Cosmodern Education for a Sustainable Development: a...

Javier Collado RuanoCosmodern Education for a Sustainable Development: a Transdisciplinary and Biomimetic Approach form the BigHistory 98

Cosmodern Education for aSustainable Development: aTransdisciplinary and BiomimeticApproach form the Big HistoryJavier Collado Ruano, National University of Education Philosophy of Education Department Azogues, ECUADOR,Email:[email protected]

Received 1 September 2016; Revised 26 October, 2016; Accepted 28 October, 2016

Copyright c©2016 Javier Collado Ruano. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Available online 29 October, 2016 at www.atlas-journal.org, doi: 10.22545/2016/00082

The objective of this paper is to study theco-evolutionary processes that life has devel-oped over billions of years in the context of

“Big History”. The main intention is to identifytheir operational principles and strategies, inorder to promote sustainable and bio-mimeticalternatives for the achievement of the “SustainableDevelopment Goals” (SDG). This is a qualitative,exploratory, descriptive, and analytical researchthat includes, unifies, and integrates the history ofthe universe, the solar system, Earth, and humanbeing history. For the development of this “ecologyof knowledge”, transdisciplinary methodology iscombined with the Big History theoretical model.The most important observations show that all formsof life are developing sustainable co-evolutionarystrategies in nature since life’s first appearance about3,8 billion years ago. To help in the achievementof the SDG, the research also focuses on humantraining to reduce ecological and social footprint.As a result, emotional, spiritual, and ecological

literacy is required to feel-think-act in harmonywith nature.In conclusion, this biomimetic andtransdisciplinary research proposes some recom-mendations to prevent future scenarios wherethe chronic shortage of natural resources impedesdignified human development and proliferation of life.

Keywords: Cosmodernity, biomimicry, trans-disciplinary, big history, coevolution, complexity,spirituality, emotional intelligence, sustainabledevelopment goals.

1 Sustainable Development Goals:an Introduction

Sustainable development has gained momentumsince the Member States of the United Nationscommitted to the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) for the year 2030. The final declarationsigned by world leaders is known as “Transforming

Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & ScienceISSN: 1949-0569 online, Article ID 00082, 2016 TheATLAS

Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable De-velopment” (United Nations, 2015), and it includesclimate change, conservation of terrestrial ecosys-tems, seas and oceans, as well as other systemic andglobal goals on health, gender, poverty, and educa-tion. In sum, the 17 SDGs and 169 targets recog-nize the socio-ecological problems that characterizethe current global civilization beyond their nationalborders. Hence the need to transgress the currentparadigm with the new approach that Big Historygives us, because it represents an epistemic tool thatconceived the interrelationships of the human con-dition in its cosmic and earthly context. This isa new transdisciplinary organization of knowledgethat allows us to include natural ecosystems andhuman cultural systems in the same co-evolutionaryhistorical process.

The Big History helps us to identify and recognizethe sustainable strategies that work in nature to in-spire us bio-mimetically in solving human problems(i.e. social, economic, technological, engineering,etc.). The continued exploitation of materials and en-ergy resources of the Earth by the models of produc-tion and consumption has caused a great ecologicaland social footprint that has been disclosed as unsus-tainable. A society that walks towards a sustainabledevelopment must learn to reduce their ecologicaldestruction, reusing and recycling materials alreadybuilt. Sustainable development is a dynamic processthat requires a “glocal” vision, because the globalprogress is an emergency of planetary system whichthrives on multiple local progress advancing throughsystemic mechanics (synergies, feedbacks, etc.) thatinter-retro-act with each other, influencing, condi-tioning, and modifying the different context of worldcitizenship. According to Robertson [1], the term“glocal” is a neologism where globalization does notimply an annulment of the local, but an inclusion,presence, and meeting of and with local cultures.We must focus our attention on the paradigmatichorizon of SDG in a planetary scale, engendering aworld where “other worlds are possible”. This im-plies a transcultural recognition of cosmic structuresand phenomena that paradigmatically transcend thehuman condition, aligned with the “Cosmic Educa-tion” of the pedagogical method of Maria Montessori[2].

2 Transdisciplinary Methodology:Linking Education withSustainability

The idea of interconnection between human beingsand other life forms leads us to revise the concept ofdevelopment through transdisciplinary study. Lifehas developed co-evolutionary processes since theirappearance on Earth some 3.8 billion years ago. The“cosmic miracle of life” is a transdisciplinary chal-lenge we must integrate to safeguard all biodiver-sity that coevolves in Gaia1. This essay has beenwritten from the theoretical framework of the “BigHistory” coined by historian David Christian [3] andtheoretically developed by Fred Spier [4], along themethodology proposed by nuclear physicist BasarabNicolescu [5]: levels of reality, logic of the middle hid-den, and complexity. This theoretical and method-ological symbiosis represents an epistemological ap-proach that understands the human beings as anintegral part of autopoietic cosmic totality, hous-ing the bioethical imperative to develop a cultureof peace to meet the SDG [6]. In addition, thissynergy also aims to produce both new biomimeticknowledge and technical innovations. According tothe economist and educator Sue McGregor [7: 63],“transdisciplinary problem solving from a biomimicryperspective means recognizing organic patterns andnatural connections, understanding the causes and ef-fects of competing and interrelated components, andthen making appropriate modifications.” The na-ture of sustainability from a biomimicry perspectivereflects the very essence of transdisciplinary method-ology and the Big History theoretical framework.The fit between those two approaches is elegant, ripewith hope and potentialities.

According to the “complex thinking” promotedby sociologist Edgar Morin in his book The SevenComplex Lessons in Education for the Future, - writ-ten in 1999 to promote UNESCO’s TransdisciplinaryProject Educating for a Sustainable Future-, edu-cation is an essential epistemic tool to transformour world-society. In this visionary work, Morinaffirms, “teaching the human condition means teach-ing the cosmic, physical, and earthly condition of theindividual-society-species” [8: 21-23]. Since theseintellectual horizons, all education pretending to beuniversal must take into account the different levels

1Gaia is the primal goddess personifying the Earth in Greekmythology.


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


of epistemological and ontological reality that consti-tute the multidimensional identity of the individual-society-species: as individual in a local and specificcommunity; as citizen of a determinate society be-longing to a particular State/Nation; and as samecosmo-bio-genetic species in constant process of evo-lution. A human identity opened to the infinitediversity of global citizenship in its own unity asspecies. At the same way that own ontology struc-tures the nature in different levels of Reality, humanshave different strata, levels, and plans of gnoseolog-ical perception that structure and concretize theirhistorical complexity in their cosmological context.Hence we can also add the identity in the Cyber-Space-Time: the virtual identity.

Thus, educational curricula must consider the com-plexity in all levels of identity that human raceis shaped, without falling into reductionist, one-dimensional or homogenized logics. Higher educationstudents must learn that our identity is composed bymultiple dependencies with our social and naturalenvironment. “Eco-bio-anthropo-social conceptualloop is a loop in which the thought of natural com-plexity should allow developing the thought of socialand political complexity, [9: 120]. From this vision,our identity is a unique result of multiple relation-ships. Every culture is more or less hybrid, mixed,made of intersections, feedback loops... There areno finished or perfect cultures because each culturecarries sufficiency, insufficiencies, functionalities, anddysfunctionalities.

Therefore, it is necessary to promote a mindsettransformation that facilitates the development ofa “complex thought” capable of building a new kindof identity for the emerging global citizenship [10].Our planetary identity is based on the idea thathumans are part of nature (governed by naturallaws), whose historical approach addresses togetherthe past of people, life, Earth, and the universe [6].This integral view of cosmic, planetary, and humanhistory is known as “Big History” by the scientificcommunity [3, 4], and allows us to understand betterthe complexity of social relations with nature, wheremankind is considered an important element of co-evolutionary processes.

3 A Brief Summary of the BigHistory: The Human Co-evolutionin Gaia

While it is true that Big History framework doesnot directly affect the current situation, it gives usa bigger temporal perspective to transgress the com-monly accepted concept of sustainable development.I aim to redefine sustainability as a process of in-tegral co-evolution with Gaia. All assessments weconceive today, as an interconnected world society,will affect future life models of our children andgrandchildren. That is why we must learn moreabout cosmic, physical, geological, and biologicalframeworks that we belong as a human species. Thisview is aligned with the biologist Stuart Kauffmanthought [11: 4-5]: “what some are calling the newsciences of complexity may help us find anew ourplace in the universe, that through this new science,we may recover our sense of worth, our sense ofthe sacred.” For this reason, the recognition of thecosmic origins of the human condition we can learnto appreciate better the importance of fulfilling theSDG and safeguarding life on Earth. Altogether,the process of mapping the Big History is based onthe scientific consensus reached by the internationalcommunity in astronomy, cosmology, physics, geol-ogy, biology, chemistry, anthropology, paleontology,archeology, ecology, history, geography, sociology,demography, economy, and so on [3, 4].

According to the scientific consensus of Big His-tory, the humanly known universe arose about 13.7billion years before present (BP), with the explo-sion of the Big Bang. Earth formation occurredbetween 5 and 4.5 billion years BP, and the mira-cle of life appeared around 3.8 and 3.5 billion yearsBP. During the first half of this period, the formsof first-born life on Earth remained at very simplecomplexity levels (as archaebacteria or eubacteria),but the appearance of free oxygen in the atmosphereoriginated the first complex cells (eukaryotics), some2 billion years BP. The Cambrian explosion of meta-zoans took place about 1,5 billion years later, some542 million years BP. Since then, the biological vari-ety has increased rapidly, forming a wide range ofmulticellular organisms that are developing survivalstrategies with very unique energy flows, such as thefood chain.

While it seems that life arose in the depths of theoceans, it only managed to reach the mainland about


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


450 million years BP. Only 250 million years afterreaching the Earth’s surface came the first warm-blooded animals, where dinosaurs highlighted duringthe Jurassic period until they disappeared 66 millionyears ago by a supposed asteroid impact on Earth.As Christian [3: 162] noted, this circumstance gaverise to hegemonic period of mammals, from whereemerged later the first bipedal hominids around 7million years BP. Thanks to carbon-14 testing per-formed on fossil remains found to date, we can knowin an approximate way the dating of first Australo-pithecus, which seem to be about 4 million years.Homo Habilis dates from 2.5 until 1.9 million years,those of Homo erectus are around 1.9 million years,and those of Homo neardenthalis and Homo sapienspoint about 200,000 years ago. With the extinctionof Homo floresiensis about 13,000 years ago, Homosapiens is the only survivor of the human speciesthat co-inhabits and coevolves on planet Earth withthe rest of the animal biodiversity, plants, insects,bacteria, etc.

Co-evolution is a term coined by biologist PaulEhrlich and botanist-environmentalist Peter Ravenin 1964 [12]. In their joint work Butterflies andPlants: A Study in Coevolution, they approachedthe reciprocal evolutionary influences of plants andinsects that feed on them: “an approach to what wewould like to call coevolution is the examination ofpatterns of interaction between two major groups oforganisms with a close and evident ecological rela-tionship, such as plants and herbivores” [12: 586].While the idea of co-evolution was not new and hadalready expressed in previous theories, the use madefor Ehrlich and Raven allowed thinkers from otherfields of application make new interpretations. In1980, evolutionary ecologist Daniel Janzen was thefirst to define the concept of coevolution in his paperWhen Is It Coevolution? [13]. “Coevolution maybe usefully defined as an evolutionary change in atrait of the individuals in one population in responseto a trait of the individuals of a second population,followed by an evolutionary response by the secondpopulation to the change in the first”, Janzen [13:611] explain adding that “diffuse coevolution occurswhen either or both populations in the above def-inition are represented by an array of populationsthat generate a selective pressure as a group.” Thus,ecological interdependence requires three basic prin-ciples: 1) specificity, where the evolution of eachspecie is due to the selective pressures of the other;

2) reciprocity, when both species jointly evolve; 3)simultaneity, both species evolve simultaneously. Sothe co-evolutionary process has been used in a rel-atively restricted sense in the context of biologicalevolution.

But the sense of “coevolution” used in this re-search goes beyond to discuss in bioethics: includingboth the degree of mutual phylogenetic partnershipas the degree of mutual change in the co-adaptation,but also global processes of macroevolution andspecific processes of microevolution [14]. Coevo-lution is defined, then, as a reciprocal evolutionarychange among species and their natural environmentthat, during the complex development of inter-retro-actions with each other, mutually modify each otherconstantly. This view is used by researcher RolfZinkernagel [15] – Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996-to explain how the immune system has co-evolvedwith microbes that cause infectious diseases, and alsowith the distinction between biological and social evo-lution introduced by historians Andrey Korotayev,Alexander Markov, and Leonid Grinin [16]. Coevo-lution is a feedback process very present in natureand has been basis for agricultural and industrialexploitation of human beings in their historical evolu-tion on Earth. As explained by ecological economistRichard Norgaard [17: 39]: “with industrialization,social systems coevolved to facilitate developmentthrough the exploitation of coal and petroleum. So-cial systems no longer coevolved to interact moreeffectively with environmental systems.” With In-dustrial Revolution, began an era of hydrocarbonsthat drastically changed co-evolutionary processesof the prior agricultural stage of mankind. Whensocial systems began to exert strong pressure onenvironmental systems, the stock of energetic andmaterial resources decreased very quickly: startingan evolutionary period of planetary unsustainability.

The globalized society of 21st century must becomeaware, urgently, of socioeconomic unsustainability of“four-engine-of-globalization”: science, industry, capi-talism, and technology [18: 104]. They are seriouslyjeopardizing both future human generations and therest of natural ecosystems. It is necessary to organizetransdisciplinary knowledge to understand that ourspecie evolution is intrinsically interlinked with con-stant co-evolution processes that different life formsare developing on our planet Earth from billionsyears ago. It is a multidimensional coevolution thatunfolds through inter-retro-actions between different


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


levels of cosmic, planetary, regional, national, andlocal reality, where an extensive network of univer-sal interdependence is established with ecological,biophysics, social, political, cultural, economic, andtechnological phenomena. Hence the uncontrolledexploitation of natural resources for the manufactureof industrial products has become an issue of greatconcern in the international agenda, where differentgeopolitical actors study and analyze, for decades,cross-border phenomena that affect all life forms.

In this context, biomimicry emerges as a transdisci-plinary science that deals with studying the complex-ity of inter-retro-actions developed between dynamicsystems that make life (humans, animals, plants,etc.), within an environment which houses the idealconditions for coevolution. Mankind is the uniquespecies that participates in a cosmic dance starred bymatter-energy phenomena whose symphony remindsus that we are active players in the coevolution of acommon world shared with ecosystems of Gaia. “Wenow recognize the Earth as a single self-creative be-ing who came to life in its rotating dance around thespace” says biologist and futurist Elisabet Sahtouris[19: 25-26], adding that “as we gather the scientificdetails of the dance of life on our planet (...), the evo-lution of our species takes a new meaning in relationwith the whole.” Hence the systematic degradationof nature makes us accomplices of a global ecocide,since the ecological footprint [20] is perpetuated byour active participation in consumerist dynamicsand our bioethics passivity before the destruction oflife on our planet Earth, which is our sacred com-mon good. “There are few more alarming indicatorsabout the brutal climate imbalance that we haveimplemented, and the consequences will be terrible(ecocide and genocide, if you want to express in asynthetic formula),” argues the philosopher JorgeRiechmann [21: 333]. Our common future is builttoday and we cannot fail to future generations. Withsuch imbalances, future generations will suffer theclimatic consequences of global warning caused byour current consumer culture (chronic shortage ofresources, ecosystem changes, loss of biodiversity,glacier melting, rising sea level, deforestation, pollu-tion of soil, water and air, etc.). For all those reasons,biomimicry represents a paradigmatic shift in theepistemological construction of knowledge becauseits multi-referential epistemic frame goes beyond oftraditional moral issues of human welfare to inte-grate new technological developments that radically

altered the vital phenomena of own nature.From this cosmodern vision, I propose that exist-

ing debate on SDG does not have to find solutionsfor the increasingly complex problems that arise inthe current economical system of the world-societyof the third millennium. SDG should promote thetransformation of capitalism’s production systeminspired by biomimicry approach. Affirming thateconomic growth is good for itself, postulating thathuman quality levels can be measured by GDP andGNP of a country, represent an intellectual fraud ofdanger consequences in the era of global ecologicalcrisis. While it is true that capitalist system hasbrought enormous material benefits, its functionalistview subordinates everything to the maximum eco-nomic profit and the indiscriminate consumption atthe expense of nature. It does not work to debate be-tween communism, anarchism, socialism, capitalismor any other political theory of social organizationderived from classical mechanics mental structures(where there is just one level of reality), but to mimicour own nature. “If we want to get along with Gaia,it is precisely how we must see ourselves, as one votein a parliament of thirty (or perhaps even a hundred)million seats, a species among species” says biologistBenyus [22: 24]. Why the human species continuesmortgaging the future of millions of species by its ab-surd logic of irrational consumption, which involvesthe exploitation of natural resources? Why do webelieve in the epistemological illusion of unlimitedeconomic growth when it has never existed any livingspecies in nature, which grow endlessly to infinity?

4 Biomimicry: A Sustainable andResilient Meta-Model

Human irrationality in patterns of consumption andproduction of the current capitalist system is unsus-tainable and are also causing serious consequencesin the environment: climate change, desertification,destruction of natural resources, pollution of waterand air, global warning, etc. In this sense, if theprinciple of biomimicry is reclaimed as meta-model(economy, engineer, architecture, design, urbanism,industry, technology, artistic, political, educational,energy, etc.) to achieve a perdurable sustainabledevelopment, it is necessary a small mention of somethinkers who have proposed to learn from nature tobuild a more just, democratic, and better integratedwith the biosphere society. A good example is the


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


biologist and ecologist Barry Commoner [23], withthe formulation of the basic “laws” of ecology: 1)everything is connected to everything else. Thereis one ecosphere for all living organisms and whataffects one, affects all. 2) Everything must go some-where. There is no “waste” in nature and there is no“away” to which things can be thrown. 3) Natureknows best. Humankind has fashioned technology toimprove upon nature, but such change in a naturalsystem is likely to be detrimental to that system. 4)There is no such thing as a free lunch. Exploitationof nature will inevitably involve the conversion ofresources from useful to useless forms. In his laterbook Making Peace with the Planet, Commoner [24:15] notes that techno-sphere prevalent in industrial-ized societies “is in war” with the biosphere, causingglobal ecologic crises impossible to be hidden.

Those basic laws of ecology have a strong link withthe notion of “ecoliteracy” or “ecological literacy”developed by physicist Fritjof Capra [25] to under-stand the five organizational principles of ecosys-tems to build sustainable human communities: 1)Interdependence. 2) Cyclical nature of ecologicalprocesses. 3) Tendency to associate, establish linksand cooperate as essential characteristics of life. 4)Flexibility. 5) Diversity. In short, Capra [25: 20]argues that “understanding the life must be seen asthe scientific vanguard of the paradigm shift, from amechanistic world conception through an ecologicalconception”, postulating that human systems shouldbe governed by the key criteria of a living system:a) organizational pattern or configuration of relation-ships that determinate the essential characteristicsof the system; b) structure or physical embodimentof the organizational pattern of the system; c) vitalprocess or involved activity in the continuous physi-cal embodiment of the organizational pattern of thesystem [25: 175]. In other words, Capra believesreconnecting with the web of life means rebuildingand maintaining sustainable communities in whichwe can satisfy our needs and aspirations withoutdiminishing the chances of future generations. Forthis task we can learn a lot from ecosystems, truesustainable communities of plants, animals, and mi-croorganisms. To understand them, we must becomeecologically literate. “Being ecologically literate, be-ing ecoliterate, means understanding the organizingprinciples of ecological communities (ecosystems)and use these principles to build sustainable humancommunities. We need to revitalize our communi-

ties including education, business, and policies [25:307].”

The biomimetic approach is one of the most inno-vative responses in recent years to protect the envi-ronment and improve the quality of life through newsustainable habits of consumption and production.The term biomimicry comes from the ancient Greekbios (life), and mımesis (imitation). In the nineties,the term biomimicry would be used in disciplinaryfields of material sciences, cosmetic research, androbotics, until the American science writer Janine M.Benyus popularized it with her book Biomimicry: In-novation Inspired by Nature. Since then, biomimicryemerged as a new science that considers and valuesof nature as model, measure, and mentor: looking forthe inspiration and imitation of the natural processto be applied into social systems, and thus find inno-vative solutions to complex problems (such as SDG).“Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge thecorrectness of our innovations. After 3.8 billion yearsof evolution, nature has discovered what works, whatis appropriate, and what endures,” notes Benyus [22:13], affirming that biomimicry “begins an era basednot on what we can extract from the natural world,but what it can teach us.” Biomimicry representsa theoretical-pragmatic symbiosis between citizensfrom the North and the South, and also a fundamen-tal tool to face the climate change. In this line ofthought, Benyus recognized nine basic operationalprinciples of Life in the Nature that can be used asexample of beneficial model for human behavior:

1. Nature runs on natural sunlight: the energy ab-sorbed by almost all natural communities comesfrom the nuclear fusion that sun makes at 150million kilometers. “The solar, wind and tidalenergies, as well as biodiesel, all derive fromthe current sunlight” [22: 321]. When we burnfossil as oil, natural gas or coal, we are usingthe old sunlight, which remained trapped (com-pressed in an environment without oxygen) inthe bodies of animals and plants of the Car-boniferous period. When the combustion ismade, we are completing “the decompositionprocess suddenly, pouring the coal stored intothe atmosphere in large quantities, ignoring theecosystem precept of no big flows [22: 321].”Taking into account that our biosphere is al-most a closed and autopoietic system [26], thisattitude would be equivalent to burn the furni-ture inside our home with the windows closed.


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


Unfortunately, fossil fuels are too cheap andthe current consumer society, addicted to en-ergy, goes to full exploitation of these naturalresources. A good example would be the leaves,which perform photosynthesis (biochemical de-composition of solar energy in nutrients) withamazing 95% of quantum efficiency, four timesmore efficiency than solar panels built by hu-man.

2. Nature uses only energy and resources that itneeds: While it is true that second law of ther-modynamics converts energy into heat, and aportion of energy is no longer usable, natureknows how to get energy efficiently through dif-ferent ecosystem connections. In order to makean optimum use of limited habitat, each organ-ism has found a niche and only uses what itneeds to survive and evolve. Thus, the lessonsof natural systems can guide us to establishnew uses for energy. We must consider what weare maximizing (production) and focus more onoptimization, as natural systems do when theyinvest their energy in maximizing diversity tobecome more efficient in the process of recyclingorganic nutrients and minerals [22: 322].

3. Nature fits form to function: nature is a highlycooperative system made by dense interactionsbetween its components. The whole ecosystemnetwork has been built in the limits of availableresources and as a result, the entire ecosystemhas reached an internal coherence of intricateorganic patterns which form is adapted to thefunction. The nature optimizes rather thanmaximizing. On the contrary, our industrialecosystems “continue betting on higher rates ofproductivity and growth, for a maximum flowof material extracted from Earth and convertedinto shiny new items. 85% of manufacturedgoods quickly become waste” [22: 323]. Indeed,the current globalization economy defines itssuccess by fast growth and creates the illusionto measure progress and human development byindicators such as GDP and GNP. By contrast,organisms co-evolving in nature adapting them-selves into the changes of others because theirstructure play several functions in its environ-ment. “The lesson is that we have to delay thematerial manufacturing and put the emphasison quality and not quantity of new items [22:323].”

4. Nature recycles and finds uses for everything:“One of the key lessons of ecology systems isthat when a system accumulates biomass (totalweight of living matter), it needs more recyclingto avoid collapse” [22: 312]. The existence oftrophic chains in ecosystems has a circular orga-nizational scheme where producers, consumers,and decomposers have evolved together in aclosed loop to prevent the loss of resources: “allwaste is food, and everyone is reincarnated intothe body of other” [22: 313]. The problem of hu-man culture of production and consumption isthat it continues accumulating biomass withouta network of closed loops. In this sense, Benyusexplains several examples of “zero waste econ-omy” in European Nordic countries (especiallyDenmark) where there are small trophic net-works of industrial ecology with closed loops,where the exchange of information and the mu-tual wish to utilize the waste causes that allmanufactured products coming from market,re-entering into the production system throughlegislation recovery and reimbursement systems.

5. Nature rewards cooperation: in mature ecosys-tems the cooperative strategies among organ-isms are as important as competition. Ac-cording to the endosymbiosis hypothesis ofLynn Margulis [27], the symbiosis between twospecies is a fundamental element of evolution-ary progress from billions of years ago. Naturalecosystems operate in a complex symbiotic net-work of mutually beneficial relationships andwhen they grouped a large number, they makeup organs and organisms. In fact, the endosym-biotic theory postulates that our body is actu-ally a combination of unicellular organisms thathave conformed a huge pluricellular organism.Translated into the human production system,the Japanese industrial ecologist Michiyki Ueno-hara notes that “we have plenty arteries (maintracts where flow products from the industrialheart to the body of economy), but we also needveins, return tracts of used products to purifyand reuse their materials” [22: 318]. The les-son learned, therefore, is to build an economywhere the arteries and the veins have the sameimportance, what would imply the imitation ofecological systems of closed loops that reusesthe resources. According to Benyus [22: 319],an example of pre-competitive cooperation is


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


constituted by the American brands Chrysler,Ford, and General Motors, developing partner-ships for the manufacture of standard materialthat allow them to reuse parts of each other.

6. Nature depends on and develops diversity: theenormous development of diversity in natureis due to their experience of billions of yearsin “trial and error”. Nature is characterized, inconsequence, by the multi-referential approachthat randomness produced by the entropy (rup-ture of the order) has enabled with its flexibleopening to new anomalies. This eco-biologicalflexibility has enabled a large variety of animalsand plants over billions of years around the en-tire habitat of planet Earth. Therefore, thelesson we learn from nature is that our indus-trial system must be flexible to be adapted tothe emerging needs of global citizenship, andbe as diverse as its own environment to respectregional, cultural, and material uniqueness ofthe place.

7. Nature requires expertise and resources: gener-ally, natural ecosystems are connected in a rela-tively closed manner in the space-time. Thereis a rich biodiversity in the local ecosystemswhere many local species co-evolve togetherto be adapted to the changes. Unfortunately,the current capitalist trend is a global economywithout frontiers where manufactured goods areproduced in far countries geographically sepa-rated. In this sense, we must learn from thelocal knowledge and experience that indigenouspeople have, because “the idea of an adaptingeconomy to the land and take advantage of itslocal attributes would bring us closer to theorganisms that have evolved until become localexperts [22: 339].

8. Nature avoids internal excesses: “The biosphere(the layer of air, land, and water that sustainslife) is a closed system, meaning it is not im-ported or exported materials (apart from thenaughty meteorites)” [22: 332]. The autopoieticcharacter of the biosphere get that life main-tains the necessary conditions to regulate itselfthrough a constant exchange between organisms(photosynthesis, respiration, growth, mineraliza-tion, decomposition, etc.). Unfortunately, theglobal industrial system is an opened systemwhere “nutrients” become “waste”, without any

significant recycling process. This exploitationdynamic of natural resources and pollution ischanging drastically the natural process becausethey cannot recycle the huge amounts of CO2

emitted into the atmosphere (currently 355 ofeach million of molecules). The only answer isan industrial ecosystem that can be integratedin the biosphere without harming it.

9. Nature taps into the power of limits: naturehas learned that living with finite resources is apowerful resource of creativity. In nature thereare internal feedback mechanisms that optimizethe use of resources of the environment in con-stant balance, with moderation and withoutdevastating it. That means not mortgaging thefuture because, otherwise, it would die. Thelesson is that our current production systemcannot continue to push the limits of the planet.Nature teaches us to flourish within biologicallimits, without being in continuous predatoryexpansion. On the contrary, we must “adapt hu-man systems to ecosystems (biomimicry), man-aging greater efficiencies (eco-efficiency) andact on the demand with self-containment mea-sures (generalized demand management)” [21:28].

In short, the nine principles of life from naturethat Benyus [22] identifies are incompatible with thecurrent capitalist socio-economic order. “It couldeven be said that capitalism is the metaphorical an-tithesis of the natural process of life: in it prevailsexclusion, squander, deregulation, what we call to-day as relocations, as well as unaware speculativeflows to real production of goods and services” notesthe natural philosopher Luciano Espinosa [28: 66]compared to natural systems of the biosphere where“operate inclusive circuits of all member of the net-work, which are attached to the ground, tied tothe satisfaction of the basic needs and the constantrecycling of matter and energy” (ibid). This compar-ison seeks to understand the complexity of life. Abioethics understanding that should be promoted bythe SDG to face the global techno-economic dynam-ics that are destroying life on Earth. SDG shouldaim to establish itself as the political, educational,and epistemological tool able to modify the socio-ecologic metabolism through new symbiosis betweennatural ecosystems and human cultures systems ofproduction. To do this, Riechmann [21: 171] claims


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


to address the principle of biomimicry in a broadersense, “to understand the operating principles of lifein its different levels (particularly the eco-systemiclevel) with the goal to rebuild human systems in or-der to fit them in the natural systems harmoniously.”In this way, Riechmann [21: 211] also suggests sixbasic principles for the ecological reconstruction ofeconomy from the biomimetic perspective: 1) Home-ostasis or “steady state” in biophysical terms. 2)Living from the sun as energy source. 3) Close mate-rial cycles. 4) Do not carry too far the materials. 5)Avoid xenobiotics like POPs (persistent organic pol-lutants), GMO (genetically modified organisms), etc.6) Respect diversity. Together, we must rebuild ourhuman systems failing to grow economically to focusmore on the qualitative development. The economyis a subsystem of nature. Then, we must learn toconsume the only necessary natural resources for asustainable human development.

With this ecological vision, learning-teaching pro-cesses of the educational system should promote abiomimetic dialogue that fosters a planetary criticalconsciousness through global solidarity reflectionsand, ultimately, the emergence of new social orga-nization networks to compliance with the SDG [14].Metaphorically speaking, education is a living or-ganic structure in a constant process of adaptationand co-evolution with the environment. For this rea-son, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)program should not only think about how to inte-grate the biomimetic principles in local and nationaleducational curricula. ESD should also think abouthow to apply them as networks in an interconnectedworld. Since the scholarly microcosm embodies themacrocosm of social structures, the common futureof humanity among the planet Earth requires a truepolitical, epistemological, and educational transfor-mation that implies the emergence of a cosmodernparadigm characterized by the change of hierarchiesto networks in the social organization field. The con-ceptual notion of “cosmodern paradigm” is alignedwith the idea of “Cosmodernity” proposed by Nico-lescu [5] and with the “cosmodernism” of Moraru[29]. In the thoughts of both authors, there is animportant bioethics fundament of responsibility withworld problems, an epistemological call to overtakebinary and reductionist knowledge, and a contextualrelationship between human beings and the cosmos.

5 Cosmodern Education for aSustainable Development

Education is the main key to achieving a sustainabledevelopment in Gaia: being the seed that we mustcultivate for our present and future flourishing. Weneed to develop an integral view that includes thehuman being within co-evolutionary processes of BigHistory to achieve the SDG. “Sustainability is notjust a problem between us the humans,” explainsenvironmental educator Maria Novo [30: 368], “it isalso a serious problem of our relationships with thebiosphere, the way we appropriate resources, exploitnature, manage the commons, and how we considerthe limits of ecosystems.” For this reason, it is ur-gent to transform models of predatory behavior thathuman species exercise over Gaia, as well as theunequal distribution of wealth that only benefit aminority. In this regard, the identification of opera-tional principles and strategies that life is developingin nature represent biomimetic models that help usto live in Cosmodernity: where human beings co-evolves in sustainable and resilient harmony with allthe ecosystems of our planet.

Educate to live in the paradigm Cosmodernitymeans introducing transdisciplinary and biomimeticapproaches at all levels of formal education, butalso in non-formal and informal areas to develop thefull potential of the human condition. The oldestexample is found in many native and indigenouspeoples who are still training individuals through a“bio-literacy look” that persist for thousands of years.Human training of indigenous and aboriginal peoplesis focused on strengthening linkages and relationsbetween human beings and nature. This vision is farfrom educating people who are submissive workersin a globalizing economic system that tends towardhomogenization of cultural diversity and ends witha large portion of the biodiversity on Earth. Forthis reason, the United Nations Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes “that respectfor indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditionalpractices contributes to sustainable and equitabledevelopment and proper management of the environ-ment” [31: 2]. All worldviews of indigenous peoplesare a good example for a resilient and sustainabledevelopment because they have been developing ex-cellent socio-ecological practices during thousandof years. While we cannot fall into the romanticidealization of the indigenous community, all their


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


rich epistemic multi-referentiality is in full harmonywith the co-evolutionary limits and margins thatecosystems set in a self-organizational way.

In 2009, General Assembly of the United Nationsproclaimed April 22 as the “International Day ofMother Earth” to pursue this harmony with nature.Since then, the General Secretariat of the UN haspublished annually a resolution on Harmony withNature to recognize the Earth and its ecosystems asour common home. The aim is the Member Statesachieve a fair balance between economic, social, andenvironmental needs of present and future genera-tions. For this reason, we must face the paradig-matic crossroads of climate change from an “ecologyof knowledge” [32] to develop and improve all humandimensions through a transdisciplinary organizationof knowledge that combines scientific reason withother epistemic, spiritual, religious, emotional, po-litical, rhetorical, poetic, artistic, and philosophi-cal aspects. Undoubtedly, dialoguing with indige-nous and aboriginal wisdom enable us to developmore resilient epistemological horizons. When thismulti-referential and transdisciplinary perspective isadopted, education becomes an epistemic tool thatsearches individual development of people withina vast network of relationships with other humanbeings, but also with nature and the cosmos. Thatis why all theoretical models that reduce sustainabledevelopment to just three dimensions (economic, so-cial, and environmental) are failing to address theinherent complexity of the interdependent networkof systems that are interconnected at various levelsof ontological reality. This is the epistemic point ofdeparture to create a holistic and transdimensionaleducation to strengthen ties with sustainability toachieve the SDG in 2030. The potential developmentof global citizenship represents the genesis of a cul-tural metamorphosis that reinvents our relationshipwith the sacred: moving from the exploitation ofnature to create new biomimetic models to learnfrom it in order to achieve a lasting sustainable de-velopment.

Educate to live in Cosmodernity requires, there-fore, a civilizational mindset that transforms thecore of the paradigmatic collective imagination thatModernity began in the West in the seventeenthcentury. It was established worldwide through com-puterization of economic globalization. If we want toachieve the SDG it is essential to reflect on the his-torical origins of our educational systems. Education

can be both a way to aggravate the socio-ecologicalproblems, but also an instrument of change thathelps us to solve them. From a historical pointof view, ideological discourse created by the powergroups during Modernity has used educational knowl-edge to establish a set of behaviors, norms, andactions that have served to structure hierarchicallyWestern modern societies. For this reason, educationbecomes a fundamental key to change historical civ-ilizational direction and walk towards sustainability.Cosmodern education promotes a transdimensionalunderstanding where the human being is seen as aunique species that co-evolving in a shared ecosystemwith more than ten million other species. We mustlearn to respect, preserve, and regenerate them. Wecannot extinguish the infinite wisdom accumulatedover billions of years of planetary biodiversity. It isurgent to transform mankinds domination approachto nature, into an approach of stewardship. Theprocesses of domestication (about 10,000 years agowith Agricultural Revolution) and industrialization(about 250 years ago with Industrial Revolution)have accelerated exponentially ecological degrada-tion. Now it is the time to learn to co-evolve asa sub-system within the biophysical limits of Gaia:our Earth-Homeland [33].

From this co-evolutionary vision that integratesthe human being in his earthly and cosmic context,the concept of sustainable development gain a newsidereal dimension to see how all living forms that co-inhabit in Gaia represent an exceptional miracle inthe universe. This type of “Cosmic Education” wasformulated in 1935 by the biologist, medical doctor,psychiatrist, anthropologist, philosopher, educator,and pedagogue Maria Montessori. As shown in Fig-ure 1, the Montessori method is a set of knowledge,practices, and recommendations characterized bythe emphasis on the interdependence of all naturalelements. This method seeks to create conditionsfor children 6 to 12 years – future global citizens-to strengthen their feelings of cooperation, respect,and love in relations with the own nature and thecosmos. “Life is a cosmic agent. How shall thistruth be presented to the children so as to striketheir imagination?” Maria Montessori questioned [2:32]. Aligned with Big History, Cosmic Education isbased on giving children freedom to explore, study,and learn about the early universe, the origin oflife, human evolution, language development, andthe history of mathematics. They learn to appreci-


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


Figure 1: Maria Montessori’s Cosmic Education method. Resource: Omni Montessori School.

ate how diverse cosmic forces operate and interactaccording to the complex laws and co-evolutionarystrategies of nature: “another – and stronger- fac-tor in evolutionary processes is concerned with thecosmic function of each living being, and even ofinanimate natural objects, working in collaborationfor the fulfillment of the Purpose of Life” [2: 42].This cosmic vision in pedagogy is an essential seedto achieving the blossoming of a conscious globalcitizenship ready to comply with the SGS [14].

In sum, Montessori’s Cosmic Education promotesa sustainable human development where students feelcreative, deeply, and self-aware about how the wholeand the parts are interrelated. The epistemologicalcore of this pedagogical approach is aligned withthe thought of indian educator Jiddu Krishnamurti[34: 26]: “to learn the mind must remain highlysensitive, and learn implies we see every problem,not as an isolated event, but as a fact related toothers.” Hence Krishnamurti [34: 185] says, “Weneed, internally, a great revolution. And to have

the possibility make this great psychological andmental revolution we must go beyond the limitsof our own mind.” For this reason, self-awarenessand management of our emotional intelligence areessential elements that all models of education mustinclude in their pedagogical praxis to emancipatehuman beings in Cosmodernity.

In this sense, combining the thoughts of Montes-sori and Krishnamurti is a good way to understandthat sustainability is a complex and transdimensionalprocess, which is at the same time inside and out-side of the human beings. This cosmodern approachconstitutes an epistemological openness that seeksto integrate and combine multiple cosmic, physical,ethical, emotional, affective, cultural, and artisticdimensions of a human being who constantly co-evolves in systemic and interdependent processes ofenergy, matter, and information [35]. Herein liesthe need to reintroduce all these dimensions in theteaching & learning processes of formal, non-formal,and informal education, because they are human di-


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


mensions directly linked to imbalances of the currentworld. “The psychological transformation is moreimportant than outer change. The outer fundamen-tal changes are not possible unless there is a radicaltransformation, a true revolution in the psyche”, ex-plains Krishnamurti [34: 192], “outer changes andreforms are necessary, but they are always destroyedby our inner state of confusion, disorder, and vio-lence.” Therefore, it is clear that governments arefailing in their educational reforms because they aretrying to face complex problems of the current glob-alized world by making the same mistakes of thepast. In this process, they are alienating millions ofyoung adults in higher education who do not see anyuse in university attendance, especially in the West.In order to face the dangers of the future, with thecollective aim to meet the SDGs by 2030, we willneed a holistic, systemic, and transversal reflectionon the appearance of human beings in the Big His-tory, without forgetting the epistemic worldviewsand cultural traditions of each particular context.

In the paradigm of Cosmodernity, scientific knowl-edge of an external physical universe converges withthe spiritual knowledge of an inner emotional uni-verse. “Our transdisciplinary education experiencefor sustainability includes the spiritual dimensionas a core for creating relevant knowledge within oursocieties, at local and global levels,” explains an-thropologist and economist Cristina Nunez [36: 109].This means that educational success cannot be re-duced to a simple quantification carried out by stan-dardized tests of reading, science or mathematics, ashappens with PISA2 tests developed by the OECD.The real educational success lies in understandingthat students have spiritual, emotional, and psycho-somatic experiences with the intention to developdeep connections with other people, with life, withnature, and with the cosmos. Theory and practicebelong together in the paradigm of Cosmodernity,as ideas and sensorial experimentation converge todevelop a meaningful learning in all educational lev-els. This educational vision of human training isdefended by neurologist Antonio Damasio [in 37:34], who considers: “it is necessary that politicaland educational leaders come to understand how im-

2The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)report is a worldwide study by the Organization for Eco-nomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in memberand non-member nations of 15-years-old school pupils’scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and read-ing.

portant is the knowledge about emotion and feelingbecause many of the reactions we consider patholog-ical have to do with emotions, mainly with socialemotions, and with the ease that social conflicts aretriggered.” This kind of emotional education seemsto be a fertile and prosperous path that leads us tothe heart of an education that prepares us to achievesustainable development.

Educating is a transcendental act in the lives ofpeople that forces us to recognize problems outsidethe classroom. It is necessary to challenge our owneducational paradigm to encourage a culture of peaceand sustainability that promotes social and demo-cratic transformation. “This is not another reform,but a real structural transformation in the mind-set, raise, implement, and management basic educa-tion”, argues educator Moacir Gadotti [38: 47], whoclaimed the need to create a “pedagogy of the Earth”or “eco-pedagogy” that goes beyond the school logicand reach the entire society. For Gadotti [38: 93],eco-pedagogy “is concerned with the ‘promotion oflife’, relational content, experiences, attitudes, andvalues”, so education should not be confused withthe formal and institutionalized schooling processes.While the

schooling logic is focused in the speech, educa-tional logic is focused on the process. “Foundedon the principle of competitiveness, selection, andsorting, traditional pedagogies do not help in thedevelopment of citizens who needs to be more coop-erative and active” [38: 87]. On the contrary, mosteducational organizations that do not behave likean isolated island in their social environment whichdevelop formal, non-formal, and informal networks,are already fostering a sustainable mindset. A goodexample is the formal education system of Finland,where secondary schools train students in an inter-disciplinary way through complex concepts such assustainability, climate change, globalization, etc.

In this line of transdisciplinary human training,psychologist and education scientist Gaston Pineau[39] and medical and anthropologist Patrick Paul[40] have proposed different models. In both theoret-ical models of human training, it seeks to think incomplex ways to understand the interrelationshipsof the whole with the parts and vice-versa. Conse-quently, knowledge and human learning imply thedevelopment of self-regulating, self-organizing, andself-transforming processes that involving differentdimensions of human complexity. According to the


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


Figure 2: Modeling the Anthropoformative Theory of Paul [40]. Epistemological levels of consciousness in differentlevels. Resource: Sommerman [41: 808].

“Tripolar Theory on Training” postulated by Pineau[39], where the methodology explores life storiesand various formulations that subjects give to theirtraining paths, there are three essential processes inthe human training: personalization, socialization,and ecologization. This theoretical perspective ledhim to formulate three concepts of human training:the “self-training” in relation to oneself; the “hetero-training” in relation to the others; and “eco-training”in relation with the world. Pineau [39: 130] explainsthat term “self-training” came before the other twoand favored the development of research on “empow-erment of the actors for the appropriation of theirpower of training.” The concept “hetero-training”refers to the social dimension of education and trainaction in relation with other people and the term“eco-training” means training processes with respectmaterial environment [39: 132]. In turn, Pineauhighlights that none of these training dimensionsshould be prioritized over another, and that is whyhe suggests the term “co-training” to describe certaineducational processes focused on the interrelationsof actors, where nonhierarchical inter-retro-actionsoccur.

It is here that Paul [40] advocates for an artic-ulation of all these human dimensions postulatedby Pineau to develop a fourth dimension that hecalls “onto-formation.” According to his “Anthro-

poformation Theory”, Paul [40: 28] argues that hu-man training is the “global and general process (atthe same time particular and unique, but also so-cial and collective) that articulates the interactiverelations between eco-formation, hetero-formation,self-formation, and onto-formation.” In additionto increasing a new dimension, Paul [40] also pro-poses a detailed modeling of the different levels ofeducational reality of the transdisciplinary subject,which is summarized in the following figure made bySommerman [41: 808]:

As Sommerman [41] summarized in Figure 2, themodel proposed by Paul [40] is composed of fourdimensions of human training: ontoformation (L0),self-formation (L1), heteroformation (L2), and eco-formation (L3). According to Paul [40: 531-535], thelevel of reality N0 is unitive and corresponds to theonto-formative dimension, where a unary logic is nec-essary to understand virtuality and potentiality thatgoes beyond of all form and image of this level. L1 isa non-dual level corresponding to self-formative di-mension, where all potentialities contained in L0 aremanifested, for whose understanding is required thelogic of the included middle. The L2 level concernsto dual interactions of hetero-formative dimension,whose binary logic runs about life and death, thesubjective and the objective, the individual and thecollective, etc. Finally, L3 is the fusion level corre-


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


sponding to an eco-formative dimension where thesymbiosis is the functional basis of living systemsof nature. In turn, these four dimensions are episte-mologically crossed by the transdisciplinary subjectthrough different stages: moving from eco-formation(L3) to hetero-formation (L2) constitutes the psy-chogenetic path of human training; moving fromhetero-formation (L2) to self-formation (L1) is theimaginary path, and the passage from self-formation(L1) to onto-formation (L0) is the theophanic pathof a human being’s overall training [40: 541]. As awhole, multidimensional modeling proposed by Pauland Pineau [42] for human being training representsa new transdisciplinary approach that helps us toface planetary challenges that humanity has to meetthe SDG. Therefore, educating to live in Cosmoder-nity means developing the potential of these fourdimensions for a transdisciplinary training of a com-plex human being in constant material, energetic,and informational co-evolution.

This anthropo-formative vision is complementedfor a complex model of emotional training that wecannot forget in Cosmodernity: the called emotionaleducation. This educational approach is a phychope-dagogical innovation focused on the endogenous de-velopment of people to shape their interiority in-side a universe of emotions. Emotional educationis supported by the scientific foundations providedby social psychology, neuroscience and psychoneu-roimmunology, and it seeks to meet social needs thatare not met by traditional academic subjects. Soemotional education is within the latest movementsof pedagogical renewal and regeneration. This emo-tional perspective redefines the “Theory of MultipleIntelligences” and potentiates the self-, hetero-, eco-,and onto-formation because it provides meaningfullearning of cosmodern human training. In short,emotional feelings, spirituality, and interiority areimportant facets to achieve mental, social, and en-vironmental balance needed to improve the humanwelfare in a resilient and sustainable manner withall ecosystems of the Earth. What is the role of emo-tions to manage sustainability? How can emotionshelp us to achieve the SDG? Is it possible to speakabout eco-emotional education?

6 Inner Education in a Universe ofEmotions

From a historical point of view, human emotionshave been little studied by modern scientific psychol-ogy, but in recent decades more attention went tothis fundamental human dimension. According tothe specialized literature, Michael Beldoch first usedthe term “emotional intelligence” in his book TheCommunication of Emotional Meaning in 1964. Inearly 1990, social psychologists Peter Salovey andJohn Mayer [43: 189] proposed the “Theory of Emo-tional Intelligence,” defining emotional intelligence“as the subset of social intelligence that involves theability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings andemotions, to discriminate among them and to usethis information to guide one’s thinking and actions.”However, the term was popularized in 1995 withthe publication of the book Emotional Intelligencewritten by psychologist and science journalist DanielGoleman [44, 55-56], who reports five basic domains:1) Knowing ones emotions (self-awareness); 2) Man-aging emotions (resilience/ mood management); 3)Motivating oneself (self motivation); 4) Recognizingemotions in others (empathy); 5) Handling relation-ships (social competence).” Since then, there havebeen different theoretical models but they have neverbeen exempt from criticism alleging lack of indicatorsor gauges of this type of intelligence. But, how couldwe measure emotions and feelings? How to measureour passions and affects? According to scientificagreement, it is clear that emotional intelligence can-not be measurable today, at least with intelligencetests that have been applied since the 1910s to pre-dict school performance of children. The educatorKen Robinson [45] states that most in intelligencequotient (IQ) tests only reflect a measure of linguis-tic, logical (mathematical), and spatial skills, butdo not consider other intellectual dimensions suchcreativity. Hence the controversy between the scien-tific communities to assess what types of intelligenceexist.

In 1983, the “Theory of Multiple Intelligences”,created by neuropsychologist Howard Gardner, be-came a pioneering model that opened the debateto redefine intelligence. Since then, numerous au-thors have been proposing and criticizing modelsfocused on the study of intelligence. While the tra-ditional definition of intelligence was rather reduc-tionist and focused on cognitive aspects, Gardners


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


theory [46] focused more on the multiples ways inwhich we think and learn. Despite the great aca-demic controversy, many schools of thought are us-ing this model to understand the multidimensionalnature of human intelligence. For Gardner andhis team, there are eight types of intelligence andeach person develops some more than others de-pending on their personal skills and paradigmaticsocial influence: 1) verbal-linguistic intelligence, 2)logical-mathematical intelligence, 3) visual-spatialintelligence, 4) musical-rhythmic and harmonic in-telligence, 5) bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, 6) in-trapersonal intelligence, 7) interpersonal intelligence,and 8) naturalistic intelligence. Extending theseideas about intelligence, Gardner and Hatch [47] sug-gest that interpersonal intelligence recognizes andresponds to the moods, temperaments, motivationsand desires of others; while intrapersonal intelligencefocuses on self-knowledge and access to one’s feelings.Currently, they are also investigating the existenceof the ninth multiple intelligence: the “existentialintelligence.” Therefore, a theoretical and concep-tual model of multiple forms of intelligence is veryclose to the “Theory of Emotional Intelligences” [43].This suggests that emotional intelligence plays animportant role in internalizing the resilient and sus-tainable behavior necessary for the compliance ofthe SDG because this biological phenomena goesbeyond of our cultural constructions..

From a phylogenetic evolutionary standpoint, thehuman species has developed the ability to combinereason with an inner universe of emotions and feel-ings that have accompanied it for thousands of yearsduring its evolution. Emotions have been passeddown from generation to generation and are a fea-ture and indispensable part of our human nature.Without them, we would be psychopaths with anti-social personality disorders. “As we all know fromexperience when it comes to shaping our decisionsand our actions, feeling counts every bit as much –and often more- than thought” argues Goleman [44:18], adding that “each emotion offers a distinctivereadiness to act; each point us in a direction thathas worked well to handle the recurring challengesof human life.” According to some sociobiologists,these automatic reactions of emotion-action wererecorded in some form in our nervous system andwere crucial to surviving during the long period ofhuman prehistory. Here it is important the specifica-tion introduced by the neurologist Antonio Damasio

[48: 110]: “while emotions are actions accompaniedby ideas and certain modes of thinking, emotionalfeelings are mostly perceptions of what our bodiesdo during the emoting, along with perceptions ofour state of mind during that same period of time.”Thus, neuroscience affirms that emotional feelings“color” our life from beginning to end, regardless ofour nationality, ethnicity, culture, race or religion.

In this sense, it is curious that most internationalevents I have participated always talk about “uni-versal values” and not about “universal emotionalfeelings.” In my opinion, this is a transcendentalepistemic mistake we must correct if we want toachieve the SDG. When we try to identify the uni-versal values that are present in all cultures of theworld, we run the serious risk of homogenizing therich and complex cultural diversity of peoples [10].According to the estimation made by the philosopherKenneth Shoulder [49], there are currently around4,200 religions worldwide. In turn, the researchproject Ethnologue reckoned there were around 7,102living languages for a population of 7.1 billion peo-ple in 2015. After colonization and imperialism, itis clear that epistemic approaches that “universal-ize” values almost always have a strong Westernimprint, as happened with the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights. On the contrary, by focusingthe discourse of sustainability using a transculturalbiological phenomenon, such as human emotionalfeelings, education gain a new epistemological per-spective of feeling-thinking to build “another worldis possible.”

7 Spiritual and ReligiousDimension of the HumanCondition

In addition to emotional dimension, the book TheTao of Liberation: Exploring the Ecology of Trans-formation written by the ecologist Mark Hathawayand theologist Leonardo Boff [50: 376] also advo-cate for the spiritual dimension: “The spiritualityof each person is in some sense unique, and our ownspirituality may draw on a variety of religious orphilosophical traditions, as well as our own personalexperience.” However, they also warn “most of hu-manity draws on religious traditions as a key sourceof spiritual insight. It is nearly impossible to considerspirituality without also considering the influence –


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


both potentially positive and negative- of religion”[50: 376]. Therefore it is necessary to differentiatespirituality from the historical interests that haveprevailed and continue to occur within religions. Tothis end, the work, Why Religion Matters, writtenby Huston Smith [51] is a good study that helps usto establish an interreligious dialogue of most prac-ticed and influential beliefs today: Christianity (33%of the world population), Islam (21%), Hinduism(14%), Buddhism (6%), traditional Chinese religion(6%), and Judaism (0.25%) [49].

As shown in Figure 3, the diagram has a formof the mandala with the flower of life in the centerrepresenting the common wisdom of native indige-nous peoples. The mandala addresses the interpre-tations that the main religious beliefs have aboutthe relationship between reality and selfhood. Atthe top, the levels of reality are reflected in the lev-els of selfhood of the bottom through four circlesof different intensity. This figure depicts the manysimilarities between of the six most influential reli-gions practiced today by approximately 80.25% ofcurrent world population. If we also note that 16%of world citizenship is secular, not religious, agnosticand atheist, it means that only 4% of the world pop-ulation, about 275 million people, practice the other4,195 religious worldviews identified by Shouler [49].Thus, the mandala serves us to recognize ourselvesin the mirror of the other, of the infinite otherness,since there are numerous bridges between these greatreligious dimensions.

Throughout mankind history, religion has consti-tuted a risk factor for all the wars that took place,especially in the Middle East . This is an area ofgreat instability due to a complex network of eth-nic, racial, political, and economic factors that ariseby the coexistence of three monotheistic religions:Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Currently, inter-religious conflicts are suffered in countries such asNigeria (Christians and Muslims), Israel (Jewish andMuslim), Thailand (Buddhists and Muslims), Sudan(Muslims and non-Muslims), Afghanistan (funda-mentalist Muslims and non-Muslims radicals), andin Bosnia and Kosovo (Catholics, Muslims, and Or-thodox). At the same time, intra-religious conflictsare giving more visibility within Islam, between Shi-ites and Sunnis, in suppressed countries as Syria,Lebanon or Iraq. In these countries, the so-called“Islamic State” is emerging and threatening the worldthrough terrorism practiced by its followers in the

“holy war” against the West.

All these confrontations seem to indicate that wehave developed a wrong way to seek our spiritual-ity. Instead of cultivating and researching the mindand our relation with the sacred, we have preferredto maintain dogmatic beliefs: mistaking them withreligion and spiritual growth. For this reason, allliberating education must transgress these epistemicparadigms to promote an investigative mind thatquestions and find out for itself, rather than repro-duce and imitate contents of a certain “holy book”written thousands of years ago. In line with this, theIndian theosophist Padmanabhan Krishna [52: 27]marks that “Jesus did not become Christ througha church or a belief, but through his own under-standing and his own research. Buddha attainedenlightenment and understanding through his ownmeditation, his own research. We must understandthis and correct the situation in our educationalsystem.” The pedagogy of freedom must guide ateach individual of global citizenship in their ownintellectual, emotional, and spiritual research, ques-tioning the epistemic paradigms where they live in.What is my identity? Why is this my nationality?Why should I follow this particular religion? Whatare my responsibilities with nature given my humancondition and ability for reflection? Only by re-searching and having our own insights we will learnto give these answers. Repeating the answers ofJesus, Buddha, Mohammed or other spiritual lead-ers we will not be cultivating our own conscience tosafeguard life on Earth. Each response is unique andnon-transferable.

Critical thinking and self-knowledge is one of themost important skills that students must learn tobecome spiritually literate. For this reason, it isimportant to reinvent the sacred from our own in-dividual hermeneutic, which involves learning todialogue in an intra-religious form. According tothe philosopher, theophysicist, and expert in reli-gious comparisons, Raimon Panikkar [53: 74]: “Ifinterreligious dialogue is to be a real dialogue, an in-trareligious dialogue must accompany it, i.e., it mustbegin with my questioning myself and the relativityof my beliefs.” The thought of Panikkar is a meetingpoint between East and West, his his works is anongoing intercultural and interreligious dialogue thatleads to mutual fertilization between cultures andcivilizations: where everyone learned from everyone.“Each language is a world of its own (...) each culture


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


Figure 3: Levels of Reality and Levels of Selfhood in the most influential religious beliefs (flower of life added byauthor). Resource: Smith [51: 224].

is a galaxy with its own criteria of goodness, beauty,and truth” [54: 29]. The truth is pluralistic and thismeans no one has all the elements for the judgmentof other cultures. Pluralism makes us aware of ourcontingency and our limits to judge, showing how tocoexist with a cultural diversity that implies galaxiesof worldviews with own criteria of reality. Accordingto Panikkar [55], every culture and civilization havethree ontonomic orders (myth, logos, and mystery)and an interrelated cosmotheandric dimension. Thismeans that Human History, Cosmic Existence, andDivine Destiny are inseparable. Thus, Panikkar [55]unifies and reconciles the physical cosmology and thereligious cosmology, giving a new philosophical and

spiritual sense to the ontonomy of science. This isthe pure essence of the Cosmodernity paradigm [56].In sum, the pluralistic consciousness reminds us thatevery culture or religion are intrinsically opened tobe fertilized by others since the understanding of ourhuman identity/condition in the universe requirescomprehensive solidarity among all beings to bringus to the knowledge of the ontological structure ofreality. Therefore, we must develop a comprehen-sive look at the teaching and learning processes thattake place in the institutions of the educational sys-tem. But, how to educate to live in the paradigm ofCosmodernity?


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


8 Educating to Live in theParadigm of Cosmodernity

Educating to live in the paradigm of Cosmoder-nity means developing new processes of meaningfullearning by exploring different types of human intel-ligence (rational, spiritual, social, emotional, ethical,etc.) that help us to feel-think-act in response toour current emergency situation. Thus, CosmodernEducation cultivates the emotional, spiritual, andecological literacy as its foundation to develop asustainability mindset where science, culture, andspirituality are interlinked in the cosmos for a re-silient and sustainable human development on Earth.This triple literacy helps students to develop a cos-modern consciousness. Emotional feelings, thoughts,and actions are part of the same phenomenon of in-separable interconnections that form the basis of oursocio-ecological relations In this sense, emotional edu-cation helps us to potentiate the meta-cognition pur-sued by anthropocentric and ecocentric approachespromoted in values education, global citizenship edu-cation, education for gender equality, environmentaleducation, education for sustainable development,etc. Emotional education emerges, therefore, as aparallel phychopedagogical dimension that comple-ments transcendentally self-formation, heteroforma-tion, ecoformation, and ontoformation. CosmodernEducation cannot be an act of transmitting valuesand knowledge, but a creative, constructive andtransformative act. Students must learn to developa continuous self-conscious dialogue to feel-think-actwith their emotional feelings, thoughts, and actions.

According to educators Maria Candida Moraesand Saturnino de la Torre [57: 41-42], “humans actas a whole, where thought and feeling are in holo-movement conjugating themselves, so it is difficult toknow which one prevails over the other.” Whit thiscomparison of the two basic movements of retrac-tion and expansion that physicist David Bohm [58]created in his “Theory of Holomovement”, Moraesand Torre argue that feeling-thinking is a flow ofrelational and dynamic emotions that interact withthe mind, body, and action of individuals to trans-form their environment. Recognizing that emotionsare the foundation of reason, as asserted by biologistHumberto Maturana [59], education is perceived as aholistic phenomenon with multidimensional implica-tions affecting all dimensions of the human condition- mind, body, and spirit. Without those dimensions,

an alienation process takes place and the individualand social senses are lost. Therefore, emotions definethe type and quality of human actions during theirsocial and relational coexistence. For this reason,it is important to work the emotional education inall areas of formal, non-formal, and informal edu-cation. Emotional feelings, thoughts, and bodilyactions are part of the same phenomenon of insep-arable interconnections that form the basis of oursocio-ecological relations. If we want to meet theSDG we have to overcome the fragmentation of posi-tivist culture of the twentieth century to understandthat all human knowledge is linked to an infiniteuniverse of emotions that shapes our interiority.

In this line of thought, the psychotherapist ClaudeSteiner postulated the term “emotional literacy” in1997 to describes the ability to know the emotions,the ability to empathize with the emotions of others,and the art of learning to manage our emotions tosolve emotional problems resulting from the interac-tion with others. According to this view, emotionalliteracy helps us understand our inner emotionaluniverse with the intention to facilitate relationsof social coexistence. We assume the responsibilityfor our actions by putting emphasis on emotionaltraining of individuals and seeking to improve in-terpersonal relationships. “An open heart is thefoundation of emotional literacy and a prerequisitefor the next two stages of emotional literacy training:Surveying the Emotional Landscape and Taking Re-sponsibility” argues Steiner [60: 57], “that is whythe training starts here, by learning how to give andtake affection – or in plain English, by learning tolove.” Educating for emotional literacy is a dual pro-cess of personal development and collective activity,i.e., self-development and community building wherethe sense of welfare grows along with others in acommon and shared environment. In that way, emo-tional education broadens epistemic horizons of ESDto achieve the SDG’ targets, since it seeks to trans-form entire global citizenship from the root: makingthem affectively responsible for current ecologicaland civilizational crisis.

In a school environment, there are different philo-sophical and pedagogical movements that seek todevelop a social emotional learning to train mankindintegrally. A good example is the “Waldorf educa-tion” postulated by the philosopher Rudolf Steinerin the early twentieth century, which promotes thephysical, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and artis-


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


tic development of students with the aim of develop-ing free, socially competent, and morally responsi-ble individuals. Steiner’s theosophical training ledhim to join anthroposophy to education, applyingthe process of reincarnation in pedagogy to expandthe material world into the spiritual world. Fromthis epistemological perspective, Steiner [61: 5-6]explains that “anthroposophy is therefore the knowl-edge of spiritual man, and that knowledge is notconfined to man but is a knowledge of everythingwhich spiritual man can perceive in the spiritualworld, just as the physical man observes physicalthings in the world. (...) The knowledge which heacquires may likewise be called ‘spiritual science’.”Thus, the material world merges with the spiritualworld in addressing the integrity of the human be-ing. This endogenous development is also present inthe perspective of spiritual evolution and materialreincarnation of Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo.“If evolution is a truth and is not only a physical evo-lution of species, but an evolution of consciousness,it must be a spiritual and not only a physical fact”points Aurobindo [62: 343] while explains “if thereis the evolution of a conscious individual, then theremust be rebirth. Rebirth is a logical necessity and aspiritual fact of which we can have the experience.”According to Aurobindo [62: 35], “through inten-sity of emotion that the psychic being awakes andthere is an opening of the inner doors to the Divine,”which means that soul grows during its experiencein the evolution of life by experimenting emotionswith the purpose to develop its own nature.

Based on these ideas, physicists and philosophersDanah Zohar and Ian Marshall [63: 9] created theconcept of “Spiritual Intelligence” (SQ) to refer tothe soul of intelligence: “SQ is the intelligence thatrests in that deep part of the self that is connectedto wisdom from beyond the ego, or conscious mind,it is the intelligence with which we not only recog-nize existing values, but with which we creativelydiscover new values.” For Zohar and Marshall [63],SQ is not culture-dependent or value-dependent - itcreates the very possibility of having values in ourcultures. Influenced by the Vedanta philosophy ofSwami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi, Zoharand Marshall [63: 263] put forward seven practicalsteps to improve our spiritual intelligence: 1) becomeaware of where I am now, 2) feel strongly what Iwant to change, 3) reflect on what my own centeris and on my deepest motivations, 4) discover and

dissolve obstacles, 5) explore many possibilities togo forward, 6) commit myself to a path, 7) remainaware there are many paths. Taken together, thesesteps are aimed at making the “spiritual being” beconnected to the whole, having the feeling of in-tegrity. In a similar way, the specialist psychologistin interiority, spirituality, and emotional education,Luis Lopez Gonzalez [64: 47] considers that “interi-ority is the human capacity that allows developingthe consciousness of one’s self and the environment,giving sense and meaning to the own existence.” Forthis reason, many authors seem to agree that emo-tional education is a parallel and complementarypath to spiritual education and the education ofour interiority in the complex processes of humandevelopment.

From this multi-referential perspective of our inneruniverse, it seems clear that global citizenship can-not meet the SDG without proper training focusedon the meaningful learning of emotions, spirituality,and interiority. They all are dimensions of our hu-man condition that must be potentiated to generatesustainable actions. When neuroscience points outthat our actions are preceded by neuronal electro-chemical impulses caused by emotional feelings andthoughts that arise from our interiority, it can beconcluded that we externalize what it is inside ofus, and vice-versa, because we also internalize whathappens outside. This complex process of constantinter-retro-actions between subjects and the envi-ronment is an important feature in the co-evolutionof living systems. Nonlinear understanding of thisemotional order-disorder of our inside-outside uni-verse is essential for those who work with sustainabledevelopment. It implies recognizing sustainability asthe result reached by global citizenship – a complexadaptive system- in intermediate conditions of orderand disorder. Sustainability also is, therefore, anemotional and spiritual issue. So the contributionsof emotional and spiritual education are essential forsustainable development and Gaia’s care. Accordingto educators Angela Antunes and Moacir Gadotti[65: 143]: “our first education is an emotional ed-ucation which places us before the mystery of theuniverse, in close contact with it, creating in us thefeeling of being part of this sacred and living crea-ture that is constantly evolving.” In this context ofcosmic evolution, Antunes and Gadotti [65] proposeeco-pedagogy as the proper pedagogy for the pro-cess of the Earth Charter, where it is promoted the


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


emotional feeling of belonging to one common andshared home at the universe: Earth-Homeland.

From a similar pedagogical worldview, educationalpsychologist Rafael Bisquerra [37] is inspired in theontological structure of the outer universe to or-ganize the universe of emotions of our interiority.In his book Universe of Emotions there is a strongcosmo-mimetic creativity with rich theoretical contri-butions to emotional education. While the universeis formed by galaxies, the universe of emotions iscomposed by families of emotions that Bisquerra[37] metaphorically referred to as galaxies of emo-tions. They are massive clusters of affective phenom-ena and the largest structures in which emotionsare agglutinated. “It is estimated around 100,000million galaxies in the universe. Emotions are pro-cessed in the brain, where there are estimated about100,000 million neurons,” explains Bisquerra [37: 21]while arguing “this curious numerical coincidenceis another excuse to propose a parallel between thecosmic universe and the universe of emotions pro-cessed in the brain.” Analogous to the “wheel ofbasic emotions” designed by medical doctor RobertPlutchik in his “Theory of Psychoevolution” or the“Circumplex model of Affects” proposed by psycholo-gist James Russell, the “universe of emotions” alsorepresents a didactic, phychopedagogical and psy-chotherapeutic resource. The universe of emotionsis based on knowledge and scientific theories, butBisquerra [37] recognizes that its configuration isopened to different interpretations due to the intan-gibility of emotions. In its original sense, astronomyis the science that studies the celestial bodies of theuniverse (galaxies, stars, planets, satellites, etc.) andis divided into four main branches of knowledge: po-sitional astronomy, celestial mechanics, astrophysics,and cosmology. In his emotional model, Bisquerraargues that:

Positional Astronomy aims to locate thestars in the celestial sphere. It describesthe movement of the stars, planets, satel-lites, and phenomena such as eclipses. Theapplication into the universe of emotionsis determining the position of various emo-tions in space. Celestial mechanics aimsto interpret the movements of positionalastronomy. It studies the movement of theMoon, the planets around the Sun, theirsatellites and calculates the orbits of cometsand asteroids. Its application into the uni-

verse of emotions is to analyze the move-ment to cross from one emotion to another.Astrophysics studies the stars as physicalbodies, analyzing their composition, struc-ture and evolution. Its application intoemotions is to analyze the intrinsic traitsof each one of them. Cosmology studiesthe origins, structure and evolution of theuniverse as a whole (...). Its application tothe emotions is to study their origin andprimitive functions and their evolution [37:19-20] (own translation).

With this cosmomimetic vision, Bisquerra [37] de-fines the epistemological model to create his visionof the emotional universe. The complex universeof emotions is structured in galaxies of emotionsthat, having similar features and nuances, they aregrouped in the same family group. The large spiralgalaxies are formed at the top by joy, love, and hap-piness; while the galaxies of fear, anger, and sadnessare in the bottom. The surprise appears as a barredspiral galaxy because it is an ambiguous emotion.Social emotions and aesthetic emotions are ellipticalgalaxies. In turn, disgust and anxiety are irregulargalaxies. Collectively, galaxies form a central prismsymbolizing the connection between positive (above)and negative (below) emotions. Emotions belongingto one galaxy are divided into four levels measur-ing their intensity. “We must make it clear that allemotions are good. The problem is what we do withthem. The way we manage them determines the ef-fects they will have on our welfare and on the others,”says Bisquerra [37: 47] adding: “while all emotionshave value, some make us feel good and other makeus feel bad. Hence some are called positives andother negatives depending on whether or not pro-vide welfare.” While the constellations of positiveemotions (joy, love, and happiness) are representedat the top, the constellations of negative emotions(fear, anger, and sadness) are at the bottom. Theexistence of these two constellations represents ouremotional polarity: joy-sadness, love-have, etc. Inthe emotional intergalactic space are located thevalues and attitudes for their implication in the af-fective states that embody our actions. Here liesthe importance to understand how “universal val-ues” emerge from the emotional feelings of our inneruniverse. If a human being did not have the abilityto feel emotions would be a psychopathic speciesincapable of understanding the planetary emergency


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


of current unsustainability. In fact, this is what hap-pens with large corporations at the transnationallevel [50]. They are entities without conscience oremotional feelings that are guiding the course ofhumanity towards climate catastrophe in their in-satiable desire for economic profit. For this reason,sustainability must be conceived as a complex andinterdependent process that spans multiple cosmic,ecological, political, economic, epistemic, emotional,and spiritual dimensions.

From this perspective of sustainability, it is so im-portant to know the cosmic universe as well as ourinner emotional universe. While the knowledge ofa cosmic universe allows us to assess the emergenceof life in the Big History as an exceptional eventthat we must preserve and conserve at all costs; theemotional knowledge or our inner universe allows usto improve the quality of our relations with otherpeople and with nature. Therefore, walking towardssustainability means setting the emotional course forour mental, social, and environmental welfare. Wecannot let the markets of economic globalization con-tinue managing the civilizing course because it hasa huge negative impact on our personal health andthe planet’s health. The great transition to “otherpossible worlds” is a twofold process of internal andexternal transformation of our human condition thatrequires new transdisciplinary educational modelsaimed to create strong links between emotions andthe environment. This symbiosis represents the idealmindset for the emergence of a cosmodern educationthat allows us to improve our human ability to learnhow to co-evolve in harmony with all ecosystems ofnature.

Emotional learning has a key paper to respectthe Pachamama (our Mother Earth according to theindigenous cultures of the Andes) and to achievethe SDG. When the emotional and socio-ecologicalpedagogical practices are integrated, it is possible toplant the seed of sustainability in every human being:stimulating their self-esteem to improve their socialskills and develop healthy lifestyles for our planet.As demonstrated by neuroscience, emotional feelingsprecede our actions, which means that before learn-ing to inter-retro-acting sustainably we must learnto feel in harmony with nature. It is for this reasonthat sustainable development can not be reducedto just three dimensions (social, economic, and en-vironmental), as happens in almost all statementsof the UN system. This reductionist view does not

allow us to internalize the complex phenomena thatare inter-retro-acting constantly in the continuumof life during its co-evolution with the environment.As it has been demonstrated in this study, our emo-tions, spirituality, and interiority are a fundamentaldimension for the achievement of the SDG through acomprehensive and sustainable human development.For this reason, “before a child learn the alphabetand some notions about the world, should learnwhat is the soul, truth and love, and what forcesare sleep in the soul,” explains pacifist activist Ma-hatma Gandhi [66: 100], arguing that “an even moreessential part of education should teaching child towin the battle of life to conquer hatred with love,falsehood with truth, and violence with his own suf-fering.” In the educational philosophy of Gandhiji(as he is popularly known in India), love is a feelingthat fights against violence to be a law of truth andlife. What is the role of love in the future we want?

9 Final Conclusions for the FutureWe Want

SDG have an important role in Big History becausethe human race has had a profound impact on the cli-mate and environment of the Earth. They representour last opportunity to avoid ecological extinctionand points of no return in the new geological erawe have entered – the Anthropocene. This period ischaracterized for the great human footprint on Earth,causing a huge extinction and dramatic environmen-tal degradation. Reflecting on challenges concerningthe SDG carries many questions and approaches.Therefore, the transdisciplinary and biomimetic con-tribution of this study has to be understood as a pro-posal to raise the consciousness in evolution, openedfor new re-interpretations, additions, and consider-ations. I believe that emerging global citizenshipmust learn to contextualize human history, life his-tory, history of Earth, and the history of the universefrom transdisciplinary methodological approaches.This involves examining the multidimensional iden-tity of the emerging planetary citizenship througha cosmodern approach that views the complexity ofthe human condition as an individual-society-species:contextualizing cosmo-biologically the human speciesto understand we all are ontologically equal beings(with the same molecular composition of DNA); witha rich cultural and spiritual diversity that character-izes every society in terms of their phenomenological


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


and hermeneutical historical context; and with in-terests, motivations, and dreams radically differentbetween individuals. A human condition is, more-over, interconnected in the cyber-space-time throughmobile devices in its virtual identity condition. Thiscosmodern vision that contextualizes our human con-dition in a multidimensional way supposes a trueeducational transformative tool to promote a newmindset where we all are ready to feel-think-act inharmony with nature. In short, this cosmodernphilosophy is the epistemic training of authenticworldlists, an expression created by the Argentinewriter Ernesto Sbato to argue the great need of ourplanetary civilization to have people who are takingcare of the most urgent and global problems of theworld. In this sense, love is the most powerful energyto transform our world-society.

For this reason, we have to implement this trans-disciplinary and biomimetic vision in all pedagogicalcontexts of schools and universities to strengthenthe links between education and sustainability. Thiscosmodern mindset promotes the creation of newsocio-economic models with planetary character tofeel-think-act in harmony with co-evolutionary pro-cesses of nature. Biomimicry is a meeting pointbetween the societies called “primitive” and the so-called “hyper-technological” because it has a spiri-tual and ecological corpus playing the symbiogeneticrole between nature and human culture. Thus, thepast and the future are present in the spiritual andscientific research process, complementing a commonreality shaped by the undivided wholeness of con-sciousness, matter, and energy [67]. “Just like trans-disciplinarity, biomimicry-inspired problem solving,with a deep emphasis on how humans from all walksof life can learn from nature, focuses on the pro-cesses and energy flows inherent in deep, complexinteractions among people’s internal world and theirexternal world, mediated by such factors as culture,art, religion, and spirituality”, said McGregor [7: 63].Transdisciplinarians refer to the latter as the Hid-den Third, the place full of potential where people’sexperiences, interpretations, descriptions, represen-tations, images, and formulas meet. Then, we haveto combine a framework of convergence between sci-entific knowledge that our outer physical universeoffers us, with the spiritual wisdom of the inneremotional universe of mankind [68]. According toNunez [36], the ancient philosophical traditions ofindigenous peoples show us that psychosomatic ex-

periences between the body and the mind help us toestablish and develop sacred connections between Na-ture and Life – promoting sustainable human habitswith the environment. A good contemporary exam-ple that seeks to rescue such millenary knowledgeand wisdom of the Aboriginal peoples of Australiais the permaculture created by the scientific DavidHolmgren [69].

In current context, SDG educational strategies ofAction Framework for 2030 should seriously reflecton the possibility to build a great human familythrough a cosmodern consciousness that identifiesour human condition within co-evolutionary pro-cesses of Big History. In abstract, it is necessaryto foresee the future to be ready when it arrives,because there are not doubts that nanotechnology,quantum computers, artificial intelligence, contactlenses with internet access, genetic mutation of DNA,and space travels will radically change our humanhabits in a short period of time. That is why we musttrain global citizenship for the emerging Cosmodernparadigm [70: 105]. It has come the time to walktogether to the challenges of this new civilizationalparadigm following the African proverb that says,“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to gofar, go together.” Are you ready? I invite all readersto move forward with any thought inspired by thetransdisciplinary and biomimetic ideas of this workfor the fulfillment of the Sustainable DevelopmentGoals.

References

[1] Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization. Social Theoryand Global Culture. London: SAGE.

[2] Montessori, M. 2004. Para educar o potencial hu-mano. Sao Paulo: Papirus Editora.

[3] Christian, D. 2010. Mapas del tiempo: Introduccina la Gran Historia. Barcelona: Ed. Crıtica.

[4] Spier, F. 2011. El lugar del hombre en el cosmos.La Gran Historia y el futuro de la Humanidad.Barcelona: Crtica.

[5] Nicolescu, B. 2014. From Modernity to Cosmoder-nity. Science, Culture, and Spirituality. New York:SUNY.

[6] Collado-Ruano, J. 2016b. La bioetica como cienciatransdisciplinar de la complejidad – una introduc-cin coevolutiva desde la Gran Historia. In: RevistaColombiana de Bioetica, vol. 11, n 1, 54-67.


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


[7] McGregor, S. 2013. Transdisciplinary andBiomimicry. In: Transdisciplinary Journal ofEngineering & Science, vol. 4, 57-65.

[8] Morin, E. 1999. Los siete saberes necesarios para laeducacion del futuro. Parıs: UNESCO.

[9] Morin, E. 1983. El metodo II. La Vida de la Vida.Madrid: Editorial Catedra.

[10] Collado-Ruano, J. 2016c. Epistemologia del Sur:una visin descolonial de los Objetivos de DesarrolloSostenible. In: Sankofa, vol. 9, no. 17, 137-158.

[11] Kauffman, S. 1995. At Home in the Universe: TheSearch for the Laws of Self-Organization and Com-plexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[12] Ehrlich, P. & Raven, P. 1964. Butterflies and Plants:A Study in Coevolution. Publicado em Society forthe Study of Evolution, Vol. 18, No. 4, 586-608.

[13] Janzen, D. 1980. When Is It Coevolution? In: Evo-lution, 34 (3), 611-612.

[14] Collado- Ruano, J. 2016a. Una perspectiva trans-disciplinar y biomimetica a la educacion para laciudadanıa mundial. In: Educere, no. 65, 113-129.

[15] Zinkernagel, R. 2007. On observing and analyzingdisease versus signals. In: Nature Immunology, no.8, 8-10.

[16] Korotayev, A., Markov, A., & Grinin, L. 2015. Mod-eling of Biological and Social Phases of Big History.Evolution. From Big Bang to Nanorobots. Uchitel,Publishing House, 111-150.

[17] Norgaard, R. 1994. Development Betrayed. The endof progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of thefuture. New York: Routledge.

[18] Morin, E. Roger, E. & Motta, R. 2003. Educar enla era planetaria. Barcelona: Gedisa.

[19] Sahtouris, E. 1998. A Danca da Terra. Sistemasvivos em evolucao: uma nova visao da biologa. Riode Janeiro: Rosa dos Tempos.

[20] Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. 1996. Our EcologicalFootprint. Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

[21] Riechmann, J. 2014. Un buen encaje en los ecosis-temas. Segunda edicion (revisada) de Biomımesis.Madrid: Catarata.

[22] Benyus, J. 2012. Biomımesis. Como la ciencia innovainspirandose en la naturaleza. Barcelona: Tusquetseditores.

[23] Commoner, B. 1973. El cırculo que se cierra.Barcelona: Plaza y Janes.

[24] Commoner, B. 1990. Making Peace With the Planet.New York: Pantheon.

[25] Capra, F. 1998. La trama de la vida. Una nuevaperspectiva de los sistemas vivos. Barcelona: ANA-GRAMA.

[26] Lovelock, J. 1992. Gaia: una ciencia para curar elplaneta. Barcelona: Ed. Integral.

[27] Margulis, L. 2002. Planeta simbiotico. Un nuevopunto de vista sobre la evolucion. Madrid: Debate.

[28] Espinosa, L. 2007. La vida global (en la eco-bio-tecno-noos-fera). LOGOS: Anales del Seminario deMetafısica, vol. 40, 55-75.

[29] Moraru, C. 2011. Cosmodernism: American Nar-rative, Late Globalization, and the New CulturalImaginary. Ann Arbor: The University of MichiganPress.

[30] Novo M. 2009. El desarrollo sostenible. Su dimensionambiental y educativa. Madrid: Ed. Universitas.

[31] Naciones Unidas. 2007. Declaracion de las NacionesUnidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indıgenas.New York: Naciones Unidas.

[32] Santos, B. S. 2010. Para alem do pensamento abyssal:das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. In:Epistemologias do Sul. 31-83. Sao Paulo: Cortez.

[33] Morin, E. & Kern, A. 2005. Tierra-Patria. Barcelona.Kairos.

[34] Krishnamurti, J. 1977. A Suprema Realizacao. SaoPaulo: Editora Cultrix.

[35] Maturana, H. & Varela, F. 1980. Autopoiesis andCognition. The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht:Reidel Publishing Company.

[36] Nunez-Madrazo, M. 2012. Sustainability and Spiri-tuality: A Transdisciplinary Perspective. In: Trans-disciplinarity and Sustainability, TheATLAS pub-lishing, 102-111.

[37] Bisquerra, R. 2015. Universo de emociones. Valencia:PalauGea.

[38] Gadotti, M. 2000. Pedagogıa da Terra. Sao Paulo:Editora Peiropolis.

[39] Pineau, G. 2004. Temporalidades na formao. SaoPaulo: Triom.


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


[40] Paul, P. 2009. Formacao do sujeito e transdisciplinar-idade: historia de vida profissional e imaginal. SaoPaulo: TRIOM.

[41] Sommerman, A. 2012. (Teses Doutoral) A interdisci-plinaridade e a transdisciplinaridade como novas for-mas de conhecimento para a articulacao de saberesno contexto da ciencia e do conhecimento em geral:contribuicao para os campos da Educacao, da Saudee do Meio Ambiente. Salvador.

[42] Paul, P. & Pineau, G. 2005. Transdisciplinarite etFormation. Paris: L’Harmattan.

[43] Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. 1990. Emotional Intelligence.In: Imagination, Cognition and Personality, vol. 9,no. 3, 185-211.

[44] Goleman, D. 1995. Inteligencia Emocional. Rio deJaneiro: Objetiva.

[45] Robinson, K. 2011. Out of Our Minds: Learning tobe Creative. Mankato: Capstone.

[46] Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory ofMultiple Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

[47] Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. 1989. Multiple intelligencesgo to school: The educational implications of thetheory of multiple intelligences. In: Educational Re-searcher, v.18, 4-10.

[48] Damasio, A. 2010. Self Comes to Mind. Constructingthe Conscious Brain. New York: Pantheon.

[49] Shoulder, K. 2010. The Everything World’s ReligionsBook. Explore the beliefs, traditions, and cultures ofancient and modern religions. Avon: Adams Media.

[50] Hathaway, M. & Boff, L. 2014. El Tao de la lib-eracion. Una ecologıa de la transformacin. Madrid:Trotta.

[51] Smith, H. 2003. Why Religion Matters. The Fateof the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. Harper-Collins e-books.

[52] Krishna, P. 2013. Educacao, Ciencia e Espirituali-dade. Brasilia, Editora Teosofica.

[53] Panikkar, R. 1999. The Intra-Religious Dialogue.New York: Paulist Press.

[54] Panikkar, R. 1998a. El Imperativo intercultural. Un-terwegs zur interkulturellen Philosophie. Dokumen-tation des II. Internationalen Kongress fur Interkul-turelle Philosophie. IKO - Verlag fur InterkulturelleKommunikation.

[55] Panikkar, R. 1998b. The Cosmotheandric Expe-rience. Emerging Religious Consciousness. Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

[56] Collado-Ruano, J. Galeffi, D. Ponczek, R. 2014.O paradigma da cosmodernidad: uma abordagemtransdisciplinar a Educacao para a Cidadania Globalproposta pela UNESCO. In: Revista da FAEEBA:educacao e contemporaneidade, Salvador, v. 23, n.42, 141-152.

[57] Moraes, M., & De la Torre, S. 2002. Sentirpensarbajo la Mirada autopoietica o como reencantar cre-ativamente la educacion. In: Creatividad y Sociedad,no. 2, 41-56.

[58] Bohm, D. 1992. A totalidade e a orden implicada.Uma nova percepo da realidade. Sao Paulo: Cultrix.

[59] Maturana, H. 1999. A ontologa da realidade. BeloHorizonte: UFMG.

[60] Steiner, C. 2003. Emotional Literacy: Intelligencewith a Heart. Learn to achieve better personal andprofesional relationships. Fawnskin: PersonhoodPress.

[61] Steiner, R. 1992. Approaches to Anthroposophy. Hu-man Life from the Perspective of Spiritual Science.Edited by Joan M. Thompson. Sussex: RudolfSteiner Press.

[62] Aurobindo, S. 2003. The Integral Yoga: Sri Au-robindo’s Teaching and Method of Practice. Com-piled by Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Pondicherry: LotusPress.

[63] Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. 2000. SQ: Spiritual Intel-ligence. The Ultimate Intelligence. Connecting withour Spiritual Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Pub-lishing.

[64] Lopez, L. 2015. Educar la interioridad. Barcelona:Plataforma Actual.

[65] Antunes, A. & Gadotti, M. 2005. La ecopedagogıacomo la pedagoga indicada para el proceso de laCarta de la Tierra. In: La Carta de la Tierra enaccion. IV. Democracia, no violencia y paz. Pp. 141-143.

[66] Gandhi, M. 2001. Palabras para la paz. Santander:Sal Terrae.

[67] Maturana, H. & Varela, F. 2001. A arvore do conhec-imento: as bases biolgicas do conhecimento humano.Sao Paulo: Palas Athena.

[68] Krishnamurti, J. 1966. A mutaao interior. Sao Paulo:Cultrix.

[69] Holmgren, D. 2010. Permaculture: Principles &Pathways Beyond Sustainability. London: Perma-nent Publications.


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016


70 Collado-Ruano, J. 2016d. Paradigmas episte-

mologicos en Filosofıa, Ciencia y Educacion. Ensayos

Cosmodernos. Saarbrucken: Editorial Academica

Espanola.

About the Author

Dr. Javier Collado Ruano, Professor in Philosophy of

Education, Big History, and International Relations. PhD

in Dissemination of Knowledge by the Federal University

of Bahia (Brazil), and PhD in Philosophy by the Univer-

sity of Salamanca (Spain). Master degree in Sociology

of Education by the University of Seville (Spain). Grad-

uation in History by the University of Valencia (Spain),

with specialization in Archaeology and International Re-

lations by the Universit degli Studi di Palermo (Italy).

Journalist and Director General at Global Education

Magazine. Academic Member at Big History Institute in

Mcquarie University (Australia), and World Biomimetic

Foundation in University of Barcelona (Spain).


Vol. 7, pp. 98-122, 2016

Date post:	13-Aug-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamnhu
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Cosmodern Education for a Sustainable Development: a...

Documents