Levels of Perception
When we interrogate about science and its fundamentals, we realize not all have the same perception of reality. The access to human knowledge is made be levels of perception. Being conscious of a certain reality is a state induced by our physical structure and sensorial organs. Therefore, for each level of understanding reality there is a level of perception allowing us to grasp that understanding, or be grasped by it. This is the right side of the image shown in a previous post about the levels of reality.
If a coherent flux of information makes sense of all levels of reality, a coherence flux of consciousness makes sense of all levels of perception. In the case of the flux of information, it included the resistance and non-resistance zone. When we read Nicolescu, the non-resistance zone in the levels of understanding reality field is associated with the sacred dimension of the human person. However, in the non-resistance zone of the levels of perception, in his book "We, the Particle and the Universe", we only read that in the non-resistance zone of the levels of perception there are no levels of perception, but he doesn't associate with anything. He only argues the non-resistance zone is common to both level sets.
The levels of perception are the levels of reality of the subject. Therefore, these levels in the resistance and non-resistance zones, together with the coherent flux of consciousness make the transdisciplinary subject.
My struggle with these concepts is this: how can we translate them into our daily lives? In which ways knowing these concepts affects the way I do things, in order to become more transdisciplinary?
How are universities renewed?
When I'm introduced to a certain level of understanding reality, I may become aware of it, thus "perceiving" it, but that doesn't mean I "understand" it. To know something exists, and is part of this world, is important, even if we do not fully understand it. The challenge is relating new knowledge with my background one to move toward the unity of knowledge. If I associate the levels of understanding reality to outer knowledge and the corresponding levels of perception to inner knowledge. Knowledge in its entirety is not outer, or inner, but outer and inner at the same time. This makes transdisciplinarity a personal and relational epistemic approach.
It is interesting to note in the figure that both fluxes of information and consciousness converge into the X. What does X means?
X means we can no longer investigate a transdisciplinary object without investigating simultaneously the transdisciplinary subject because they's inherent to each other. X marks the spot of the most fundamental category in this universe: relationality. Through transdisciplinary eyes, we can no longer see things under the binomial object-subject, but object-subject-interrelation. X corresponds to the interaction embedded in everything in this world. Therefore, objects can not by subjectivity, nor subjects objectified, because interaction avoids reducing one to the other.
The more I read and try to understand, I foresee the potential, but still find it's practicality difficult to grasp. This is a journey and is far from over...
