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, Romania Honorary Researcher at CNRS, France E-mail: [email protected]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 approach 1 , 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 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. 1
44
Embed
Basarab Nicolescu, Disciplinary Boundaries - What Are They and How They Can Be Transgressed?
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 approach , we are able to give such a rigorous definition. 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 “boundaries” of disciplines. And this definition is based upon the understanding of the key-notion of transdisciplinarity – that of “levels of Reality”.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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.
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
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”,