World Futures

The Journal of New Paradigm Research

ISSN: 0260-4027 (Print) 1556-1844 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gwof20

Methodology of Transdisciplinarity

Basarab Nicolescu

To cite this article: Basarab Nicolescu (2014) Methodology of Transdisciplinarity, World Futures,
70:3-4, 186-199, DOI: 10.1080/02604027.2014.934631

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934631

Published online: 15 Aug 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1101

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gwof20
World Futures, 70: 186–199, 2014
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0260-4027 print / 1556-1844 online

DOI: 10.1080/02604027.2014.934631

METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY

BASARAB NICOLESCU
International Center for Transdisciplinary Research, Paris, France

In this article, I will describe the methodology of transdisciplinarity. My analysis

will be divided in several parts: what means “beyond disciplines”; the distinction
between multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, indisciplinarity, and transdisci-
plinarity; the definition of disciplinary boundaries; the axioms of the methodol-
ogy of transdisciplinarity: the notion of “levels of Reality”; the logic of included
middle; and the universal interdependence. I will conclude by asserting that we
are at the threshold of a New Renaissance.

KEYWORDS: Complexity, included middle, knowledge, reality, transdisciplinarity.

INTRODUCTION: BEYOND DISCIPLINES

I proposed in 1985 (Nicolescu 1985) the inclusion of the word “transdisciplinar-
ity,” introduced by Jean Piaget (Piaget 1972) in 1970, of the meaning “beyond
disciplines” and I developed this idea over the years in my articles and books and
also in different official international documents. Many other researchers over the
world have contributed to the development of transdisciplinarity. A key-date in this
development is 1994, when the Charter of Transdisciplinarity (1994) was adopted
by the participants at the First World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento
da Arrábida, Portugal).
The crucial point here is the status of the Subject.
Modern science was born through a violent break with the ancient vision of the
world. It was founded on the idea—surprising and revolutionary for that era—of a
total separation between the knowing subject and Reality, which was assumed to
be completely independent from the subject who observed it. This break allowed
science to develop independently of theology, philosophy, and culture. It was
a positive act of freedom. But today, the extreme consequences of this break,
incarnated by the ideology of scientism, have become a potential danger of self-
destruction of our species (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2012).
Objectivity, set up as the supreme criterion of Truth, has one inevitable con-
sequence: the transformation of the Subject into an Object. The death of the
Subject is the price we pay for objective knowledge. The human being became an
object—an object of the exploitation of man by man, an object of the experiments

Address correspondence to Basarab Nicolescu, International Center for Trans-

disciplinary Research (CIRET), 19 Villa Curial, 75019 Paris, France. E-mail:
[email protected]

186
 METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY 187

of ideologies, which are proclaimed scientific, an object of scientific studies to be

dissected, formalized, and manipulated. The Man–God has become a Man–Object,
of which the only result can be self-destruction. The two world massacres of this
century, not to mention the multiple local wars and terrorism, are only the prelude
to self-destruction on a global scale.
In fact, with very few exceptions—Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, or
Cassirer—modern and postmodern thinkers gradually transformed the Subject
in a grammatical subject. The Subject is today just a word in a phrase (Descombes
2004).
The quantum revolution radically changed this situation. The new scientific and
philosophical notions it introduced—the principle of superposition of quantum
“yes” and “no” states, discontinuity, non-separability, global causality, quantum
indeterminism—necessarily led the founders of quantum mechanics to rethink the
problem of the complete Object/Subject separation.
For me, “beyond disciplines” precisely signifies the Subject, more precisely the
Subject–Object interaction. The transcendence, inherent in transdisciplinarity, is
the transcendence of the Subject. The Subject cannot be captured in a disciplinary
camp.
The meaning “beyond disciplines” led us to an immense space of new knowl-
edge. The main outcome was the formulation of the methodology of transdis-
ciplinarity. It allows us also to clearly distinguish between multidisciplinarity,
interdisciplinarity, indisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity.

MULTIDISCIPLINARITY, INTERDISCIPLINARITY, INDISCIPLINARITY

AND TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
Multidisciplinarity concerns itself with studying a research topic in not just one
discipline only, but in several at the same time. Any topic in question will ultimately
be enriched by incorporating the perspectives of several disciplines. Multidisci-
plinarity brings a plus to the discipline in question, but 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. Like multidisciplinarity,
interdisciplinarity overflows the disciplines, but its goal still remains within the
framework of disciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity even has the capacity of
generating new disciplines, like quantum cosmology and chaos theory.
Transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines,
across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline. Its goal is the under-
standing of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of
knowledge (Nicolescu 1996).
As one can see, there is no opposition between disciplinarity (including multi-
disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity) and transdisciplinarity, but a fertile comple-
mentarity. In fact, there is no transdisciplinarity without disciplinarity.
188 BASARAB NICOLESCU

There is a specific different approach to transdisciplinarity, characterized by

the refusal of formulating any methodology and by its exclusive concentration on
joint problem solving of problems pertaining to the science–technology–society
triad. This approach is represented by figures like Michael Gibbons (Gibbons et al.
1994), Helga Nowotny (2003) and Christian Pohl (2011). The point of view of
this transdisciplinary current was largely expressed at the Zürich Congress, held
in the year 2000 (Thompson Klein et al. 2001).
This version of transdisciplinarity does not exclude the meaning “beyond dis-
ciplines” but reduces it to the interaction of disciplines with social constraints.
The social field necessarily introduces a dimension “beyond disciplines,” but the
individual human being is conceived of as part of a social system only.
It is difficult to understand why “joint problem solving” must be the unique aim
of transdisciplinarity. It is certainly one of the aims but not the only aim. Are we
allowed to identify knowledge with production of knowledge? Why does the po-
tential of transdisciplinarity have to be reduced to produce “better science”? Why
does transdisciplinarity have to be reduced to “hard science”? In other words, the
Subject–Object interaction seems to us to be at the very core of transdisciplinarity
and not the Object alone.
A very interesting approach, developing in the field of art, is that of indis-
ciplinarity (Thomas Mitchell 1995; Huys and Vernant 2012). “Indisciplinar-
ity” means transgression of disciplinary boundaries and, therefore it is near to
transdisciplinarity. However, the refusal of any methodology, obvious in some
works done in this approach, makes it more an anarchical than structured
knowledge.
It is my deep conviction that our formulation of transdisciplinarity is both
unified (in the sense of unification of different transdisciplinary approaches) and
diverse: unity in diversity and diversity through unity is inherent to transdisci-
plinarity. Much confusion arises by not recognizing that there is a theoretical
transdisciplinarity, a phenomenological transdisciplinarity, and an experimental
transdisciplinarity. The word theory implies a general definition of transdisci-
plinarity and a well-defined methodology (which has to be distinguished from
“methods”: a single methodology corresponds to a great number of different
methods). The word phenomenology implies building models connecting the the-
oretical principles with the already observed experimental data, in order to predict
further results. The word experimental implies performing experiments following
a well-defined procedure allowing any researcher to get the same results when
performing the same experiments.
The reduction of transdisciplinarity to only one of its aspects is very dangerous
because it will transform transdisciplinarity into a temporary fashion. The huge
potential of transdisciplinarity will never be accomplished if we do not accept
the simultaneous and rigorous consideration of the three aspects of transdisci-
plinarity. This simultaneous consideration of theoretical, phenomenological, and
experimental transdisciplinarity allows both a unified and non-dogmatic treat-
ment of transdisciplinary theory and practice. This unified approach resulted in
many works as those which could be found in reviews like “Transdisciplinary
Encounters” E-zine (CIRET Review 2013) or the Transdisciplinary Journal of
 METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY 189

Engineering & Science (ATLAS 2013) or in books like Transdisciplinarity— The-

ory and Practice (Nicolescu 2008) or Transformative Practice: New Pathways to
Leadership (McGregor 2006).

DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIES
The unconscious barrier to a true understanding of what transdisciplinarity means
by the words “beyond all discipline” comes from the inability of certain researchers
to think the discontinuity (Thompson Klein 1990). For them, the boundaries be-
tween disciplines are like boundaries between countries, continents and oceans
on the surface of the Earth. These boundaries are fluctuating in time but a fact
remains unchanged: the continuity between territories.
I have a different approach to the boundaries between disciplines. For me, they
are like the separation between galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets. It is
the movement itself that generates the fluctuation of boundaries. This movement
does not mean that a galaxy intersects another galaxy; rather, when we cross the
boundaries, we meet the interplanetary and intergalactic vacuum. This vacuum is
far from being empty: it is full of invisible substance, energy, information, and
space–time. It introduces a clear discontinuity between territories of galaxies, solar
systems, stars, and planets. Without the interplanetary and intergalactic vacuum,
there is no universe.
However, the above considerations are simply metaphors.
The astonishing fact is that no rigorous definition of disciplinary boundaries ex-
isted till now in the literature. Based on the transdisciplinary approach (Nicolescu
1996), we are able to give such a rigorous definition.
We define disciplinary boundary as the totality of the results—past, present,
and future—obtained by the laws, norms, rules, and practices of a given discipline.
Of course, there is a direct relation between the extent to which a given discipline
has been mathematically formulated and the extent to which this discipline has
assumed a boundary. In other words, the more mathematically formalized a given
discipline is, the more this respective discipline has a precise boundary.
Most disciplines are not mathematically formalized and therefore their bound-
aries are fluctuating in time. In spite of this fluctuation, there is a boundary defined
as the limit of the totality of fluctuating boundaries of a respective discipline. For
example, it must be clear for everybody that the economy will never give informa-
tion on God, that religion will never give information on the fundamental laws of
elementary particle physics, that agriculture will never give information about the
neurophysiology, or that poetry will never give information on nanotechnologies.
There is a real discontinuity between disciplinary boundaries: there is nothing,
strictly nothing, between two disciplinary boundaries, if we insist on exploring
this space between disciplines by old laws, norms, rules, and practices. Radically
new laws, norms, rules, and practices are necessary if we want to explore this
space.
The above definition remains valid for multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinar-
ity, which are just continuous extensions of disciplinarity: there are multidisci-
plinary and interdisciplinary boundaries as there are disciplinary boundaries.
190 BASARAB NICOLESCU

Not only disciplines but also religions and ideologies have boundaries.
However, transdisciplinarity has no boundary. Therefore, transdisciplinarity
can never lead to a super-discipline, super-science, super-religion, or super-
ideology.
This crucial fact is the result of the structural incompleteness of the levels of
Reality.
In fact, it is precisely the incompleteness of levels of Reality that explains the
existence of disciplinary boundaries. This might seem paradoxical but it is only
a fake paradox. Disciplines are blind to incompleteness due to arbitrary elimina-
tion of the Hidden Third in these disciplines (i.e., the aforementioned arbitrary
elimination of the interaction between Subject and Object). Once this unjustified
assumption is eliminated, disciplines are inevitably linked one to another.
How does one understand this link between disciplines in the presence of
incompleteness and discontinuity of levels of Reality?
In another words, can we imagine a fusion of disciplinary boundaries?
This dream of the fusion of disciplinary boundaries was present from
the beginnings of transdisciplinarity (Nicolescu 2006, 142–166). This project
goes back to the talk of Erich Jantsch (1972) at the international workshop
“Interdisciplinarity—Teaching and Research Problems in Universities,” orga-
nized in 1970 by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), in collaboration with the French Ministry of National Education and
University of Nice (Apostel et al. 1972).
Such a fusion of disciplinary boundaries is simply impossible in transdisci-
plinarity, because it would lead to a new boundary, whose even existence is
incompatible with transdisciplinarity. Links and bridges between disciplines are
still, however, possible: they are mediated by the Hidden Third (to be discussed),
which cannot be captured by any discipline and by any boundary. The most obvi-
ous sign of the presence of these links and bridges is the modern and postmodern
migration of concepts from one field of knowledge to another.

METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
The most important achievement of transdisciplinarity in present times is, of
course, the formulation of the methodology of transdisciplinarity, accepted and
applied by an important number of researchers in many countries of the world.
Transdisciplinarity, in the absence of a methodology, would be just talking, an
empty discourse.
The axiomatic character of the methodology of transdisciplinarity is an impor-
tant aspect. This means that we have to limit the number of axioms (or principles
or pillars) to a minimum number. Any axiom that can be derived from the already
postulated ones, has to be rejected.
This fact is not new. It already happened when disciplinary knowledge acquired
its scientific character, due the three axioms formulated by Galileo Galilei in
Dialogue on the Great World Systems (1992):
 METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY 191

1. There are universal laws, of a mathematical character.

2. These laws can be discovered by scientific experiment.
3. Such experiments can be perfectly replicated.

It should be obvious that if we try to build a mathematical bridge between sci-

ence and ontology, we will necessarily fail. Galilei himself makes the distinction
between human mathematics and divine mathematics (Galilei 1992, 192). Hu-
man mathematics constitutes, he says (through Salvati), the common language of
human beings and God, while divine mathematics is connected with the direct
perception of the totality of all existing laws and phenomena. Transdisciplinarity
tries to seriously take this distinction into account. A bridge can be built between
science and ontology only by taking into account the totality of human knowledge.
This requires a symbolic language, different from mathematical language and en-
riched by specific new notions. Mathematics is able to describe repetition of facts
due to scientific laws, but transdisciplinarity treats the singularity of the human
being and human life. The key point here is, once again, the irreducible presence
of the Subject, which explains why transdisciplinarity cannot be described by a
mathematical formalism. The dream of the mathematical formalization of trans-
disciplinarity is just a phantasm, the phantasm induced by centuries of disciplinary
knowledge.
After many years of research, I have arrived (Nicolescu 1996) at the following
three axioms of the methodology of transdisciplinarity:

1. The ontological axiom: There are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature,
different levels of Reality of the Object and, correspondingly, different levels
of Reality of the Subject.
2. The logical axiom: The passage from one level of Reality to another is insured
by the logic of the included middle.
3. The epistemological axiom: The structure of the totality of levels of Reality is
a complex structure: every level is what it is because all the levels exist at the
same time.

Axioms cannot be demonstrated: they are not theorems. They have their roots
in experimental data and theoretical approaches and their validity is judged by the
results of their applications. If the results are in contradiction with experimental
facts, they have to be modified or replaced.
Let me note that, in spite of an almost infinite diversity of methods, theories,
and models, which run throughout the history of different scientific disciplines,
the three methodological postulates of modern science have remained unchanged
from Galileo until our day. I am convinced that the same will prove to be true for
transdisciplinarity and that a large number of transdisciplinary methods, theories
and models will appear in the future.
The above three axioms give a precise and rigorous definition of transdisci-
plinarity. This definition is in agreement with the one sketched by Jean Piaget
(1972).
Let me now describe the essentials of these three transdisciplinary axioms.
192 BASARAB NICOLESCU

THE ONTOLOGICAL AXIOM: LEVELS OF REALITY

The key concept of the transdisciplinary approach to Nature and knowledge is the
concept of levels of Reality.
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 which resists our experi-
ences, representations, descriptions, images, or even mathematical formulations.
In so far as Nature participates in the being of the world, one has to assign also
an ontological dimension to the concept of Reality. Reality is not merely a social
construction, the consensus of a collectivity, or some intersubjective agreement.
It also has a trans-subjective dimension: for example, experimental data can ruin
the most beautiful scientific theory.
Of course, one has to distinguish the words “Real” and “Reality.” Real desig-
nates that which is, while Reality is connected to resistance in our human experi-
ence. The “Real” is, by definition, veiled for ever, while “Reality” is accessible to
our knowledge.
By “level of Reality,” I designate a set of systems that are invariant under
certain general laws (in the case of natural systems) and under certain general
rules and norms (in the case of social systems). 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 applicable laws, rules or norms and a break in fundamental concepts (like, for
example, causality). Therefore there is a discontinuity in the structure of levels of
Reality.
A new Principle of Relativity (Nicolescu 1996, 54–55) emerges from the co-
existence between complex plurality and open unity in our approach: no level
of Reality constitutes a privileged 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 origi-
nates a new perspective on religion, spirituality, politics, art, education, history,
and society. And when our perspective on the world changes, the world changes.
The great Brazilian educator Paulo Freire asserts, in his Pedagogy of the Op-
pressed (1968), that saying a true word is equivalent to the transformation of the
world.
In other words, our approach is not hierarchical. There is no fundamental
level. But its absence does not mean an anarchical dynamics, but a coherent one,
of all levels of Reality, already discovered or which will be discovered in the
future.
Every level is characterized by its incompleteness: the laws governing this level
are just a part of the totality of laws governing all levels. And even the totality of
laws does not exhaust the entire Reality: we have also to consider the Subject and
its interaction with the Object.
The zone between two different levels and beyond all levels is a zone of non-
resistance to our experiences, representations, descriptions, images, and mathe-
matical formulations. Quite simply, the transparence of this zone is due to the
limitations of our bodies and of our sense organs—limitations that apply regard-
less of what measuring tools are used to extend these sense organs. We therefore
 METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY 193

have to conclude that the topological distance between levels is finite. However
this finite distance does not mean a finite knowledge. Take, as an image, a segment
of a straight line—it contains an infinite number of points. In a similar manner, a
finite topological distance could contain an infinite number of levels of Reality.
We have work to do till the end of times.
The unity of levels of Reality and its complementary zone of non-resistance
constitutes what we call the transdisciplinary Object.
Inspired by the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (Husserl 1966), I assert that
the different levels of Reality of the Object are accessible to our knowledge thanks
to the different levels of Reality of the Subject, which are potentially present in
our being.
As in the case of levels of Reality of the Object, the coherence of levels of
Reality of the Subject presupposes a zone of non-resistance. The unity of levels
Reality of the Subject and this complementary zone of non-resistance 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 transdis-
ciplinary Object. A flow of consciousness that coherently cuts across different
levels of Reality of the Subject must correspond to the flow of information coher-
ently cutting across different levels of Reality of the Object. The two flows are
interrelated because they share the same zone of non-resistance.
Knowledge is, thus, neither exterior nor interior: it is simultaneously exterior
and interior. The studies of the universe and of the human being sustain one
another.
The zone of non-resistance plays the role of a third between the Subject and the
Object, an Interaction term, which allows the unification of the transdisciplinary
Subject and the transdisciplinary Object while preserving their difference. In the
following, I will call this Interaction term the Hidden Third.
Our ternary partition {Subject, Object, Hidden Third} is, of course, different
from the binary partition{Subject vs. Object} of classical realism.
The emergence of at least three different levels of Reality in the study of natural
systems—the macrophysical level, the microphysical level, and cyber-space–time
(to which one might add a fourth hypothetical level—that of superstrings, unifying
all physical interactions)—is a major event in the history of knowledge.
Based on our definition of levels of Reality, we can identify other levels than the
ones in natural systems. For example, in social systems, we can speak about the
individual level, the geographical and historical community level (family, nation),
the cyber-space–time community level, the planetary level, and the cosmic level.
Levels of Reality are radically different from levels of organization as these
have been defined in systemic approaches (Camus et al. 1998, 94–103). Levels
of organization do not presuppose a discontinuity in the fundamental concepts:
several levels of organization can appear at one and the same level of Reality. The
levels of organization correspond to different structures of the same fundamental
laws.
The levels of Reality and the levels of organization offer the possibility of a
new taxonomy of the more than 8,000 academic disciplines existing today. Many
194 BASARAB NICOLESCU

disciplines coexist at one and the same level of Reality, even if they correspond
to different levels of organization. For example, Marxist economy and classical
physics belong to one level of Reality, while quantum physics and psychoanalysis
belong to another level of Reality.
The transdisciplinary Object and its levels of Reality, the transdisciplinary
Subject and its levels of Reality and the Hidden Third define the transdisciplinary
approach of Reality. Based on this ternary structure of Reality, we can deduce
other ternaries of levels which are extremely useful in the analysis of concrete
situations:

Levels of organization – Levels of structuring – Levels of integration

Levels of confusion – Levels of language – Levels of interpretation
Physical levels – Biological levels – Psychical levels
Levels of ignorance – Levels of intelligence – Levels of contemplation
Levels of objectivity – Levels of subjectivity – Levels of complexity
Levels of knowledge – Levels of understanding – Levels of being
Levels of materiality – Levels of spirituality – Levels of non-duality

THE LOGICAL AXIOM: THE INCLUDED MIDDLE

The incompleteness of the general laws governing a given level of Reality signifies
that, at a given moment of time, one necessarily discovers contradictions in the
theory describing the respective level: one has to assert A and non-A at the same
time.
However, our habits of mind, scientific or not, are still governed by the classical
logic, which does not tolerate contradictions. 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.
3. 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.

History will credit Stéphane Lupasco (1900–1988) (Badescu and Nicolescu

1999) with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic,
mathematically formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and
non-contradictory (Lupasco 1951).
In fact, the logic of the included middle is the very heart of quantum mechanics:
it allows us to understand the basic principle of the superposition of “yes” and
“no” quantum states.
Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle—there exists a third
term T that is at the same time A and non-A—is completely clarified once the
notion of “levels of Reality,” not existing in the works of Lupasco (1951), is
introduced.
In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, let us
represent the three terms of the new logic—A, non-A, and T—and the dynamics
 METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY 195

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 appears to be disunited is in fact united, and that which appears contradictory
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 oppositions. 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. Of course, this conciliation is
only temporary. We necessarily discover contradictions in the theory of the new
level when this theory confronts new experimental facts. In other words, the action
of the logic of the included middle on the different 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 EPISTEMOLOGICAL AXIOM: THE UNIVERSAL

INTERDEPENDENCE
Transdisciplinary knowledge (epistemology) is very complex. There are several
theories of complexity. Some of them, like the one practiced at the Santa Fe
Institute, previously under the general guidance of Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel
Prize of Physics, are mathematically formalized, while others, like the one of
Edgar Morin, are not.
In the context of our discussion, what is important to be understood is that the
existing theories of complexity do not include neither the notion of levels of Reality
nor the notion of zones of non-resistance (Cilliers and Nicolescu 2012). However,
some of them, like the one of Edgar Morin (1977, 1980, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2004),
are compatible with these notions. It is therefore useful to distinguish between
the horizontal complexity, which refers to a single level of reality and vertical
complexity, which refers to several levels of Reality. It is also important to note that
transversal complexity is different from the vertical, transdisciplinary complexity.
Transversal complexity refers to crossing different levels of organization at a single
level of Reality.
From a transdisciplinary point of view, complexity is a modern form of the very
ancient principle of universal interdependence in that “everything is dependent
on everything else, everything is connected, nothing is separate” (Nicolescu 2004,
48). Transdisciplinary knowledge is simultaneously exterior and interior. Exterior
refers to the study of the universe and interior refers to the study of the hu-
man being; knowledge of each sustains the other because they are interconnected
(Nicolescu 2005). Transdisciplinary methodology must embrace complexity be-
cause transdisciplinary knowledge transgresses duality, and is able to do so because
196 BASARAB NICOLESCU

of transdisciplinarity’s open unity, which encompasses both the universe and the
human being (Nicolescu 2000).
It is interesting to note that the combined action of the ontological, logical, and
epistemological axioms engenders values. Therefore, there is no need to introduce
values as a fourth axiom.

AT THE THRESHOLD OF NEW RENAISSANCE

The transdisciplinary theory of levels of Reality appears to be conciliating reduc-
tionism with non-reductionism. It is, in some aspects, a multi-reductionist theory,
via the existence of multiple, discontinuous levels of Reality. However, it is also
a non-reductionist theory, via the Hidden Third, which restores the continuous
interconnectedness of Reality. The reductionism/non-reductionism opposition is,
in fact, a result of binary thinking, based on the excluded middle logic. The trans-
disciplinary theory of levels of Reality allows us to define, in such a way, a new
view on Reality, which can be called trans-reductionism.
The transdisciplinary notion of levels of Reality is incompatible with reduction
of the spiritual level to the psychical level, of the psychical level to the biological
level, and of the biological level to the physical level. Still these four levels are
united through the Hidden Third. However, this unification cannot be described
by a scientific theory. By definition, science excludes non-resistance. Science, as
is defined today, is limited by its own methodology.
The transdisciplinary notion of levels of Reality leads also to a new vision
of Personhood, based on the inclusion of the Hidden Third. The unification of
the Subject is performed by the action of the Hidden Third, which transforms
knowledge into understanding. “Understanding” means fusion of knowledge and
being.
In the transdisciplinary approach, the Hidden Third appears as the source of
knowledge but, in its turn, needs the Subject in order to know the world: the
Subject, the Object, and the Hidden Third are interrelated. The human person
appears as an interface between the Hidden Third and the world. The erasing of
the Hidden Third in knowledge signifies a one-dimensional human being, reduced
to its cells, neurons, quarks and elementary particles.
This trans-Reality is the foundation of a new era—the cosmodern era. Cos-
modernity means essentially that all entity in the universe is defined by its relation
to the other entities (Moraru 2011). The human being, in turn, is related as a person
to the Great Other, the Hidden Third. The idea of cosmos is therefore resurrected.
“What is Reality?” asks Peirce (1976, 383–384). He tells us that perhaps there
is nothing at all that corresponds to Reality. It may be just a working assumption
in our desperate tentative knowing. But if there is a Reality, says Peirce, it has to
consist in the fact that the world lives, moves, and has in itself a logic of events,
which corresponds to our reason. Peirce’s view on reason totally corresponds to
the cosmodern view on Reality.
A unified theory of levels of Reality is crucial in building sustainable develop-
ment and sustainable futures. The considerations made until now in these matters
have been based on reductionist and binary thinking: everything is reduced to
 METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY 197

society, economy, and environment. The individual level of Reality, the spiritual
level of Reality, and the cosmic level of Reality are completely ignored. Sus-
tainable futures, so necessary for our survival, can only be based on a unified
theory of levels of Reality. We are part of the ordered movement of Reality. Our
freedom consists in entering into the movement or perturbing it. We can respond
to the movement or impose our will of power and domination. Our responsi-
bility is to build sustainable futures in agreement with the overall movement of
Reality.
One idea goes through the present text, like an axis: Reality is plastic. Reality
is not something outside or inside us: it is simultaneously outside and inside. We
are part of this Reality that changes due to our thoughts, feelings, and actions.
This means that we are fully responsible for what Reality is. The world moves,
lives, and offers itself to our knowledge thanks to some ordered structures of
something that is, though, continually changing. Reality is therefore rational, but
its rationality is multiple, structured on levels. It is the logic of the included middle
that allows our reason to move from one level to another.
The levels of Reality correspond to the levels of understanding, in a fusion of
knowledge and being. All levels of Reality are interwoven. The world is at the
same time knowable and unknowable.
The Hidden Third between Subject and Object denies any rationalization.
Therefore, Reality is also trans-rational. The Hidden Third conditions not only
the flow of information between Subject and Object, but also the one between the
different levels of reality of the Subject and between the different levels of reality
of the Object. The discontinuity between the different levels is compensated by
the continuity of information held by the Hidden Third. Source of Reality, the
Hidden Third feeds itself from this Reality, in a cosmic breath that includes us and
the universe.
The irreducible mystery of the world coexists with the wonders discovered by
reason. The unknown enters every pore of the known, but without the known, the
unknown would be a hollow word. Every human being on this Earth recognizes
his/her face in any other human being, independent of his/her particular religious or
philosophical beliefs, and all humanity recognizes itself in the infinite Otherness.
A new spirituality, free of dogmas, is already potentially present on our planet.
We are at the threshold of a true New Renaissance, which asks for a new, cosmodern
consciousness (Nicolescu 2014).

REFERENCES
Apostel, L., B. Berger, A. Briggs, and G. Michaud. Eds. 1972. L’inter-
disciplinarité—Problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche. Paris: Centre pour la
Recherche et l’Innovation dans l’Enseignement, Organisation de Coopération et de
développement économique.
ATLAS Review “Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science.” 2013. Austin,
TX: theATLAS Publishing. http://www.theatlas.org/index.php?option=com phoca
download&view=section&id=4:transdisciplinary-journal-of-engineering-a-science&
Itemid=76. Accessed December 16, 2013.
198 BASARAB NICOLESCU

Badescu, H. and B. Nicolescu. Eds. 1999. Stéphane Lupasco—L’homme et l’œuvre.

Monaco: Rocher.
Camus, M., T. Magnin, B. Nicolescu, and K.-C. Voss. 1998. Levels of representation and
levels of reality: Towards an ontology of science. In The concept of nature in science
and theology (Part II), eds. N. H. Gregersen, M. W. S. Parsons, and C. Wassermann,
94–103. Genève: Labor et Fides. The Charter of Transdisciplinarity. 1994. Paris:
CIRET. http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index.php. Accessed July 12, 2014.
Cilliers, P. and B. Nicolescu. 2012. Complexity and transdisciplinarity discontinuity, levels
of Reality and the Hidden Third. Futures 44(8):711–718.
CIRET Review. 2013. Transdisciplinary encounters E-zine. Paris: CIRET. http://
ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/bulletin.php. Accessed July 12, 2014.
Descombes, V. 2004. Le complément du sujet. Paris: Gallimard.
Ehrlich P. R. and A. H. Ehrlich. 2012. Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:2012–2845.
Freire, P. 1968. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
Galilei, G. 1992. Dialogue sur les deux grands systèmes du monde. Paris: Seuil. (Translated
from the Italian by R. Fréreux with the collaboration of F. de Gandt.)
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. Eds. 1994.
The new production of knowledge. London: SAGE.
Huys, V. and V. Vernant. 2012. L’indisciplinaire de l’art. Paris: PUF.
Husserl, E. 1966. Méditations cartésiennes (Translated from German by G. Peiffer and E.
Levinas). Paris: Vrin.
Jantsch, E. 1972. Vers l’interdisciplinarité et la transdisciplinarité dans l’enseignement
et l’innovation. In L’interdisciplinarité—Problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche,
eds. G. Berger, A. Briggs, and G. Michaud, 97–121. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Lupasco, S. 1951. Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie—Prolégomènes à
une science de la contradiction. Paris: Hermann & Cie.
McGregor, S. L. T. 2006. Transformative practice: New pathways to leadership. East
Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu.
Moraru, C. 2011. Cosmodernism—American narrative, late globalization, and
the new cultural imaginary. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Morin, E. 1977. La méthode I—La nature de la nature. Paris: Seuil.
————. 1980. La méthode II—La vie de la vie. Paris: Seuil.
————. 1986. La méthode III—La connaissance de la connaissance. Paris: Seuil.
————. 1991. La méthode IV—Les idées, leur habitat, leur vie, leurs mœurs, leur
organisation. Paris: Seuil.
————. 2001. La méthode V—L’humanité de l’humanité. Paris: Seuil.
————. 2004. La méthode VI—Ethique. Paris, Seuil.
Nicolescu, B. 1985. Nous, la particule et le monde. Paris: Le Mail.
———–. 1996. La transdisciplinarité manifeste. Monaco: Rocher. (English translation:
2002, Manifesto of transdisciplinarity, New York: SUNY Press, translation from the
French by K.-C. Voss).
————-. 2000. Levels of reality as source of quantum indeterminancy. In Determinism
and complexity, ed. F. T. Arecchi, 127–158. Rome, Italy: Nova Spes Foundation and
Armando Publishing. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0012007.pdf. Accessed December
16, 2013.
————–. 2004. Gurdjieff’s philosophy of nature. In Gurdjieff, eds. J. Needleman and
G. Baker, 37–69. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
 METHODOLOGY OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY 199

———. 2005. Towards transdisciplinary education and learning. Paper presented at the
Science and religion: Global perspectives Metanexus Institute conference. Philadel-
phia, PA. http://www.metanexus.net/archive/conference2005/pdf/nicolescu.pdf. Ac-
cessed December 16, 2013.
———. 2006. Transdisciplinarity—Past, present and future. In Moving world-
views—Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable devel-
opment, eds. B. Haverkort and C. Reijntjes, 142–166. Amsterdam, Holland: COMPAS
Editions.
———. Ed. 2008. Transdisciplinarity—Theory and practice. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
———. 2014. From modernity to cosmodernity—Science, culture, and spirituality. New
York: SUNY Press.
Nowotny, H. 2003. The potential of transdisciplinarity. In Rethinking interdisciplinarity
(48–53). Paris, France: Interdisciplines Project. http://www.worldfishcenter.org/sites/
default/files/The%20potential%20for%20transdisciplinarity.pdf. Accessed December
16, 2013.
Peirce,C. S. 1976. The new elements of mathematics, Vol. IV., Ed. C. Eisele. The Hague:
Mouton Humanities Press.
Piaget, J. 1972. L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires. In L’interdisci-
plinarité—Problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche, eds. G. Berger, A. Briggs,
and G. Michaud, 127–139. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
Pohl, C. 2011. From transdisciplinarity to transdisciplinary research. In Transdisciplinarity:
Bridging natural science, social science, humanities & engineering, ed. A. Ertas,
90–101. Austin, TX: theATLAS Publishing.
Thomas Mitchell, W. J. 1995. Interdisciplinarity and visual culture. Art Bulletin 77 (4):
540–544.
Thompson Klein, J. 1990. Interdisciplinarity—History, theory § practice. Detroit, MI:
Wayne State University Press.
Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R. Scholz, and
M. Welti. Eds. 2001. Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, tech-
nology, and society—An effective way for managing complexity. Basel, Seitzerland:
Birkhäuser Verlag.