basarab nicolescu toward a methodological foundation of the dialogue between the technoscientific...

8/13/2019 Basarab Nicolescu Toward a Methodological Foundation of the Dialogue Between the Technoscientific and Spiritual

1/18

TOWARD A METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF

THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN

THE TECHNOSCIENTIFIC AND SPIRITUAL CULTURES

1. Introduction

At the beginning of human history, science, spirituality and culture were inseparable. They

were animated by the same questions, those about the meaning of the universe and the meaning

of life.

The germ of the split between science and meaning, between subject and object, was

certainly present in the seventeenth century, when the methodology of modern science was

formulated, but it did not become full-blown until the nineteenth century.

In our time, the split was consummated. Science and culture have nothing more in common;

this is why one speaks of science andculture. Science does not have access to the nobility of

culture, and culture does not have access to the prestige of science.

One understands the indignant cries unleashed by the concept of two cultures scientific

*Opening talk at the 6th International Congress on Philosophy and Culture Differentiation and Integration of

Worldviews: Dynamics of Dialogue etween Cultures in the !!I Century "# $ankt Peters%urg# &ussia# 'ovem%er

())*# &ussian +cademy of $cience# pu%lished inDifferentiation and Integration of Worldviews# series International&eadings on ,heory# -istory and Philosophy of Culture" n. /0# 1idos# $ankt Peters%urg# ())2# edited %y 3iu%ava

4oreva# p5 /*7/8(5

1


2/18

and humanist culture introduced some decades ago by C.P. Snow, a novelist and a scientist [1].

Science is certainly part of culture, but this scientific culture is completely separated from

humanist culture. The two cultures are perceived as antagonists. Each world the scientific

world and the humanist world is hermetically shut on itself.

However, time has passed since 1959 when C. P. Snow formulated this concept. The

marriage between fundamental science and technology is now accomplished, generating the

technoscientific culturewhich drives the huge irrational force of globalization, centered on the

economy, which in turn could erase all differences between cultures and between religions. Part

of humanistic culture has already been absorbed in the technoscientific culture. In front of this

new monolithic culture, there is what I will call below the spiritual culture, which is in fact a

constellation of a huge variety of cultures, religions and spiritual communities, sometimes

contradictory but still united through a common belief in the two natures of the human being

on one side, his (her) physical, biological and psychical nature and, on the other side, his (her)

transcendental nature.

As scientists, active participants in the technoscientific culture, we have a great

responsibility: to avoid the disintegration of the spiritual culture resulting from the unbridled

development of technoscience, whose probable outcome will be the disappearance of our human

species. It is, therefore, urgent to establish links between the technoscientific culture and the

spiritual culture. But are these links possible?

As a practicing quantum physicist I know very well that, if we insist on the technical aspects

of science, no link is possible. The only way is to question the axioms of fundamental science and

its most general results. Only by situating ourselves at the frontier of science or in its very center

can we establish a dialogue with the spiritual culture. I had the privilege of actively participating

in one of the first institutional events in this direction [2].

It is only if we question the space between, across and beyond disciplines that we have a

chance to establish links between the two post-modern cultures, integrating both science and

2


3/18

wisdom: transdisciplinarity could offer a methodological foundation for a dialogue between the

technoscientific culture and the spiritual culture.

2. The transdisciplinary approach to Nature and knowledge

The methodology of transdisciplinarity is founded on three postulates [3] :

i. There are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of Reality and,

correspondingly, different levels of perception.

ii. The passage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the logic of the included

middle.

iii. The structure of the the totality of levels of Reality or perception is a complex structure :

every level is what it is because all the levels exist at the same time.

The first two postulates receive experimental evidence from quantum physics, while the last

one has its source not only in quantum physics but also in a variety of other exact and human

sciences.

It is interesting to note that the three postulates of transdisciplinarity correspond to the three

postulates of modern physics as formulated by Galileo Galilei:

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

iiS. These laws could be discovered by scientific experiment.

iiiS. Such experiments can be perfectly replicated.

3


4/18

The universality concerns physical laws in the case of modern science and the levels of

Reality in the case of transdisciplinarity. However, the language is different: mathematics in the

case of modern science and a new language, of a symbolic nature, in the case of

transdisciplinarity.

Physical laws are discovered by scientific experiments involving the Object only, while

levels of Reality are discovered through experiments involving both the Subject and the Object.

The logic of modern science is mainly binary while the logic of transdisciplinarity is ternary.

It is important to note that one can assume the validity of the three postulates of

transdisciplinarity independently of their historical roots in some branches of modern science. In

other words transdisciplinarity does not rest on a transfer from modern science: this would be a

false epistemological and philosophical procedure. Modern science, via its most general aspects,

allowed us to identify the three postulates of transdisciplinarity, but once they are formulated,

they have a much wider validity then in modern science itself.

The transdisciplinary approach to Nature and knowledge can be described through the

diagram shown in Fig. 1.

In the left part are symbolically drawn the levels of Reality

{ NRn, ... , NR

2, NR

1, NR

0, NR

-1, NR

-2, ... , NR

-n}

The index n can be finite or infinite.

Here the meaning we give to the word reality is pragmatic and ontological at the same

time.

By Reality (with a capital R) we intend first of all to designate that which resists our

experiences, representations, descriptions, images, or even mathematical formulations.

Insofar as Nature participates in the being of the world, one must give an ontological

dimension to the concept of Reality. Reality is not merely a social construction, the consensus of

a collectivity, or some intersubjective agreement. It also has a trans-subjective dimension: e.g.

experimental data can ruin the most beautiful scientific theory.

4


5/18

Of course, one has to distinguish the words "Real" and "Reality".Realdesignates that what

it is, while Reality is connected to resistance in our human experience. The "Real" is, by

definition, veiled for ever, while "Reality" is accessible to our knowledge.

By level of Reality, a notion I first introduced in Ref. 4 and later developed in Refs. 5 and

6, 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 physical

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).

The emergence of at least three different levels of Reality in the study of natural systems

the macrophysical level, the microphysical level and cyber-space-time (to which one might add a

fourth level - that of the M-theory in particle physics, unifying all physical interactions and which

has, for the moment, only a pure speculative status) is a major event in the history of

knowledge. The existence of different levels of Reality has been affirmed by different traditions

and civilizations, but this affirmation was founded either on religious dogma or on the

exploration of the human interior universe only.

Two adjacent levels (say, NR0and NR

1in Fig. 1) are connected by the logic of the included

middle, which differs from classical logic in the following essential way.

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.

In the framework of classical logic, one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs

5


6/18

of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive, because one cannot

affirm the validity of an assertion and of its opposite at the same time: A and non-A.

Most quantum logics [7] have modified the second axiom of classical logic the axiom of

non-contradiction by introducing non-contradiction with several truth values in place of the

binary pair (A and non-A). History will credit Stphane Lupasco (1900-1988) with having shown

that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent

(with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [8].

Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle there exists a third term T which

is at the same time A and non-A is completely clarified once the notion of levels of Reality

is introduced.

In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we represent in Fig. 2

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. The included middle is in fact an included third term1.If one remains

at a single level of Reality, all phenomena appear to result from a struggle between two

contradictory elements. The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of

Reality, where that which had appeared to be disunited is in fact united, and that which had

appeared contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.

It is the projection of the T-state onto the same single level of Reality which produces the

appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can

only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated

from all the other levels of Reality. A third term which is situated at the same level of Reality as

that of the opposites A and non-A, if one exists, cannot accomplish their reconciliation.

The T1-state present at the level NR

1(see Fig. 1) is connected to a pair of contradictories

1 The expression "included third" is more precise. However, in order to respect the well-established terminology in

logic I will keep, in the following, the name "included middle".

6


7/18

(A0 and non-A

0) at an immediately adjacent level. The T

1-state allows the unification of

contradictories A0and non-A

0, but this unification takes place at a level different from the one

NR0on which A

0and non-A

0are situated. The axiom of non-contradiction is thereby respected.

The logic of the included middle is capable of describing the coherence among these levels

of Reality by the iterative process described in Fig.1. This iterative process continues to

indefinitely until all the levels of Reality, known or conceivable, are exhausted.

In other words, the action of the logic of the included middle on the different levels of

Reality induces an open structure of the unity of levels of Reality. This structure has considerable

consequences for the theory of knowledge because it implies the impossibility of a self-contained

complete theory.

The open structure of the unity of levels of Reality is in accord with one of the most

important scientific results of the twentieth century concerning arithmetic, the theorem of Kurt

Gdel [9] , which states that a sufficiently rich system of axioms inevitably leads to results which

are either undecidable or contradictory. The implications of Gdels theorem have considerable

importance for all modern theories of knowledge, primarily because it concerns not just the field

of arithmetic, but all of mathematics which include arithmetic.

The Gdelian structure of the unity of levels of Reality, associated with the logic of the

included middle, implies that it is impossible to construct a complete theory for describing the

passage from one level to the other, and, a fortiori, for describing the unity of levels of Reality. If

such unity does exist, this linking of all the levels of Reality must necessarily be an open unity.

There is certainly coherence among different levels of Reality, at least in the natural world.

In fact, an immense self-consistency a cosmic bootstrap [10] seems to govern the evolution

of the universe, from the infinitely small to the infinitely large, from the infinitely brief to the

infinitely long. A flow of information is transmitted in a coherent manner from one level of

Reality to another in our physical universe. However, if coherence is limited only to the levels of

Reality, it stops both at the highest level and at the lowest level. If we introduce the idea of a

7


8/18

coherence which continues beyond these two limiting levels, we must conceive the unity of levels

of Reality as extending by a zone of non-resistance to our experiences, representations,

descriptions, images, and mathematical formulations. The highest level and the lowest level

of the totality of levels of Reality are united across a zone of absolute transparence. In this zone

there are no levels of Reality.

Quite simply, the non-resistance of this zone of absolute transparence is due to the

limitations of our bodies and of our sense organs limitations which apply regardless of what

measuring tools are and will be used to extend these sense organs. The zone of non-resistance

corresponds to the sacred to that which does not admit of any rationalization.

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

what we call the transdisciplinary Object.

A newPrinciple of Relativity[3] emerges from the coexistence between complex plurality

and open unity: 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 can provide a new perspective on the

dialogue between different academic disciplines and between cultures. In the transdisciplinary

vision, Reality is not only multidimensional, it is also multireferential.

The different levels of Reality are accessible to human knowledge thanks to the existence of

different levels of perception, described diagrammatically at the right of Fig. 1. They are found in

a one-to-one correspondence with levels of Reality. These levels of perception

{ NPn, ... , NP

2, NP

1, NP

0, NP

-1, NP

-2, ... , NP

-n}

allow an increasingly general, unifying, encompassing vision of Reality, without ever entirely

exhausting it.

As in the case of levels of Reality, the coherence of levels of perception presuppose a zone

of non-resistance to perception.In this zone there are no levels of perception.

The unity of levels of perception and this complementary zone of non-resistance constitutes

8


9/18

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 flow of

consciousness that coherently cuts across different levels of perception must correspond to the

flow of information coherently cutting across different levels of Reality. The two flows are

interrelated because they share the same zone of non-resistance.

The open unity between the transdisciplinary Object and the transdisciplinary Subject is

conveyed by the coherent orientation of the flow of information, described by the three oriented

loops in Fig. 1 which cut through the levels of Reality, and of the flow of consciousness,

described by the three oriented loops which cut through the levels of perception.

The loops of information and consciousness have to meet in a least one point Xin order to

insure the coherent transmission of information and consciousness everywhere in the Universe. In

some sense, the point Xis the source of all Reality and perception. The point Xand its associated

loops of information and consciousness describe the third term of transdisciplinary knowledge :

the Interaction term between the Subject and the Object, which can be reduced neither to the

Object nor to the Subject.

This ternary partition

{ Subject, Object, Interaction }

is radically different from the binary partition

{ Subject, Object }

which defines modern metaphysics. Transdisciplinarity, with its ternary structure, marks a major

rupture with modern metaphysics. It is precisely due to this rupture that transdisciplinarity is able

to provide a methodological foundation of a dialogue between technoscientific and spiritual

cultures.

The views I am expressing here are in total conformity with those of the founders of

9


10/18

quantum mechanics Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Niels Bohr.

In fact, Werner Heisenberg came very near, in his philosophical writings, to the concept of

"level of Reality". In his famous manuscript of the year 1942 (published only in 1984)

Heisenberg, who knew Husserl well, introduced the idea of three regions of reality, able to give

access to the concept of "reality" itself: the first region is that of classical physics, the second

of quantum physics, biology and psychic phenomena and the third that of the religious,

philosophical and artistic experiences [11]. This classification has a subtle ground: the closer and

closer connectivity between Subject and Object.

3. The dialogue between technoscientific and spiritual cultures and the presence of the

sacred

Academic disciplines study fragments of levels of Reality and there is a multitude of

disciplines associated with a single level of Reality.

Academic disciplines are connected exclusively to the Object, i.e. with only one zone out of

the three zones described in the diagram of Fig. 1. Founded on the mechanistic model of classical

science, they correspond to an in vitroknowledge, the disciplinary knowledge DK (see Table 1).

They are oriented toward power through domination of the external, physical world. By

definition, they are supposed to be neutral, i.e. their study has to be done in a way that is

independent of any system of values.

10


11/18

DISCIPLINARY

KNOWLEDGE DK

TRANSDISCIPLINARY

KNOWLEDGE TK

IN VITRO IN VIVO

External world - Object

Correspondence between

external world (Object)

and

internal world (Subject)

knowledge understanding

analytic intelligence

new type of intelligence -

harmony between

mind, feelings and body

oriented towards

power and possession

oriented towards

astonishment and sharing

binary logic included middle logic

exclusion of values inclusion of values

Table 1. Comparison between disciplinary knowledge DKand

transdisciplinary knowledge TK.

However, according to the diagram of Fig. 1, these entire features are in fact ad hoc,

artificial and illusory, because the Object has always to be in interaction with the Subject, through

the third, Interaction term.

11


12/18

The resulting full knowledge is a new type of knowledge the transdisciplinary knowledge

TK, which corresponds to an in vivoknowledge. This new knowledge is concerned with the

correspondence between the external world of the Object and the internal world of the Subject.

The TKknowledge is really knowledge of the third term.By definition, TKknowledge includes a

system of values.

It is important to realize that disciplinary knowledge and transdisciplinary knowledge are

not antagonistic but complementary. The methodologies of both are founded on the scientific

attitude.

The above considerations explain the somewhat paradoxical statement that transdisciplinary

knowledge is able to bring a new vision not only of academic disciplines but also of cultures,

religions and spiritual traditions.

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

side can be seen on the diagram of Fig. 1. Cultures are not concerned with fragments of levels of

Reality only : they simultaneously involve a level of Reality, a level of perception and fragments

of the non-resistance zone of the sacred. In other words, cultures, religions and spiritual traditions

correspond to a well-defined horizontal section of the diagram of Fig. 1.

The resistance implied by the levels of Reality is connected with the territory in which a

well-defined culture appears, with the corresponding historical events through which a given

collectivity of people has gone, and with the mixture of different cultural and spiritual customs

carried by the people crossing the given territory at the time.

The resistance implied by the levels of perception is connected with the given set of

spiritual practices and cultural habits, associated with a given theology, a given religious doctrine

or a given ensemble of cultural personalities and their teachings through the historical time.

The non-resistance zone of the sacred is, in fact, shared by all cultures. This fact could

explain why there is an inextinguishable desire of universality, more or less hidden in any culture

in spite of its claim of absolute specificity.

12


13/18

Two crucial problems today are certainly the status of the sacred (as foreseen by Mircea

Eliade) and the status of technoscience.

As can be seen in Fig. 1, again, technoscientific culture is entirely situated in the left part of

the diagram, while spiritual culture crosses all the three terms which figure in the diagram. This

asymmetry between the two post-modern cultures demonstrates the difficulty of their dialogue:

this dialogue can occur only when there is a conversionof technoscience towards the values and

towards the sacred, i.e. when the technoscientific culture becomes a true culture. This conversion

must inevitably go through a fundamental change of attitude of scientists themselves. This

process is already visible throughout the world but old habits of mind are still extremely strong.

The encounter between different levels of Reality and different levels of perception

engenders different levels of representation. Images corresponding to a certain level of

representation have a different quality than the images associated with another level of

representation, because each quality is associated with a certain level of Reality and with a certain

level of perception. Each level of representation appears like a veritable wall, apparently

insurmountable because of its relation to the images engendered by another level of

representation. These levels of representation of the sensible world are therefore connected with

the levels of perception of the the scientist, the artist, or religious people. True artistic creation

and deep religious experiences arise at the moment which bridges several levels of perception at

the same time, resulting in a transperception. Transperception permits a global, undifferentiated

understanding of the totality of levels of perception. True scientific creation arises at the moment

which bridges several levels of representation at the same time, resulting in transrepresentation.

Transperception and transrepresentation can explain the surprising similarities between moments

of scientific and artistic creation, as brilliantly demonstrated in a book written by the great

mathematician Jacques Hadamard [12].

The problem of the sacred, understood as the presence of something of irreducibly real in

the world, is unavoidable for any rational approach to knowledge. One can deny or affirm the

13


14/18

presence of the sacred in the world and in ourselves, but, if a coherent discourse on Reality is to

be elaborated, one is obliged to refer to it.

Mircea Eliade once stated in an interview: The sacred does not imply belief in God, in

gods, or spirits. It is . . . the experience of a reality and the source of consciousness of existing in

the world" [13]. The sacred is first of all an experience ; it is transmitted by a feeling the

religious feeling of that which links beings and things and, in consequence, induces in the

very depths of the human being an absolute respect for the others, to whom he is linked by their

all sharing a common life on one and the same Earth. The transdisciplinary model of Reality

casts new light on the meaning of the sacred.

The zone of non-resistance is at once immanent transcendenceand transcendent immanence:

the former puts the accent on transcendence, whereas the second puts it on immanence. These

two terms are therefore, in part, contradictory and consequently inadequate for designating the

zone of non-resistance, which appears as the irreducibly real which can neither be reduced to

immanent transcendence nor to transcendent immanence. The word sacred is appropriate for

designating this zone of non-resistance, insofar as the included middle reconciles immanent

transcendence and transcendent immanence.

One way or another, different cultures and religions, as well as agnostic and atheist currents

are defined in terms of the question of the sacred. Experience of the sacred is the source of a

transcultural attitude.

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

transcends them. It concerns the time present in transhistory, notion introduced by Eliade, which

concerns the unthinkable, the unthought-of, and epiphany.

The transculture does not mean a unique type of culture, but the open, transcendent unity of

all cultures.

The transcultural attitude is not in contradiction with any cultural, religious or spiritual

tradition or with any agnostic or atheistic current, to the extent that these traditions and currents

14


15/18

recognize the presence of the sacred. In fact, the presence of the sacred is our own human

transpresence in the world.

One can understand why my position differs from the one recently expressed by the great

post-modern thinker George Steiner [14]. I fully agree with him that the barbarity of the 20th

century is without precedent in the human history. However, when George Steiner, quoting

Samuel Beckett ("He doesn't exist, the bastard!") and Bertrand Russell ("It isn't nice of Him not

to give us news"), expresses his own deep belief in the value of a future atheistic civilization, I

find myself very doubtful. It is my conviction that a post-modern humanism disconnected from

the sacred has no chance to survive in the framework of the recent, strong and irrational

technoscientific culture. The fascination of post-modern humanists in the face of technoscience is

troubling.

The concept of transculture which I am formulating here is very near that which the great

Arab poet Adonis calls the mysticism of art: a movement towards the hidden face of Reality, a

living experience, a perpetual travel towards the heart of the world, a unification of

contradictories, the infinity and the unknown as aspiration, freedom from any philosophic or

religious system [15].

The transcultural attitude is also close to what which the great Christian theologian and

philosopher Raimon Panikkar calls the intrareligious dialogue:a dialogue which occurs in the

heart of any human being [16].

Transdisciplinarity calls for a new form of humanism - transhumanism- which offers each

being the greatest capacity for cultural and spiritual development. It involves searching for that

which is between, across, and beyond human beings that which could be called the Being of

beings.

The transcultural attitude is not simply a utopian project it is engraved in the very depths

of our being. Through the transcultural, the conflict of cultures an increasingly present menace

in our time has no more reason to be. If the transcultural were to find its proper place in

15


16/18

modernity, no war of civilizations could take place.

Basarab NICOLESCU

Theoretical physicist at CNRS, University of Paris 6, France

Member of the Romanian Academy

President of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CIRET)

REFERENCES

[1] C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993 ; this book

is based upon a lecture delivered by C. P. Snow in 1959.

[2] Basarab Nicolescu, Science as Testimony, in Proceedings of the Symposium Science

and the Boundaries of Knowledge : the Prologue of Our Cultural Past, organized by UNESCO in

collaboration with the Cini Foundation (Venice, March 3-7, 1986), UNESCO, Paris, 1986, pp. 9-

30 ; the Venice Declaration can be found on the Internet page

http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b2c4.htm

[3] Basarab Nicolescu, La transdisciplinarit, manifeste, Le Rocher, Monaco, coll.

"Transdisciplinarit", 1996 ; English translation : Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, State

University of New York (SUNY) Press, New York, 2002, translation by Karen-Claire Voss.

[4] Basarab Nicolescu,Nous, la particule et le monde, Le Mail, Paris, 1985.

[5] Basarab Nicolescu, Science, Meaning and Evolution - The Cosmology of Jacob

16


17/18

Boehme, with selected texts by Jacob Boehme, translated from the French by Rob Baker,

foreword by Joscelyn Godwin, afterword by Antoine Faivre, Parabola Books, New York, 1991.

[6] Basarab Nicolescu,Levels of Complexity and Levels of Reality,in "The Emergence of

Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology", Proceedings of the Plenary

Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 27-31 October 1992, Casina Pio IV, Vatican, Ed.

Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vatican City, 1996 (distributed by Princeton University Press),

edited by Bernard Pullman ;

Basarab Nicolescu, Gdelian Aspects of Nature and Knowledge, in "Systems - New

Paradigms for the Human Sciences", Walter de Gruyter, Berlin - New York, 1998, edited by

Gabriel Altmann and Walter A. Koch ;

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

Representation and Levels of Reality: Towards an Ontology of Science, in The Concept of Nature

in Science and Theology (part II),ditions Labor et Fides, Genve, 1998, pp. 94-103, edited by

Niels H. Gregersen, Michael W.S. Parsons and Christoph Wassermann ;

Basarab Nicolescu,Hylemorphism, Quantum Physics and Levels of Reality,inAristotle and

Contemporary Science, Vol. I, Peter Lang, New York, 2000, pp. 173-184, edited by Demetra

Sfendoni-Mentzou, introduction by Hilary Putnam.

[7] T.A. Brody, On Quantum Logic, in Foundation of Physics, vol. 14, n5, 1984, pp. 409-

430.

[8] Stphane Lupasco,Le principe d'antagonisme et la logique de l'nergie, Le Rocher,

Paris, 1987 (2nd edition), foreword by Basarab Nicolescu ; Stphane Lupasco - L'homme et

l'oeuvre, Le Rocher, Monaco, coll. "Transdisciplinarit", 1999, under the direction of Horia

Badescu and Basarab Nicolescu.

[9] See, for example, Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, Gdel's Proof, New York

University Press, New York, 1958 ; Hao Wang,A Logical Journey - From Gdel to Philosophy,

The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England, 1996.

17


18/18

[10] Paul Davies, Superforce - The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Simon

and Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 195.

[11] Werner Heisenberg, Philosophie - Le manuscrit de 1942, Seuil, Paris, 1998, translation

from German and introduction by Catherine Chevalley; German original edition: Ordnung der

Wirklichkeit, R. Piper GmbH KG, Munich, 1989 (published first in W. Heisenberg Gesammelte

Werke, Vol. C-I : Physik und Erkenntnis, 1927-1955, R. Piper GmbH KG, Munich, 1984, pp.

218-306, edited by W. Blum, H. P. Drr and H. Rechenberg).

[12] Jacques Hadamard, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, Princeton

University Press, Princeton, 1945; French edition :Essai sur la psychologie de l'invention dans le

domaine mathmatique,Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1978.

[13] Mircea Eliade, L'preuve du labyrinthe, interviews by Claude-Henri Rocquet, Pierre

Belfond, Paris, 1978, p. 175; translation in English: Ordeal by Labyrinth, University of Chicago

Press, Chicago, 1982.

[14] George Steiner, Penser Europe, in L'Europe en qute d'harmonie, Rencontres

Europennes de Clichy, La Maison sur le Monde, 71250 Mazille, France, 2001, pp. 42-68, edited

by Aude Fonquernie.

[15] Adonis, La prire et l'pe - Essais sur la culture arabe, Mercure de France, Paris,

1993, pp. 143-146, translation from Arab by Lela Khatib and Anne Wade Minkowski.

[16] Raimon Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue, Paulist Press, USA, to be published ;

Le dialogue intrareligieux, Aubier, Paris, 1985, translation from English by Josette Gennaoui ;

Entre Dieu et le cosmos, Albin Michel, Paris, 1998, interviews by Gwendoline Jarczyk.

18

basarab nicolescu toward a methodological foundation of the dialogue between the technoscientific...

Documents