methodology of transdisciplinarity–levels of reality

Basarab NicolescuMethodology of Transdisciplinarity–Levels of Reality, Logic of the Included Middle and Complexity 17

Methodology ofTransdisciplinarity–Levels ofReality, Logic of the IncludedMiddle and ComplexityBasarab Nicolescu, International Center for Transdisciplinary Research and Studies (CIRET), France, Email:[email protected]

The concept of levels of Reality, formulated in1982, is the key concept of transdisciplinar-ity1. The introduction of the levels of Real-

ity induces a multidimensional and multi-referentialstructure of Reality, signifying the coexistence be-tween complex plurality and open unity. Every levelis characterized by its incompleteness; the laws gov-erning this level are just a part of the totality oflaws governing all levels. And even the totality oflaws does not exhaust the entire Reality; we havealso to consider the interaction between Subject andObject. The zone between two different levels andbeyond all levels is a zone of non-resistance to ourexperiences, representations, descriptions, images,and mathematical formulations. The Gdelian struc-ture of levels of Reality implies the impossibility of aselfenclosed complete theory. Knowledge is foreveropen. The unity of levels of Reality of the Objectand its complementary zone of non-resistance definesthe transdisciplinary Object. The unity of levels ofReality of the Subject and this complementary zoneof non-resistance defines the transdisciplinary Sub-ject. The zone of non-resistance plays the role ofa third between the Subject and the Object, an in-

11Apostel et al., 1972.

teraction term which allows the unification of thetransdisciplinary Subject and the transdisciplinaryObject. This interaction term is called the HiddenThird. The ternary partition (Subject, Object, Hid-den Third) is, of course, radically different from thebinary partition (Subject vs. Object) of classical re-alism..Keywords: reality, levels, transdisciplinarity, clas-sical realism, quantum realism, logic of the includedmiddle, complexity, disciplinary boundaries, spiritu-ality, homo economicus, homo religiosus.

1 The War of Defination

1.1 How Transdisciplinarity was Born

Transdisciplinarity is a relatively young approach;Swiss philosopher and psychologist Jean Piaget(1896-1980) developed the concept seven centuriesafter disciplinarity had evolved. The word itselffirst appeared in France, in 1970, in the talks ofJean Piaget, Erich Jantsch, and Andr Lichnerowiczat the international workshop “Interdisciplinarity– Teaching and Research Problems in Universities,”organized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in collabora-

Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science ISSN: 1949-0569 online

Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)

doi: 10.22545/2010/0009


tion with the French Ministry of National Educationand University of Nice1.

In his contribution, Piaget gives the following de-scription of transdisciplinarity: “Finally, we hopeto see succeeding to the stage of interdisciplinaryrelations a superior stage, which should be ‘transdis-ciplinary,’ i.e. which will not be limited to recognizethe interactions and/or reciprocities between thespecialized researches, but which will locate theselinks inside a total system without stable boundariesbetween the disciplines.”2 While this description isvague, it has the merit of pointing to a new space ofknowledge “without stable boundaries between thedisciplines.” However, the idea of a “total system”opens the trap of transforming transdisciplinarityinto a super- or hyperdiscipline, a kind of “scienceof sciences.” In other words, the description of Pi-aget leads to a closed system, in contradiction withhis own requirement of the instability of boundariesbetween disciplines. The key point here is the factthat Piaget retained only the meanings “across” and“between” from the Latin prefix trans, eliminatingthe meaning “beyond.” Understood in such a way,transdisciplinarity is just a new, “superior stage ofinterdisciplinarity. I think Piaget was fully consciousof this alteration of transdisciplinarity, but the in-tellectual climate was not yet prepared for receivingthe shock of contemplating the possibility of a spaceof knowledge beyond the disciplines. The proof isthat in his introduction to the Proceedings of theworkshop, Pierre Duguet honestly recognized thatsome experts wanted to see the word” transdisci-plinarity in the title of the workshop, but authoritiesof the OECD refused to do so because they wereafraid to confuse some representatives of the membercountries3.

In his contributions, Erich Jantsch, an Austrianthinker living in California, falls in the trap of defin-ing transdisciplinarity as a hyperdiscipline. He writesthat transdisciplinarity is “the coordination of alldisciplines and interdisciplines of the teaching sys-tem and the innovation on the basis of a generalaxiomatic approach.”4 He clearly situates transdis-ciplinarity in the disciplinary framework. However,the historical merit of Jantsch was to underscorethe necessity of inventing an axiomatic approach for

2Piaget, 1972, p. 144.3Duguet, 1972, p. 13.4Jantsch, 1972 a, p. 108. The same ideas are expressed in

Jantsch, 1972 b.

transdisciplinarity and also of introducing values inthis field of knowledge.

Finally, the approach of Andre Lichnerowicz, aknown French mathematician, is radically mathe-matical. He sees transdisciplinarity as a transversalplay to describe “the homogeneity of the theoreticalactivity in different sciences and techniques, indepen-dently of the field where this activity is effectuated.”5

And, of course, this theoretical activity can be for-mulated, he thinks, only in mathematical language.Lichnerowicz writes: “The Being is put betweenparentheses, and it is precisely this non-ontologicalcharacter which confers to mathematics its power,its fidelity, and its polyvalence.”6 The interest ofLichnerowicz for transdisciplinarity was accidental,but his remark about the non-ontological characterof mathematics has to be remembered.

I described in some detail the three different posi-tions of Piaget, Jantsch, and Lichnerowicz concern-ing transdisciplinarity because they can be foundagain, a quarter of a century later, in what I call “thewar of definitions.” The word “war” does not belongin the transdisciplinary vocabulary. However, I useit purposely because it appeared in the issue “Guerreet paix entre les sciences: disciplinaritet transdisci-plinarite / War and Peace Between Sciences: Disci-plinarity and Transdisciplinarity”7 of a French mag-azine. In this issue, one of the authors asked for theinterdiction of the word “transdisciplinarity.”7 Hisdesire was obviously not satisfied.

would like to add to this discussion about theincipient phase of transdisciplinarity the name ofEdgar Morin. A short time after the Nice meeting,Morin begins to use the word “transdisciplinarity,”and he even leads a transdisciplinary laboratory inhuman sciences within the framework of a prestigiousFrench research institution. It is true that Morindid not give a definition of transdisciplinarity. Forhim, transdisciplinarity was, in that period, a kind ofmessenger of the freedom of thinking, a go-betweendiscipline.

1.2 Beyond Disciplines

I proposed the inclusion of the meaning “beyonddisciplines” in 19858 and have since developed thisidea over the years in articles, books, and various

55Lichnerowicz, 1972, pp. 130-131.66Ibid., pp. 127.7Alain Caill, in Guerre,, 1996.8Nicolescu, 1985.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


official international documents. Many other re-searchers over the world contributed to this devel-opment of transdisciplinarity. A key date in thisdevelopment is 1994, when the Charter of Transdis-ciplinarity9 was adopted by the participants at theFirst World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Con-vento da Arrbida, Portugal). This idea did not comefrom heaven or just from the pleasure of respect-ing the etymology of the word trans but from mylong practice of quantum physics. For an outsider,it might seem paradoxical that it is from the verycore of exact sciences that we arrive at the idea oflimits of disciplinary knowledge. But from within, itprovides evidence of the fact that, after a very longperiod, disciplinary knowledge has reached its ownlimitations with far-reaching consequences not onlyfor science but also for culture and social life.

The crucial point here is the status of the Subject.

Modern science was born through a violent breakwith the ancient vision of the world. It was foundedon the idea–surprising and revolutionary for that era– of a total separation between the knowing subjectand Reality, which was assumed to be completelyindependent from the subject who observed it. Thisbreak allowed science to develop independently oftheology, philosophy, and culture. It was a positiveact of freedom. But today, the extreme consequencesof this break, incarnated by the ideology of scientism,pose the potential danger of self-destruction of ourspecies.

On the spiritual level, the consequences of scien-tism have been considerable: the only knowledgeworthy of its name must therefore be scientific, ob-jective; the only reality worthy of this name mustbe, of course, objective reality, ruled by objectivelaws. All knowledge other than scientific knowledgeis thus cast into the inferno of subjectivity, toleratedat most as a meaningless embellishment or rejectedwith contempt as a fantasy, an illusion, a regression,or a product of the imagination. Even the word“spirituality” has become suspect and its use hasbeen practically abandoned.

Objectivity, set up as the supreme criterion ofTruth, has one inevitable consequence: the transfor-mation of the Subject into an Object. The death ofthe Subject is the price we pay for objective knowl-edge. The human being became an object – an objectof the exploitation of man by man; an object of theexperiments of ideologies that are proclaimed scien-

9“Charter.”

tific; an object of scientific studies to be dissected,formalized, and manipulated. The Man – God hasbecome a Man – Object, of which the only result canbe self-destruction. The two world massacres of thiscentury, not to mention the multiple local wars andterrorism, are only the prelude to self-destruction ona global scale.

In fact, with very few exceptions – Husserl, Hei-degger, Gadamer, or Cassirer, for example – modernand post-modern thinkers gradually transformed theSubject in a grammatical subject. The Subject istoday just a word in a phrase10.

The quantum revolution radically changed thissituation. The new scientific and philosophical no-tions it introduced – the principle of superpositionof quantum “yes” and “no” states, discontinuity,nonseparability, global causality, quantum indeter-minism – necessarily led the founders of quantummechanics to rethink the problem of the completeObject/Subject separation. For example, WernerHeisenberg, Nobel Prize winner of Physics, thoughtthat one must suppress any rigid distinction betweenthe Subject and Object, between objective realityand subjective reality. “The concept of ‘objectiveand ‘subjective,’ ” writes Heisenberg, “designate[s]two different aspects of one reality; however we wouldmake a very crude simplification if we want to dividethe world in[to] one objective reality and one subjec-tive reality. Many rigidities of the philosophy of thelast centuries are born by this black and white viewof the world.”11 Heisenberg also asserts that we haveto renounce the privileged reference to the exterior-ity of the material world. “The too strong insistenceon the difference between scientific knowledge andartistic knowledge comes from the wrong idea thatconcepts describe perfectly the ‘real things.’ [...] Alltrue philosophy is situated on the threshold betweenscience and poetry.”12

My line of thinking is in perfect agreement withthat of Heisenberg. For me, “beyond disciplines”precisely signifies the Subject, and, more precisely,the Subject-Object interaction. The transcendenceinherent in transdisciplinarity is the transcendenceof the Subject. The Subject cannot be captured ina disciplinary camp.

The meaning “beyond disciplines” leads us toan immense space of new knowledge. The main

10Descombes, 2004.11Heisenberg, 1998, p. 269.12Idem, pp. 363-364.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


outcome was the formulation of the methodologyof transdisciplinarity, which I will analyze in thenext section. It allows us also to clearly distinguishbetween multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, andtransdisciplinarity.

Multidisciplinarity concerns itself with studyinga research topic in not just one discipline but inseveral simultanously. From this perspective, anytopic will ultimately be enriched by incorporatingthe perspectives of several disciplines. Multidisci-plinarity brings a plus to the discipline in question,but this plus is always in the exclusive service ofthe home discipline. In other words, the multidisci-plinary approach overflows disciplinary boundarieswhile its goal remains limited to the framework ofdisciplinary research.

Interdisciplinarity has a different goal than mul-tidisciplinarity. It concerns the transfer of methodsfrom one discipline to another. Like multidisciplinar-ity, interdisciplinarity overflows the disciplines, butits goal still remains within the framework of dis-ciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity even has thecapacity of generating new disciplines, such as quan-tum cosmology and chaos theory.

Transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at oncebetween the disciplines, across the different disci-plines, and beyond all disciplines. Its goal is theunderstanding of the present world, of which one ofthe imperatives is the unity of knowledge13.

As one can see, there is no opposition betweendisciplinarity (including multidisciplinarity and in-terdisciplinarity) and transdisciplinarity, but thereis instead a fertile complementarity. In fact, thereis no transdisciplinarity without disciplinarity. Inspite of this fact, the above considerations provoked,around 1990, a more or less violent war of definitions.This war is not yet finished.

There is a specific different approach of trans-disciplinarity that is characterized by the refusalof formulating any methodology and by its exclu-sive concentration on joint problem-solving of prob-lems pertaining to the science-technology-societytriad. This approach is represented by figures likeMichael Gibbons14 and Helga Nowotny15. The pointof view of this transdisciplinary current was largelyexpressed at the Zurich Congress, held in the year

13Nicolescu, 1996.14Gibbons, 1994.15Nowotny, 1994 and “The Potential of Transdisciplinarity”.

200016.

This version of transdisciplinarity does not excludethe meaning “beyond disciplines” but reduces it tothe interaction of disciplines with social constraints.The social field necessarily introduces a dimension“beyond disciplines,” but the individual human be-ing is conceived of as part of a social system only.The spiritual dimension is therefore absent in thisapproach.

It is difficult for us to understand why “joint prob-lem solving” must be the unique aim of transdisci-plinarity. It is certainly one of the important aimsbut not the only aim. The use of such a narrowcharacterization seems to us dangerous, as in reli-gion, allowing unnecessary wars and unproductivedogmatism. Is transdisciplinarity concerning onlysociety as a uniform whole, or, the human beingwho is (or has to be) in the center of any civilizedsociety? Are we allowed to identify knowledge withproduction of knowledge? Why does the potentialof transdisciplinarity have to be reduced to produce“better science”? Why does transdisciplinarity haveto be reduced to “hard science”? In other words, theSubject-Object interaction seems to us to be at thevery core of transdisciplinarity and not the Objectalone.

I think the unconscious barrier to a true dialoguecomes from the inability of certain transdisciplinaryresearchers to think about discontinuity. I will givean image in order to express what I have in mind.For them, the boundaries between disciplines arelike boundaries between countries, continents, andoceans on the surface of the Earth. These bound-aries are fluctuating in time, but a fact remainsunchanged: the continuity between territories. Wehave a different approach of the boundaries betweendisciplines. For us, they are like the separation be-tween galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets. Itis the movement itself that generates the fluctuationof boundaries. This does not mean that a galaxyintersects another galaxy. When we cross the bound-aries, we meet the interplanetary and intergalacticvacuum. This vacuum is far from being empty; itis full of invisible matter and energy. It introducesa clear discontinuity between territories of galaxies,solar systems, stars, and planets. Without the in-terplanetary and intergalactic vacuum, there is noUniverse.

It is my deep conviction that our formulation of

16Thompson Klein et al., 2001.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


transdisciplinarity is both unified (in the sense ofunification of different transdisciplinary approaches)and diverse: unity in diversity and diversity throughunity is inherent to transdisciplinarity. Much con-fusion arises by failing to recognize that there isa theoretical transdisciplinarity, aphenomenologicaltransdisciplinarity, and an experimental transdisci-plinarity.

The word theory implies a general definition oftransdisciplinarity and a well – defined methodology(which has to be distinguished from “methods”; asingle methodology corresponds to a great numberof different methods). The word phenomenologyimplies building models that connect the theoreticalprinciples with the already observed experimentaldata in order to predict further results. The wordexperimental implies performing experiments follow-ing a well-defined procedure, allowing any researcherto get the same results when performing the sameexperiments.

I classify the work done by Michael Gibbons andHelga Nowotny as phenomenological transdisciplinar-ity, while I define my own work17, as well as thatof Jean Piaget and Edgar Morin18, as theoreticaltransdisciplinarity. In its turn, experimental trans-disciplinarity concerns a large number of experimen-tal data already collected not only in the frameworkof knowledge production but also in fields such aseducation, psychoanalysis, the treatment of painin terminal diseases, drug addiction, art, literature,history of religions, etc. The reduction of transdisci-plinarity to only one of its aspects is very dangerousbecause it will transform transdisciplinarity into atemporary fashion, which I predict will disappearsoon just as many other fashions in the field ofculture and knowledge have indeed vanished. Thehuge potential of transdisciplinarity will never beaccomplished if we do not accept the simultaneousand rigorous consideration of the three aspects oftransdisciplinarity. This simultaneous considerationof theoretical, phenomenological, and experimentaltransdisciplinarity will allow both a unified and non-dogmatic treatment of the transdisciplinary theoryand practice, coexisting with a plurality of transdis-ciplinary models. ATLAS seems to me an ideal placeto practice all three aspects of transdisciplinarity ina fruitful manner.

17Nicolescu, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004-2009.

18Morin, 1999.

2 Formulation of the methodologyof Transdisciplinarity

2.1 The Axiomatic Character of theMethodology of Transdisciplinarity

The most important achievement of transdisciplinar-ity in present times is, of course, the formulation ofthe methodology of transdisciplinarity, accepted andapplied by an important number of researchers inmany countries around the world. In the absenceof a methodology, transdisciplinarity would be justtalking, an empty discourse and therefore a short-term living fashion. The axiomatic character of themethodology of transdisciplinarity is an importantaspect. This means that we have to limit the numberof axioms (or principles or pillars) to a minimumnumber. Any axiom that can be derived from thealready postulated ones would have to be rejected.This fact is not new. It already happened when dis-ciplinary knowledge acquired its scientific characterdue the three axioms formulated by Galileo Galileiin Dialogue on the Great World Systems19:

1. There are universal laws, of a mathematicalcharacter.

2. These laws can be discovered by scientific ex-periment.

3. Such experiments can be perfectly replicated.

It should be obvious that if we try to build amathematical bridge between science and ontology,we will necessarily fail. Galileo himself makes thedistinction between human mathematics and divinemathematics20. Human mathematics constitutes, hesays (via Salvati), the common language of humanbeings and God, while divine mathematics is con-nected with the direct perception of the totality ofall existing laws and phenomena. Transdisciplinaritytries to seriously take this distinction into account.A bridge can be built between science and ontologyonly by taking into account the totality of humanknowledge. This requires a symbolic language, dif-ferent from mathematical language and enriched byspecific new notions. Mathematics is able to describerepetition of facts due to scientific laws, but trans-disciplinarity is about the singularity of the humanbeing and human life. The key point here is, once

1919Galileo, 1956, 1992.20Galileo, 1992, p. 192.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


again, the irreducible presence of the Subject, whichexplains why transdisciplinarity cannot be describedby a mathematical formalism. The dream of themathematical formalization of transdisciplinarity isjust a phantasm, the phantasm induced by centuriesof disciplinary knowledge.

After many years of research, we have arrived21

at the following three axioms of the methodology oftransdisciplinarity:

1. The ontological axiom: There are, in Natureand society and in our knowledge of Nature andsociety, different levels of Reality of the Objectand, correspondingly, different levels of Realityof the Subject.

2. The logical axiom: The passage from onelevel of Reality to another is ensured by thelogic of the included middle.

3. The complexity axiom: The structure of thetotality of levels of Reality or perception is acomplex structure: every level is what it is be-cause all the levels exist at the same time.

The first two get their experimental evidence fromquantum physics, but they go well beyond exactsciences. The last one has its source not only inquantum physics but also in a variety of other exactand human sciences. All three are in agreement withtraditional thinking present on the earth since thebeginning of historical times.

Axioms cannot be demonstrated; they are nottheorems. They have their roots in experimentaldata and theoretical approaches, and their validityis judged by the results of their applications. If theresults are in contradiction with experimental facts,they have to be modified or replaced.

Let me note that, in spite of an almost infinitediversity of methods, theories, and models that runthroughout the history of different scientific disci-plines, the three methodological postulates of mod-ern science have remained unchanged from Galileo.Let us hope that the same will prove to be truefor transdisciplinarity and that a large number oftransdisciplinary methods, theories, and models willappear in the future.

Let me also note that only one science has entirelyand integrally satisfied the three Galilean postulates:physics. The other scientific disciplines only par-tially satisfy the three methodological postulates of

21Nicolescu, 1996.

modern science. However, the absence of rigorousmathematical formulation in psychology, psychoanal-ysis, history of religions, law theory, and a multitudeof other disciplines did not lead to the elimination ofthese disciplines from the field of science. At least forthe moment, not even an exact science like molecu-lar biology can claim a mathematical formulation asrigorous as that of physics. In other words, there aredegrees of disciplinarity which can more or less com-pletely take into account the three methodologicalpostulates of modern science. Likewise, the pro-cess of more or less taking completely into accountthe three methodological pillars of transdisciplinaryresearch will generate different degrees of transdis-ciplinarity. Large avenues are open for a rich anddiverse transdisciplinary research.

The above three axioms give a precise and rigorousdefinition of transdisciplinarity. This definition is inagreement with the one sketched by Jean Piaget.

Let me now describe the essentials of these threetransdisciplinary axioms.

2.2 The Ontological Axiom: Levels ofReality and Levels of Perception

The key concept of the transdisciplinary approachto Nature and knowledge is the concept of levelsofReality.

Here, the meaning we give to the word “Reality”is pragmatic and ontological at the same time. By“Reality,” we intend first of all to designate that whichresists our experiences, representations, descriptions,images, or even mathematical formulations.

Insofar as Nature participates in the being of theworld, one has to assign also an ontological dimensionto the concept of Reality. Reality is not merely asocial construction, the consensus of a collectivity, orsome inter-subjective agreement. It also has a trans– subjective dimension; for example, experimentaldata can ruin the most beautiful scientific theory.

Of course, one has to distinguish the words “Real”and “Reality.” Real designates that which is, whileReality is connected to resistance in our human ex-perience. The “Real” is, by definition, veiled forever,while “Reality” is accessible to our knowledge.

By “level of Reality,” I designate a set of systemsthat are invariant under certain laws. For example,quantum entities are subordinate to quantum laws,which depart radically from the laws of the macro-physical world. That is to say that two levels ofReality are different if, while passing from one to


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


the other, there is a break in the applicable lawsand a break in fundamental concepts (like, for ex-ample, causality). Therefore there is a discontinuityin the structure of levels of Reality, similar to thediscontinuity reigning over the quantum world.

Every level of Reality has its associated space-time, different from one level to the other. Forexample, the classical realism is associated with the4-dimensional space-time (three dimensions of spaceand one dimension of time), while the quantumrealism is associated with a space-time whose numberof dimensions is greater than four. The introductionof the levels of Reality induces a multidimensionaland multireferential structure of Reality.

A new Principle of Relativity22 emerges from thecoexistence between complex plurality and openunity in our approach: no level of Reality consti-tutes a privileged place from which one is able tounderstand all the other levels of Reality. A levelof Reality is what it is because all the other levelsexist at the same time. This Principle of Relativityis what originates a new perspective on religion, pol-itics, art, education, and social life. And when ourperspective on the world changes, the world changes.The great Brazilian educator Paulo Freire assertsin his Pedagogy of the Oppressed23 that saying atrue word is equivalent to the transformation of theworld.

In other words, our approach is not hierarchical.There is no fundamental level. But its absence doesnot mean an anarchical dynamic but a coherent oneof all levels of Reality, both those already discoveredand those that will be discovered in the future.

Every level is characterized by its incompleteness:the laws governing this level are just a part of thetotality of laws governing all levels. And even the to-tality of laws does not exhaust the entire Reality; wehave also to consider the Subject and its interactionwith the Object.

The zone between two different levels and beyondall levels is a zone of non-resistance to our expe-riences, representations, descriptions, images, andmathematical formulations. Quite simply, the trans-parence of this zone is due to the limitations of ourbodies and of our sense organs – limitations thatapply regardless of what measuring tools are usedto extend these sense organs. We therefore have toconclude that the topological distance between levels

22Nicolescu, 1996, pp. 54-55.23Freire, 1968.

is finite. However, this finite distance does not meana finite knowledge. Take a segment of a straightline – it contains an infinite number of points. In asimilar manner, a finite topological distance couldcontain an infinite number of levels of Reality. Wehave work to do till the end of time.

This open structure of the unity of levels of Re-ality is in accord with one of the most importantscientific results of the twentieth century concerningarithmetic, the theorem of Kurt Godel, which statesthat a sufficiently rich system of axioms inevitablyleads to results that are either undecidable or con-tradictory. The implications of Godel’s24 theoremhave considerable importance for all modern theo-ries of knowledge, primarily because it concerns notjust the field of arithmetic but all of mathematicsthat include arithmetic. The Godelian structure oflevels of Reality implies the impossibility of a self– enclosed, complete theory. Knowledge is foreveropen.

The zone of non-resistance corresponds to thesacred – to that which does not submit to any ratio-nalization. Proclaiming that there is a single level ofReality eliminates the sacred, and self-destruction isgenerated.

The unity of levels of Reality and its complemen-tary zone of non-resistance constitutes what we callthe transdisciplinary Object.

Inspired by the phenomenology of EdmundHusserl25, I assert that the different levels of Re-ality of the Object are accessible to our knowledgethanks to the different levels of Reality of the Sub-ject. They permit an increasingly general, unifying,encompassing vision of Reality without ever entirelyexhausting it.

As in the case of levels of Reality of the Object,the coherence of levels of Reality of the Subjectpresupposes a zone of non-resistance to perception.

The unity of levels of Reality of the Subject andthis complementary zone of non-resistance consti-tutes what we call the transdisciplinary Subject.

The two zones of non-resistance of transdisci-plinary Object and Subject must be identical forthe transdisciplinary Subject to communicate withthe transdisciplinary Object. A flow of consciousnessthat coherently cuts across different levels of per-ception must correspond to the flow of informationcoherently cutting across different levels of Reality.

24Nagel and Newman, 1958.25Husserl, 1966.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


The two flows are interrelated because they sharethe same zone of non-resistance.

Knowledge is neither exterior nor interior; it issimultaneously exterior and interior. The studiesof the universe and of the human being sustain oneanother. Without spirituality, the knowledge is adead knowledge.

The zone of non-resistance plays the role of a thirdbetween the Subject and the Object, an Interactionterm, which acts like a secretly included middle thatallows for the unification of the transdisciplinarySubject and the transdisciplinary Object while pre-serving their difference. I will call this Interactionterm the Hidden Third.

Our ternary partition (Subject, Object, HiddenThird) is, of course, different from the binary parti-tion (Subject vs. Object) of classical realism.

The emergence of at least three different levels ofReality in the study of natural systems – the macro-physical level, the microphysical level, and the cyber– space – time (to which one might add a fourth level,that of superstrings, unifying all physical interac-tions) – is a major event in the history of knowledge.Based upon our definition of levels of Reality, we canidentify other levels than just the ones in naturalsystems. For example, in social systems, we canspeak about the individual level, the geographicaland historical community level (family, nation), thecyber-space-time community level, and the planetarylevel.

Levels of Reality are radically different from lev-els of organization as these have been defined insystemic approaches26. Levels of organization donot presuppose a discontinuity in the fundamentalconcepts; several levels of organization can appearat the same level of Reality. The levels of organiza-tion correspond to different structures of the samefundamental laws.

The levels of Reality and the levels of organizationoffer the possibility of a new taxonomy of the morethan 8000 academic disciplines existing today. Manydisciplines coexist at the same level of Reality evenif they correspond to different levels of organization.For example, Marxist economy and classical physicsbelong to one level of Reality, while quantum physicsand psychoanalysis belong to another level of Reality.

The existence of different levels of Reality hasbeen affirmed by different traditions and civilizations,but this affirmation was founded either on religious

26Camus et al., 1998.

dogma or on the exploration of the interior universeonly.

The transdisciplinary Object and its levels of Re-ality, the transdisciplinary Subject and its levels ofperception, and the Hidden Third define the trans-disciplinary model of Reality. Based on this ternarystructure of Reality, we can deduce other ternariesof levels that are extremely useful in the analysis ofconcrete situations by contextualization:

Levels of organization–Levels of structuring –Levelsof integration

Levels of confusion–Levels of language –Levels ofinterpretation

Physical levels–Biological levels–Psychical levels

Levels of ignorance–Levels of intelligence –Levels ofcontemplation

Levels of objectivity–Levels of subjectivity –Levelsof complexity

Levels of knowledge–Levels of understanding –Levelsof being

Levels of materiality–Levels of spirituality –Levelsof non-duality

I formulated the idea of levels of Reality in 1976during a post-doctoral stay at the Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory following stimulating discussions withGeoffrey Chew, the founder of the bootstrap theory,and other colleagues. My main motivation was thefact that this idea offered a logical solution to theincompatibility between the theory of relativity andquantum mechanics. I interpreted this incompatibil-ity as the necessity of enlarging the field of Realityby abandoning the classical idea of a single level ofReality.

In 1981, I was intrigued by the idea of a veiledreality of Bernard dEspagnat27, but I realized thathis solution was not satisfactory, and I thereforedecided to publish my findings in an article publishedin 198228 and later, in an elaborated form, in 1985,in the first edition of my book We, the particle andthe world29.

27dEspagnat, 1981.28Nicolescu, 1982, pp. 68-77.29Nicolescu, 1985.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


In 1998, I was surprised to discover the idea of lev-els of Reality expressed in a different form, in a bookby Werner Heisenberg, Philosophy – The manuscriptof 1942. This book had a quite astonishing history:it was written in 194230, but it was published inGerman-only in 1984. I read the French translationof the book in 1998.

The philosophy of Heisenberg is based on twomain ideas: the first is the notion of levels of Realitycorresponding to different modes of embodying objec-tivity in terms of the respective process of knowledge,and the second is the gradual erasing of the familiarconcept of 3-dimensional space and 1-dimensionaltime.

For Heisenberg, reality is “the continuous fluctua-tion of the experience as captured by consciousness.In that sense, it can never be identified to a closedsystem.”31 By “experience,” he understands notonly scientific experiments but also the perceptionof the movement of the soul or of the autonomoustruth of symbols. For him, reality is a tissue ofconnections and of infinite abundance without anyultimate founding ground.

“One can never reach an exact and complete por-trait of reality,”32 writes Heisenberg. The incom-pleteness of physical laws is therefore present in hisphilosophy, even if he makes no explicit reference toGodel.

Heisenberg asserts many times, in agreement withHusserl, Heidegger, and Cassirer (whom he knewpersonally), that one has to suppress any rigid dis-tinction between the Subject and Object. He alsowrites that one has to renounce the privileged ref-erence to the exteriority of the material world andthat the only way to understand the nature of realityis to accept its division in regions and levels. Thesimilarity to my own definition of reality is striking,but the differences are also important. By “regionof reality,” Heisenberg understands a region charac-terized by a specific group of relations. His regionsof reality are, in fact, strictly equivalent to the levelsof organization of contemporary systemic thinking.

His motivation for distinguishing regions and levelsof reality is identical to my own motivation: thebreak between classical and quantum mechanics.

Heisenberg classifies the numerous regions of re-ality in only three levels, in terms of the different

30Heisenberg, 1998.31Idem., p. 166.32Ibid., p. 258.

proximity between the Object and the Subject33. Hededuces that the rigid distinction between exact andhuman sciences has to be abandoned, a fact whichsounds very, very transdisciplinary.

Heisenberg’s first level of reality corresponds tofields that embody objectivity in an independentway from the knowledge process. Classical physics,electromagnetism, and the two theories of relativityof Einstein belong in this level.

The second level corresponds to fields inseparablefrom the knowledge process: quantum mechanics,biology, and the sciences of consciousness (like psy-choanalysis), for example.

Finally, the third level corresponds to fields cre-ated in connection with the knowledge process. Hesituates there philosophy, art, politics, the metaphorsconcerning God, the religious experience, and theartistic creative experience.

If the first two levels of Heisenberg totally cor-respond to my own definition, the third one mixeslevels and non-levels (in other words, the zones ofnon–resistance). The religious experience and theartistic creative experience cannot be assimilated tolevels of Reality. They merely correspond to crossinglevels in the zone of non-resistance. The absence ofresistance and especially the absence of discontinuityin the philosophy of Heisenberg explain the differ-ence between his approach and mine. A rigorousclassification of regions in levels cannot be obtainedin the absence of discontinuity.

Heisenberg insists on the crucial role of intu-ition: “Only an intuitive thinking,” writes Heisen-berg, “could bridge the abyss between old and newconcepts; the formal deduction is impotent in realiz-ing this bridge [...]34 ” But Heisenberg did not drawthe logical conclusion concerning this impotence offormal thinking; only the non – resistance to ourexperiences, representations, descriptions, images,or mathematical formalisms can bridge the abyssbetween two levels. This non-resistance restores thecontinuity broken by levels.

2.3 The Logical Axiom: The IncludedMiddle

The incompleteness of the general laws governinga given level of Reality signifies that, at a givenmoment of time, one necessarily discovers contradic-

33bid., p. 37234Idem, p. 261.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


tions in the theory describing the respective level:one has to assert A and non – A at the same time.This Godelian feature of the transdisciplinary modelof Reality is verified by all the history of science:a theory leads to contradictions and one has to in-vent a new theory solving these contradictions. Itis precisely the way in which we went from classicalphysics to quantum physics.

However, our habits of mind, scientific or not, arestill governed by the classical logic, which does nottolerate contradictions. The classical logic is foundedon three axioms:

1. The axiom of identity: A is A.

2. The axiom of non – contradiction: A is not non– A.

3. The axiom of the excluded middle: There existsno third term T (“T” from “third”) which is atthe same time A and non –A .

Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantumworld and the macrophysical world and the devel-opment of quantum physics have led, on the levelof theory and scientific experiment, to pairs of mu-tually exclusive contradictories (A and non – A):wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity,separability and non-separability, local causality andglobal causality, symmetry and breaking of symme-try, reversibility and irreversibility of time, and soforth.

The intellectual scandal provoked by quantummechanics precisely consists in the fact that thepairs of contradictories that it generates are actuallymutually exclusive when they are analyzed throughthe interpretive filter of classical logic.

However, the solution is relatively simple: one hasto abandon the third axiom of the classical logic,imposing the exclusion of the third, the includedmiddle T.

History will credit Stephane Lupasco (1900-1988)35 with having shown that the logic of theincluded middle is a true logic, mathematically for-malized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A,and T) and non-contradictory36.

In fact, the logic of the included middle is thevery heart of quantum mechanics: it allows us tounderstand the basic principle of the superpositionof “yes” and “no” quantum states.

35Badescu and Nicolescu (ed.), 1999.36Lupasco, 1951.

Heisenberg was fully conscious of the necessity ofadopting the logic of the included middle. “Thereis – writes Heisenberg – a fundamental principle ofclassical logic which seems to need to be modified:in classical logic, if one assertion has a meaning, onesupposes that either this assertion or its negationhas to be true. Only one of the sentences “There isa table here” and “There is no table here” is true:tertium non datur, i.e. there is not a third possibilityand this is the principle of the excluded middle.[...]In quantum theory, one has to modify this law ofthe excluded middle. If one protests again any mod-ification of this basic principle, one can immediatelyargue that this principle is implicated in the ordi-nary language [...]. Consequently, the descriptionin ordinary language of a logical reasoning whichdoes not apply to this language would mean simplya self-contradiction.”37

Our understanding of the axiom of the includedmiddle – there exists a third term T which is at thesame time A and non-A – is completely clarifiedonce the notion of “levels of Reality”, not existingin the works of Lupasco, is introduced.

In order to obtain a clear image of the meaningof the included middle, let us represent the threeterms of the new logic – A, non-A, and T – andthe dynamics associated with them by a triangle inwhich one of the vertices is situated at one level ofReality and the two other vertices at another level ofReality. The included middle is in fact an includedthird. If one remains at a single level of Reality,all manifestation appears as a struggle between twocontradictory elements. The third dynamic, thatof the T – state, is exercised at another level ofReality, where that which appears to be disunited isin fact united, and that which appears contradictoryis perceived as non-contradictory.

It is the projection of the T – state onto the samesingle level of Reality which produces the appearanceof mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non– A). A single level of Reality can only create antago-nistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive ifit is completely separated from all the other levels ofReality. A third term which is situated at the samelevel of Reality as that of the opposites A and non –A, cannot accomplish their reconciliation. Of course,this conciliation is only temporary. We necessarilydiscover contradictions in the theory of the new levelwhen this theory confronts new experimental facts.

37Heisenberg, 1971, pp. 241-242 ;


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


In other words, the action of the logic of the includedmiddle on the different levels of Reality induces anopen structure of the unity of levels of Reality. Thisstructure has considerable consequences for the the-ory of knowledge because it implies the impossibilityof a self-enclosed complete theory. Knowledge isforever open.

The logic of the included middle does not abolishthe logic of the excluded middle: it only constrainsits sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded mid-dle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations,for example, driving a car on a highway: no onewould dream of introducing an included middle inregard to what is permitted and what is prohibitedin such circumstances. On the contrary, the logicof the excluded middle is harmful in complex cases,for example, within the economical, social, cultural,religious or political spheres. In such cases it oper-ates like a genuine logic of exclusion: good or evil,right or left, heaven or hell, alive or dead, womenor men, rich or poor, whites or blacks. It would berevealing to undertake an analysis of xenophobia,racism, apartheid, anti-semitism, or nationalism inthe light of the logic of the excluded middle. It wouldalso be very instructive to examine the speeches ofpoliticians through the filter of that logic.

There is certainly coherence among different levelsof Reality, at least in the natural world. In fact,an immense self-consistency – a cosmic bootstrap –seems to govern the evolution of the universe, fromthe infinitely small to the infinitely large, from theinfinitely brief to the infinitely long. A flow of infor-mation is transmitted in a coherent manner from onelevel of Reality to another in our physical universe.

The included middle logic is a tool for an inte-grative process: it allows us to cross two differentlevels of Reality or of perception and to effectivelyintegrate, not only in thinking but also in our ownbeing, the coherence of the Universe. The use ofthe included third is a transformative process. But,at that moment, the included third ceases to be anabstract, logical tool: it becomes a living realitytouching all the dimensions of our being. This factis particularly important in education and learning.

2.4 The Complexity Axiom: The UniversalInterdependence

There are several theories of complexity. Some ofthem, like the one practiced at the Santa Fe Insti-tute, with the general guidance of Murray Gell –

Mann, Nobel Prize of Physics, are mathematicallyformalized, while others, like the one of Edgar Morin,widely known in Latin America, are not. In thecontext of our discussion, what is important to beunderstood is that the existing theories of complexitydo not include neither the notion of levels of Realitynor the notion of zones of non-resistance38. However,some of them, like the one of Edgar Morin39, arecompatible with these notions. It is therefore usefulto distinguish between the horizontal complexity,which refers to a single level of reality and verticalcomplexity, which refers to several levels of Reality.It is also important to note that transversal complex-ity is different from the vertical, transdisciplinarycomplexity. Transversal complexity refers to cross-ing different levels of organization at a single levelof Reality.

From a transdisciplinary point of view, complexityis a modern form of the very ancient principle of uni-versal interdependence. This recognition allows us toavoid the current confusion between complexity andcomplication. The principle of universal interdepen-dence entails the maximum possible simplicity thatthe human mind could imagine, the simplicity of theinteraction of all levels of reality. This simplicitycannot be captured by mathematical language, butonly by symbolic language. The mathematical lan-guage addresses exclusively to the analytical mind,while symbolic language addresses to the totalityof the human being, with its thoughts, feelings andbody.

It is interesting to note that the combined actionof the ontological, logical and complexity axiom en-genders values. Therefore, there is no need to intro-duce values as a 4th axiom40. The transdisciplinaryvalues are neither objective nor subjective. Theyresult from the Hidden Third, which signifies theinteraction of the subjective objectivity of the trans-disciplinary Object and the objective subjectivity ofthe transdisciplinary Subject.

3 Building a New Spirituality

“Spirituality” is a completely devaluated word today,in spite of its etymological meaning as “respiration”,in an act of communion between us and the cos-mos. There is a big spiritual poverty present on

38Nicolescu, 1996, 1998, 2000.39Morin, 1977, 1980, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2004.40Cicovacki, 2003.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


our Earth. It manifests as fear, violence, hate anddogmatism. In a world with more than 10000 reli-gions and religious movements and more than 6000tongues, how can we dream about mutual under-standing and peace? There is an obvious need fora new spirituality, conciliating technoscience andwisdom. Of course, there are already several spiri-tualities, present on our Earth from centuries andeven millennia. One might ask: why is there a needfor a new spirituality if we have them all, here andnow?

Before answering to this question, we must facea preliminary question: is a Big Picture still possi-ble in our post-modern times? Radical relativismanswers in a negative way to this question. How-ever its arguments are not solid and logical. Theyare in fact very poor and obviously linked to thetotalitarian aspect of the political and philosophi-cal correctness expressed by the slogan “anythinggoes”. For radical relativists, after the death of God,the death of Man, the end of ideologies, the end ofHistory (and, perhaps, tomorrow, the end of scienceand the end of religion) a Big Picture is no morepossible. For transdisciplinarity, a Big Picture is notonly possible but also vitally necessary, even if itwill never be formulated as a closed theory. We arehappy that the well-known art critic Suzi Gablik, inher book Has Modernism Failed?41, joined recentlyour point of view. The last chapter of her book isentitled Transdisciplinarity–Integralism and the NewEthics. For her, the essential intellectual change ofthe last two decades is precisely transdisciplinarity.This change was anticipated by the big quantumphysicist Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), Nobel Prizeof Physics, who wrote fifty years ago: “Facing therigorous division, from the 17th century, of humanspirit in isolated disciplines, I consider the aim oftransgressing their opposition [...] as the explicit orimplicit myth of our present times.”42

The first motivation for a new spirituality istechnoscience, with its associated fabulous economicpower, which is simply incompatible with presentspiritualities. It drives a hugely irrational force of ef-ficiency for efficiency sake: everything which can bedone will be done, for the worst or the best. The sec-ond motivation for a new spirituality is the difficulty

41Gablik, 2004. The first edition was published in 1984.42Pauli, 1999, chapter “Science and Western Thinking”, p.

178. This chapter was first published in 1955, in Eu-ropa Erbe und Aufgabe, Internazionaler Gelehrtehkongress,Meinz.

of the dialogue between different spiritualities, whichoften appear as antagonistic, as we can testify in oureveryday life. The new phenomenon of a planetaryterrorism is not foreign to these two problems.

In simple words, we need to find a spiritual dimen-sion of democracy. Transdisciplinarity can help withthis important advancement of democracy, throughits basic notions of “transcultural” and “transreli-gious”43.

The transcultural designates the opening of allcultures to that which cuts across them and tran-scends them, while the transreligious designates theopening of all religions to that which cuts acrossthem and transcends them44 . This does not meanthe emergence of a unique planetary culture and of aunique planetary religion, but of a new transculturaland transreligious attitude. The old principle “unityin diversity and diversity from unity” is embodiedin transdisciplinarity.

Through the transcultural, which leads to the tran-sreligious, the spiritual poverty could be eradicatedand therefore render the war of civilizations obsolete.The transcultural and transreligious attitude is notsimply a utopian project – it is engraved in the verydepths of our being.

This evolution of mentalities could be achievedonly if we perform the unification of Homo religiouswith Homo economicus.

Homo religiosus probably existed from the begin-nings of the human species, at the moment whenthe human being tried to understand the meaningof his life. The sacred is his natural realm. He triedto capture the unseen from his observation of thevisible world. His language is that of the imaginary,trying to penetrate higher levels of Reality - parables,symbols, myths, legends, revelation.

Homo economicus is a creation of modernity. Hebelieves only in what is seen, observed, measured.The profane is his natural realm. His language isthat of just one level of Reality, accessible throughthe analytic mind–hard and soft sciences, technology,theories and ideologies, mathematics, informatics.

Transdisciplinary methodology is able to identifythe common germ of homo religiosus and of homoeconomicus–called homo sui transcendentalis in myManifesto of Transdisciplinarity45. This identifica-tion could be done by taking into account the new

43Nicolescu, 1996.44Nicolescu, 1996.45Nicolescu, 1996.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


relation established by transdisciplinarity betweenObject and Subject.

In Pr — Modernity the Subject was immersedin the Object. Everything was trace, signature ofa higher meaning. The world of the pre-modernhuman being was magical (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Pr—Modernity.

In Modernity, Subject and Object were totallyseparated (see Figure 2) by a radical epistemologicalcut, allowing in such a way the development of mod-ern science. The Object was just there, in order tobe known, deciphered, dominated, and transformed.

Figure 2: Modernity.

In Post-Modernity the roles of the Subject andObject are changed in comparison with Modernityand are reversed in comparison with Pre-Modernity:the Object, still considered as being outside theSubject, is nevertheless a social construction. It isnot really “there”. In looks more like an emanationof the Subject.

Transdisciplinarity leads to a new understandingof the relation between Subject and Object, whichis illustrated in Figure 4:

The Subject and the Object are, like in Modernity,separated but they are unified by their immersion

Figure 3: Post-Modernity.

Figure 4: Transdisciplinarity.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


in the Hidden Third, whose ray of action is infi-nite. The transdisciplinary Object and its levels,the transdisciplinary Subject and its levels and theHidden Third define the Transdisciplinary Realityor Trans-Reality46 (see Figure 5)

Figure 5: Hidden Third.

“What is Reality?” – asks Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914), a great philosopher, logician, mathe-matician of the beginning of the 20th century47. Hetells us that maybe there is nothing at all whichcorresponds to Reality. It may be just a workingassumption in our desperate tentative in knowing.But if there is a Reality – tells us Peirce – it has toconsist in the fact that the world lives, moves and hasin itself a logic of events, which corresponds to ourreason. Peirce’s view on Reality totally correspondsto the transdisciplinary view on Reality.

The unified theory of levels of Reality is crucialin building sustainable development and sustain-able futures. The considerations made till now inthese matters are based upon reductionist and binarythinking: everything is reduced to society, economyand environment. The individual level of Reality,the spiritual level of Reality and the cosmic level ofReality are completely ignored. Sustainable futures,so necessary for our survival, can only be based ona unified theory of levels of Reality. We are partof the ordered movement of Reality. Our freedomconsists in entering into the movement or perturb-ing it. Reality depends on us. Reality is plastic.We can respond to the movement or impose ourwill of power and domination. Our responsibility isto build sustainable futures in agreement with theoverall movement of Reality.

46Nicolescu, 2009.47Peirce, 1976, vol. IV, p. 383-384.

References

Leo Apostel, Guy Berger, Asa Briggs and Guy Michaud(ed.), L’interdisciplinarite–Problemes d’enseignement etde recherche, Centre pour la Recherche et l’Innovationdans l’Enseignement, Organisation de Cooperation et dedeveloppement conomique, Paris, 1972.

Horia Badescu and Basarab Nicolescu (ed.), StephaneLupasco - L’homme et l’oeuvre, Le Rocher, Monaco, 1999.Translation in Portuguese : Stephane Lupasco - O Homeme a Obra, TRIOM et University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo,2001, translation by Lucia Pereira de Souza.

Michel Camus, Thierry Magnin, Basarab Nicolescu andKaren-Claire Voss, “Levels of Representation and Levelsof Reality: Towards an Ontology of Science”, in Niels H.Gregersen; Michael W.S. Parsons and Christoph Wasser-mann (ed.), The Concept of Nature in Science and The-ology (part II), Genve, Editions Labor et Fides, 1998, pp.94-103.

The Charter of Transdisciplinarity (in French, Spanish,English, Portuguese, Turkish, Italian, Arab and Roma-nian): http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/

Predrag Cicovacki, “Transdisciplinarity as an InteractiveMethod : A Critical Reflection on the Three Pillars ofTransdisciplinarity”, communication at the congress TheUnifying Aspects of Cultures, Vienna, November 7-9,2003.

Vincent Descombes, Le complement du sujet, Gallimard,Paris, 2004.

d’Espagnat, Bernard. A la recherche du reel, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1981.

Pierre Duguet, “L’approche des problemes”, in Leo Apos-tel et al. (1972).

Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, The SeaburyPress, New York, 1968.

Suzi Gablik, Has Modernism failed ?, Thames§Hudson,New York, 2004.

Galileo Galilei, Dialogue sur les deux grands systemesdu monde, Seuil, Paris, 1992, translated from the Italianby Rene Frereux with the collaboration of Franois deGandt, pp. 128-130; Dialogue on the Great World Sys-tems, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956, withan introduction by Giorgio de Santillana.

Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Si-mon Schwartzman, Peter Scott and Martin Trow (ed.).The New Production of Knowledge, London, ThousandOaks, New Delhi, SAGE, 1994.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


“Guerre et paix antre les science : disciplinarite et trans-disciplinarite”, Revue du MAUSS, No 10, Paris, 1997.

Werner Heisenberg, Philosophie – Le manuscrit de 1942,Paris, Seuil, 1998, translation from German and intro-duction by Catherine Chevalley German original edition:Ordnung der Wirklichkeit, R. Piper GmbH § KG, Mu-nich, 1989. Published first in W. Blum, H. P. Durr,and H. Rechenberg (Ed.), W. Heisenberg GesammelteWerke, Vol. C-I : Physik und Erkenntnis, 1927-1955,R. Piper GmbH § KG, Munich, 1984, pp. 218-306. Atranslation in English of this book can be found on theInternet page http://werner-heisenberg.unh.edu/t-OdWenglish.htm#seg01

Edmund Husserl, Me ditations cartesiennes, Vrin, Paris,1966. Translated form the German by Gabrielle Peifferand Emmanuel Levinas.

Erich Jantsch, a. “Vers l’interdisciplinarite et la transdis-ciplinarite dans l’enseignement et l’innovation”, in LeoApostel et al. (1972).

—————– b. Technological Planning and Social Futures,Cassell/Associated Bussiness Programmes, London, 1972.

Andre Lichnerowicz, “Mathematique et transdisci-plinarite”, in Leo Apostel et al. (1972).

Stephane Lupasco, Le principe d’antagonisme et lalogique de l’energie - Prolegomenes a une science de lacontradiction, Hermann & Cie, Coll. “Actualites scien-tifiques et industrielles”, no 1133, Paris, 1951 ; 2nd ed. LeRocher, Monaco, 1987, foreword by Basarab Nicolescu.

Edgar Morin, La methode I– La nature de la nature,Paris, Seuil, 1977.

———————— La methode II– La vie de la vie, Paris,Seuil, 1980.

———————— La methode III –La connaissance de laconnaissance, Paris, Seuil, 1986.

———————– La methode IV– Les idees, leur habitat,leur vie, leurs moeurs, leur organisation, Paris, Seuil,1991.

————————- Seven Complex Lessons in Education,Paris, UNESCO, 1999. Translated from the French byNidra Poller.

———————— La methode V– L’humanite del’humanite, Paris, Seuil, 2001.

———————— La methode VI Ethique, Paris, Seuil,2004.

Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, Godel’s Proof, New

York University Press, New York, 1958.

Basarab Nicolescu, “Sociologie et mecanique quantique”,3e Milnaire, no 1, Paris, March-April 1982.

———————— Nous, la particule et le monde, Le Mail,Paris, 1985. 2nd edition, Le Rocher, Monaco, “Transdis-ciplinarite” Series, 2002.

————————- “Science as Testimony”, in Proceed-ings of the Symposium Science and the Boundaries ofKnowlege : the Prologue of Our Cultural Past, organisedby UNESCO in collaboration with the Cini Foundatio-(Venice, March 3-7, 1986), Paris, UNESCO, 1986, pp.9-30.

———————— Science, Meaning and Evolution – TheCosmology of Jacob Boehme, with selected texts by JacobBoehme, New York, Parabola Books, 1991. Translatedfrom the French by Rob Baker.

Foreword by Joscelyn Godwin, afterword by AntoineFaivre.

————————a. La transdisciplinarite, manifeste,Monaco, Le Rocher, “Transdisciplinarite” Series, 1996.English translation: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity.New York: SUNY Press, 2002, translation from theFrench by Karen–Claire Voss. Translation in Portuguese:O Manifesto da Transdisciplinaridade, Triom, Sao Paulo,1999, translation by Lucia Pereira de Souza; 2nd edition:2001.

————————b. “Levels of Complexity and Levelsof Reality”, in Bernard Pullman (ed.), The Emergenceof Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, andBiology. Vatican City, Pontificia Academia Scientiarum,1996, pp. 393–417. Distributed by Princeton UniversityPress. Proceedings of the Plenary Session of the PontificalAcademy of Sciences, 27–31 October 1992, Casina PioIV, Vatican.

————————-a. “The Transdisciplinary Evolution ofthe University, Condition for Sustainable Development”,Rencontres Transdisciplinaires No 12, February 1998.

http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12.c8.htm.

————————-b. “Godelian Aspects of Nature andKnowledge”, in Gabriel Altmann and Walter A. Koch(ed.), Systems– New Paradigms for the Human Sciences,Berlin - New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1998, pp. 385-403.

———————– “Hylemorphism, Quantum Physics andLevels of Reality”, in Demetra Sfendoni – Mentzou (ed.),Aristotle and Contemporary Science, New York, PeterLang, 2000, Vol. I, pp. 173-184. Introduction by HilaryPutnam.


Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)


———————— “Toward a Methodological Foundationof the Dialogue Between the Technoscientific and SpiritualCultures”, in Liubava Moreva (ed.), Differentiation andIntegration of Worldviews, Eidos, Sankt Petersburg, 2004.

———————— “Toward Transdisciplinary Education”,The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in SouthernAfrica, North-West University, Wanderbijlpark, SouthAfrica, Vol. 1, no 1, December 2005, p. 5-15.

———————— “Transdisciplinarity– past, present andfuture”, in Moving Worldviews – Reshaping sciences,policies and practices for endogenous sustainable devel-opment, COMPAS Editions, Holland, 2006, edited byBertus Haverkort and Coen Reijntjes, p. 142-166.

————————“Transdisciplinarity as a Methodologi-cal Framework for Going beyond the Science – ReligionDebate”, Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion, no

2, 2007, Curtea Veche Publ., Bucharest, p. 35-60.

———————— a. “Spiritual Dimension of Democ-racy: Utopia or Necessity?”, in Andrei Marga, TheodorBercheim and Jan Sadlak (Ed.), Living in Truth, ClujUniversity Press, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj – Napoca,2008, p. 509-516.

———————— b. “The Idea of Levels of Reality– ItsRelevance for Non-Reduction and Personhood”, Trans-disciplinarity in Science and Religion, no 4, 2008, CurteaVeche Publ., Bucharest, p. 11-25 .

————————Quest-ce que la realite?, Liber, Montreal,Canada, 2009.

Basarab Nicolescu (ed.), Transdisciplinarity–Theory andPractice, Hampton Press, Cresskill, New Jersey, 2008.

Helga Nowotny, “The Potential of Transdisciplinarity”:http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinaritypapers/5

Wolfgang Pauli, Physique moderne et philosophie, Al-bin Michel, Paris, 1999, translated from the German byClaude Maillard.

Jean Piaget, “Lepistemologie des relations interdisci-plinaires”, in Leo Apostel et al. (1972).

Charles Sanders Peirce, Collected Papers of CharlesSanders Peirce, 8 volumes, Charles Hartshorne, PaulWeiss, and Arthur Burks (Ed.), Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1931-1958.

Charles Sanders Peirce, Selected Writings (Values in aUniverse of Chance), Dover Publications, New York, 1966,edited with an introduction and notes by Philip P. Wiener.

Charles Sanders Peirce, The New Elements of Mathemat-

ics, 4 volumes, C. Eisele (Ed.), Mouton Humanities Press,The Hague, 1976.

Julie Thompson Klein, Walter Grossenbacher-Mansuy,Rudolf Haberli, Alain Bill, Ronald W. Scholz and MyrthaWelti (ed.). Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solv-ing among Science, Technology, and Society–An Effec-tive Way for Managing Complexity, Basel–Boston–Berlin,Birkhauser Verlag, 2001.

Basarab Nicolescu is a theoretical physicist in elemen-tary particle physics at CNRS, France and professor ofphilosophy at the Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca,Romania. He is member of the Romanian Academy andpresident-founder of the International Center for Transdis-ciplinary Research and Studies (CIRET). Basarab Nico-lescu is founder and director of the Transdisciplinarityseries, Rocher, Monaco, of the Romanians in Paris series,Oxus, Paris and of the Science and Religion and Science,Spirituality, Society Series, Curtea Veche, Bucharest. Hisbooks include: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, State Uni-versity of New York (SUNY) Press, New York, 2002; Nous,la particule et le monde, E. M. E. InterCommunications,Brussels, 2012 (3rd edition); Science, Meaning and Evolu-tion - The Cosmology of Jacob Boehme, Parabola Books,New York, 1991. He edited Transdisciplinarity - Theoryand Practice, Hampton Press, Cresskill, New Jersey, 2008.Forthcoming: Science, Culture and Spirituality FromModernity to Cosmodernity, State University of New York(SUNY) Press, New York (to be published). A completebio-bibliography of Basarab Nicolescu can be found onthe page http://www.basarab-nicolescu.fr/index.php

Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & ScienceISSN: 1949-0569 online

Vol. 1, pp. 17-32, (December, 2010)

Copyright © 2010 by the author. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

methodology of transdisciplinarity–levels of reality

Documents