1. Introduction
The expression disciplinary boundaries is very oftenused. However, the astonishing fact is that no rigorous definition ofdisciplinary boundaries exists till now in literature
The words discipline, disciplinary anddisciplinarity are relatively clear. For example, in a recent paper, EliElvis and Erik Stolterman define disciplines in terms of philosophical norms(values, methods and reasoning) and practical norms (common notions ofmind-set, knowledge set, skill set and tool set)[2]. But what could theterm boundaries of disciplines mean?
Our approach might seem paradoxical: why, in order togive the definition of disciplinary boundaries, we have to go fromdisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity? In fact, the answer is quite simple: iftransdisciplinarity means not only across and between disciplines, but alsobeyond all discipline, this necessarily requiresa definition of boundaries of disciplines. And this definition is based upon theunderstanding of the key-notion of transdisciplinarity – that of levelsof Reality.
2. Definition of transdisciplinarity
a.
Transdisciplinarity is a relatively young approach: itemerged seven centuries later than
The word itself first appeared inFrance, in 1970, in the talks of Jean Piaget, ErichJantsch and Andr Lichnerowicz, at the internationalworkshop Interdisciplinarity –Teaching and Research Problems inUniversities, sponsored by the
Piaget retained only the meanings across and betweenof the Latin prefix trans, eliminating themeaning beyond. I proposed the inclusion of the meaning beyond disciplinesin 1985
For me, beyond disciplines precisely signifies theSubject, more precisely the Subject-Object interaction. The transcendence,inherent in transdisciplinarity, is the transcendence of the Subject. TheSubject cannot be captured in a disciplinary theory.
The meaning beyond disciplines leads us to an immensespace of new knowledge.
The main outcome of introducing the meaning beyonddisciplines was the formulation of the methodology of transdisciplinarity
The formulation of transdisciplinarity which I willpresent is both unified (in the sense of unification of differenttransdisciplinary approaches) and diverse: unity in diversity and diversitythrough unity is inherent to transdisciplinarity. It is now accepted andapplied by an important number of researchers in many countries of the world.
Much confusion still arises by using as synonymous wordsmethodology and methods. Methodology does not mean methods but thescience, the logos of methods. There are myriadsof methods that can be used in the framework of a unique methodology. Anexemplary case is the methodology of modern science formulated by GalileoGalilei in Dialogue on the Great World Systems[7]
1. There are universal laws, of a mathematical character.
2. These laws can be discovered by scientificexperiment.
3. Such experiments can be perfectly replicated
In the framework of this unique methodology, valid tillnow, there were formulated, during five centuries, a huge variety of scientifictheories and models, even contradictory as, for example, classical physics andquantum physics.
Much confusion also arises by not recognizing that thereare a theoretical transdisciplinarity, a phenomenologicaltransdisciplinarity and an experimentaltransdisciplinarity. This simultaneousconsideration of theoretical, phenomenological and experimentaltransdisciplinarity will allow both a unified and non-dogmatic treatment of thetransdisciplinary theory and practice, coexisting with a plurality oftransdisciplinary models.
b.
The axiomatic character of the methodology oftransdisciplinarity is an important aspect. This means that we have to limitthe number of axioms (or principles or pillars) to a minimum
This fact is not new. It already happened whendisciplinary knowledge acquired its scientific character, due the above threeaxioms of Galileo Galilei.
However, it should be obvious that if we try to build amathematical bridge between science and ontology, as is the case fortransdisciplinarity, we will necessarily fail. A bridge can be built betweenscience and ontology only by taking into account the totality of humanknowledge. This requires a symbolic language, different from mathematicallanguage and enriched by specific new notions. Mathematics is able to describerepetition of facts due to scientific laws, but transdisciplinarity is aboutthe singularity of the human being and human life. The methodology of modernscience is therefore not valid for transdisciplinarity. We have to invent a newmethodology.
After many years of research, I have arrived
i. The ontological axiom:There are, in Nature and society and in our knowledge of Nature and society,different levels of Reality of the Object and, correspondingly, differentlevels of Reality of the Subject.
ii. The logical axiom: Thepassage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the logic of theincluded middle.
iii. The epistemological axiom
The first two get their experimental evidence fromquantum physics, but they go well beyond exact sciences. The last one has itssource not only in quantum physics but also in a variety of other exact andhuman sciences.
Let me now describe the essentials of these threetransdisciplinary axioms, by describing in more details the key concept oftransdisciplinarity – i. e. the concept of levels of Reality
c.
The meaning we give to the word Reality is both pragmaticand ontological.
By Reality we intend first of all to designate thatwhich resists our experiences, representations,descriptions, images, or even mathematical formulations.
In so far as Nature participates in the being of theworld, one has to assign also an ontological dimension to the concept ofReality. Reality is not merely a social construction, the consensus of acollectivity, or some inter-subjective agreement. It also has atrans-subjective dimension: for example, experimental data can ruin the mostbeautiful scientific theory.
Of course, one has to distinguish the words Real andReality. Real designates that which is
By level of Reality, I designate a set of systemswhich are invariant under certain laws: for example, quantum entities aresubordinate to quantum laws, which depart radically from the laws of themacrophysical world. That is to say that two levels of Reality are differentif, while passing from one to the other, there is a break in the applicablelaws and a break in fundamental concepts (like, for example, causality).Therefore there is a discontinuity in thestructure of levels of Reality, similar to the discontinuity reigning over thequantum world.
Thezone of non-resistance corresponds to the sacred— to that which does not submit to any rationalization.
Inspired by the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl
As inthe case of levels of Reality of the Object, the coherence of levels of Realityof the Subject presupposes a zone of non-resistance to perception.
The introduction of the levels of Reality induces amultidimensional and multireferential structure of Reality.
Our approach is not hierarchical. There is nofundamental level. But its absence does not mean an anarchical dynamics, but acoherent one, of all levels of Reality.
Every level is characterizedby its incompleteness: the laws governing thislevel are just a part of the totality of laws governing all levels. And eventhe totality of laws does not exhaust the entire Reality: we have also toconsider the Subject and its interaction with the Object.
Our ternary partition { Subject, Object, Hidden Third }is, of course, different from the binary partition{ Subject vs. Object } ofclassical realism.
Based upon our definition of levels of Reality, we canidentify other levels than the ones in natural systems. For example, in socialsystems, we can speak about the individual level, the geographical andhistorical community level (family, nation), the cyber-space-time communitylevel and the planetary level.
Of course, one has to be very careful in going fromnatural systems to social systems: the notions from natural systems have not
The levels of Reality and the levels of organizationoffer the possibility of a new taxonomy of the more than 8000 academicdisciplines existing today. Many disciplines coexist at one and the same levelof Reality even if they correspond to different levels of organization. Forexample, Marxist economy and classical physics belong to one level of Reality,while quantum physics and psychoanalysis belong to another level of Reality.
The ternary structure of Reality has to be contextualized
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
d.
The incompleteness of the general laws governing a givenlevel of Reality signifies that, at a given moment of time, one necessarilydiscovers contradictions in the theory describing the respective level: one hasto assert A and non-A at the same time. This Gdelian feature of thetransdisciplinary model of Reality is verified by all the history of science: atheory leads to contradictions and one has to invent a new theory solving thesecontradictions. It is precisely the way in which we went from classical physicsto quantum physics.
The solution of thesequantum paradoxes is relatively simple: one has to abandon the third axiom ofthe classical logic, imposing the exclusion of the third, the included middleT.
In fact, the logic ofthe included middle is the very heart of quantum mechanics: it allows us tounderstand the basic principle of the superposition
The fact that the structure of the totality of levels ofReality is a complex structure - every levelis what it is because all the levels exist at the same time -
If we wish to establish a link between the two mainapproaches of complexity – the restricted one and the generalized one -,the bridge would be precisely the notion of levels of Reality. A level ofReality is, in fact, the simplexus of the complexus
In Pre-Modernity the Subject was immersed in the Object(see Fig. 1). Everything was trace, signature of a higher meaning. The world ofthe pre-modern human being was magical (see figure).
Fig.1. The Subject-Object relation in Pre-Modernity.
In Modernity, Subject andObject were totally separated (see Fig. 2) by a radical epistemological cut,allowing in such a way the development of modern science. The Object was justthere, in order to be known, deciphered, dominated, and transformed.
Fig. 2.The Subject-Object relation in Modernity.
In Post-Modernity (see Fig. 3) theroles of the Subject and Object are changed in comparison with Modernity andare reversed in comparison with Pre-Modernity: the Object, still considered asbeing outside the Subject, is nevertheless a social construction. It is notreally there. In looks more like an emanation of the Subject.
Fig. 3.The Subject-Object relation in Post-Modernity.
Transdisciplinarity leads to a new understanding of therelation between Subject and Object, which is illustrated in Fig. 4:
Fig. 4.The Subject-Object relation in Transdisciplinarity.
The Subject and the Object are, like in Modernity,separated but they are unified by their immersion in the Hidden Third, whoseray of action is infinite.
The transdisciplinary Object and its levels, thetransdisciplinary Subject and its levels and the Hidden Third define the Transdisciplinary(TD) Reality or Trans-Reality[16]
3. What are disciplinary boundaries?
The unconscious barrier to a true understanding of whattransdisciplinarity means by the words beyond all discipline comes from theinability of certain researchers to think the discontinuity
We have a different approach of the boundaries betweendisciplines. For us, they are like the separation between galaxies, solarsystems, stars and planets. It is the movement itself which generates thefluctuation of boundaries. This does not mean that a galaxy intersects anothergalaxy. When we cross the boundaries we meet the interplanetary andintergalactic vacuum. This vacuum is far from being empty: it is full ofinvisible substance, energy, space-time and information. It introduces a cleardiscontinuity between territories of galaxies, solar systems, stars andplanets. Without the interplanetary and intergalactic vacuum there is nouniverse.
However, the above considerations are simply metaphors.
We need a rigorous definition.
We define disciplinary boundary
Most of the disciplines are not mathematicallyformalized and therefore their boundaries are fluctuating in time. In spite ofthis fluctuation, there is a boundary defined as the limit
The existence of such a limit is directly connected tothe discussed logical axiom of identity. A discipline has a given identitybecause there is such a limit of the totality of fluctuating boundaries of therespective discipline. It is precisely this limit that we call disciplinaryboundary. Every discipline has a specific horizon
Disciplinary boundaries are of two types: commensurableand incommensurable.
Disciplines belonging to the same level of Reality arecommensurable: the same set of general laws governs them. For example, classicalphysics and Marxist economics have commensurable boundaries. Disciplinesbelonging to different levels of Reality are incommensurable: different sets ofgeneral laws govern them. For example, classical physics and quantum physicshave incommensurable boundaries. This incommensurability is a consequence ofthe incommensurability of levels of Reality.Disciplines with incommensurable boundaries are born during the scientific andparadigmatic revolutions. For example, quantum physics and Jungian analyticpsychology or classical physics and Freudian psychoanalysis have commensurableboundaries but Jungian analytic psychology and Freudian psychoanalysis haveincommensurable boundaries.
There are more complicate situations in which in one andthe same field of knowledge there is coexistence of commensurable andincommensurable boundaries. For example, some of the works of surrealist artare commensurable with classical physics while others are commensurable withquantum physics.
There is a real discontinuity between incommensurable disciplinaryboundaries: there is nothing, strictly nothingbetween two incommensurable disciplinary boundaries, if we insist to explorethis space between the respective disciplines by old laws, norms, rules andpractices. Radically new laws, norms, rules and practices are necessary.
The above definition of disciplinary boundaries remainsvalid for multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, which are justcontinuous extensions of disciplinarity: there are multidisciplinary andinterdisciplinary boundaries as there are disciplinary boundaries
Not only disciplines but also cultures and religionshave boundaries. The nature of these boundaries isdifferent from that of disciplinary boundaries. It may seem paradoxical tospeak about cultures and religions in transdisciplinarity, which seem to refer,by the word itself, to academic disciplines. However, the presence of theHidden Third explains this fake paradox.
The crucial difference between academic disciplines onone side and cultures and religions on the other side can be easily understoodin our approach. Cultures and religions are not concerned, as academicdisciplines are, with fragments of levels of Reality only: they simultaneouslyinvolve one or several levels of Reality of the Object, one or several levelsof Reality of the Subject and the non-resistancezone of the Hidden Third. In spite of the universal presence of the HiddenThird in cultures and religions, there are still boundaries, because levels ofReality are inevitably involved in cultures and religions. These boundariescontain however the singular point of the HiddenThird. This singular point is absent in disciplinary boundaries. Inmathematical terms, the boundaries of cultures and religions correspond tosingular functions. Let us also remark that the fact that all cultures and allreligions involve the common singular point of the Hidden Third, the dialoguebetween cultures and the dialogue between religions is a realistic possibility.
To go beyond disciplinary boundaries means to go beyondboth commensurable and incommensurable boundaries. This clarifies even more thedistinction between multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity. Onlytransdisciplinarity can perform this task.
Transdisciplinarity has no boundary
The transcultural designatesthe opening of all cultures to that which cuts across them and transcends them,while the transreligious designates the openingof all religions to that which cuts across them and transcends them
The crucial fact of absence of boundaries intransdisciplinarity is the result of the structural incompleteness of thelevels of Reality.
In fact, it is precisely the incompleteness of levelsof Reality which explains to the existence of disciplinary boundaries
How does one understand this link between disciplines inthe presence of incompleteness and discontinuity of levels of Reality?
In another words, can we imagine a fusion ofdisciplinary boundaries?
This dream of the fusion of disciplinary boundaries waspresent from the beginnings of transdisciplinarity[23].This project goes back to the talk given by Erich Jantsch in 1970
Such a fusion of disciplinary boundaries is simplyimpossible in transdisciplinarity, because it wouldlead to a new boundary, whose even existence is incompatible withtransdisciplinarity. Links and bridges between disciplines are still howeverpossible: they are mediated by the Hidden Third, which, as the human being, cannotbe captured by any discipline and by any boundary.
3. How we transgress disciplinary boundaries?
a) Disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity:reductionism and trans-reductionism
Transgressing the incommensurabledisciplinary boundaries necessarily requires the full presence of the Subject,of the human being. Disciplinary boundaries were created by the mind, duringtime. They are epistemological and not ontological boundaries. The human beingcannot be reduced to his/her mind. The human being is not an object. Life hasno boundaries. Only artificial, in vitrofragments of life can have boundaries. As nicely expressed by John van Breda: [] disciplines do not in any way represent the complex, multi-leveledstructure of reality. Rather they are windows through we look at certainaspects of Reality only. Of course, looking thru
We understand therefore whydisciplinarity is intimately related to the scientific reductionism.
The words "reduction" and"reductionism" are extremely ambiguous. Different authors usedifferent meanings and definitions and therefore extremely unproductivepolemics could be generated.
For example, philosophers understand by"reduction" replacing one theory by a newer more encompassing theory,while scientists understand by the same word exactly the opposite operation. Inother words, philosophers reduce the simpler to the more complex whilescientists reduce the more complex to the simpler, understood as "morefundamental". In physics, for example, one reduces everything tosuperstrings or membranes, by hoping to arrive at a "Theory ofEverything".
In fact, there are many other meanings given to the word"reduction": in chemistry, in linguistics, in cooking, in physiology,in orthopedic surgery, etc.
In order to avoid anyconfusion, we will adopt here the general scientific meaning: one reduces A toB, B to C, C to D, etc. till we arrive at what is believed to be the mostfundamental level. Human thought follows, in fact, the same process of reduction.Reduction is, in many ways, a natural process for thought and there is nothingwrong about it. The only problem is to understand what we find at the end ofthe reduction chain: is the chain circular and, if not, how do we justify theconcept of "end" at the end of the chain?
In any case, we have todistinguish "reduction" from "reductionism". There are manytypes of reductionisms and there is a real danger in confusing them.
Sometimes"reductionism" is defined through the assertion that a complex systemis nothing but the sum of its parts. One has to distinguish between:
1. methodological reductionism:reduce the explanation to the simpler possible entities.
2. theoretical reductionism:reduce all theories to a single unified theory.
3. ontological reductionism:reduce all of reality to a minimum number of entities.
In the literature one findsother kinds of reductionisms: for example, Daniel Dennett defines the"Greedy reductionism"[28]
The crisis of reductionismis, in fact, the crisis of disciplinarity. Thecontemporary big-bang of transdisciplinarity is, beyond any doubt, a sign ofthis crisis.
To avoid any confusion, we willaccept, in this article, scientific reductionismas meaning the explanation of complex spiritual processes in terms of psychicprocesses, which in turn are explained through biological processes, which intheir turn are explained in terms of physical processes. In other words, atypical scientist reduces spirituality to materiality. Philosophicalreductionism will correspond to the inverse chain:reducing materiality to spirituality. Both types belong to what can be called mono-reductionism
Non-reductionism
The notion of levels of Reality
The transdisciplinarynotion of levels of Reality is incompatible with reduction of the spirituallevel 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 areunited through the Hidden Third. However, this unification cannot be describedby a scientific theory. By definition, science excludes non-resistance.Science, as is defined today, is limited by its own methodology. And it isprecisely the scientific methodology which is at the basis of disciplinarity.
Of course, there isnothing wrong by itself with scientific methodology, disciplinarity andreductionism. What is wrong is the extreme disciplinarity, i. e. the exclusionof transdisciplinarity. There is no transdisciplinarity without disciplinaritybut the reverse statement is also true: disciplinarity has to fail if is notcomplemented by transdisciplinarity. The scientificmethodology has to be complemented by the transdisciplinary methodology.
Transgressingdisciplinary boundaries, cultural boundaries and religious boundaries meansfinally freedom of thinking and action in a globalized world.
b) How can the boundary-lesstransdisciplinarity solve real-world problems?
Could real-world problems be solved by the boundary-lesstransdisciplinarity?
An exemplary case is the global warming
If TD is indeed boundary-less (having no boundaries),how would it be possible for natural and social scientists (as well as societalstakeholders) to study a real-world problems such as global warming / climatechange in a transdisciplinary manner? – writes John van Breda. In otherwords, how can this human-made natural planetary crisis (polycrisis –Morin) be approached and studied without some form of shared methodological andmethods approaches, without some form of consensus (boundaries) with respect tocertain concepts, methods, laws etc. In short, what would a boundary-lesstransdisciplinary study of global warming look like? Also, how would thisdiffer from current disciplinary, inter- and multi-disciplinary studies ofclimate change? In this regard, one already sees some evidence of the globalwarming debate becoming dominated by the natural scientists, wanting to reduceclimate change to the reduction of CO2 levels in the atmosphere only– without any consideration of the socio-economic consequences this mayhave for the plight of the poor in developing countries. In other words, areduction of CO2 levels can only mean or result in no economic growth.I would argue that these disciplinary studies on global warming are happeningwithin the confines of the disciplinary boundaries of existing disciplines,such as the Earth Sciences and Economics. If this is correct, then there isindeed a need to go beyond these boundaries on the global warming issue inwhich a reduction in CO2 levels does not equate to no economicgrowth. We need to be able to think economic growthand reduction in CO2 levels simultaneously
My first remark is that a consensusdoes not mean necessarily boundaries. The actors involved in the TD study ofglobal warming are themselves a part of this study. They not apply givenreceipts but they are deeply involved in a creative process
My second remark is that the includedmiddle T, which gives us the possibility to cross in a rational mannerdifferent levels of Reality, comes not before but after
The contextualization is the crucialstep in the TD problem-solving. Contextualization means here, as explained inthe Section 2c), the consideration of the pertinent epistemological ternaries.
Everything starts, as always in thetransdisciplinary applications, with the identification of the levels ofReality involved in the given problem.
In the global warming we cannot limitourselves to the physical and economical levels of Reality. We have also toconsider the individual, social, political, planetary and cosmic level. Only insuch a way we respect the values implied by the global warming problem.
A good epistemological ternary to startwith is the ternary {Physical levels – Biological levels –Psychical levels}. It must be clear that the increase in the CO2levels has an influence on the biological level and that the no economic growthchoice would have influence on the psychical level. Once recognized this point,we discover that we have to circulate in between the different epistemologicalternaries. An immediate connection could be established with the ternary {Levelsof confusion – Levels of language – Levels of interpretation}.Reducing the global warming problem to the economy level is typical for a levelof confusion, where the different levels are mixed. The level of language istherefore itself a level of confusion – the language of economy has to bedistinguished from the language of physics, psychology, and history. Theinterpretation of the global warming depends on cultural, ideological andreligious beliefs. One therefore very fast realizes that another ternarybecomes relevant: {Levels of objectivity – Levels of subjectivity –Levels of complexity}. And we can continue in such a way our TD analysis of theproblem.
The conclusion we might reach is that {reductionin CO2 levels, no economic growth} is not an appropriate solution ofthe global warming problem. We can have both reduction in CO2 levelsand economic growth if we understand byeconomic growth a gradual growth, involvingreduction of growth for developed countries and increasing of growth forunder-developed countries. Here the role of the included middle logic iscrucial. The included middle T will be necessarily located on a transnational,transcultural and transreligious level. In other words, the TD solution willinvolve a drastic change in civilization mentalities and the functioning ofinternational institutions. At the end of the way, hope
4. Designing transdisciplinary Tncurricula
Once understood what disciplinary boundaries means wecan begin to design transdisciplinary Tn curricula, where n = 1, 2,3, namely:
n = 1 means transdisciplinary;
- n = 2 means transdisciplinary andtransnational;
- n = 3 means transdisciplinary, transnationaland transreligious.
Such curricula are todayan obvious necessity. The explosion of the words transdisciplinary and transdisciplinarityin the framework of the community of engineers and of the computer-scientists isjust the first sign of the evolution of the present university towards a transdisciplinaryuniversity, or, by using a nicely coined recent word, transversity[32].The engineers were the first to react to the contemporary necessity ofdeveloping technology through a mixing of different disciplines. We anticipatedin 1997 this movement, when we organized the International Congress What University for Tomorrow – Towards theTransdisciplinary Evolution of University (Locarno, Switzerland, April 30– May 2, 1997)[33] .
The first step is T1 curriculum. There is noreceipt for doing that. It is a creative work in terms of context of therespective higher education institute: there is not and cannot be a handbookfor conceiving transdisciplinary curricula. However useful notions are alreadypresent, conceived by the engineers themselves: transdisciplinary metrics,transdisciplinary matrices, transdisciplinary design, transdisciplinarymeasures, transdisciplinary product development[34].These notions mix different concepts from different disciplines and maximizetheir use in practice by familiar statistical procedures. They are useful inidentifying the cluster of disciplines which have to be present together in a T1curriculum. However they are not sufficient in order to build a T1curriculum. New transdisciplinary concepts have to emerge from the mixing ofdisciplinary concepts. Otherwise we just push the boundaries but we do notarrive at the bound-less transdisciplinarity. A good idea comes from the newtransdisciplinary master of engineering program at the Institute for Design andAdvanced Technology at Texas Tech University[35]: the introduction ofcore curses. One of them must be, in a true T1 curriculum, themethodology of transdisciplinarity. A consistent T1 curriculum willunavoidably lead to the human factor, which is impossible to be neglected.The crucial point will be the introducing the notion of levels of Reality.The fact that a recent PhD thesis in mechatronics[36] isperforming precisely this step is very encouraging for further developments.
The next step is T2 curriculum, which can beadopted in institutions having a great number of students from differentnations. The T3 curriculum will be much more difficult to implementin the world of today. Present mentalities are not yet prepared for such acurriculum.
4. Why we need transdisciplinarity?
Why we need transdisciplinarity? To improveproblem-solving in contemporary globalized world? To make hard sciences moreand more efficient in their technological applications? To perform a
Of course, there isnothing wrong with joining science, business and engineering, if the final aimis the material and spiritual happiness of the individual human being in allcountries of our troubled world. Transdisciplinary knowledge integration
Acknowledgments
REFERENCES
Christopher M.Adams, Developing Transdisciplinary Metrics Using Data MiningTechniques , Doctoral Dissertation, College of Engineering at Texas TechUniversity, December 2009.
Christopher Adams,Derrick Tate, and Eunseog Eun Youn, Establishing Transdisciplinary KnowledgeIntegration Measures Using Natural Language processing and latent semanticanalysis, 2010, submitted manuscript to Artificial Intelligence forEngineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.
Lo Apostel, Guy Berger, Asa Briggs and Guy Michaud (ed.), Linterdisciplinarit– Problmes denseignement et de recherche, Centre pour la Recherche et lInnovation dans lEnseignement,Organisation de Coopration et de dveloppement conomique, Paris, 1972.
Sergiu Berian,
EliBlevis and Erik Stolterman, Transcending Disciplinary Boundaries inInteraction Design, Interactions, September-October 2009.
The Charter of Transdisciplinarity (in French, Spanish,English, Portuguese, Turkish, Italian, Arab and Romanian):
http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/
Michel Camus, Thierry Magnin, Basarab Nicolescu andKaren-Claire Voss, Levels of Representation and Levels of Reality: Towards anOntology of Science, in Niels H. Gregersen;Michael W.S. Parsons and Christoph Wassermann (ed.), The Concept of Naturein Science and Theology (part II),
PaulCilliers, P. 1998, Complexity and Postmodernism. Understanding complexsystems, Routledge, London, 1998.
Frderic Darbellay and TheresPaulsen (ed.), Le dfi de l'inter- et transdisciplinarit - Concepts,mthodes et pratiques innovantes dans l'enseignement et la recherche /Herausforderung Inter- und Transdisziplinaritt - Konzepte, Methoden undInnovative Umsetzung in Lehre und Forschung, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne, 2008.
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method
Galileo Galilei, Dialogue sur les deux grandssystmes du monde, Seuil, Paris, 1992, translatedfrom the Italian by Ren Frreux with the collaboration of Franois de Gandt,pp. 128-130; Dialogue on the Great World Systems,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956, with an introduction by Giorgio deSantillana.
Jochen Hinkel, Transdisciplinary KnowledgheIntegration – Cases from Integrated Assessment and VulnerabilityAssessment, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, The Nethererlands. March 2008.
Gertrude HirschHadorn et al. (ed.), Handbook of Transdisciplinarity, Springer, 2007.
Edmund Husserl, Mditations cartsiennes, Vrin, Paris, 1966. Translated form the German byGabrielle Peiffer and Emmanuel Levinas.
Erich Jantsch, Vers linterdisciplinarit et latransdisciplinarit dans lenseignement et linnovation , in Lo Apostelet al. (1972).
Locarno Declaration, Declaration and Recommendation of the International Congress Which University forTomorrow ? Towards a Transdisciplinary Evolution of the University, Locarno,Switzerland, April 30 - May 2, 1997
http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/locarno/loca7en.htm
SueL. T. McGregor and Russ Volckmann, "Making the TransdisciplinaryUniversity a Reality",
Edgar Morin, La mthode I – Lanature de la nature, Paris, Seuil, 1977.
------------------------- La mthodeII - La vie de la vie, Paris,Seuil, 1980.
------------------------- La mthodeIII - La connaissance de la connaissance, Paris, Seuil, 1986.
------------------------- La mthodeIV – Les ides, leur habitat, leur vie, leurs murs, leurorganisation, Paris, Seuil, 1991.
------------------------- La mthodeV – Lhumanit de lhumanit,Paris, Seuil, 2001.
------------------------- La mthodeVI – Ethique, Paris, Seuil,2004.
Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, Gdel's Proof
Basarab Nicolescu, Nous, la particule et le monde
------------------------ La transdisciplinarit
------------------------- b. Gdelian Aspects of Natureand Knowledge, in Gabriel Altmann and Walter A.Koch (ed.), Systems - New Paradigms for the Human Sciences
------------------------ Hylemorphism, Quantum Physicsand Levels of Reality, in Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou (ed.), Aristotle andContemporary Science, New York, Peter Lang, 2000,Vol. I, pp. 173-184. Introduction by Hilary Putnam.
------------------------- Toward a MethodologicalFoundation of the Dialogue Between the Technoscientific and SpiritualCultures, in Liubava Moreva (ed.), Differentiation and Integration ofWorldviews, Eidos, Sankt Petersburg, 2004.
------------------------- Transdisciplinarity –past, present and future, in MovingWorldviews - Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenoussustainable development, COMPAS Editions, Holland,2006, edited by Bertus Haverkort and Coen Reijntjes, p. 142-166.
-------------------------
Basarab Nicolescu (ed.), Transdisciplinarity –Theory and Practice, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NewJersey, 2008.
Jean Piaget, LՎpistmologie des relations interdisciplinaires, in LoApostel et al. (1972).
Transformative Systems: Transdisciplinary Synthesis of Business,Science and Engineering, Dallas, USA, June 6-11, 2010, Transformative SystemsConference (SDPS 2010), organized by The Society for Design and Process Science
http://sdpsnet.org/sdps/index.php