Levels of Reality/Perception and the Logic of Included Middle

Nicolescu (2002) defines “level of Reality” as a group of systems which are invariant under certain laws. Two levels of Reality are different if there is a break in the laws and a break in fundamental concepts (like, for example, causality). At the same time there exists discontinuity between levels of Reality. Every level associates space and time, while each level of Reality sustains every other level of Reality. He also asserts that, one level cannot be understood in the terms of the laws and concepts of another level. The structure of the totality of levels of Reality and perception is a complex structure. Nevertheless, in order to understand the complex structure of TD Reality, people have to accept that levels of Reality are not only separated, they are also connected with the logic of included middle (van Breda, 2008).

Taking into account all these statements, it can be argued that scientific disciplines with different laws and fundamental concepts are located on different levels of Realities. On a certain level, there could be grouped two or more disciplines sharing joint laws and concepts. For example, we can also find common levels of disciplines by exploring their organization, language, interpretation, complexity, knowledge, integration, being, etc.

35

Most of the disciplines (also economics) consider only one level of Reality (Nicolscu, 2002). Due to classical (linear) logic, they accept a certain Reality as being ultimate truth. But the passage from one level of Reality (group of disciplines) to another is insured by the logic of included middle. Accordingly, to use knowledge from different levels of Reality, one has to give a new meaning to a DK in accordance with the common aim of a certain project.

TD ontology presumes that every level of TD Reality is characterized by incompleteness because the laws governing one level are just a part of the totality of laws governing all levels. At the same time there is no one fundamental level of Reality (Nicolescu 2005). Therefore, there exist no hierarchy between the disciplines and no discipline could be superior over other disciplines. SD policy should not exclude, but rather include different spectrum of academic disciplines from economy, sociosphere and ecosphere. The balanced prominence of these areas can ensure a balanced development.

Every discipline, by itself, has its own content, but no meaning. A discipline gets its meaning only by establishing relations and relationships with other disciplines. As Boulding points out: “Somewhere between the specific (discipline) that has no meaning and the general (all disciplines as one discipline) that has no content there must be an optimum degree of generality” (Boulding, 1956). It is context (problem, goal) dependent which and how many disciplines are included or excluded in preparation or implementation of a certain project.

Taking into account the logic of included middle, the reconciliation between two or more contradictory disciplines creates a new temporary T state (see Figure 7), which represents the emergence of new non-disciplinary insights and perceptions (TK). The logic of included meddle does not provide final T state according to the assumption of ever opened knowledge; there exist only temporary reconciliation of any contradictions or antagonisms between A and non-A (Cole, 2006). The process of reconciliation is consequently never ending. TK has no final truth; it is rather evolving and always unifying DK. Reality depends on us, it is plastic (it is created and not given) and our responsibility is to build sustainable future in accordance with Apollonian values. Because Reality is dynamic, it is impossible to arrive at an exact and complete point of Reality. “Reality depends on us” because “we are part of the movement of Reality” (Nicolescu, 2010).

However, once we understand and accept the theory of different levels of Reality and its associated logic of the included middle, both the vision and the way in which to proceed become clearer. The first principle is not to separate the opposing poles from the many bi- polar relations that characterize the behavior of nature and of social life. Such a separation is normal for rational thinking and its correspondent linear logic. Separation of bi-polar relations is, in fact, artificial, i.e., illusionistic, since neither nature nor the human society does function in terms of mono-polar relations. Insistence in artificially simplifying our knowledge about nature and human relations is the force behind the increasing disfunctions of relations and relationships of eco-systems and its social and economic subsystems (Max-Neef, 2005). The results of such rational thinking are even bigger tensions between oppositions, i.e., wars, non-

36

participation and violent exclusion, world crisis, unhealthiness, isolation, loss of the meaning of living, etc.

Certainly, the logic of classical physics is quite appropriate for simple problems, but is harmful when applied to the solution of complex problems (e.g., climate change, global justice, sustainability, poverty, etc.) (Nicolescu, 2005). The polycrises facing humanity today cannot be adequately solved by using DK. Discontinuity between the levels of Reality could be overcome when the flow of consciousness and information enable “uncovering” new levels of Reality and thus reaching new knowledge. Such phenomena cross disciplinary boundaries in order to create holistic SD solutions. By unifying various disciplinary knowledge TD approach does not create new discipline, but rather new knowledge or solution which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines and beyond all disciplines.