Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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 fullblown until the nineteenth century.
In our time, the split was consummated. Science and culture have nothing more in common;
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 Between Cultures in the XXI Century », Sankt Petersburg, Russia, November
2003, Russian Academy of Science, published in Differentiation and Integration of Worldviews, series «International
Readings on Theory, History and Philosophy of Culture» n° 18, Eidos, Sankt Petersburg, 2004, edited by Liubava
Moreva, p. 139-152.
1
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 culture which 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
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.
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
2
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
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, ... , NR2, NR1, NR0, NR1, NR2, ... , NRn }
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 transsubjective dimension: e.g.
experimental data can ruin the most beautiful scientific theory.
4
Of course, one has to distinguish the words "Real" and "Reality". Real designates 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 cyberspacetime (to which one might add a
fourth level that of the Mtheory 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, NR0 and NR1 in 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 noncontradiction: A is not nonA.
3. The axiom of the excluded middle: There exists no third term T (“T” from “third”)
which is at the same time A and nonA.
In the framework of classical logic, one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs
5
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 nonA.
Most quantum logics [7] have modified the second axiom of classical logic — the axiom of
noncontradiction — by introducing noncontradiction with several truth values in place of the
binary pair (A and nonA). History will credit Stéphane Lupasco (19001988) with having shown
that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent
(with three values: A, nonA, and T) and noncontradictory [8].
Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle — there exists a third term T which
is at the same time A and nonA — 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, nonA, 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 Tstate, 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 noncontradictory.
It is the projection of the Tstate onto the same single level of Reality which produces the
appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and nonA). A single level of Reality can
only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently selfdestructive 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 nonA, if one exists, cannot accomplish their reconciliation.
The T1state present at the level NR1 (see Fig. 1) is connected to a pair of contradictories
1 The expression "included third" is more precise. However, in order to respect the wellestablished terminology in
logic I will keep, in the following, the name "included middle".
6
(A0 and nonA0) at an immediately adjacent level. The T1state allows the unification of
contradictories A0 and nonA0, but this unification takes place at a level different from the one
NR0 on which A0 and nonA0 are situated. The axiom of noncontradiction 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 selfcontained
complete theory.
important scientific results of the twentieth century concerning arithmetic, the theorem of Kurt
Gödel [9] , which states that a sufficiently rich system of axioms inevitably leads to results which
are either undecidable or contradictory. The implications of Gödel’s 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 Gödelian 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 selfconsistency — 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
coherence which continues beyond these two limiting levels, we must conceive the unity of levels
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 nonresistance 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 nonresistance
corresponds to the sacred — to that which does not admit of any rationalization.
The unity of levels of Reality and its complementary zone of nonresistance constitutes
what we call the transdisciplinary Object.
A new Principle of Relativity [3] emerges from the coexistence between complex plurality
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 onetoone correspondence with levels of Reality. These levels of perception
{ NPn, ... , NP2, NP1, NP0, NP1, NP2, ... , NPn}
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 nonresistance to perception. In this zone there are no levels of perception.
The unity of levels of perception and this complementary zone of nonresistance constitutes
8
what we call the transdisciplinary Subject.
The two zones of nonresistance 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 nonresistance.
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 X in order to
insure the coherent transmission of information and consciousness everywhere in the Universe. In
some sense, the point X is the source of all Reality and perception. The point X and 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
cultures.
The views I am expressing here are in total conformity with those of the founders of
9
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 vitro knowledge, 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
DISCIPLINARY TRANSDISCIPLINARY
KNOWLEDGE DK KNOWLEDGE TK
IN VITRO IN VIVO
Correspondence between
External world Object external world (Object)
and
internal world (Subject)
knowledge understanding
new type of intelligence
analytic intelligence harmony between
mind, feelings and body
oriented towards oriented towards
power and possession astonishment and sharing
binary logic included middle logic
exclusion of values inclusion of values
Table 1. Comparison between disciplinary knowledge DK and
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
The resulting full knowledge is a new type of knowledge — the transdisciplinary knowledge
correspondence between the external world of the Object and the internal world of the Subject.
The TK knowledge is really knowledge of the third term. By definition, TK knowledge 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 nonresistance zone of the sacred. In other words, cultures, religions and spiritual traditions
correspond to a welldefined horizontal section of the diagram of Fig. 1.
The resistance implied by the levels of Reality is connected with the territory in which a
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 nonresistance 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
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 postmodern cultures demonstrates the difficulty of their dialogue:
this dialogue can occur only when there is a conversion of technoscience towards the values and
towards the sacred, i.e. when the technoscientific culture becomes a true culture. This conversion
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
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
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 nonresistance is at once immanent transcendence and 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 nonresistance, which appears as the irreducibly real which can neither be reduced to
designating this zone of nonresistance, 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 unthoughtof, 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
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
postmodern 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 postmodern humanism disconnected from
the sacred has no chance to survive in the framework of the recent, strong and irrational
technoscientific culture. The fascination of postmodern 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
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
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 37, 1986), UNESCO, Paris, 1986, pp. 9
30 ; the Venice Declaration can be found on the Internet page
http://perso.clubinternet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b2c4.htm
University of New York (SUNY) Press, New York, 2002, translation by KarenClaire 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
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
Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2731 October 1992, Casina Pio IV, Vatican, Ed.
Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vatican City, 1996 (distributed by Princeton University Press),
edited by Bernard Pullman ;
Basarab Nicolescu, Gödelian 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 KarenClaire Voss, Levels of
Representation and Levels of Reality: Towards an Ontology of Science, in The Concept of Nature
in Science and Theology (part II), Éditions Labor et Fides, Genève, 1998, pp. 94103, edited by
Niels H. Gregersen, Michael W.S. Parsons and Christoph Wassermann ;
Basarab Nicolescu, Hylemorphism, Quantum Physics and Levels of Reality, in Aristotle and
Contemporary Science, Vol. I, Peter Lang, New York, 2000, pp. 173184, edited by Demetra
SfendoniMentzou, introduction by Hilary Putnam.
[7] T.A. Brody, On Quantum Logic, in Foundation of Physics, vol. 14, n° 5, 1984, pp. 409
430.
[8] Stéphane Lupasco, Le principe d'antagonisme et la logique de l'énergie, Le Rocher,
Paris, 1987 (2nd edition), foreword by Basarab Nicolescu ; Stéphane Lupasco L'homme et
l'oeuvre, Le Rocher, Monaco, coll. "Transdisciplinarité", 1999, under the direction of Horia
Badescu and Basarab Nicolescu.
[9] See, for example, Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, Gödel's Proof, New York
University Press, New York, 1958 ; Hao Wang, A Logical Journey From Gödel to Philosophy,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England, 1996.
17
[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. CI : Physik und Erkenntnis, 19271955, R. Piper GmbH § KG, Munich, 1984, pp.
218306, edited by W. Blum, H. P. Dürr 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 mathématique, GauthierVillars, Paris, 1978.
[13] Mircea Eliade, L'épreuve du labyrinthe, interviews by ClaudeHenri Rocquet, Pierre
Belfond, Paris, 1978, p. 175; translation in English: Ordeal by Labyrinth, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 1982.
Européennes de Clichy, La Maison sur le Monde, 71250 Mazille, France, 2001, pp. 4268, edited
by Aude Fonquernie.
[15] Adonis, La prière et l'épée Essais sur la culture arabe, Mercure de France, Paris,
1993, pp. 143146, translation from Arab by Leïla 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