complexity, transdisciplinarity and after-postmodern

As we wrote, Complexity is the second pillar of the Transdisciplinarity. 

Transdisciplinarity has a "not reductionist" philosophy.

Complexity is a strong "not reductionist" tool.

We could say "anti-reductionist" instead of "not reductionist", but if we start to assume an attitude of "anti-this", "anti-that", we will end staying out of the transdisciplinary comprehension, and having a kind of reductionist position.

It is better to point a "positive opinion", or "what we are for" instead of acumulate a collection of "antis".

The Complexity is something that has a space to "the exceptions".

In the Post-modern philosophy, the exception is seen as a menace to "the rules". That is a fear of the exception, because "maybe the exception could become the rule".

But, in true the exception gives reason to the rule. There is exception because there is a rule and vice-versa.

Transdisciplinarity is not against the rule, but is not in the side of a kind of "a rulism" that doesn't give place to exceptions.

Without exception we "dehumanize"... If we give space to exception we humanize...

interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and after-postmodern - Part 3

The current crisis needs multidisciplinary level with the opinion of specialists, but it needs also some approach in the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary level. As we said before, in the "after-postmodern" the specialist is necessary but is not sufficient to achieve new ways to guide the crisis.

Transdisciplinarity has three pillars: different levels of reality; complexity; the "third included".

People are trying to deal with the crisis almost only and strictly in the level of the discipline of Economy.

Maybe other levels of knowledge can bring help to that discussion, as Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology. Even "not official knowledge" could bring new models of thinking and deal with the problems.

So, as suggested by transdisciplinarity, if we see reality by and through several levels, maybe we can see new solutions for old problems.

Perhaps there is a third way between the polarity of "all or none" alternatives to solve the crisis.

At same time that mesures suggested by specialists are started, maybe activities that could reach people in local way and not just global, could help to find new ideas and actions.

Maybe people could have thousands of peaceful areopagus spread around the world where they could discuss the problems under the local conditions of their own cultural and social variables. 

interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and after-postmodern - Part 2

One characteristic of the Postmodern times (mainly the second half of the 20th century) was "the specialist" and "the specialization". More and more the paradigm of specialization was necessary and sufficient to solve problems and answer questions. The "multi-specialization" was typical of "multidisciplinarity". So, there was a great competition among specialists of the same field, or yet a competition among specialties around of which could be "the best answerer to all questions". 

Under the strengh of this paradigm, interdisciplinarity and much more transdisciplinarity seemed to be matter for "poets and philosophers" but not for pragmatists that conducted policy and economy. 

But in the 21th century came the depletion of that model and was the end of that kind of efficiency.

So, in the After-Postmodern, specialization and multidisciplinarity are still necessary but they are not sufficient to solve many problems and answer many questions. 

In the After-Posmodern, it is necessary a new paradigm to be sufficient to bring solutions to the current crisis. 

The interdisciplinarity and the transdisciplinarity can be the tools to achieve a new way to deal with several difficulties.

It means that we still need the specialist, but we now need people that work "transverselly" with the connections between specialties, or within "the net" that goes beyond the limit of the disciplines. 

interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and after-postmodern - Part 1.

In the 1950's decade, some scholars started to look to the relationship among the different disciplines of Knowledge. In the 1920's it was already used the word "interdisciplinarity", but in another context.

In 1950's, at the same time that a "pragmatic postmodern vision" started in therms of "production of results", people that worked with Education were concerned about which kind of Education could be better for the new generation. 

At that decade Jean Piaget proposed the word "Transdisciplinarity" to mean a new way to go beyond the limits of the disciplines. With these kind of studies, in a general way, appeared 3 therms: multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

Someone says that "Multidisciplinarity" started with Aristotle. It is partially correct, because, in true, Aristotle did not think about multidisciplinarity although created a kind of disciplinary division.

This kind of reflexion was a concern of scholars that saw that the growing division among specialties could lead to a fragmentary knowledge that could dehumanize and make the noction of whole to be lost.

Multidisciplinarity is the most common way that we use to learn: each Discipline with its own language and own method, with few "permeability" to other disciplines.

Interdisciplinarity imply in some interrelation or exchange of language and method, with more "permeability".

Transdisciplinarity works with: different levels of reality; complexity; the third included.

New paradigms: Complexity.

In the Postmodern Period the strong spirit of competition a kind of "all or none" principle made only one line of thinking to be acceptable as a paradigm in scientific or other circumstances. 

In the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21th century, this model did not answer anymore all the questions or problems. It was necessary to see the possibility of different answers to one same question, and the possibility to try to understand and conciliate paradoxes.

So, it was space for a more "complex" comprehension of the world and the human being.

The notion of Complexity started in Biology, in the first half of 20th century, when some thinkers wrote about the idea that "a living being is more than the sum of its parts". So, life is more than the chemical and molecular components. Life is also a kind of net among parts of a living being and even among several living beings. 

This concept of Complexity reached Philosophy and Anthropology and could be used to understand society and nature. 

Thinkers like Edgar Morin and Basarab Nicolaescu wrote about Complexity. Maybe now, in the After-Postmodern Period could be possible to better understand and apply Complexity.