simplicity that the human mind could imagine, the simplicity o$ the interaction o$ all levels o$ reality. This simplicity can not 1e captured 1y mathematical language, 1ut only 1y sym1olic language. The mathematical language addresses e=clusively to the analytical mind, while sym1olic language addresses to the totality o$ the human 1eing, with its thoughts, $eelings and 1ody. .t is interesting to note that the com1ined action o$ the ontological, logical and comple=ity a=iom engenders values. There$ore, there is no need to introduce values as a A th

:1

a=iomAC. The transdisciplinary values are neither o1>ective nor su1>ective. They result $rom the ;idden Third, which signi$ies the interaction o$ the su1>ective o1>ectivity o$ the transdisciplinary 41>ect and the o1>ective su1>ectivity o$ the transdisciplinary Su1>ect.

.. Paths of the F)t)re

8o1ody can predict the $uture. .n the transdisciplinary approach, our linear time -past! present!$uture3 is an anthropomorphic construction, a crude appro=imation o$ the living time. The living time is lin'ed to the intersection o$ the space!times associated with all the levels o$ 0eality. Fe can decipher the traces o$ the $uture in the sand o$ the present moment i$ we decide to open our eyes. .n that sense . spea' a1out -paths o$ the $uture3 and not -paths $or the $uture3. (verything e=ists in the present moment, and the past and the $uture. )$ter a long hi1ernation o$ a <uarter o$ century a$ter Piaget, transdisciplinarity is e=periencing an accelerated movement in the 9"Ss. Today, transdisciplinary activities are $lourishing in many parts o$ the worldA . Transdisciplinary institutes, associations and networ's are 1eing created in @ra,il, in %rance, in .taly, in 5anada, in 0omania, in South )$rica, in Swit,erland. .mportant international con$erences dedicate entire sessions on transdisciplinarity, in 0ussia, in Tur'ey, in 5anada, in )ustria, in 2S), in ;olland and in other countries. Transdisciplinary maga,ines are pu1lished one a$ter another in several countries and on the Fe1. ) surprisingly 1ig num1er o$ transdisciplinary 1oo's were pu1lished in the last $ew years, covering an ama,ingly diverse range o$ su1>ects, such as education, -science and religion3 studies, economics, management, therapy, geography and landscape studies, post!colonialism, nursing, health social science, story1oo' activities $or children or even studies o$ the wor' o$ Jac<ues 6errida $rom transdisciplinary point o$ view. Two editing houses in %rance, one in @ra,il and one in 0omania $ounded -Transdisciplinarity3 series. ) <uite new phenomenon, transdisciplinary lectures are given in several universities in 2S), in Spain, in 0omania, in %rance, in @ra,il and even transdisciplinary chairs are created. Fe live now in a new period o$ the advancement o$ transdisciplinarity.

45 46

Cicovacki, 2003. Nicolescu (ed.), 2005.

::

The theory o$ transdisciplinarity is $ully developed. 8ow the time $or action has arrived. .n the past, our actions were concentrated in the $ield o$ education, a $act which is natural 1ecause o$ the central role o$ education in individual and social li$e. @ut now we have the ethical o1ligation to e=tend our activities in the scienti$ic, social, political and spiritual sectors. +et me descri1e, in $ew words, what 'ind o$ actions are, in my opinion, o$ an urgent nature. a. De-e#o"(ent of transdis!i"#inar$ hi*her ed)!ation The transdisciplinary education, $ounded on the transdisciplinary methodology, allows us to esta1lish lin's 1etween persons, $acts, images, representations, $ields o$ 'nowledge and action and to discover the (ros o$ learning during our entire li$e. The creativity o$ the human 1eing is conditioned 1y permanent <uestioning and permanent integration. The epistemological aspects o$ transdisciplinarity presented a1ove were studied, on a practical level, in 199&, at the .nternational 5ongress held in +ocarno -Fhat 2niversity $or TomorrowO Towards the Transdisciplinary (volution o$ (ducation3, organi,ed under the sponsoring o$ 28(S54, 5.0(T and the Dovernment o$ TicinoA&. The +ocarno 5ongress was 1ased on the 5.0(T!28(S54 pro>ect on transdisciplinary educationA8 and on the 6elors 0eportA9. The participants adopted the 6eclaration o$ +ocarno. (=periments con$orming to the recommendations o$ the +ocarno 5ongress were already made in di$$erent countries: @ra,il, 5anada, %rance, 0omania, 2S), Swit,erland, )rgentina and Spain. The +ocarno 5ongress stimulated also a rich theoretical re$lection, in particular on the invention o$ new methods o$ education in relation with the new technologiesC". (n entire recent issue o$ the (!,ine -Transdisciplinary (ncounters3 was dedicated to e=periences in transdisciplinary educationC1 Similar e=periments were done, independently o$ the +ocarno 5ongress, in di$$erent countries. 4ne o$ the important points is that we accumulated a lot o$ use$ul data $rom practical wor', >usti$ying one o$ the 1asic assumptions o$ the transdisciplinary education. .n transdisciplinarity, we always tal'ed a1out three types o$ intelligences: the analytical
Locarno Declaration, 1997. CIRET-UNESCO Project, 1997. 49 Delors, 1996. 50 Harvey and Lemire, 2001. 51 Bot (ed.), 2005.
47 48

:B

intelligence, the $eelingSs intelligence and the intelligence o$ the 1ody. This idea is similar to the idea o$ multiple intelligences developed 1y ;oward DardnerC:. The di$$erence with the theory o$ Dardner is that we spea', in $act, a1out a new type o$ intelligence, $ounded upon the e<uili1rium 1etween mind, 1ody and $eelings. Transdisciplinary education is an integral education. ) person is there$ore not con$ined to choose a >o1 connected with his or her own type o$ intelligence, 1ut he or she is a1le to per$orm his or her $reedom o$ choice, through the internal $le=i1ility 1etween the three types o$ intelligence which, in $act, any1ody possesses. )t the 1eginning, our claims sounded e=otic, li'e a new utopia. .t is very encouraging that recent scienti$ic wor's in 1iology, as the one o$ )ntonio 6amasio CB, demonstrate the cognitive dimension o$ $eelings and emotions. )lso, in a very stimulating 1oo', Jean!+ouis 0evardel showed the e=traordinary pertinence o$ the a=ioms o$ transdisciplinarity in studying the universe o$ a$$ectivityCA. )nother signi$icant point is that important wor' on the $ormation o$ transdisciplinary educators was already per$ormed, $or e=ample in @ra,il, through the persistent and rigorous actions o$ 5(T0)8SCC,C ,C& and several other @ra,ilian organi,ations and universities, in 0omaniaC8 and in %rance, due to the academic wor' per$ormed at the 2niversity o$ ToursC9, " and in other %rench universities. .n $act, networ's o$ transdisciplinary educators are now present in di$$erent countries. They allow us to thin' o$ three new stages in transdisciplinary education. %irst o$ all, it is important to introduce in as many as possi1le universities courses on transdisciplinarity. 4$ course, transdisciplinary courses are not very rare, 1ut we 'now a1out only one e=ample o$ course on transdisciplinarity, i.e. a1out the epistemological $oundations and practical applications o$ transdisciplinarity. The 5laremont Draduate 2niversity (5D2#, one o$ the highest rated universities in 2nited States, recently instituted a new transdisciplinary course re<uirement $or all doctoral students. The mission o$ 5D2 is to prepare a diverse group o$ outstanding individuals to assume leadership roles in the worldwide community through teaching, research and practice in selected $ields. )t
Gardner, 1999. Damasio, 1999. 54 Revardel, 2003. 55 CETRANS. 56 de Mello, 2000. 57 de Mello, 2003. 58 Bertea, 2003. 59 Demol (ed.), 2003. 60 Paul and Pineau (ed.), 2005.
52 53

:A

5laremont, all Ph6 students must now ta'e a 9T course9 (9T9 $or 9transdisciplinary9# sometime in the $irst two years o$ their program. 5D2 already has a rich tradition o$ transdisciplinary activities 1. There are already two transdisciplinary chairs at 5D2. The e=ample o$ 5D2 can 1e $ollowed 1y many other universities, o$ course 1y adaptation to the local conditions. ) second important development would 1e the creation o$ a Ph6 in transdisciplinary studies. There are several e=amples o$ transdisciplinary Ph6 theses :, 1ut they are all per$ormed in a given discipline. There is even a Ph6 thesis in philosophy, on the $oundations o$ transdisciplinarity B. ;owever, the time has now arrived to create a speci$ic Ph6, in transdisciplinary studies. .t will create the appropriate space $or academic studies and also $or social action in the $ield o$ transdisciplinarity. .t will also allow students with transdisciplinary interests to $ind an appropriate place to accomplish their research. The very prestigious Stellen1osch 2niversity in South )$rica is at an advanced stage o$ creating such a Ph6. ) third important development would 1e the creation o$ a Xirtual Dlo1al Transdisciplinary 2niversity. This can 1e reali,ed, due to the e=istence o$ transdisciplinary networ's in several countries and due to e=traordinary advancement o$ in$ormatics today. %. Towards a h)(an (ode# of hea#th .n many contemporary societies, the human 1eing is more and more a collection o$ num1ers, codes and electronic $iles. The physical 1ody itsel$ is seen as a >u=taposition o$ genes, cells, neurons and internal organs, each organ and part o$ this organ 1eing under the control o$ super!specialists who do not communicate 1etween them. 4$ course, high technology treats these organs, prolonging our li$e, and no1ody can complain a1out this positive $act. ;owever, no high technology can treat the entirety o$ the human 1eing. .n this conte=t, transdisciplinarity can contri1ute to the emergence o$ a new health system. 4ne might thin' that this is again a utopia, an unnecessary lu=ury. ;owever, empirical data accumulated show that transdisciplinary teams, acting in the $ield o$ health, can 1ring a1out a 1etter <uality health care system / a system which succeeds in simultaneously

The Flame, 2003. Transdisciplinary PhD theses. 63 Bambara, 2002.

61 62

:C

satis$ying our 1odily, mental and psychical needs whilst, at the same time, reducing the costs o$ having to treat all the di$$erent maladies and disorders. Xery interesting transdisciplinary e=periences were per$ormed in Pu*1ec, in 5anada, where the .nstitute $or ;ealth 0esearch o$ 5anada (.0S5# is assisting such initiatives. . can mention the activities o$ the transdisciplinary team o$ Patric' +oisel A, Pro$essor o$ 7edicine at the 2niversity o$ Sher1roo'e, acting in the $ield o$ wor'place handicaps, which a$$ect more than one million o$ 5anadians per year as well as the transdisciplinary team o$ 6aniel @oisvert C, Pro$essor at the 2niversity o$ Pu*1ec at Trois 0iviYres, acting in the $ield o$ intellectual de$iciencies, which a$$ect more than one million persons in Pu*1ec and %rance. .nterestingly enough, these e=periences directly show the pertinence, on a very concrete level, o$ the three pillars o$ transdisciplinarity. !. S!ientifi! st)dies on !ons!io)sness -5onsciousness3 was, a $ew years ago, a $or1idden word in scienti$ic research, as a 'ind o$ magic reminiscence. ;owever, scientists 1egan slowly to recogni,e that there is a missing lin' 1etween neurons and the human 1eing. John (ccles, 8o1el Pri,e o$ Physiology and 7edicine, is amongst the pioneers in this regard . +i'e <uantum mechanics, the scienti$ic theory o$ consciousness will certainly 1e a collective creation. .t is important to create transdisciplinary teams involving neurophysiologists, physicists and other disciplinary specialists o$ e=act and human sciences, animated 1y a transdisciplinary attitude. @rain and mind, li'e anything in this world, involve di$$erent levels o$ 0eality and perception. . am personally convinced that consciousness is the ultimate $rontier o$ the science and o$ the philosophy o$ :1st century and that transdisciplinarity has very much to contri1ute to this advancement o$ science. d. Dia#o*)e %etween !)#t)res and %etween re#i*ions The transdisciplinary model o$ 0eality allows us to de$ine three types o$ meaning: 1. .ori-ontal meaning ! i.e. interconnections at one single level o$ 0eality. This is what most o$ the academic disciplines do.
Loisel, 2005. Boisvert, 2005. 66 Eccles, 1989.
64 65

:. /ertical meaning ! i.e. interconnections involving several levels o$ 0eality. This is what poetry, art or <uantum physics do. B. Meaning of meaning ! i.e. interconnections involving all o$ 0eality ! the Su1>ect, the 41>ect and the ;idden Third. This is the ultimate aim o$ transdisciplinary research. .t may seem parado=ical to spea' a1out cultures and religions in transdisciplinarity, which seem to re$er, 1y the word itsel$, to academic disciplines. ;owever, the presence o$ the ;idden Third e=plains this $a'e parado=. The crucial di$$erence 1etween academic disciplines on one side and cultures and religions on the other side can 1e easily understood in our approach. 5ultures and religions are not concerned, as academic disciplines are, with $ragments o$ levels o$ 0eality only: they simultaneously involve one or several levels o$ 0eality, one or several levels o$ perception and the non!resistance ,one o$ the ;idden Third. Technoscience is entirely situated in the ,one o$ the 41>ect, while cultures and religions cross all the three terms: the 41>ect, the Su1>ect and the ;idden Third. This asymmetry demonstrates the di$$iculty o$ their dialogue: this dialogue can occur only when there is a conversion o$ technoscience towards values, i.e. when the techno!scienti$ic culture 1ecomes a true culture &. .t is precisely this conversion that transdisciplinarity is a1le to per$orm. This dialogue is methodologically possi1le, 1ecause the ;idden Third crosses all levels o$ 0eality. Technoscience has a <uite parado=ical situation. .n itsel$, is 1lind to values. ;owever, when it enters in dialogue with cultures and religions, it 1ecomes the 1est mediator o$ the reconciliation o$ di$$erent cultures and di$$erent religions. e. Creation of networ/s of networ/s The e=istence o$ transdisciplinary networ's is today a $act o$ li$e. 4$ course, this process will continue in the $uture. The very e=istence o$ these networ's signi$ies that the num1er o$ transdisciplinary e=perts is continuously increasing. These researchers are certainly not -e=perts3 in the usual meaning o$ this word: they are not ultra!specialists o$ a very narrow discipline. ;owever they are transdisciplinary e=perts, 1ecause they have 'nowledge o$ the methodology o$ transdisciplinarity, 1ecause they are involved in practical applications o$ transdisciplinarity and 1ecause they are socially attached to transdisciplinary values. These transdisciplinary e=perts constitute the seeds o$ transdisciplinary local networ's. These networ's have to lin'
67

Nicolescu, 2004.

:&

in order to $orm networ's o$ networ's, crucially important $or actions at a national or regional level. .n the not too distant $uture, these di$$erent networ's o$ networ's will >oin in order to $orm a planetary networ' o$ networ's, which will 1e the seed o$ the transdisciplinary culture. The transdisciplinary culture is a necessity o$ our time, due to two contradictory $acts: on one side, the inner evolution o$ 'nowledge and, on the other side, the process o$ glo1ali,ation. The inner evolution o$ 'nowledge is mar'ed 1y the already mentioned disciplinary 1ig! 1ang. .t is there$ore more and more di$$icult to understand the comple=ity o$ our world today and to ta'e appropriate decisions: an e=pert in one discipline is ignorant o$ thousands and thousands o$ other disciplines. The decision!ma'ers are con$ronted with this $act. %rom another angle, glo1ali,ation is re<uiring, 1y its own dynamics, to 1uilt 1ridges and lin's 1etween di$$erent areas o$ 'nowledge and 1etween di$$erent views o$ the world. .$ glo1ali,ation is to 1e reduced only to the economic dimension, it will inevita1ly lead to new e=clusions and a new $orm o$ slavery. Dlo1ali,ation with a human $ace, serving the human 1eing, re<uires a transdisciplinary culture, a1le to harmoni,e di$$erent $ields o$ 'nowledge, di$$erent cultures and di$$erent views o$ the world. f. Create #i-in* s)staina%i#it$ e+a("#es .n )pril :""C, . had the privilege o$ visiting the +ynedoch (coXillage 6evelopment >ust outside Stellen1osch in South )$rica where . witnessed an emerging e=ample in sustaina1le living. +ynedoch (coXillage 6evelopment is a very good wor'ing e=ample o$ an integrated sustainable development approach where strategies and action plans are 1eing consciously pursued and implemented to connect social, economic and ecological o1>ectives whilst incorporating technologies that spans the energy, water, waste, and sanitation and 1uilding materials $ields. +ynedoch is also a learning and educational hu1. )s a socially mi=ed community / 'ept apart 1y years o$ racist policies and practices / it is organi,ed around not only a child!centered learning precinct, 1ut it is also home to the "ustainability Institute which o$$ers a 7Phil degree in Sustaina1le 6evelopment where students $rom across the )$rican continent can learn a1out sustaina1ility in action. )lthough my visit was a 1rie$ one, . was le$t with a deep sense o$ having encountered a real!li$e e=ample o$ where the principle o$ the included middle is not >ust tal'ed a1out in theoretical terms, 1ut where it is 1eing pursued in all sorts o$ creative and practical ways. Fhat Pro$essor 7ar' Swilling and his wi$e (ve )nnec'e have managed to achieve in a :8

relatively short period o$ $ive years is worthy o$ 1eing replicated on di$$erent scales and in many parts o$ the world 8. %rom a transdisciplinary point o$ view, i$ our aim is to not only understand the world, 1ut to also $ind solutions to the comple= pro1lems $acing us all today, including having to change the systems o$ re$erence which produce these pro1lems, then we simply have no choice 1ut to act decisively in our search $or alternative, sustaina1le modes o$ living. .n the ZPlanetary (raS there is no one single, 1ig pro1lem / only series o$ overlapping, interconnected pro1lems / what (dgar 7orin so aptly descri1ed as a ZpolycrisisS 9. ;ow we as the human species are going to respond to these over the ne=t decade or two might very well 1e decisive $or our peace$ul and continued e=istence on the (arth. %rom a transdisciplinary point o$ view, it is our duty and responsi1ility to use all the means at our disposal / spiritual, theoretical and practical / to $ind sustaina1le solutions to pro1lems which, i$ remain unresolved, will a$$ect each one o$ us on this 1eauti$ul planet ours / rich and poor, young and old, 7uslim and 5hristian, 1eliever and non!1eliever, male and $emale, 8orth and South, Fest and (ast. *. &)i#din* a new s"irit)a#it$ -Spirituality3 is a completely devaluated word today, in spite o$ its etymological meaning as -respiration3, in an act o$ communion 1etween us and the cosmos. There is a 1ig spiritual poverty present on our (arth. .t mani$ests as $ear, violence, hate and dogmatism. .n a world with more than 1"""" religions and religious movements and more than """ tongues, how can we dream a1out mutual understanding and peace&"O There is an o1vious need $or a new spirituality, conciliating technoscience and wisdom. 4$ course, there are already several spiritualities, present on our (arth $rom centuries and even millennia. 4ne might as': why is there a need $or a new spirituality i$ we have them all, here and nowO @e$ore answering to this <uestion, we must $ace a preliminary <uestion: is a @ig Picture still possi1le in our post!modern timesO 0adical relativism answers in a negative way to this <uestion. ;owever its arguments are not solid and logical. They are in $act very poor and o1viously lin'ed to the totalitarian aspect o$ the political and philosophical correctness e=pressed 1y the slogan -anything goes3. %or radical relativists, a$ter the death o$ Dod, the death o$ 7an, the end o$ ideologies, the end o$ ;istory (and, perhaps, tomorrow, the end o$
Annecke and Swilling, 2004. Morin and Kern, 1993, p. 109. 70 Welter (ed.), 2005.
68 69

:9

science and the end o$ religion# a @ig Picture is no more possi1le. %or transdisciplinarity, a @ig Picture is not only possi1le 1ut also vitally necessary, even i$ it will never 1e $ormulated as a closed theory. Fe are happy that the well!'nown art critic Su,i Da1li', in her 1oo' .as Modernism 0ailed1&1, >oined recently our point o$ view. The last chapter o$ her 1oo' is entitled -Transdisciplinarity / .ntegralism and the 8ew (thics3. %or her, the essential intellectual change o$ the last two decades is precisely transdisciplinarity. This change was anticipated 1y the 1ig <uantum physicist Fol$gang Pauli (19""!19C8#, 8o1el Pri,e o$ Physics, who wrote $i$ty years ago: -%acing the rigorous division, $rom the 1&th century, o$ human spirit in isolated disciplines, . consider the aim o$ transgressing their opposition JKL as the e=plicit or implicit myth o$ our present times.3&: The $irst motivation $or a new spirituality is technoscience, with its associated $a1ulous economic power, which is simply incompati1le with present spiritualities. .t drives a hugely irrational $orce o$ e$$iciency $or e$$iciency sa'e: everything which can 1e done will 1e done, $or the worst or the 1est. The second motivation $or a new spirituality is the di$$iculty o$ the dialogue 1etween di$$erent spiritualities, which o$ten appear as antagonistic, as we can testi$y in our everyday li$e. The new phenomenon o$ a planetary terrorism is not $oreign to these two pro1lems. .n simple words, we need to $ind a spiritual dimension o$ democracy. Transdisciplinarity can help with this important advancement o$ democracy, through its 1asic notions o$ -transcultural3 and -transreligious3&B. The transcultural designates the opening o$ all cultures to that which cuts across them and transcends them, while the transreligious designates the opening o$ all religions to that which cuts across them and transcends them&A. This does not mean the emergence o$ a uni<ue planetary culture and o$ a uni<ue planetary religion, 1ut o$ a new transcultural and transreligious attitude. The old principle -unity in diversity and diversity $rom unity3 is em1odied in transdisciplinarity. Through the transcultural, which leads to the transreligious, the spiritual poverty could 1e eradicated and there$ore render the war o$ civili,ations o1solete. The transcultural and transreligious attitude is not simply a utopian pro>ect H it is engraved in the very depths o$ our 1eing.
Gablik, 2004. The first edition was published in 1984. Pauli, 1999, chapter Science and Western Thinking, p. 178. This chapter was first published in 1955, in Europa Erbe und Aufgabe, Internazionaler Gelehrtehkongress, Meinz. 73 Nicolescu, 1996. 74 Nicolescu, 2003.
71 72

B"

REFERENCES (ve )nnec'e and 7ar' Swilling, -)n (=periment in +iving and +earning in the @oland3, in /oices in Transition 2 The (olitics, (oetics and (ractices of "ocial 3hange in "outh 4frica, ;einemann , Sandown, :""A, edited 1y (dgar Pieterse and %ran' 7eint>ies. +*o )postel, Duy @erger, )sa @riggs and Duy 7ichaud (ed.#, 56interdisciplinarit7 2 (robl8mes d6enseignement et de recherche, 5entre pour la 0echerche et lS.nnovation dans lS(nseignement, 4rganisation de 5oop*ration et de d*veloppement *conomi<ue, Paris, 19&:. ;oria @adescu and @asara1 8icolescu (ed.#, "t7phane 5upasco - 59homme et l9oeuvre, +e 0ocher, 7onaco, 1999. Translation in Portuguese : "t7phane 5upasco - ) .omem e a )bra, T0.47 et 2niversity o$ S[o Paulo, S[o Paulo, :""1, translation 1y +ucia Pereira de Sou,a. (manuela @am1ara, 4lle radici della transdisciplinaridade' :dgar Morin e ;asarab &icolescu, Ph6 thesis in philosophy, 2niversit\ degli Studi di 7essina, 7essina, .talie, :"":. 7ircea @ertea, 4ctive 5earning and Transdisciplinarity, Promedia Plus Pu1lishing ;ouse, 5lu>, :""B (in 0omanian#. 6aniel @oisvert, Dermain 5outure, Sylvie Tetreault and Su,anne Xincent, -Transdisciplinarit* et interventions socio!sanitaires ! 0*$le=ion dans le domaine de la d*$icience intellectuelle au Pu*1ec3, Rencontres Transdisciplinaires 8o 18 ! (=p*riences dS*ducation transdisciplinaires, 7arch :""C http:EEnicol.clu1.$rEciretE1ulletinE118E118c .htm +udovic @ot (ed.#, Transdisciplinary (ncounters E 0encontres Transdisciplinaires, 8o 18 / :xp7riences d67ducation transdisciplinaires, 5.0(T, Paris and (8S.(T), @rest, 7arch :""C. http:EEnicol.clu1.$rEciretE1ulletinE118E118.htm 7ichel 5amus, Thierry 7agnin, @asara1 8icolescu and Qaren!5laire Xoss, -+evels o$ 0epresentation and +evels o$ 0eality: Towards an 4ntology o$ Science3, in 8iels ;. DregersenI 7ichael F.S. Parsons and 5hristoph Fassermann (ed.#, The 3oncept of &ature in "cience and Theology <part II=, DenYve, ]ditions +a1or et %ides, 1998, pp. 9A!1"B. The 5harter o$ Transdisciplinarity (in %rench, Spanish, (nglish, Portuguese, Tur'ish, .talian and 0omanian#:

B1

http:EEperso.clu1!internet.$rEnicolEciretE Predrag 5icovac'i, -Transdisciplinarity as an .nteractive 7ethod : ) 5ritical 0e$lection on the Three Pillars o$ Transdisciplinarity3, communication at the congress The 2ni$ying )spects o$ 5ultures, Xienna, 8ovem1er &!9, :""B http:EEwww.inst.atE'ulturenE:""BE"1methodenEse'tion^papst^e.htm 5(T0)8S .nternet site http:EEwww.cetrans.com.1rE 5.0(T!28(S54 Pro>ect -Transdisciplinary (volution o$ the 2niversity-, Rencontres Transdisciplinaires 8o 9!1", %e1ruary 199& http:EEnicol.clu1.$rEciretE1ulletinE19et1".htm )ntonio 0. 6amasio, 59:rreur de Paris, 199C. Jac<ues 6elors, >ducation - ?n tr7sor est cach7 dedans, 4dile Jaco1, Paris, 199 . 7aria de 7ello, Xit_ria de @arros and )m*rico Sommerman (ed.#, :duca@ao e Transdisciplinaridade ., 28(S54 and Triom, @rasilia, :""". !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :duca@ao e Transdisciplinaridade ., 28(S54 and Triom, @rasilia, :"":. Jean!8o`l 6emol (ed.#, Torino, :""B. Xincent 6escom1es, 5e compl7ment du su*et, Dallimard, Paris, :""A. da(spagnat, @ernard. 4 la recherche du r7el, Dauthier! Xillars, Paris, 1981. Pierre 6uguet, -+Sapproche des pro1lYmes3, in +*o )postel et al. (19&:#. John 5. (ccles, :volution du cerveau et cr7ation de la conscience 2 4 la recherche de la vraie nature de l6homme, %ayard, paris, 1989. -The %lame3, The 7aga,ine o$ 5laremont Draduate 2niversity, 2S), Xol. A, 8o B / Transdisciplinarity, Finter :""B http:EEwww.claremont.eduE Paulo %reire, (edagogy of the )ppressed, The Sea1ury Press, 8ew bor', 19 8. Su,i Da1li', .as Modernism failed O, Thamesc;udson, 8ew bor', :""A. Dalileo Dalilei, ialogue sur les deux grands syst8mes du monde, Seuil, Paris, 199:, translated $rom the .talian 1y 0en* %r*reu= with the colla1oration o$ %randois de Dandt, pp. idactiAue et transdisciplinarit7, +S;armattan, Paris!@udapest! escartes - 5a raison des 7motions, 4dile Jaco1,

B:

1:8!1B"I

ialogue on the !reat World "ystems, 2niversity o$ 5hicago Press, 5hicago, 19C ,

with an introduction 1y Diorgio de Santillana. ;oward Dardner, The isciplined Mind, SimoneSchuster, 8ew bor', 1999. 7ichael Di11ons, 5amille +imoges, ;elga 8owotny, Simon Schwart,man, Peter Scott and 7artin Trow (ed.#. The &ew (roduction of Bnowledge, +ondon, Thousand 4a's, 8ew 6elhi, S)D(, 199A. -Duerre et pai= antre les science : disciplinarit* et transdisciplinarit*-, 0evue du 7)2SS, 8o 1", Paris, 199&. Pierre!+*onard ;arvey and Dilles +emire, 5a &ouvelle >ducation - &TI3, transdisciplinarit7 et communautiAue, +es Presses de la2niversit* +aval E +a;armattan, Pu*1ec ! Paris, :""1, $oreword 1y @asara1 8icolescu. Ferner ;eisen1erg, (hilosophie - 5e manuscrit de #$+,, Paris, Seuil, 1998. Translation $rom Derman and introduction 1y 5atherine 5hevalley. Derman original edition : )rdnung der Wirklichkeit, 7unich, 0. Piper Dm1; c QD, 1989. Pu1lished $irst in F. @lum, ;. P. 6Nrr, and ;. 0echen1erg (ed.#, W% .eisenberg !esammelte Werke, /ol% 3-I ' (hysik und :rkenntnis, #$,C-#$DD, 7unich, 0. Piper Dm1; c QD, 198A, pp. :18!B" . To my 'nowledge, there is no translation in (nglish o$ this 1oo'. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hysiAue et philosophie, )l1in 7ichel, Paris, 19&1, translation $rom the (nglish 1y Jac<ueline ;adamard. (dmund ;usserl, M7ditations cart7siennes, Xrin, Paris, 19 Derman 1y Da1rielle Pei$$er and (mmanuel +evinas. (rich Jantsch, a. - Xers lSinterdisciplinarit* et la transdisciplinarit* dans lSenseignement et lSinnovation -, in +*o )postel et al. (19&:#. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. Technological (lanning and "ocial 0utures, 5assellE)ssociated @ussiness Programmes, +ondon, 19&:. )ndr* +ichnerowic,, - 7ath*mati<ue et transdisciplinarit* -, in +*o )postel et al. (19&:#. +ocarno 6eclaration, Rencontres Transdisciplinaires 8o 11, June 199& http:EEnicol.clu1.$rEciretE1ulletinE111.htm Patric' +oisel, 7arie!Jos* 6urant, 0en*e!+ouise %ranche, 7ichael Sullivan and Pierre 5ote, - +Senseignement transdisciplinaire dSune pro1l*mati<ue multidimensionnelle / +e . Translated $orm the

BB

diplfme de Be cycle en pr*vention dSincapacit*s au travail -, Rencontres Transdisciplinaires 8o 18 / (=p*riences dS*ducation transdisciplinaires, 7arch :""C. http:EEnicol.clu1.$rEciretE1ulletinE118E118c .htm St*phane +upasco, 5e principe d6antagonisme et la logiAue de l67nergie (rol7gom8nes E une science de la contradiction, ;ermann e 5ie, 5oll. -)ctualit*s scienti$i<ues et industrielles3, ng 11BB, Paris, 19C1 I :nd ed. +e 0ocher, 7onaco, 198&, $oreword 1y @asara1 8icolescu. (dgar 7orin, 5a m7thode . / 5a nature de la nature, Paris, Seuil, 19&&. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5a m7thode .. ! 5a vie de la vie, Paris, Seuil, 198". !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5a m7thode ... ! 5a connaissance de la connaissance, Paris, Seuil, 198 . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5a m7thode .X / 5es id7es, leur habitat, leur vie, leurs mFurs, leur organisation, Paris, Seuil, 1991. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5a m7thode X / 56humanit7 de l6humanit7, Paris, Seuil, :""1. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5a m7thode X. / :thiAue, Paris, Seuil, :""A. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Z0*$orme de pens*e, transdisciplinarit*, r*$orme de la2niversit*S : http:EEperso.clu1!internet.$rEnicolEciretE1ulletinE11:E11:.c1.htm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "even 3omplex 5essons in :ducation, Paris, 28(S54, 1999. Translated $rom the %rench 1y 8idra Poller. (dgar 7orin and )nne @rigitte Qern, Terre-(atrie, Seuil, Paris, 199B. (rnest 8agel and James 0. 8ewman, !Gdel9s (roof, 8ew bor' 2niversity Press, 8ew bor', 19C8. )ndrew 8ew1erg, (ugene dS)<uili and Xince 0ause, Why !od Won6t !o 4way, @allantine @oo's, 8ew bor', :""1. @asara1 8icolescu, -Sociologie et m*cani<ue <uanti<ue3, Be 7il*naire, no 1, Paris, 7arch!)pril 198:. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! &ous, la particule et le monde, +e 7ail, Paris, 198C. :nd edition, +e 0ocher, 7onaco, -Transdisciplinarit*9 Series, :"":. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Science as Testimony3, in Proceedings o$ the Symposium "cience and the ;oundaries of Bnowlege ' the (rologue of )ur 3ultural (ast , organised 1y 28(S54 in colla1oration with the 5ini %oundation (Xenice, 7arch B!&, 198 #, Paris, 28(S54, 198 , pp. 9!B".

BA

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "cience, Meaning and :volution - The 3osmology of Hacob ;oehme, with selected te=ts 1y Jaco1 @oehme, 8ew bor', Para1ola @oo's, 1991. Translated $rom the %rench 1y 0o1 @a'er. %oreword 1y Joscelyn Dodwin, a$terword 1y )ntoine %aivre. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a. 5a transdisciplinarit7, mani$este, 7onaco, +e 0ocher, 9Transdisciplinarit*9 Series, 199 . (nglish translation: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. 8ew bor': S28b Press, :"":, translation $rom the %rench 1y Qaren!5laire Xoss. Translation in Portuguese: ) Manifesto da Transdisciplinaridade, Triom, S[o Paulo, 1999, translation 1y +ucia Pereira de Sou,aI :nd edition: :""1. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. -+evels o$ 5omple=ity and +evels o$ 0eality3, in @ernard Pullman (ed.#, The :mergence of 3omplexity in Mathematics, (hysics, 3hemistry, and ;iology. Xatican 5ity, Ponti$icia )cademia Scientiarum, 199 , pp. B9B!A1&. 6istri1uted 1y Princeton 2niversity Press. Proceedings o$ the Plenary Session o$ the Ponti$ical )cademy o$ Sciences, :&!B1 4cto1er 199:, 5asina Pio .X, Xatican. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a. ZThe Transdisciplinary (volution o$ the 2niversity, 5ondition $or Sustaina1le 6evelopmentS, Rencontres Transdisciplinaires 8o 1:, %e1ruary 1998. http:EEperso.clu1!internet.$rEnicolEciretE1ulletinE11:E11:.c8.htm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. -DRdelian )spects o$ 8ature and Qnowledge3, in Da1riel )ltmann and Falter ). Qoch (ed.#, "ystems - &ew (aradigms for the .uman "ciences, @erlin ! 8ew bor', Falter de Druyter, 1998, pp. B8C!A"B. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a. -;ylemorphism, Puantum Physics and +evels o$ 0eality3, in 6emetra S$endoni!7ent,ou (ed.#, 4ristotle and 3ontemporary "cience, 8ew bor', Peter +ang, :""", Xol. ., pp. 1&B!18A. .ntroduction 1y ;ilary Putnam. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. -2m 8ovo Tipo de 5onhecimento / Transdisciplinaridade3, in 7aria de 7ello, Xit_ria de @arros and )m*rico Sommerman (ed.#, (ducadao e Transdisciplinaridade ., 28(S54 and Triom, @rasilia, :""", pp. 1B!B". !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -%undamentos 7etodol_gicos do 6iGlogo Transcultural3, in (dgar de )ssis 5arvalho and Tere,inha 7endonda (ed.#, :nsaios de 3omplexidade ,, Porto )legre, (ditora Sulina, :""B. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Toward a 7ethodological %oundation o$ the 6ialogue @etween the Technoscienti$ic and Spiritual 5ultures3, in +iu1ava 7oreva (ed.#, Integration of Worldviews, (idos, San't Peters1urg, :""A. @asara1 8icolescu (ed.#, Transdisciplinarity 2 Theory and (ractice, ;ampton Press, 5ress'ill, 8ew Jersey, :""C ($orthcoming#. ;elga 8owotny, -The Potential o$ Transdisciplinarity3: BC ifferentiation and

http:EEwww.interdisciplines.orgEinterdisciplinaritypapersEC Patric' Paul, 0ormation du "u*et et transdiciplinarit7, +S;armattan, Paris!@udapest! Torino, :""B. Patric' Paul and Daston Pineau (ed.#, Transdisciplinarit7 et formation, +S;armattan, Paris!@udapest!Torino, :""C. Fol$gang Pauli, (hysiAue moderne et philosophie, )l1in 7ichel, Paris, 1999, translated $rom the Derman 1y 5laude 7aillard. Jean Piaget, -+S*pist*mologie des relations interdisciplinaires3, in +*o )postel et al. (19&:#. Jean!+ouis 0evardel, 56univers affectif 2 .aptonomie et pens7e moderne, Presses 2niversitaires de %rance, Paris, :""B. Templeton %oundation http:EEwww.templeton.org Julie Thompson Qlein, Falter Drossen1acher!7ansuy, 0udol$ ;h1erli, )lain @ill, 0onald F. Schol, and 7yrtha Felti (ed.#. Transdisciplinarity ' Hoint (roblem "olving among "cience, Technology, and "ociety - 4n :ffective Way for Managing 3omplexity, @asel ! @oston / @erlin, @ir'hhuser Xerlag, :""1. -Transdisciplinary Ph6 Theses3 http:EEnicol.clu1.$rEciretE1i1lioEtheses.htm -Xenice 6eclaration3 http:EEnicol.clu1.$rEciretE1ulletinE1:cA.htm 0ichard Felter (ed.#, Transdisciplinarit7 2 ?n chemin vers la paix, 580S (ditions, Paris, :""C.