RHIZOME TRANSMETHODOLOGY. CATEGORIES AND INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Humanity is urgently in need of a new knowledge that will provide “the knowledge of how to use knowledge” for the survival of man and for the improvement of the quality of life [...] and therefore I propose the term Bioethics to emphasize its two most important ingredients to achieve this new knowledge that is urgently required: biological knowledge and human values ​​(Potter, 1971, p. 8).

And yet, this elucidating, enriching, conquering, triumphant science raises ever more serious problems regarding the knowledge it produces, the action it determines, the society it transforms. This liberating science provides at the same time terrifying possibilities for subjugation. This knowledge so alive is what has produced the threat of annihilation of humanity. To conceive and understand this problem, we must end the stupid alternative between a “good” science, which only brings advantages, and a “bad” science, which only brings harm. On the contrary, and from the beginning, we must have a thought capable of conceiving and understanding ambivalence, that is, the intrinsic complexity that is at the very heart of science [...] (Morín, 1984, p. 32).

In the epigraphs that present this research, Edgar Morín and Van Potter make it clear that humanity is urgently in need of a new knowledge that will provide a science with conscience, an ethic as a way of living with the other; imperatives for the survival of the land-homeland. Which means that science must be redeemed in favor of life; knowledge in favor of recivilization and survival, where of course we cannot travel the same paradigms and paths because we will arrive at the same results that exemplify with reality the crisis that we are crying out for redemption.

If there were doubts that another path was needed, the Covid-19 pandemic (which took on gigantic proportions in the first quartile of 2020 and continues to cause deaths and other ills until mid-2021) becomes global evidence that it is necessary to rethink humanity. As Chomsky (2020, p. 27) pointed out: “We are at a confluence of different crises of extraordinary gravity, before which the fate of the human experiment is literally at stake”.

Of course, in the epigraphs the authors Edgar Morín and Van Potter give an account of the disrespect for life, in any form; the science of survival, the love of wisdom must go through reviewing and considering the complexity of the human being, and returning to the ancient thinkers, retaking reason not only in the mind but also in the spirit; love of wisdom, an ecosophy that addresses the social, environmental, mental and spiritual converges in that we are nature, we did not come to conquer it, we came and we were created after creating it; told in the book of Genesis in the Sacred Scriptures and therefore Van Potter creates Bioethics to emphasize the crisis that has been seen since then, and Edgar Morín in the same vein cries out for the recivilization of humanity; understanding that every crisis belongs to humanity.

In the seventeenth century, modern science was constituted autonomously, it was conceived under the postulate of objectivity, separating knowledge, knowing and their ways of constructing knowledge from ethics. This was eradicated from the moment that Rome invaded Greece and the exemplary Greek knowledge of the delight of knowing, ethics and moral behavior was chosen, in which the being became known for its deep metacognitive development in a dialectic-dialogue. The representatives of modern science had to know by knowing, whatever the moral, political, and religious repercussions might be.

Extreme severity when science was introduced to universities in the 19th century, then in the 20th century, at the heart of industrial companies and

[…] Finally in the heart of the States, which finance scientific research and seize its results for their own purposes. Scientific development henceforth determines the development of our society which in turn determines scientific development. Henceforth, what was valid for nascent, marginal science, already threatened, is not true at the time of the omnipresence and gigantism of science in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. (Morín, 2006, p. 77).

We need to take another path and, therefore, we want to clarify ecosophy and bioethics as some of the categories of the complex object of inquiry. Ecosophy is a complex pragmatics where “the cosmotheandric intuition indicates the triple relationship between human beings, the divine and the cosmos, that is why for Panikkar the term ecosophy means a new spiritual wisdom that combines the three dimensions” (Sepúlveda, 2018, p. 267). Where we serve Panikkar (2008, online): […] “The wisdom of the Earth itself, of our habitat, of our home, which is revealed to us once we are open to understanding it, to surrender to the spell of what it is revealing to us. It is the wisdom of the Earth, not human expertise”.

And hence the wisdom that summons us also attends to a bioethical wisdom, where the abysmal thought that separates life into topois (the accepted truths, according to Aristotle) ​​approach with diatopic hermeneutics part of the thematic consideration that it is necessary, “Understand the other without assuming that he has our same self-knowledge and basic knowledge. Here the last human horizon is at stake and not only contexts different from each other” (Panikkar, 2003, p. 23). The decolonized aspect appears on the scene as recognition, without seeking superiority in places or representatives of them, the full inclusion in the respect and safeguard for life.

With this, we make Van Potter's words more complex, when he broadcasts that what he was interested in was the questioning of progress and where all the materialistic advances typical of science and technology were leading Western culture:

Express my ideas from what, according to my point of view, became the mission of bioethics: an attempt to answer the question facing humanity: What kind of future do we have ahead of us? And do we have a choice? Consequently, bioethics became a vision that demanded a discipline that will guide humanity along the “bridge to the future” (Potter, 1998, p. 25, our italics).

It is fulfilled, thus, in this framework that unchecks reductionism, with the complex objective of analyzing the complex bioethical dyad and ecosophy as planetary ethics, as wisdoms to inhabit the planet, from Van Potter and Edgar Morín with contributions for a more humane education. All of this from comprehensive, ecosophic and diatopic hermeneutics as a research transmethod (Rodríguez, 2020a). It is worth noting that the transmethodological framework of research ventures into transdisciplinarity complexity, that is, transcomplexity. That complicates traditional methods, in this case hermeneutical science as a guide to the inquiry.

Comprehensive, ecosophic and diatopic hermeneutics as a transmethod of theoretical construction, conjugated and complexed with the comprehensive, ecosophic and diatopic exercise is published in an unpublished way in Rodríguez (2017). With this transmethod we are going to question the thematic territories of the crisis; and from categories such as ecosophy and diatopia with the steps of Santos (2003): analytical, empirical and purposeful, we are going to fulfill the complex objective within the framework of the research line entitled: transepistemologies of knowledge-knowledge and transcomplex transmethodologies.

The transmethod recovers in an anti-genealogy of modernist-postmodern-colonial research a transepistemology, beyond modernist reductionist knowledge, denoted by irreducible separability: introduction, development, results and conclusions. They go further, in rhizomatic formations to complexly entangle, as is from the stem to the leaves, from the flowers to the root, such as the rhizome, the word of Biology (Delueze & Guattari, 2004).

In noting that the transmethod is located in the transcomplexity as a category and transmethodology, I enclose an ethical responsibility of non-reductionist, and inclusive knowledge, through the “understanding of the multiple levels of reality; designates the conjunction of the simple and disciplinary, what goes through and transcends these” (Rodríguez, 2020b, p. 3). These multiple realities are thought of in an innovative way; incisive is creating other decolonial forms and ways of thinking about knowledge; interwoven with diatopia and ecosophy, without exclusions.

The first characteristic of the transmethod is included the subjectivities of the investigating subject with their contributions and feelthinking; in which he is also a victim of the planet’s crisis process and an agent of change (Rodríguez, 2020a). At the analytical moment we are going to contrast the ideas of works of the original authors of the investigation: Edgar Morín and Van Potter, among other authors and representatives of ecosophy and diatopia. These first moments have begun to develop in the present rhizome and in which it continues entitled: ecosophy as the wisdom of inhabiting the planet, in complex bioethics. The propositional moment of the transmethod is developed with the steps issued by Boaventura de Sousa Santos and is presented detached from bibliographic citations in the rhizomes: Complex bioethics and ecosophy as ethics-wisdom to inhabit the planet.

This is a step developed with the aim of abandoning the simplifying and reductionist pragmatic idea of ​​research, to permeate the transmethod, planetary decoloniality and other categories that in this sense will permeate the inquiry. Advancing that spiritual ecology is part of ecosophy and thus the beliefs and feelthinking of the authors are present in the investigation with the subjectivity of the researchers; who are aware that there are no ultimate truths and are not committed to the modernist-postmodern-colonial way of investigating.

ANALYTICAL RHIZOME: ECOSOPHY AS THE WISDOM OF INHABITING THE PLANET, IN COMPLEX BIOETHICS

Ecosophy as the art of inhabiting the planet is a cosmic existential proclamation, a critique whose exegesis follows a plural reasoning with a cultural and complex sense, but at the same time, implicated with the destiny of man and earth, which converge on the social, spiritual, mental and environmental (Pupo, 2017). This proclamation of life has its roots in José Martí and Raimón Panikkar and that the complex thinker Rigoberto Pupo rescues in his works as Marti's heir. At the present time of the world crisis, we can issue that: Ecosophy-anthropoetics: a recivilization of humanity, where “it is everyman for himself!” (Rodríguez & Mirabal, 2020).

In the lines of exit to the crisis of civilization, we take into account that “to safeguard the cosmic miracle that represents the emergence of life, new transdisciplinary bioethical perspectives must be adopted that address the ecosystem complexity of the coevolutionary processes of life” (Collado, 2016, p. 54). The lack of wisdom to inhabit the planet is notorious, where does wisdom come from? How to reach the maximum development of Spiritual Intelligence? Hence, ecosophy as a constitutive category of inquiry, uniting philosophy, art, science and all human production to the earth, becomes a new intelligence of the oikos, the house of the world and a practical renewal of ethos, ways of living (Rodríguez & Mirabal, 2020).

Ecosophy being of excellence as an ethicity that permeates bioethics in a complex way, since it is the wisdom of balance between these three dimensions of reality, “harmony is precisely this natural, spontaneous, free game between these three dimensions. Why a new balance? Because every moment is new” (Panikkar, 1994, p. 28). The three dimensions being the environment, social relationships and the subjectivity of each one, we must be aware of the resignification of the human as a complexity that is shaped by the spiritual that comes from the spiritual ecology that constitutes one of the three ecologies of the ecosophy.

This is how Santos (2002) seeks that proximity of the topoi in a dialogue of knowledge, searches in each of his works intermediate ways of approach, which of course here we ratify that it is only possible through decolonized processes where one of the topoi that has been hidden or buried. For this reason, transmodernity is essential; even more so, the embrace and recognition that allows transcomplexity where each one of them recognizes each other in spaces of respect and legitimacy.

In such a transparadigmatic space, transmodernity is born diatopic hermeneutics as an urgency to “understand the other without assuming that he has our same self-knowledge and basic knowledge. Here the last human horizon is at stake and not only contexts different from each other” (Panikkar, 2003, p. 23). The decolonized aspect appears on the scene as recognition, without seeking superiority in places or representatives of them. Releasing being, doing, being, suffering and dreaming towards inclusions in every sense.

This is how we return to the original creation of bioethics, where

it deals with the interaction between people and biological systems. Political Bioethics is essential for healthy decision-making and the creation of sound policies. In other words, action will have to be constrained and guided by biological knowledge while Bioethics emerges and is finally converted into voluntary agreements or regulatory laws in specific instances (Potter, 2002, p. 156).

In all this, the ethics of life enters the scene: bioethics that Van Potter (1971), as stated by the researcher, need an ethic of the land, an ethic of wildlife, an ethic of population, of an ethic of consumption, an urban ethic, an international ethic, a geriatric ethic, among others. All of these problems require actions based on values ​​and biological facts. All of them include Bioethics and the survival of the total ecosystem constitutes the proof of the value of the system.

And there education for a dignified life in old age, for example, both one's own and collaborating in respect for the other, minimizing that separating thought of denying diversity and affirming “that the distance to be overcome is not merely temporary, within a unique and wide tradition, but it is the distance that exists between human topoi, “places” of understanding and self-understanding” (Panikkar, 2007, p. 23). All these problems of respect for life are problems that Van Potter has wanted with global bioethics he has wanted to take on. And that later became distorted in a reductionist ethic. But it returns to Potter for the analysis of bioethics. Today, the problems that she must address are of greater complexity, for this reason she must resort to complexity and transdisciplinarity to obtain essences of exit from the crisis.

Bioethics must address the need for a reform of thought, since the need to re-civilize is urgent in knowledge, re-civilize the wrong reductionist knowledge, divided responsible for inhuman actions, “humanity is imbued in a dialectic of knowledge because there is a clear distance between the event and the awareness of its meaning “(MORÍN, 2011, p. 19). But also re-civilize thought and the cognitive aspect of thinking, “two types of cognitive deficiencies: Own blindness that requires interdisciplinary knowledge; the occidental centrism, gives us the illusion of possessing the universal” (Morín, 2011, p. 19).

In the urgent re-civilization of humanity there is no doubt that all the edges and complexities of the behavior of the human being must be reached, which has been far from human, we see for example “the consumer intoxication of the middle class develops while the situation of the poorest classes and inequalities worsen” (Morín, 2011, p. 23). For this reason, we must re-civilize wealth in the hands of a few and achieve the minimum desirable conditions of inhabiting the planet. And that process of recivilization we safeguard the acts in global bioethics that Van Potter issued in 1971. We analyze them briefly, it is an act of faith where Van Potter (1971) affirms that he accepts the need for immediate action to remedy a world in crisis and is committed to working with others to improve the formulation of my beliefs, develop additional creeds, and join a worldwide movement that enables the survival and more beneficial development of humanity in harmony with the natural environment. They are commitments that we are all expected to make, for a more humanized world full of life.

One of the leaps of faith is to accept that the future survival and development of humanity, both culturally and biologically, are strongly conditioned by current human activities and programs. Thus, commit to trying to live their own life, and influence that of others, in a way that promotes the development of a better world for future generations of humanity, avoiding actions that endanger their future. Wherein, an act of faith is to accept the unique character of each individual and their instinctive need to contribute to the establishment of a better society in a way that is compatible with the long-term needs of society. In this way, assuming the commitment to listen to the reasoned points of view of others, whether they are the majority or the minority; and I will recognize the role of emotional engagement in producing effective actions (Potter, 1971).

Van Potter (1971) continues to affirm, in his complex bioethics, that certain human sufferings are inevitable because they necessarily result from natural disorder in living beings and in the physical world. But you should not passively accept the suffering that comes from the inhuman behavior of the human being towards the human being. On the contrary: you have to commit yourself to facing your own problems with dignity and courage, helping your fellow men when they feel distressed and working with the goal of eliminating the useless suffering that humanity suffers as a whole (Potter, 1971).

All these acts of faith must be had by all people, as long as respect for life. An act of faith that the definitive nature of death is accepted as a necessary part of life. Like Potter (1971), we affirm the veneration for life, the belief in the brotherhood of all humans and the commitment to seek to live beneficially for the lives of our present and future fellow men and to be favorably remembered by those who survive us.

As we can see, these ecosophic ideals of Potter's global bioethics have left much to be desired in today's reality, their praxis is far from the intentionality of their creator. We must not, nor can we, remain in criticism and the imputation of those adverse realities, however necessary and just that criticism and denunciation may be; “It is essential to develop - build - alternative paths and, above all, walk along them” (Sotologo & Delgado, 2006, p.114). Following the integrative, cultural and complex character that characterizes it, much can be contributed to the constructive and transforming interpretation of a morality, founded on the common good, justice, freedom and the virtue of the human being, “ecosophy is committed to the destiny of our planet and the life that inhabits it […] capable of fostering communication and understanding of human beings on new cosmovision bases” (Pupo, 2017, p. 20).

When it is said that the current reality has left much to be desired, it is because, in reality, we do not have a project of humanity, but of rivalry. We have lived an ancient narrative of wars, if not with nuclear bombs, silent, in which we kill ourselves in different ways: enslaving other human beings, denying them food and drinking water, decent work, housing, among others. Sometimes you have to face a common enemy, like the virus that causes Covid-19; but such a confrontation is never a project of humanity. Thus, it is no coincidence that, in periods of crisis such as the pandemic that we are experiencing, it always brings highly damaging results for many people and communities, but it also produces new millionaires and billionaires.

The globalized society of the 21st century has to become aware, urgently, of the socioeconomic unsustainability of the “globalizing four-engine” (Morín et al., 2003, p. 104) of science, industry, capitalism and technology; This is done in our decadent formation; For this reason, reaching an ecosophic knowledge is a mission that redeems us every day as human beings. That is why we returned to Paulo Freire, and we anchored in his hope:

In speaking with such hope of the possibility of changing the world, I do not want to give the impression of being a lyrical or naive pedagogue. Speaking in this way, I am not unaware of how difficult it is becoming, more and more, to get involved in favor of the oppressed, of those who are prevented from being (Freire, 1997, p. 55).

It should be taken into account that this complex ethicity takes up in ancient thinkers the notion of ethics with the complex perspective, “Aristotle already said that ethics should seek the good life” (Goldim, 2014, p. 7). And we ask ourselves and we question, what ethics has been carried in human being in a land destroyed by inhuman actions? For this reason, the task of bioethics is key and the path that has taken in modernity that has not allowed to penetrate sufficiently in the change of thought and the actions of the human being must change the course.

We know that Aristotle's ethics, from the Greek period, must be redefined to the times we live in, but it is well worth taking up again in the search for a dignified life “good behavior in relation to wisdom (“science with conscience”, reflexivity, precautionary principle ...) of Life in a co-evolutionary society between human beings and nature, in the evolution that leads to true human development (“evo-devo”) in the midst of rapid and profound changes” (Goldim, 2014, p. 7).

Happiness, eudaimonia, and living well, eu zeen, are synonymous in Greek. They both start with the same particle I, which means good. The term eudaimonia joins this particle to the word daimon, and the literal result is a good demon, a good inner genius that dictates or guides our righteous conduct. Eu zeen is synonymous with happiness, because all good living is eudamonia.

For Aristotle (2011) life is an activity, energeia. And that activity is extraordinarily complex, because in it forms of life accumulate that occur in other beings. Virtue is the best disposition, way of being or faculty of everything that has a use or function; the function of each thing is its end, that is why the function of the soul is to make living well and “the function of virtue will be that of a good life and as such the perfect good: happiness; happiness is the best and the best ends and goods are in the soul” (Aristotle, 2011, 1219a27-35).

And if, in general terms, Aristotelian ethics was based on the pursuit of the good as the ultimate goal of all human action, we still need to return to his philosophy. Although we have enjoyed all the benefits of science and technology, the evils that circumstantially surround us show that we are far from reaching this ethical proposition already registered for more than two thousand years. Without a doubt we will see that: Van Rensselaer Potter and Edgar Morín represent changes in contemporary ethical thought (González, 2012).

This is how, in the recivilization of humanity in the convergence of bioethics and ecosophy

Happiness is not reduced to the affective well-being of an organism adapted to its environment. Man must reflect to build his life according to values. It cannot neglect neither its freedom, nor its responsibility before the voluntary commitment of its action. Being happy supposes that man is capable of achieving a balance that overcomes his contradictions and conflicts. If man wants to be happy, he must not forget that happiness is the result of a conquest first over himself and then over a world in which he must take into account not only natural forces, but also other men (Margot, 2007, p. 55).

Complex bioethics and ecosophy as ethics as wisdom to inhabit the planet, contributions by Van Rensselaer Potter and Edgar Morín will bring together the topois: separations that Western thought imposed: men-women, science-mathematics, underground-scientists, among others. The elimination of the imposed abysmal thought is urgent, creating topois by the West, the East and now with the North and its avoidance. The diatopic consists in “raising the consciousness of incompleteness to its maximum possible by participating in the dialogue, as if one were standing with one foot in one culture and the other in the other. Here lies its diatopic character” (Santos, 2002, p. 70). This is how, from this character, the essence of life is respected, embedded in nature as a land-homeland; diatopia requires not only a “different kind of knowledge, but also a different process of knowledge creation. It requires the creation of a collective and participatory knowledge based on equal cognitive and emotional exchanges, knowledge as emancipation, rather than knowledge as regulation” (Santos, 2002, p. 30).

To achieve all these excellences, an open, complex, transdisciplinary bioethics is required, adaptable to the complexities of the world that surrounds us. And the adaptable,

not because of its malleability, but seen from an applied ethic that reflects on daily tasks, on life, bioethics cannot be conceived from a purely academic approach because our own life invites us to think and reflect on complex situations that the world faces and they concern everyone equally (Arellanos et al., 2010, p. 32).

Complex ethicity and ecosophy as the art of inhabiting the planet requires a transdisciplinary reconversion of bioethics, integrating and including different “worldviews and epistemologies that help us to simultaneously reflect in an analytical and holistic-specific systemic way on the value of all forms of life, which has been co-evolving for billions of years in our biosphere” (Collado, 2016, p. 62). These excellences are underway in the midst of the transcomplex trans-paradigm, which urges another way of investigating, and an education that transgresses and subverts the boundaries of disciplines.

In this awareness of the destination community, it is necessary to re-civilize the conceptions of the reductionist knowledge of what the earth is, it is emerging to do it from an ecosophic knowledge (Rodríguez & Mirabal, 2020), based on the fact that, from “ecosophy goes far beyond the vision of the Earth as a living being; she reveals matter to us as a factor of the real as essential as consciousness or what we usually call divine” (Panikkar, 2005, p. 202).

It should be noted that “the cosmos has life, the cosmos is in motion, and, like man, it also has an extra dimension, a” more “, which is in itself and, however, does not come from a” yes “restricted and abstract” (Panikkar, 1993, p. 60). From this, we encourage readers to detach from the simplifying definitions of the world of modernity-postmodernity-coloniality and go in a complex, wise, ecosophy way; to respect for life, for this to re-link ourselves in the complexity beyond what is instituted to struggles in favor of the life of the whole: land-homeland.

In what follows we let go of the authors and the analytical-empirical moments to go to the purpose of comprehensive, ecosophic and diatopic hermeneutics.

PURPOSEFUL RHIZOME. COMPLEX BIOETHICS AND ECOSOPHY AS ETHICS-WISDOM TO INHABIT THE PLANET

At the propositional moment of the investigation, we let go of the authors and the analytical-empirical moments that we have with authors in the two previous rhizomes. We want a search for knowledge that builds us a complex bioethics and ecosophy as ethics that give us some complex transepistemological axes. In this, happiness as a necessity of being and existing that permeates bioethics turns to ancient thinkers so that, from respect for life, in an ethicity we develop an ecosophy that carries a way of being with the world and in the world. A resistance to the injustices that permeate humanity.

Cosmotheandric intuition as a complex spiritual premise, a spirituality of being that recovers our creation; returns to scientificity and way of creating knowledge with spirituality. In this way of knowing, its authors redeem themselves in their knowing, while liberating themselves onto-epistemologically in the way of investigating. It is an exercise in decolonization and decoloniality of thought and the way of building knowledge that includes feeling, culture, science and lay knowledge. We are not immersed in debts of mechanical constructions to please the modernist elite that has permeated by knowing with disastrous results in the face of the lack of ethics that has made the human being go against himself, and the entire humanity.

The transdisciplinary bioethical tendencies are sustained as vessels with fine forages to be filled as new works, sustaining complexities to understand in a complex way, the life sciences become more and more complex until they finally understand that all the life sciences must provide your safeguard. This is possible under a decolonial-decolonial transdisciplinary training so as not to exclude any knowledge; so as not to take preeminence and to form inclusive bridges at the frontiers of knowledge. Life as preeminence in every sense privileges everything on the planet; or nothing. For everything is affected by the small change or disposition of exclusion, manipulation or compliance with the globalizing hegemonic powers that privilege economic saturation over life itself.

The intelligence of the oikos that is linked to the ethos as a source of inclusive construction where we believe every day that we are saved, while the life worthy of service is linked to humanity as a metaphor of existence, of collaboration to reveal in the other their best potential It is the belief in humanity and the knowledge that is carried as a utopia in praxis; how to think of life that redeems us in a being that cries out for life, valuing and identifying ourselves at every point of the cosmos. We should be moved by chronic poverty, death from lack of water, the decline of life anywhere. We can contribute, we must manifest our doing.

Complex bioethics and ecosophy must permeate us at the beginning of each day, unlinking and re-linking in favor of life, that embrace of the recognition of the topois, entrances to the doors of the world with deep faith in everyone. For this reason, we must regain the spiritual sense of being, our endlessness that tells us our infinity of being; that soul that giver of love leads us in a dialectical dialogue to regain our infinite metacognitive power of transformation. We cannot decay, we must rescue in each crisis the opportunity for metamorphosis.

Eudaimonia together with hope as energy that leads our being to detach ourselves from our low passions, for this reason spiritual ecology as one of the three ecologies that make up ecosophy consciousness must re-civilize to a fullness of the human being. It is a search for the initial philosophical questions: who are we? What is our mission? It is the least aggressive stage and contemplation of our mission on earth. An act of love with everything and everyone.

Complex bioethics and ecosophy as ethics as wisdom to inhabit the planet permeates being as an art of living as a permanent action of change in praxis. But for this, to become aware of an integral approach in solving the problems that affect life and living, that permeate our future, subjectivities often permeated with hopelessness; but that we must make armor, in deep faith under principles, rights, virtues and otherness complexed with our complexity of being. These belief systems must be disengaged from the exclusive processes in every sense.

Complexity permeates complex ethics: anthropoetic, socioethical, autoethical that permeate ecosophy as wisdom. Ethics in bioethics questions acts of disrespect for life; but they permeate as a possibility of questioning our own that must incisively be re-linked to truly human processes; it is to introspect our actions in the light of goodness; do good as the highest expression of humanity. Ethics not as moralistic, but as an exercise in the search for the common good, respect for life in any manifestation; over and above the irrational mandates of the states and the circumventing projects they undertake, they mold and permeate inhuman actions.

All this leads to complicate many categories in the light of Edgar Morín and Van Potter and their revealed inhuman processes that clarify missions in education, in the training of professionals under a truly human mystique; leaving the parcel of power by knowing their discipline, believing themselves to be bearers of finished truths, just as the colonial system has wanted to show; the convenience of the dominance axes. This leads to complex education for life with the essence of the seven knowledge for education, taking up the precepts of Potterian bioethics in light of the new conformities that are needed in times of congestion of anti-values.

The current moments of pandemic, in the middle of 2021, in which health professionals exercise, in many cases their best efforts to collaborate in saving life; we are permeated by many news and decisions that disadvantage people in old age, who sacrifice lives in disrespect for life; in people who have left a legacy of service to humanity. Ethical reflection on all these problems in the midst of a pandemic is a challenge for everyone; in a cry for life, respect. Bioethics with a complex look, in an ecosophy such as resinified ethics, the complex ethicity that permeates bioethics can help in this process, it can serve as qualified support in the search for the adequacy of truly human actions.

Humanity urgently needs a new wisdom that provides it with a bioethics with complex ethics, not permeated by the regulatory modernity, disrespectful of life; all with the purpose of safeguarding the human being, understanding this in a complex sense as nature, just like Ralph Waldo Emerson, the great researcher who permeated the exemplary life of Cuban José Martí, ecosophical par excellence, and insistent in the improvement of humanity. Bioethics would commit a mission: to be a new type of science of life, permeated by the complex concept of life, where the spiritual takes on an exemplary sense, in a noology that Edgar Morín has so often exemplified.

All of this must deal with such bioethics with the damages that are committed in attacks on the homeland; must navigate in the sea of ​​uncertainty and row in favor of life in every sense on planet earth, with cross-disciplinary and transdisciplinary technologies; leading an exercise in the praxis for the survival of the human species, capable of integrating science in every sense, underground knowledge, cultures, environmental groups permeated with ethical values, where the study of environmental problems and other living beings that intervene in the preservation and improvement of the quality of life of human beings should be a central motive for the study of bioethics.

Bioethics permeated by ecosophy as complex ethics must be permeated by culture; This is urgent as complex bioethics goes to the continuous search for wisdom, knowledge in favor of life, knowledge under study to contribute to human survival and to improve the human condition. Without a doubt, it is necessary to educate in the human condition, the Morinian and Potterian schools for life with the aim of improving the human condition and human survival, which is the survival of the earth, and that of this is that of the human being. Such excellence would not be achieved if we did not understand the essence of nature in the human being. Complex bioethics, he knew, with spiritual essences, the noology of knowledge.

Note that this redefinition, in a complex high-level re-linking in bioethics, permeates a transepistemology of traditional bioethics, beyond the knowledge of it, but also permeates a new conception of the spirit that as a spiritual ecology that makes up the ecosophy as complex ethics it deepens the essence of the human being. We return to the ancient thinkers who expressed that reason is not only lodged in the mind but also the spirit. That acceptance of a new figure of the spirit that has been denied when subjectivities are execrated in modernity-postmodernity-coloniality. And this permeated bioethics, traditionally alienating it to simplification.

PROPOSITIVE-CONCLUSIVE RHIZOME. OPENINGS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONCLUSIONS

We have become the complex objective of analyzing the complex bioethical dyad and ecosophy as planetary ethics, as wisdoms to inhabit the planet, from the contributions of Van Rensselaer Potter and Edgar Morín. All of this from comprehensive, ecosophic and diatopic hermeneutics as a transmethod of research. The categories ecosophy and diatopia have emerged from the transmethod in the object of study. But in a deeply spiritual and affective evolution, where our subjectivities shape and permeate the investigative evolution.

We do not mean to say that the study is finished while the Morinian and Potterian edges are still under construction; even though we have fulfilled the complex objective of the investigation.

We are going to consider that the spirit permeating the formation of the professionals goes to an essential re-linking in the reason and conscience necessary for the safeguarding of life in the land-homeland that is diatopically embraced with culture, underground knowledge and transdisciplinarity of the sciences; that leaving as pre-eminence the search for ultimate truths and exercises of power will privilege life in every sense. Morinian works recover globality, complexity in Potterian bioethics, which give prominence to the formation of highly sensitive professionals where love for the human being takes precedence at all times; recognizing nature united to our being.

Acknowledgments

Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Brazil (CAPES) - Financing Code 001. The first author seeks to acquire wisdom from the creation of the universe, told by God our Father, in genesis, acquiring wisdom is more valuable than any good we must “choose from among your tribes wise, knowledgeable and expert men, and I will name them as your chiefs And you answered me and said: It is good that what you have said is done. Then I took the chiefs of your tribes, wise men and experts, and appointed them as your leaders, heads of a thousand, a hundred, fifty, and ten, and officers for your tribes” (Deuteronomy 1: 13-15). Thanks Jesus Christ, I dedicate everything I do to you, you are my greatest example of perseverance.

REFERENCES

Arellano, M., Matos, J., & Oberto, L. (2010). Hacia una mirada transdisciplinar de la bioética. Revista Latinoamericana de bioética, 10(2), 20-33.

Aristóteles. (2011). Ética Eudemia. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.

Chomsky, N. (2020). Internacionalismo o extinción. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: CLACSO; Amsterdam: TNI - Transnational Institute.

Collado Ruano, J. (2016). La bioética como ciencia transdisciplinar de la complejidad: una introducción coevolutiva desde la Gran Historia. Revista Colombiana de Bioética, 11(1), 54-67.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). Mil mesetas: capitalismo y esquizofrenia. Valencia: Pre-textos.

Delgado Díaz, C. J. (2007). Hacia un nuevo saber: la bioética en la revolución contemporánea del saber. La Habana: Centro Félix Varela.

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogía de la Autonomía: saberes necesarios para la práctica educativa. 11 ed. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

González, I. (2012). Van Rensselaer Potter y Edgar Morín: cambios en el pensamiento ético contemporáneo. Revista latinoamericana bioética, 12(1), 46-61.

Goldim, J. R. (2014). Bioetica Complexa: um enfoque englobante parao processo de tomada de decisão. In: Raymundo MM, editor. Bioética e Laicidade: vida e diversidade em conexão. Curitiba: Prismas, p. 37-55.

Margot, J. (2007). La Felicidad. Praxis Filosófica, 25, 55-80.

Morin, E. (1984). Ciencia con conciencia. Barcelona: Anthropos.

Morín, E. (2006). El Método VI: la ética. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra.

Morín, E. (2011). La Vía: Para el Futuro de la Humanidad. Barcelona: Editorial Paidós.

Panikkar, R. (1994). El Cristo desconocido del hinduismo: para una cristofanía ecuménica: Madrid: Grupo Libro 88.

Panikkar, R. (1993). La nueva inocencia. Madrid: Editorial Verbo Divino.

Panikkar, R. (1999). La intuición cosmoteándrica: las tres dimensiones de la realidad. Madrid: Trotta.

Panikkar, R. (2003). El diálogo indispensable: paz entre las religiones. Barcelona: Ediciones Península.

Panikkar, R. (2005). De la mística: experiencia plena de vida. Barcelona: Herder.

Panikkar, R. (2007). Mito, fe y hermenéutica. Barcelona: Herder.

Panikkar, R. (2008). “Ecosofía”. Available: http://cort.as/heA0. Access: Oct. 2021.

Potter, V. R. (1962). Bridge to the Future: The Concept of Human Progress. Land Economics, 38(1), 1-8.

Potter, V. R. (1971). Bioethics: Bridge to the Future. Nueva Jersey: Prentice – Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs.

Potter, V. R. (1998). Bioética puente, bioética global y bioética profunda. Acta Bioethica, 7, 23-33.

Potter, V. R. (2002). Temas bioéticos para el siglo XXI. Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética, 2, 150-158.

Pupo, R. (2017). La cultura y su aprehensión ecosófica: una visión ecosófica de la cultura. Alemania: Editorial Académica Española.

Rodríguez, M. E. (2017). Fundamentos epistemológicos de la relación patrimonio cultural, identidad y ciudadanía: hacia una Educación Patrimonial Transcompleja en la ciudad (Tesis inédita de Doctorado). Universidad Latinoamericana y el Caribe, Caracas.

Rodríguez, M. E. (2020a). La hermenéutica comprensiva, ecosófica y diatópica: un transmétodo rizomático en la transmodernidad. Revista Perspectivas Metodológicas, 19, 1-15.

Rodríguez, M. E. (2020b). Matemática-ecosofía: miradas de un acercamiento complejo. Visión Educativa IUNAES, 14(29), 1-12.

Rodríguez, M. E., & Mirabal Rodríguez, M. (2020). Ecosofía-antropoética: una recivilización de la humanidad. Telos: revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales, 22(2), 295-309.

Santos, B. S. (2002). Hacia una concepción multicultural de los derechos humanos. El Otro Derecho, 28, 59-83.

Santos, B. S. (2003). Crítica de la Razón Indolente Contra el Desperdicio de la Experiencia. Bilbao: Editorial Desclée De Brouwer.

Sepúlveda Pizarro, J. (2018). Ecosofía: hacia una comprensión de la sabiduría de la tierra desde la noción de ritmo del ser de Raimon Panikkar, en Ἰlu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones, 23, 263-278.

Sotolongo, P., & Delgado. (2006) El pensamiento crítico ante la complejidad social. En: Sotolongo, P. y Delgado (2006). La revolución contemporánea del saber y la complejidad social: hacia unas ciencias sociales de nuevo tipo. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

Notes

Notas de autor

Información adicional

How to cite: Rodríguez, M. E., & Fortunato, I. (2022). Complex bioethics and ecosophy as planetary ethics: contributions from Potter and Morín towards a more humane education. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, 15(34), e17918. http://dx.doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v15i34.17918

Authors' Contributions: Rodríguez, M. E.: conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, critical review of important intellectual content; Fortunato, I.: conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, critical review of important intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.