Towards transdisciplinary education
�
TD, 1 (1), December 200�, pp.�-16
Towards transdisciplinary education
BasaraB Nicolescu�
Abstract. The methodology of transdisciplinarity is founded on three postulates:
there are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of Reality and,
correspondingly, different levels of perception; the passage from one level of Reality
to another is insured by the logic of the included middle; and 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. After giving an exposition of these
postulates the author contends that transdisciplinarity does not rest on a transfer
from modern science. Instead, modern science, via its most general aspects, makes
it possible to identify the postulates of transdisciplinarity. However, once they are
formulated they have a much wider validity then in modern science itself, namely
they could be applied in the field of education and culture.
It is argued that transdisciplinary education, founded on the transdisciplinary
methodology, will allow scientists to establish links between persons, facts, images,
representations, fields of knowledge and action.
Keywords. Transdisciplinarity, in vitro and in vivo knowledge, axiom of the in-
cluded middle, transdisciplinary education.
1. Multi, inter and transdisciplinarity
The process of the decline of civilizations is one of enormous complex-
ity and its roots lie deep in obscurity. Of course, one can find multiple
after-the-fact explanations and rationalisations without ever success-
fully dissipating the feeling that there is an irrational element at work
at the heart of the process. Neither the masses nor great decision
makers, as actors in a well-defined civilisation, seem able to stop the
decline of their civilization, even if they become more or less aware of
the processes at work.
One thing is certain: this fall is always accompanied by a great unbal-
ance between the mentalities of the actors and the inner developmen-
tal needs of a particular type of society. Although a civilization never
stops proliferating new knowledge, it is as if these can never be fully
1 Theoretical physicist at CNRS, University Paris VI. Member of the Romanian
Academy. President of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research and
Studies (CIRET).
TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, Vol. 1 nr. 1, December 200� pp. �-16
Nicolescu
6
integrated within those who belong to this civilization. And it is the hu-
man being who must be placed at the centre of any civilization worthy of
the name.
The unprecedented increase of knowledge in our era raises the challeng-
ing question of how to adapt our mentality to being. Mondialisation is
today a potential source of a new decline. The two extreme dangers of
mondialisation are, on one side, the cultural and spiritual homogenisa-
tion and, on another side, the paroxysm of ethnical and religious con-
flicts, as a self-defence reaction of different cultures and civilisations.
Harmony between inner being and outer knowledge presupposes that
these known facts would be intelligible, comprehensible. But can such
comprehension exist in the era of the disciplinary big bang and relentless
specialization?
The indispensable need for bridges between the different disciplines is
attested to by the emergence of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity
around the middle of the twentieth century.
Multidisciplinarity concerns studying a research topic not in just one dis-
cipline but in several at the same time. For example, a painting by Giotto
can be studied not only within the context of art history, but also within
the contexts of the history of religions, European history, or geometry.
The topic in question will ultimately be enriched by incorporating the per-
spectives of several disciplines. Moreover, our understanding of the topic
in terms of its own discipline is deepened by a fertile multidisciplinary
approach. Multidisciplinarity brings a plus to the discipline in question
(the history of art in our example), but we must remember that this “plus”
is always in the exclusive service of the home discipline. In other words,
the multidisciplinary approach overflows disciplinary boundaries while
its goal remains limited to the framework of disciplinary research.
Interdisciplinarity has a different goal than multidisciplinarity. It concerns
the transfer of methods from one discipline to another. One can distin-
guish three degrees of interdisciplinarity: (a) degree of application (for
example, when the methods of nuclear physics are transferred to medi-
cine, which leads to the appearance of new treatments for cancer); (b)
epistemological degree (such as, transferring methods of formal logic to
the area of general law, which generates some interesting analyses of
the epistemology of law); (c) degree of the generation of new disciplines
(when methods from mathematics are transferred to physics, generating
mathematical physics, or when mathematical methods are transferred to
meteorological phenomena or stock market processes, generating chaos
theory; transferring methods from particle physics to astrophysics pro-
duces quantum cosmology. Like multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity
overflows the disciplines, but its goal still remains within the framework
of disciplinary research.
Towards transdisciplinary education
�
TD, 1 (1), December 200�, pp.�-16
As the prefix “trans” indicates, transdisciplinarity concerns that which
is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and
beyond all disciplines.2 Its goal is the understanding of the present world,
of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge. The word itself
is quite recent: it was first introduced by Jean Piaget in 1970.�
Is there something between and across the disciplines and beyond all
disciplines? From the point of view of classical thought there is abso-
lutely nothing. The space in question is empty, completely void, like the
vacuum of classical physics.
In the presence of several levels of Reality, the space between disciplines
and beyond disciplines is full, just as the quantum void is full of all po-
tentialities: from the quantum particle to the galaxies, from the quark to
the heavy elements that condition the appearance of life in the universe.
Transdisciplinary research is clearly distinct from disciplinary research,
even while being entirely complementary. Disciplinary research concerns,
at most, one and the same level of Reality; moreover, in most cases, it
only concerns fragments of one level of Reality. In contrast, transdiscipli-
narity concerns the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels
of Reality at once. The discovery of these dynamics necessarily passes
through disciplinary knowledge.
Disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdiscipli-
narity are like four arrows shot from but a single bow: knowledge.
The transdisciplinary knowledge TK, corresponds to a new type of knowl-
edge - in vivo knowledge. This new knowledge is concerned with the cor-
respondence between the external world of the Object and the internal
world of the Subject. By definition, the TK knowledge includes a system
of values (see Table I).
It is important to realize that the disciplinary knowledge and the transdis-
ciplinary knowledge are not antagonist but complementary. Both their
methodologies are founded on scientific attitude. The new, transdiscipli-
nary knowledge engenders a new, transdisciplinary education. In order
to explore what this means, we have to understand what could be the
transdisciplinary methodology.
2 B Nicolescu, La transdisciplinarité, manifeste, (Le Rocher, Monaco, Collection
“Transdisciplinarité”, 1996); English translation: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity,
(Translated from the French by Karen-Claire Voss, SUNY Press, New York, 2002).
� J Piaget, L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires, in L’interdisciplinarité
- Problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche dans les universités, (OCDE, Paris, 1972,
proceedings of a workshop held in Nice in 1970).
Nicolescu
�
KNOWLEDGE DK
IN VITRO
KNOWLEDGE TK
IN VIVO
External world - Object
Correspondence between external
world (Object) and
internal world (Subject)
knowledge understanding
analytic intelligence
new type of intelligence - harmony be-
tween mind, feelings and body
oriented towards power and posses-
sion
oriented towards astonishment and
sharing
binary logic included middle logic
exclusion of values inclusion of values
Table 1. Comparison between disciplinary knowledge DK and transdis-
ciplinary knowledge TK.
2. The transdisciplinary approach of Nature and knowledge
The transdisciplinary approach of Nature and knowledge can be described
through the diagram shown in Fig. 1.
In the left part are symbolically drawn the levels of Reality
{ NRn, ... , NR2, NR1, NR0, NR-1, NR-2, ... , NR-n }
The index n can be finite or infinite.
Here the meaning we give to the word “reality” is pragmatic and ontologi-
cal at the same time.
By “Reality” (with a capital “R”) we intend first of all to designate that
which resists our experiences, representations, descriptions, images, or
even mathematical formulations.
Insofar as Nature participates in the being of the world, one must give an
ontological dimension to the concept of Reality. Reality is not merely a so-
cial construction, the consensus of a collectivity, or some intersubjective
agreement. It also has a trans-subjective dimension: e.g. experimental
data can ruin the most beautiful scientific theory.
Of course, one has to distinguish the word “Real” and “Reality”. Real
designates that what it is, while Reality is connected to resistance in our
human experience. The “Real” is, by definition, veiled for ever, while the
“Reality” is accessible to our knowledge.
By “level of Reality”, notion I first introduced in Nous, la particule et le
Towards transdisciplinary education
9
TD, 1 (1), December 200�, pp.�-16
monde � and later developed in other works,� I designate an ensemble of
systems which are invariant under certain laws: for example, quantum
entities are subordinate to quantum laws, which depart radically from
the laws of the physical world. That is to say that two levels of Reality are
different if, while passing from one to the other, there is a break in the
laws and a break in fundamental concepts (like, for example, causality).
Levels of Reality are radically different from levels of organization as these
have been defined in systemic approaches. Levels of organization do not
presuppose a break with fundamental concepts: several levels of organi-
zation can appear at one and the same level of Reality. The levels of or-
ganization correspond to different structures of the same fundamental
laws. For example, Marxist economy and classical physics belong to one
and the same level of Reality.
The emergence of at least three different levels of Reality in the study of
natural systems – the macrophysical level, the microphysical level and
the cyber-space-time – is a major event in the history of knowledge. It
can lead us to reconsider our individual and social lives, to give a new
interpretation to old knowledge, to explore the knowledge of ourselves in
a different way, here and now.
The existence of different levels of Reality has been affirmed by different
traditions and civilizations, but this affirmation was founded either on
religious dogma or on the exploration of the interior universe only.
In our century, in an effort to question the foundations of science, Ed-
mund Husserl6 and other scholars have detected the existence of differ-
ent levels of perception by the subject–observer of Reality.
The transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional
Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-di-
mensional reality of classical thought.
According to the transdisciplinary approach, Reality is structured via a
certain number of levels. The considerations which follow do not depend
� B Nicolescu, Nous, la particule et le monde, (2e édition, Le Rocher, Monaco, Collection
“Transdisciplinarité”, 2002).
� B Nicolescu, “Levels of complexity and levels of reality”, in B Pullman (ed.), The emergence
of complexity in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. Proceedings of the plenary
session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 27-31 October 1992, (Casina Pio IV, Vati-
can, Ed. Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vatican City, 1996, Distributed by Princeton
University Press); B Nicolescu, “Gödelian aspects of nature and knowledge” in G Altmann
and WA Koch (eds.), Systems - new paradigms for the human sciences, (Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin - New York, 1998); M Camus, T Magnin, B Nicolescu and K-C Voss, “Levels of rep-
resentation and levels of reality: towards an ontology of science” in NH Gregersen, MWS
Parsons and C Wassermann (eds.), The concept of nature in science and theology, II, (Édi-
tions Labor et Fides, Genève, 1998), pp. 94-10�; B Nicolescu, Hylemorphism, quantum
physics and levels of reality, in Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou, introduction by Hilary Putnam
(eds.), Aristotle and contemporary science, I, (Peter Lang, New York, 2000), pp. 1��-1��.
6 E Husserl, Méditations cartésiennes, (Translated form German by Gabrielle Peiffer and
Emmanuel Levinas, Vrin, Paris, 1966).
Nicolescu
10
on whether or not this number is finite or infinite. For the sake of clarity,
let us suppose that this number is infinite (i.e. we take n→∞ in Fig. 1).
Two adjacent levels in Fig. 1 (say, NR0 and NR1) are connected by the logic
of the included middle, a new logic as compared with classical logic.
The classical logic is founded on three axioms:
1. The axiom of identity: A is A.
2. The axiom of non-contradiction: A is not non-A.
�. The axiom of the excluded middle: There exists no third term T
(“T” from “third”) which is at the same time A and non-A.
Figure 1: The transdisciplinary Object, the transdisciplinary subject and
Interaction term.
Towards transdisciplinary education
11
TD, 1 (1), December 200�, pp.�-16
Using this logic one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs
of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive,
because one cannot affirm the validity of an assertion and of its opposite
at the same time: A and non-A.
Most quantum logics� have modified the second axiom of classical logic —
the axiom of non-contradiction — by introducing non-contradiction with
several truth values in place of the binary pair (A and non-A). History will
credit Stéphane Lupasco (1900-1988) with having shown that the logic of
the included middle is a true logic, formalisable and formalized, multiva-
lent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory.�
Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle — there exists a
third term T which is at the same time A and non-A — is completely clari-
fied once the notion of “levels of Reality” is introduced.
In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle,
we represent in Fig. 2 the three terms of the new logic — A, non-A, and T
— and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of
the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at
another level of Reality. The included middle is in fact an included third.
If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a
struggle between two contradictory elements. The third dynamic, that of
the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which ap-
pears to be disunited is in fact united, and that which appears contradic-
tory is perceived as non-contradictory.
It is the projection of the T-state onto the same single level of Reality
which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs
(A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppo-
� TA Brody, “On quantum logic”, in Foundation of Physics, 14,(5), 1984, pp. 409-4 � 0 .
� S Lupasco, Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie, (2nd edition, Le Rocher,
Paris, 1987), Foreword by B Nicolescu; Stéphane Lupasco - L’homme et l’oeuvre, Le Ro-
cher, Monaco, coll. “Transdisciplinarité”, 1999, under the direction of Horia Badescu
and Basarab Nicolescu.
Nicolescu
12
sitions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from
all the other levels of Reality. A third term which is situated at the same
level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, cannot accomplish
their reconciliation.
The T1-state present at the level NR1 (see Fig. 1) is connected to a pair
of contradictories (A0 and non-A0) at an immediately adjacent level. The
T1-state allows the unification of contradictories A0 and non-A0, but this
unification takes place at a level different from the one NR0 on which A0
and non-A0 are situated. The axiom of non-contradiction is thereby re-
spected.
There is certainly a coherence among different levels of Reality, at least in
the natural world. In fact, an immense self-consistency — a cosmic boot-
strap — seems to govern the evolution of the universe, from the infinitely
small to the infinitely large, from the infinitely brief to the infinitely long.
A flow of information is transmitted in a coherent manner from one level
of Reality to another in our physical universe.
The logic of the included middle is capable of describing the coherence
among these levels of Reality by an iterative process defined by the follow-
ing stages: (1) A pair of contradictories (A0, non-A0) situated at a certain
level NR0 of Reality is unified by a T1-state situated at a contiguous level
NR1 of Reality; (2) In turn, this T1-state is linked to a couple of contradic-
tories (A1, non-A1), situated at its own level; (�) The pair of contradictories
(A1, non-A1) is, in its turn, unified by a T2-state situated at a third level
NR2 of Reality, immediately contiguous to the level NR1 where the ternary
(A1, non-A1, T1) is found. The iterative process continues to indefinitely
until all the levels of Reality, known or conceivable, are exhausted.
In other words, the action of the logic of the included middle on the dif-
ferent levels of Reality induces an open structure of the unity of levels of
Reality. This structure has considerable consequences for the theory of
knowledge because it implies the impossibility of a self-enclosed complete
theory. Knowledge is forever open.
The open structure of the unity of levels of Reality is in accord with one of
the most important scientific results of the twentieth century concerning
arithmetic, the theorem of Kurt Gödel,9 which states that a sufficiently
rich system of axioms inevitably leads to results which are either indeci-
sive or contradictory. The implications of Gödel’s theorem have consider-
able importance for all modern theories of knowledge, primarily because
it concerns not just the field of arithmetic, but all of mathematics which
include arithmetic.
To be sure, there is a coherence of the unity of levels of Reality, but this
coherence is oriented. If coherence is limited only to the levels of Real-
9 See, for example, E Nagel and JR Newman, Gödel’s proof, (New York University Press,
New York, 1958); Hao Wang, A logical journey - From Gödel to philosophy, (The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England, 1996).
Towards transdisciplinary education
1�
TD, 1 (1), December 200�, pp.�-16
ity, it stops both at the “highest” level and at the “lowest” level (see Fig.
1). If we wish to suggest the idea of a coherence which continues beyond
these two limiting levels, so that there is an open unity, we must con-
ceive the unity of levels of Reality as a unity that extends by a zone of
non-resistance to our experiences, representations, descriptions, images,
and mathematical formulations. This zone of non-resistance corresponds
to the “veil” which Bernard d’Espagnant referred to as “the veil of the
Real”.10 In this zone there are no levels of Reality.
Quite simply, the non-resistance of this zone of absolute transparence is
due to the limitations of our bodies and of our sense organs — limitations
which apply regardless of what measuring tools are used to extend these
sense organs. The zone of non-resistance corresponds to the sacred — to
that which does not submit to any rationalization. It is rational but not
rationalizable, a distinction often used by Edgar Morin.11
It is important to note that the three loops of coherence in Fig. 1 are situ-
ated not only in the zone where the levels of Reality are absent but also
in between the levels of Reality: the zone of non-resistance of the sacred
penetrates and crosses the levels of Reality. In other words, the transdis-
ciplinary approach of Nature and knowledge offers a link between the
Real and the Reality.
The unity of levels of Reality and its complementary zone of nonresis-
tance constitutes what we call the transdisciplinary Object.
A new Principle of Relativity12 [1] emerges from the coexistence between
complex plurality and open unity: no level of Reality constitutes a privi-
leged place from which one is able to understand all the other levels of
Reality. A level of Reality is what it is because all the other levels exist at
the same time. This Principle of Relativity is what originates a new per-
spective on religion, politics, art, education, and social life. And when our
perspective on the world changes, the world changes. “Saying a true word
is equivalent to the transformation of the world” - writes the great brazil-
ian educator Paulo Freire in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed.1�
The different levels of Reality are accessible to human knowledge thanks
to the existence of different levels of perception, described diagrammati-
cally at the right of Fig. 1. They are found in a one-to-one correspondence
with levels of Reality. These levels of perception
{NPn, ... , NP2, NP1, NP0, NP-1, NP-2, ... , NP-n}
permit an increasingly general, unifying, encompassing vision of Reality,
10 B d’Espagnat, Le réel voilé - Analyse des concepts quantiques, (Fayard, Paris, 1994).
11 E Morin, La méthode III - La connaissance de la connaissance/1. Anthropologie de la
connaissance, (Seuil, Paris, 1986).
12 B Nicolescu, La transdisciplinarité, manifeste, (Le Rocher, Monaco, Collection “Trans-
disciplinarité”, 1996); English translation: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, (Translated
from the French by Karen-Claire Voss, SUNY Press, New York, 2002).
1� P Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed, (The Seabury Press, New York, 1968).
Nicolescu
1�
without ever entirely exhausting it.
As in the case of levels of Reality, the coherence of levels of perception
presuppose a zone of non-resistance to perception. In this zone there are
no levels of perception.
The unity of levels of perception and this complementary zone of nonre-
sistance constitutes what we call the transdisciplinary Subject.
The two zones of non-resistance of transdisciplinary Object and Subject
must be identical for the transdisciplinary Subject to communicate with
the transdisciplinary Object. A flow of consciousness that coherently cuts
across different levels of perception must correspond to the flow of infor-
mation coherently cutting across different levels of Reality. The two flows
are interrelated because they share the same zone of non-resistance.
Knowledge is neither exterior nor interior: it is simultaneously exterior
and interior. The studies of the universe and of the human being sustain
one another.
The open unity between the transdisciplinary Object and the transdis-
ciplinary Subject is conveyed by the coherent orientation of the flow of
information, described by the three oriented loops in Fig. 1which cut
through the levels of Reality, and of the flow of consciousness, described
by the three oriented loops which cut through the levels of perception.
The loops of information and consciousness have to meet in a least one
point X in order to insure the coherent transmission of information and
consciousness everywhere in the visible and invisible regions of the Uni-
verse. In some sense, the point X is the source of Reality and perception.
The point X and its associated loops of information and consciousness
describe the third term of the transdisciplinary knowledge: the Interaction
term between the Subject and the Object, which can not be reduced neither
to the Object nor to the Subject.
This ternary partition
{ Subject, Object, Interaction }
is radically different from the binary partition
{ Subject, Object }
which defines the modern metaphysics.
The view I am expressing here is totally conform to the one of the found-
ers of quantum mechanics Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Niels
Bohr.
In fact, Werner Heisenberg came very near, in his philosophical writ-
ings, to the concept of “level of Reality”. In his famous Manuscript of the
year 1942 (published only in 1984) Heisenberg, who knew well Husserl,
introduces the idea of three regions of reality, able to give access to the
Towards transdisciplinary education
1�
TD, 1 (1), December 200�, pp.�-16
concept of “reality” itself: the first region is that of classical physics, the
second - of quantum physics, biology and psychic phenomena and the
third – that of the religious, philosophical and artistic experiences.1� This
classification has a subtle ground: the closer and closer connectiveness
between the Subject and the Object.
The methodology of transdisciplinarity is therefore founded on three pos-
tulates:
i. There are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of
Reality and, correspondingly, different levels of perception.
ii. The passage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the logic
of the included middle.
iii. The structure of the totality of levels of Reality or perception is a com-
plex structure: every level is what it is because all the levels exist at the
same time.1�
The first two get their experimental evidence from quantum physics,
while the last one has its source not only in quantum physics but also in
a variety of other exact and human sciences.
It is important to note that one can assume the validity of the three postu-
lates of transdisciplinarity independently of their historical roots in some
branches of modern science. In other words transdisciplinarity does not
rest on a transfer from modern science: this would be a wrong epistemo-
logical and philosophical procedure. Modern science, via its most general
aspects, allowed us to identify the three postulates of transdisciplinarity,
but once they are formulated they have a much wider validity then in
modern science itself, namely they could be applied in the field of educa-
tion and culture.
The transdisciplinary education, founded on the transdisciplinary meth-
odology, will allow us to establish links between persons, facts, images,
representations, fields of knowledge and action, to discover the Eros of
learning during our entire life and to built beings in permanent question-
ing and permanent integration.
1� W Heisenberg, Philosophie - Le manuscrit de 1942, (Translation from German and
introduction by Catherine Chevalley, Seuil, Paris, 1998).
1� B Nicolescu, La transdisciplinarité, manifeste, (Le Rocher, Monaco, Collection
“Transdisciplinarité”, 1996); English translation: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity,
(Translation from the French by Karen-Claire Voss, SUNY Press, New York, 2002).