Disciplinary Boundaries - What Are They and How They Can Be Transgressed?

Basarab Nicolescu

President of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CIRET) *

Professor at the Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, RomaniaHonorary Researcher at CNRS, France

E-mail: nicol@club-internet.fr

1. Introduction

The expression “disciplinary boundaries” is very often used. However, the astonishing

fact is that no rigorous definition of disciplinary boundaries exists till now in literature. In

this article, we will show that, based upon the transdisciplinary approach1, we are able to give

such a rigorous definition.

The words “discipline”, “disciplinary” and “disciplinarity” are relatively clear. For

example, in a recent paper, Eli Elvis and Erik Stolterman define disciplines in terms of

philosophical norms (values, methods and reasoning) and practical norms (common notions

of mind-set, knowledge set, skill set and tool set)2. But what could the term “boundaries” of

disciplines mean?

Our approach might seem paradoxical: why, in order to give the definition of

“disciplinary boundaries”, we have to go from disciplinarity to transdisciplinarity? In fact, the

answer is quite simple: if transdisciplinarity means not only “across” and “between”

disciplines, but also beyond all discipline, this necessarily requires a definition of

Paper submitted to the special issue “Research Across Boundaries - Advances in Integrative Meta-studies and Research Practice”, Integral Review – A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research and Praxis, USA.* http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/1 Nicolescu, 1996. 2 Blevis and Stolterman, 2009, p. 48.

1

“boundaries” of disciplines. And this definition is based upon the understanding of the key-

notion of transdisciplinarity – that of “levels of Reality”.

2. Definition of transdisciplinarity

a. The emergence of transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity is a relatively young approach: it emerged seven centuries later than

disciplinarity, due to the Swiss philosopher and psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980).

The word itself first appeared in France, in 1970, in the talks of Jean Piaget, Erich

Jantsch and André Lichnerowicz, at the international workshop “Interdisciplinarity –Teaching

and Research Problems in Universities”, sponsored by the Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), in collaboration with the French Ministry of National

Education3. It is Jean Piaget who stimulated the other thinkers present at this workshop to use

the word “transdisciplinarity”. In fact, he even wanted as title of the workshop

“Transdisciplinarity –Teaching and Research Problems in Universities” but the authorities of

OCDE were afraid of using the particle “trans”4…

Piaget retained only the meanings “across” and “between” of the Latin prefix trans,

eliminating the meaning “beyond”. I proposed the inclusion of the meaning “beyond

disciplines” in 19855 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

contributed to this development of transdisciplinarity. A key-date in this development is 1994,

when the Charter of Transdisciplinarity6 was adopted by the participants at the First World

Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrábida, Portugal).

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 theory.

The meaning “beyond disciplines” leads us to an immense space of new knowledge.

The main outcome of introducing the meaning “beyond disciplines” was the formulation

of the methodology of transdisciplinarity.

3 Apostel et al. (ed.), 1972.4 Nicolescu, 2006, p. 142-166.5 Nicolescu, 1985.6 “Charter”.

2

The formulation of transdisciplinarity which I will present is both unified (in the sense

of unification of different transdisciplinary approaches) and diverse: unity in diversity and

diversity through unity is inherent to transdisciplinarity. It is now accepted and applied by an

important number of researchers in many countries of the world.

Much confusion still arises by using as synonymous words “methodology” and

“methods”. Methodology does not mean “methods” but the science, the logos of methods.

There are myriads of methods that can be used in the framework of a unique methodology. An

exemplary case is the methodology of modern science formulated by Galileo Galilei in

Dialogue on the Great World Systems7:

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.

In the framework of this unique methodology, valid till now, there were formulated,

during five centuries, a huge variety of scientific theories and models, even contradictory as,

for example, classical physics and quantum physics.

Much confusion also arises by not recognizing that there are a theoretical

transdisciplinarity, a phenomenological transdisciplinarity and an experimental

transdisciplinarity. This simultaneous consideration of theoretical, phenomenological and

experimental transdisciplinarity will allow both a unified and non-dogmatic treatment of the

transdisciplinary theory and practice, coexisting with a plurality of transdisciplinary models.

b. The axiomatic character of the methodology of transdisciplinarity

The axiomatic character of the methodology of transdisciplinarity is an important aspect.

This means that we have to limit the number of axioms (or principles or pillars) to a minimum

number. Any axiom which can be derived from the already postulated ones, have to be

rejected.

This fact is not new. It already happened when disciplinary knowledge acquired its

scientific character, due the above three axioms of Galileo Galilei.

7 Galileo, 1956, 1992.

3

However, it should be obvious that if we try to build a mathematical bridge between

science and ontology, as is the case for transdisciplinarity, we will necessarily fail. 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

enriched by specific new notions. Mathematics is able to describe repetition of facts due to

scientific laws, but transdisciplinarity is about the singularity of the human being and human

life. The methodology of modern science is therefore not valid for transdisciplinarity. We

have to invent a new methodology.

After many years of research, I have arrived8 at the following three axioms of the

methodology of transdisciplinarity:

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, different

levels of Reality of the Subject.

ii. The logical axiom: The passage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the

logic of the included middle.

iii. 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.

The first two get their experimental evidence from quantum physics, but they go well

beyond exact sciences. The last one has its source not only in quantum physics but also in a

variety of other exact and human sciences.

The above three axioms give a precise and rigorous definition of transdisciplinarity.

Let me now describe the essentials of these three transdisciplinary axioms, by

describing in more details the key concept of transdisciplinarity – i. e. the concept of levels of

Reality.

c. The ontological axiom: levels of Reality of the Object and of the Subject

The meaning we give to the word “Reality” is both pragmatic and ontological.

By “Reality” we intend first of all to designate that which resists our experiences,

representations, descriptions, images, or even mathematical formulations.

8 Nicolescu, 1996.

4

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 inter-subjective 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 designates that

which is, while Reality is connected to resistance in our human experience. The “Real” is, by

definition, veiled forever, while “Reality” is accessible to our knowledge.

By “level of Reality”, I designate a set 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 macrophysical 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 applicable laws and a

break in fundamental concepts (like, for example, causality). Therefore there is a discontinuity

in the structure of levels of Reality, similar to the discontinuity reigning over the quantum

world.

The zone between two different levels and beyond all levels is a zone of non-resistance

to our experiences, representations, descriptions, images, and mathematical formulations.

Quite simply, the transparence of this zone 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.

The unity of levels of Reality of the Object and its complementary zone of non-resistance

constitutes what we call the transdisciplinary Object.

Inspired by the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl9, 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.

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 to perception.

The unity of levels of 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 transdisciplinary Object. A

9 Husserl, 1966.

5

flow of consciousness that coherently cuts across different levels of Reality of the Subject

must correspond to the flow of information coherently 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 neither exterior nor interior: it is simultaneously exterior and interior. The

studies of the universe and of the human being sustain one another. Without spirituality, the

knowledge is a dead knowledge.

The zone of non-resistance plays the role of a third between the Subject and the Object,

an interaction term, which acts like a secretly included middle 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.

The introduction of the levels of Reality induces a multidimensional and multireferential

structure of Reality.

A new Principle of Relativity10 emerges from the coexistence 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 originates a new

perspective on art, education, spirituality, religion, politics, and social life.

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.

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.

Our ternary partition { Subject, Object, Hidden Third } is, of course, different from the

binary partition{ Subject vs. Object } of classical realism.

Based upon 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 and the planetary level.

Of course, one has to be very careful in going from natural systems to social systems:

the notions from natural systems have not to be blindly applied to social systems. For example

the quantum discontinuity and its associated notion of global causality is not the same as the

10 Nicolescu, 1996, p. 54-55.

6

social discontinuity, i. e. the discontinuity between the individual level and the community

level. The global causality for quantum entities is different from the global causality for

human beings: the quantum entities do not choose to cooperate or not in order to insure the

quantum non-separability but human beings are free to choose if they cooperate or not in

order to insure the linkage of their community. However what is really the same is the notion

itself of discontinuity, i. e. the break in the general laws governing two different levels of

Reality. The general laws governing the individual human being (biological and spiritual

laws) are different from the general laws governing the community level (historical, social

and political laws). Transdisciplinary sociology has to be based upon the notion of

discontinuity.

Levels of Reality are radically different from levels of organization as these have been

defined in systemic approaches11. 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 8000 academic disciplines existing today. Many 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 ternary structure of Reality has to be contextualized. We can then identify several

epistemological ternaries, very useful in analyzing and solving concrete problems such as

global warming, traffic accidents or natural disasters:

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 logical axiom: the included middle

11 Camus et al., 1998, p. 94-103.

7

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. This Gödelian feature of

the transdisciplinary model of Reality is verified by all the history of science: a theory leads to

contradictions and one has to invent a new theory solving these contradictions. It is precisely

the way in which we went from classical physics to quantum physics.

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.

Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantum world and the macrophysical world and

the development of quantum physics have led, on the level of theory and scientific

experiment, to pairs of mutually exclusive contradictories (A and non-A): wave and

corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separability and non-separability, local causality and

global causality, symmetry and breaking of symmetry, reversibility and irreversibility of time,

and so forth.

The solution of these quantum paradoxes is relatively simple: one has to abandon the

third axiom of the classical logic, imposing the exclusion of the third, the included middle T.

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.

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 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.

8

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.

The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle: it

only constrains its sphere of validity.

The included middle logic is a tool for an integrative process: it allows us to cross two

different levels of Reality and to effectively integrate, not only in thinking but also in our own

being, the coherence of the Universe. The use of the included third is a transformative

process. But, at that moment, the included third ceases to be an abstract, logical tool: it

becomes a living reality touching all the dimensions of our being. This fact is particularly

important in education and learning.

e. The epistemological axiom and the universal interdependence

The fact that 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 - involves the

understanding of the term “complexity”12.

There are several theories of complexity. Some of them, like the one practiced at the

Santa Fe Institute, with 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 include neither the notion of levels of Reality nor the notion of

zones of non-resistance13. However, some of them, like the one of Edgar Morin14, are

compatible with these notions.

From a transdisciplinary point of view, complexity is a modern form of the very ancient

principle of universal interdependence. In fact, complexity is producing models of the

12 Cilliers, 1998.13 Nicolescu, 1996, 1998, 2000.14 Morin, 1977, 1980, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2004.

9

universal interdependence – it can never totally exhaust it. In this sense, complexity has to be

ranged as an epistemological axiom.

It is useful to distinguish between 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.

It is also useful to distinguish between restricted complexity (understood as tool for

applications, more or less mathematically formalized, e. g. complexity as practiced at Santa

Fe Institute) and generalized complexity (as the one formulated by Edgar Morin, conceived as

a general framework for thinking and action).

If we wish to establish a link between the two main approaches of complexity – the

restricted one and the generalized one -, the bridge would be precisely the notion of levels of

Reality. A level of Reality is, in fact, the simplexus of the complexus present in Trans-Reality.

The coexistence of all the levels cannot be conceived in the absence of the Hidden Third. The

complexity of the Trans-Reality is a transcomplexity unifying different types of complexity. It

would be useful to perform in future a detailed study of transcomplexity.

f. The Subject-Object relation in Pre-Modernity, in Modernity, in Post-

Modernity and in Transdisciplinarity15

In Pre-Modernity the Subject was immersed in the Object (see Fig. 1). Everything was

trace, signature of a higher meaning. The world of the pre-modern human being was magical

(see figure).

15 The ideas expressed in this section were stimulated by a rich exchange, over the past years, with John van Breda.

10

Fig. 1. The Subject-Object relation in Pre-Modernity.

In Modernity, Subject and Object were totally separated (see Fig. 2) by a radical

epistemological cut, allowing in such a way the development of modern science. The Object

was just there, in order to be known, deciphered, dominated, and transformed.

Fig. 2. The Subject-Object relation in Modernity.

In Post-Modernity (see Fig. 3) the roles of the Subject and Object are changed in

comparison with Modernity and are reversed in comparison with Pre-Modernity: the Object,

still considered as being outside the Subject, is nevertheless a social construction. It is not

really “there”. In looks more like an emanation of the Subject.

11

Fig. 3. The Subject-Object relation in Post-Modernity.

Transdisciplinarity leads to a new understanding of the relation 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, whose ray of action is infinite.

The transdisciplinary Object and its levels, the transdisciplinary Subject and its levels

and the Hidden Third define the Transdisciplinary (TD) Reality or Trans-Reality16 (see Fig.

5).

16 Nicolescu, 2009.

12

g. Definition or definitions?

Some researchers believe that transdisciplinarity tolerates several definitions,

depending on “the problem to be solved”. This is simply wrong, both from

epistemological and logical points of view, because it introduces the confusion between

the words “definition” and “description”.

A true definition requires the identification of the necessary and sufficient

conditions in order to formulate the respective notion. The axioms i – iii analyzed above

are precisely the necessary and sufficient conditions for defining transdisciplinarity. If we

limit ourselves only to necessary conditions, we get only a “description” and not a

definition. An example of this situation is the German-Swiss “definition”17 as materialized

in two recent books: one edited by Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn et al.18 and the other one

edited by Fréderic Darbellay et Theres Paulsen19. This “definition” understands by

17 The expression “German-Swiss” is not pejorative. It expresses the simple fact that the majority of the involved authors are from Germany and Switzerland. . 18 Hirsch Hadorn et al. (ed.), 2007.19 Darbellay and Paulsen (ed.), 2008.

13

“beyond disciplines” only the interaction between academic disciplines and society. It is

obvious that society is beyond disciplines. But “beyond all discipline” has to include also

other levels of Reality than the social level: the individual level, the planetary level, and

even the cosmic level. Otherwise we arrive at what I just called a “level of confusion”: we

mix different levels of Reality.

In other words, the German-Swiss definition is a particular case of the general

definition we gave and therefore it is merely a description and not a definition. This

particular description allows, of course, the formulation of useful models, by developing a

particular approach. It has to be realized that the definition we gave is compatible with

several different approaches of transdisciplinarity. It is therefore a general and unified

definition of transdisciplinarity.

The problem just discussed is far from being just a pedantic distinction between

“definition” and “description”. It touches on the core of classical or non-classical logic:

the axiom of identity A=A. If we gave several definitions of A we simply violate the

logical axiom of identity: it would mean that A is not A and therefore we can assert

anything about anything. This axiom of identity is crucial in defining “disciplinary

boundaries”.

3. What are “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. For them, the boundaries between disciplines are like boundaries between

countries, continents and oceans on the surface of the Earth. These boundaries are fluctuating

in time but an assumed property remains unchanged: the continuity between territories.

We have a different approach of the boundaries between disciplines. For us, they are

like the separation between galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets. It is the movement itself

which generates the fluctuation of boundaries. This does not mean that a galaxy intersects

another galaxy. 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, space-

time and information. It introduces a clear discontinuity between territories of galaxies, solar

14

systems, stars and planets. Without the interplanetary and intergalactic vacuum there is no

universe.

However, the above considerations are simply metaphors.

We need a rigorous definition.

We define disciplinary boundary as the limit of the totality of the results – past, present

and future – obtained by a given set of laws, norms, rules and practices. 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 a precise boundary. In other words, the

more mathematically formalized a given discipline is, the more this respective discipline has a

precise boundary.

Most of the disciplines are not mathematically formalized and therefore their boundaries

are fluctuating in time. In spite of this fluctuation, there is a boundary defined as the limit of

the totality of fluctuating boundaries of the respective discipline. For example, it must be

clear for everybody that the economy will never give information 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.

The existence of such a limit is directly connected to the discussed logical axiom of

identity. A discipline has a given identity because there is such a limit of the totality of

fluctuating boundaries of the respective discipline. It is precisely this limit that we call

“disciplinary boundary”. Every discipline has a specific horizon, to use a nice word

introduced by Hans-Georg Gadamer, as meaning the total sum of prejudices20.

Disciplinary boundaries are of two types: commensurable and incommensurable.

Disciplines belonging to the same level of Reality are commensurable: the same set of

general laws governs them. For example, classical physics and Marxist economics have

commensurable boundaries. Disciplines belonging to different levels of Reality are

incommensurable: different sets of general laws govern them. For example, classical physics

and quantum physics have incommensurable boundaries. This incommensurability is a

consequence of the incommensurability of levels of Reality. Disciplines with

incommensurable boundaries are born during the scientific and paradigmatic revolutions. For

example, quantum physics and Jungian analytic psychology or classical physics and Freudian

psychoanalysis have commensurable boundaries but Jungian analytic psychology and

Freudian psychoanalysis have incommensurable boundaries.

20 Gadamer, 1989.

15

There are more complicate situations in which in one and the same field of knowledge

there is coexistence of commensurable and incommensurable boundaries. For example, some

of the works of surrealist art are commensurable with classical physics while others are

commensurable with quantum physics.

There is a real discontinuity between incommensurable disciplinary boundaries: there is

nothing, strictly nothing between two incommensurable disciplinary boundaries, if we insist

to explore this space between the respective disciplines by old laws, norms, rules and

practices. Radically new laws, norms, rules and practices are necessary.

The above definition of disciplinary boundaries remains valid for multidisciplinarity and

interdisciplinarity, which are just continuous extensions of disciplinarity: there are

multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary boundaries as there are disciplinary boundaries.

However, in crossing boundaries in multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, we again meet

the two types of commensurable and incommensurable boundaries. The confusion between

the two types of boundaries explains, for example, the difficulties in defining

interdisciplinarity in a coherent way.

Not only disciplines but also cultures and religions have boundaries. The nature of

these boundaries is different from that of disciplinary boundaries. It may seem paradoxical to

speak about cultures and religions in transdisciplinarity, which seem to refer, by the word

itself, to academic disciplines. However, the presence of the Hidden Third explains this fake

paradox.

The crucial difference between academic disciplines on one side and cultures and

religions on the other side can be easily understood in our approach. Cultures and religions

are not concerned, as academic disciplines are, with fragments of levels of Reality only: they

simultaneously involve one or several levels of Reality of the Object, one or several levels of

Reality of the Subject and the non-resistance zone of the Hidden Third. In spite of the

universal presence of the Hidden Third in cultures and religions, there are still boundaries,

because levels of Reality are inevitably involved in cultures and religions. These boundaries

contain however the singular point of the Hidden Third. This singular point is absent in

disciplinary boundaries. In mathematical terms, the boundaries of cultures and religions

correspond to singular functions. Let us also remark that the fact that all cultures and all

religions involve the common singular point of the Hidden Third, the dialogue between

cultures and the dialogue between religions is a realistic possibility.

16

To go beyond disciplinary boundaries means to go beyond both commensurable and

incommensurable boundaries. This clarifies even more the distinction between multi-, inter-

and transdisciplinarity. Only transdisciplinarity can perform this task.

Transdisciplinarity has no boundary. Therefore, transdisciplinarity can never lead to a

super-discipline, super-science, super-religion or super-ideology. In particular, in our

globalized world, we need to find a spiritual dimension of democracy. Transdisciplinarity can

help with this important advancement of democracy, through its basic notions of

“transcultural” and “transreligious”21.

The transcultural designates the opening of all cultures to that which cuts across them

and transcends them, while the transreligious designates the opening of all religions to that

which cuts across them and transcends them22. This does not mean the emergence of a unique

planetary culture and of a unique planetary religion, but of a new transcultural and

transreligious attitude. The old principle “unity in diversity and diversity from unity” is

embodied in transdisciplinarity.

The crucial fact of absence of boundaries in transdisciplinarity is the result of the

structural incompleteness of the levels of Reality.

In fact, it is precisely the incompleteness of levels of Reality which explains to the

existence of disciplinary boundaries. This might seem paradoxical but it is only a fake

paradox. Disciplines are blind to incompleteness due to arbitrary elimination of the Hidden

Third in these disciplines, i. e. the 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

transdisciplinarity23. This project goes back to the talk given by Erich Jantsch in 197024 at the

international workshop “Interdisciplinarity – Teaching and Research Problems in

Universities”25.

21 Nicolescu, 1996.22 Nicolescu, 2004.23 Nicolescu, 2006, p. 142-166.24 Jantsch, 1972.25 Apostel (ed.), op. cit..

17

Such a fusion of disciplinary boundaries is simply impossible in transdisciplinarity,

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, which, as the human being, cannot be captured by any

discipline and by any boundary.

3. How we transgress disciplinary boundaries?26

a) Disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: reductionism and trans-reductionism

Transgressing the incommensurable disciplinary boundaries necessarily requires the full

presence of the Subject, of the human being. Disciplinary boundaries were created by the

mind, during time. They are epistemological and not ontological boundaries. The human

being cannot be reduced to his/her mind. The human being is not an object. Life has no

boundaries. Only artificial, in vitro fragments of life can have boundaries. As nicely expressed

by John van Breda: “ […] disciplines do not in any way ‘represent’ the complex, multi-

leveled structure of reality. Rather they are ‘windows’ through we look at certain aspects of

Reality only. Of course, looking thru these different ‘windows’, we can and have learnt a

tremendous amount about Reality. But the danger is when we lose sight of the fact that we

are only looking at Reality through our own epistemologically constructed windows, and

should not mistake the actual existence of the plethora of disciplines with the complex

structure of Reality itself. Disciplines remain just so many ‘windows’ to look through at very

specific aspects of Reality only. [Someone once said metaphorically that Nature has not

‘packaged’ itself as Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. I guess we can add by saying that

Society has also not ‘packaged’ itself as Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology etc.]”27

We understand therefore why disciplinarity is intimately related to the scientific

reductionism.

26 The expression “transgressing boundaries” used here has obviously nothing to do with the similar expression used by Alan Sokal in his famous hoax “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, Social Text 46/47, Spring/Summer 1996, p. 336-361. In fact, Sokal never defines what he understands by “boundaries”.27 van Breda, 2010.

18

The words "reduction" and "reductionism" are extremely ambiguous. Different authors

use different meanings and definitions and therefore extremely unproductive polemics 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. In other words, philosophers reduce the simpler to the more complex while

scientists reduce the more complex to the simpler, understood as "more fundamental". In

physics, for example, one reduces everything to superstrings or membranes, by hoping to

arrive at a "Theory of Everything".

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 any confusion, we will adopt here the general scientific meaning: one

reduces A to B, B to C, C to D, etc. till we arrive at what is believed to be the most

fundamental level. Human thought follows, in fact, the same process of reduction. Reduction

is, in many ways, a natural process for thought and there is nothing wrong about it. The only

problem is to understand what we find at the end of the reduction chain: is the chain circular

and, if not, how do we justify the concept of "end" at the end of the chain?

In any case, we have to distinguish "reduction" from "reductionism". There are many

types of reductionisms and there is a real danger in confusing them.

Sometimes "reductionism" is defined through the assertion that a complex system is

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 finds other kinds of reductionisms: for example, Daniel Dennett

defines the "Greedy reductionism"28 (the belief that every scientific explanation has to be

reduced to superstrings or membranes), while Richard Dawkins defines a "hierarchical

reductionism"29 (there is an hierarchy of complex organizational systems, every entity on one

level being reducible to one level down in the hierarchy). The appearance of both these types

of reductionisms serves as a criticism of the extreme forms of reductionism. However, the

very fact that there are so many varieties of reductionisms signals a situation of crisis of

reductionism itself.

28 Dennett, 1995.29 Dawkins, 1976.

19

The crisis of reductionism is, in fact, the crisis of disciplinarity. The contemporary big-

bang of transdisciplinarity is, beyond any doubt, a sign of this crisis.

To avoid any confusion, we will accept, in this article, scientific reductionism as

meaning the explanation of complex spiritual processes in terms of psychic processes, which

in turn are explained through biological processes, which in their turn are explained in terms

of physical processes. In other words, a typical scientist reduces spirituality to materiality.

Philosophical reductionism will correspond to the inverse chain: reducing materiality to

spirituality. Both types belong to what can be called mono-reductionism. Some philosophers

accept a dualistic approach: materiality as radically distinct from spirituality. The dualistic

approach is a variant of "philosophical reductionism": it corresponds to a multi-reductionism.

One can even see, especially in the New Age type of literature, forms of what can be called an

inter-reductionism: i. e. transferring of some material aspects to spiritual entities or, vice

versa, transferring of some spiritual features to physical entities.

Non-reductionism is expressed through "holism" (meaning that the whole is more than

the sum of its parts and determines how the parts behave) and "emergentism" (meaning that

novel structures, patterns or properties arise from relatively simple interactions, resulting in

layers arranged in terms of increased complexity). Holism and emergentism have their own

difficulties: they have to explain from where novelty comes, without giving ad hoc

explanations.

The notion of levels of Reality is crucial in conciliating reductionism (so useful in

scientific explanations) and anti-reductionism (so clearly needed in complex systems).

The transdisciplinary theory of levels of Reality appears as conciliating reductionism

and non-reductionism30. 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 upon

the excluded middle logic. The transdisciplinary 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,

30 Nicolescu (ed.), 2008.

20

science excludes non-resistance. Science, as is defined today, is limited by its own

methodology. And it is precisely the scientific methodology which is at the basis of

disciplinarity.

Of course, there is nothing wrong by itself with scientific methodology, disciplinarity

and reductionism. What is wrong is the extreme disciplinarity, i. e. the exclusion of

transdisciplinarity. There is no transdisciplinarity without disciplinarity but the reverse

statement is also true: disciplinarity has to fail if is not complemented by transdisciplinarity.

The scientific methodology has to be complemented by the transdisciplinary methodology.

Transgressing disciplinary boundaries, cultural boundaries and religious boundaries

means finally freedom of thinking and action in a globalized world.

b) How can the boundary-less transdisciplinarity solve real-world problems?

Could real-world problems be solved by the boundary-less transdisciplinarity?

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 societal stakeholders) to study a real-world problems

such as global warming / climate change in a transdisciplinary manner? – writes John van

Breda. In other words, how can this human-made natural planetary crisis (polycrisis – Morin)

be approached and studied without some form of shared methodological and methods

approaches, without some form of consensus (boundaries) with respect to certain concepts,

methods, laws etc. In short, what would a boundary-less transdisciplinary study of global

warming look like? Also, how would this differ from current disciplinary, inter- and multi-

disciplinary studies of climate change? In this regard, one already sees some evidence of the

global warming debate becoming dominated by the natural scientists, wanting to reduce

climate change to the reduction of CO2 levels in the atmosphere only – without any

consideration of the socio-economic consequences this may have for the plight of the poor in

developing countries. In other words, a reduction of CO2 levels can only mean or result in no

economic growth. I would argue that these disciplinary studies on global warming are

happening within the confines of the disciplinary boundaries of existing disciplines, such as

the Earth Sciences and Economics. If this is correct, then there is indeed a need to go

‘beyond’ these boundaries on the global warming issue in which a reduction in CO 2 levels

21

does not equate to no economic growth. We need to be able to think economic growth and

reduction in CO2 levels simultaneously. How do we use the logic of the included middle T in

this to come up with a truly TD study of global warming?”31

My first remark is that a “consensus” does not mean necessarily “boundaries”. The

actors involved in the TD study of global warming are themselves a part of this study. They

not apply given receipts but they are deeply involved in a creative process. This process is

boundary-less. A “consensus” means here sharing common values on the basis of the personal

evolution of the involved actors. “Neutrality” belongs to a disciplinary approach. The TD

approach is not neutral.

My second remark is that the included middle T, which gives us the possibility to cross

in a rational manner different levels of Reality, comes not before but after the

contextualization of the problem in question.

The contextualization is the crucial step in the TD problem-solving. “Contextualization”

means here, as explained in the Section 2c), the consideration of the pertinent epistemological

ternaries.

Everything starts, as always in the transdisciplinary applications, with the identification

of the levels of Reality involved in the given problem.

In the global warming we cannot limit ourselves to the physical and economical levels

of Reality. We have also to consider the individual, social, political, planetary and cosmic

level. Only in such a way we respect the values implied by the global warming problem.

A good epistemological ternary to start with is the ternary {Physical levels – Biological

levels – Psychical levels}. It must be clear that the increase in the CO2 levels has an influence

on the biological level and that the no economic growth choice would have influence on the

psychical level. Once recognized this point, we discover that we have to circulate in between

the different epistemological ternaries. An immediate connection could be established with

the ternary {Levels of confusion – Levels of language – Levels of interpretation}. Reducing

the global warming problem to the economy level is typical for a level of confusion, where

the different levels are mixed. The level of language is therefore itself a level of confusion –

the language of economy has to be distinguished from the language of physics, psychology,

and history. The interpretation of the global warming depends on cultural, ideological and

religious beliefs. One therefore very fast realizes that another ternary becomes relevant:

{Levels of objectivity – Levels of subjectivity – Levels of complexity}. And we can continue

in such a way our TD analysis of the problem.  

31 van Breda, 2010.

22

The conclusion we might reach is that {reduction in CO2 levels, no economic growth} is

not an appropriate solution of the global warming problem. We can have both reduction in

CO2 levels and economic growth if we understand by “economic growth” a gradual growth,

involving reduction of growth for developed countries and increasing of growth for under-

developed countries. Here the role of the included middle logic is crucial. The included

middle T will be necessarily located on a transnational, transcultural and transreligious level.

In other words, the TD solution will involve a drastic change in civilization mentalities and

the functioning of international institutions. At the end of the way, hope is present. In fact, the

relation between transdisciplinarity and hope is a natural one. The root of hope is the

simultaneous consideration of all levels of Reality enlighten by the Hidden Third.

4. Designing transdisciplinary Tn curricula

Once understood what “disciplinary boundaries” means we can begin to design

transdisciplinary Tn curricula, where n = 1, 2, 3, namely:

n = 1 means “transdisciplinary”;

- n = 2 means “transdisciplinary and transnational”;

- n = 3 means “transdisciplinary, transnational and transreligious”.

Such curricula are today an obvious necessity. The explosion of the words

“transdisciplinary” and “transdisciplinarity” in the framework of the community of engineers

and of the computer-scientists is just the first sign of the evolution of the present university

towards a transdisciplinary university, or, by using a nicely coined recent word,

“transversity”32. The engineers were the first to react to the contemporary necessity of

developing technology through a mixing of different disciplines. We anticipated in 1997 this

movement, when we organized the International Congress “What University for Tomorrow –

Towards the Transdisciplinary Evolution of University” (Locarno, Switzerland, April 30 –

May 2, 1997)33.

The first step is T1 curriculum. There is no receipt for doing that. It is a creative work in

terms of context of the respective higher education institute: there is not and cannot be a

“handbook” for conceiving transdisciplinary curricula. However useful notions are already

32 McGregor and Volckmann, 2010. 33 Locarno Declaration, 1997.

23

present, conceived by the engineers themselves: “transdisciplinary metrics”,

“transdisciplinary matrices”, “transdisciplinary design”, “transdisciplinary measures”,

“transdisciplinary product development”34. These notions mix different concepts from

different disciplines and maximize their use in practice by familiar statistical procedures.

They are useful in identifying the cluster of disciplines which have to be present together in a

T1 curriculum. However they are not sufficient in order to build a T1 curriculum. New

transdisciplinary concepts have to emerge from the mixing of disciplinary concepts.

Otherwise we just push the boundaries but we do not arrive at the bound-less

transdisciplinarity. A good idea comes from the new transdisciplinary master of engineering

program at the Institute for Design and Advanced Technology at Texas Tech University 35: the

introduction of “core” curses. One of them must be, in a true T1 curriculum, the methodology

of transdisciplinarity. A consistent T1 curriculum will unavoidably 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 mechatronics36 is performing precisely

this step is very encouraging for further developments.

The next step is T2 curriculum, which can be adopted in institutions having a great

number of students from different nations. The T3 curriculum will be much more difficult to

implement in the world of today. Present mentalities are not yet prepared for such a

curriculum.

4. Why we need transdisciplinarity?

Why we need transdisciplinarity? To improve problem-solving in contemporary

globalized world? To make hard sciences more and more efficient in their technological

applications? To perform a transdisciplinary synthesis of business, science and engineering, as

it is explicitly said in the presentation of an important recent congress, opened by the Nobel

Prize of Physics Steven Weinberg37?

Of course, there is nothing wrong with joining science, business and engineering, if the

final aim is the material and spiritual happiness of the individual human being in all countries

of our troubled world. “Transdisciplinary knowledge integration”38 is just a first step towards

34 Adams, 2009; Adams et al., 2010.35 Ertas et al., 2003.36 Berian, 2010.37 Transformative, 2010.

38 See, e. g., Hinkel, 2008.

24

unity of knowledge. Human values have to be always at the center of our thinking and action.

Bad turn-over like more and more inequalities between different countries of our world or like

a more rapid economic growth that consumes the already limited resources even faster, can be

avoided if the methodology of transdisciplinarity will be rigorously applied.

Acknowledgments. The author thanks John van Breda (University of Stellenbosch,

South Africa) for his very stimulating questions and comments during the last five years. He

also thanks Prof. Atila Ertas for his kind invitation at the congress “Transdisciplinary

Sustainable Development”, The ATLAS – 2010 bi-annual meeting T3 Transdisciplinary-

Transnational-Transcultural, Georgetown University, Georgetown, USA, May 23-28, 2010.

The very interesting talks given at this congress very much stimulated the ideas of the present

article.

REFERENCES

Christopher M. Adams, « Developing Transdisciplinary Metrics Using Data Mining

Techniques », Doctoral Dissertation, College of Engineering at Texas Tech University,

December 2009.

Christopher Adams, Derrick Tate, and Eunseog “Eun” Youn, “Establishing

Transdisciplinary Knowledge Integration Measures Using Natural Language processing and

latent semantic analysis”, 2010, submitted manuscript to Artificial Intelligence for

Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

Léo Apostel, Guy Berger, Asa Briggs and Guy Michaud (ed.), L’interdisciplinarité –

Problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche, Centre pour la Recherche et l’Innovation dans

l’Enseignement, Organisation de Coopération et de développement économique, Paris, 1972.

Sergiu Berian, Research Concerning the Transdisciplinary Potential of Mechatronics,

PhD thesis in Mechanical Engineering, Technnical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca,

Romania, 2010 (in Romanian).

Eli Blevis and Erik Stolterman, “Transcending Disciplinary Boundaries in Interaction

Design”, Interactions, September-October 2009.

The Charter of Transdisciplinarity (in French, Spanish, English, Portuguese, Turkish,

Italian, Arab and Romanian):

25

http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/

Michel Camus, Thierry Magnin, Basarab Nicolescu and Karen-Claire Voss, “Levels of

Representation and Levels of Reality: Towards an Ontology of Science”, in Niels H.

Gregersen; Michael W.S. Parsons and Christoph Wassermann (ed.), The Concept of Nature in

Science and Theology (part II), Genève, Éditions Labor et Fides, 1998.

Paul Cilliers, P. 1998, Complexity and Postmodernism. Understanding complex

systems, Routledge, London, 1998.

Fréderic Darbellay and Theres Paulsen (ed.), Le défi de l'inter- et transdisciplinarité -

Concepts, méthodes et pratiques innovantes dans l'enseignement et la recherche /

Herausforderung Inter- und Transdisziplinarität - Konzepte, Methoden und Innovative

Umsetzung in Lehre und Forschung, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes,

Lausanne, 2008.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, UK, 1976.

Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1995.

Atila Ertas, Timothy Maxwell, Vicki P. Rainey, and Murat M. Tanik, “Transfotrmation

of Higher Education: The transdisciplinary Approach in Engineering”, IEEE Transactions on

Education, Vol. 46, No. 2, May 2003, p. 289-295.

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2nd revised edition, translated from German

by J. Weinsheimer and D.G.Marshall, Crossroad, New York, 1989.

Galileo Galilei, Dialogue sur les deux grands systèmes du monde, Seuil, Paris, 1992,

translated from the Italian by René Fréreux with the collaboration of François de Gandt, pp.

128-130; Dialogue on the Great World Systems, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956,

with an introduction by Giorgio de Santillana.

Jochen Hinkel, « Transdisciplinary Knowledghe Integration – Cases from Integrated

Assessment and Vulnerability Assessment”, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, The

Nethererlands. March 2008.

Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn et al. (ed.), Handbook of Transdisciplinarity, Springer, 2007.

Edmund Husserl, Méditations cartésiennes, Vrin, Paris, 1966. Translated form the

German by Gabrielle Peiffer and Emmanuel Levinas.

Erich Jantsch, “ Vers l’interdisciplinarité et la transdisciplinarité dans l’enseignement et

l’innovation “, in Léo Apostel et al. (1972).

26

Locarno Declaration, Declaration and Recommendation of the International Congress

“Which University for Tomorrow ? Towards a Transdisciplinary Evolution of the

University”, Locarno, Switzerland, April 30 - May 2, 1997

http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/locarno/loca7en.htm

Sue L. T. McGregor and Russ Volckmann, "Making the Transdisciplinary University a

Reality", Integral Leadership Review, Vol. X, No. 2, March 2010

http://www.integralleadershipreview.com/archives-2010/2010-03/2010-03-article-mcgregor-

volckmann.php

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

------------------------- La méthode II - La vie de la vie, Paris, Seuil, 1980.

------------------------- La méthode III - La connaissance de la connaissance, Paris,

Seuil, 1986.

------------------------- La méthode IV – Les idées, leur habitat, leur vie, leurs mœurs,

leur organisation, Paris, Seuil, 1991.

------------------------- La méthode V – L’humanité de l’humanité, Paris, Seuil, 2001.

------------------------- La méthode VI – Ethique, Paris, Seuil, 2004.

Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, Gödel's Proof, New York University Press, New

York, 1958.

Basarab Nicolescu, Nous, la particule et le monde, Le Mail, Paris, 1985. 2nd edition, Le

Rocher, Monaco, “Transdisciplinarité" Series, 2002.

------------------------ La transdisciplinarité, manifeste, Monaco, Le Rocher,

"Transdisciplinarité" Series, 1996. English translation: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. New

York: SUNY Press, 2002, translation from the French by Karen-Claire Voss.

------------------------- b. “Gödelian Aspects of Nature and Knowledge”, in Gabriel

Altmann and Walter A. Koch (ed.), Systems - New Paradigms for the Human Sciences, Berlin

- New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1998, pp. 385-403.

------------------------ “Hylemorphism, Quantum Physics and Levels of Reality”, in

Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou (ed.), Aristotle and Contemporary Science, New York, Peter

Lang, 2000, Vol. I, pp. 173-184. Introduction by Hilary Putnam.

------------------------- “Toward a Methodological Foundation of the Dialogue Between

the Technoscientific and Spiritual Cultures”, in Liubava Moreva (ed.), Differentiation and

Integration of Worldviews, Eidos, Sankt Petersburg, 2004.

27

------------------------- “Transdisciplinarity – past, present and future”, in Moving

Worldviews - Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable

development, COMPAS Editions, Holland, 2006, edited by Bertus Haverkort and Coen

Reijntjes, p. 142-166.

------------------------- Qu'est-ce que la réalité ?, Liber, Montréal, Canada, 2009.

Basarab Nicolescu (ed.), Transdisciplinarity – Theory and Practice, Hampton Press,

Cresskill, New Jersey, 2008.

Jean Piaget, “L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires”, in Léo Apostel et al.

(1972).

“Transformative Systems: Transdisciplinary Synthesis of Business, Science and

Engineering”, Dallas, USA, June 6-11, 2010, Transformative Systems Conference (SDPS

2010), organized by The Society for Design and Process Science

http://sdpsnet.org/sdps/index.php

John van Breda, private communication, E-mail of January 10th, 2010.

28