Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Ecosystemic logos. Emerging cartographies for a complex rationality.

Interdisciplinary dialogues between science, technology, nature, and culture in

shaping horizons of sustainability

Logos ecosistémico. Cartografías emergentes para una racionalidad compleja. Diálogos

interdisciplinares entre ciencia, tecnología, naturaleza y cultura en la conﬁguración de

horizontes de sostenibilidad

¹Renné Wilfredo Pérez Villafuerte

University of Cusco. Cusco, Perú.

renne.perez@unsaac.edu.pe

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7098-9227

Received date: 26/03/2026

Acceptance date: 11/04/2026

Abstract

Ecosystemic logos is proposed as a novel epistemology of highly advanced culture, thus requiring the

innovative transdisciplinary conceptualization of knowledge. By developing a ‘transdisciplinary’ perspective

that maintains as analytical frameworks the theories of complexity (Morin, 2006), the ecology of knowledge

(Santos, 2009) and relational ontologies (Descola, 2013), it is possible to build a conceptual map that goes

beyond reductionist logics. The study analyzes knowledge interfaces, revealing methodological strategies to

constitute a complex rationality that produces sustainability horizons. The entanglements of different forms

of knowledge are criticized, also emphasizing the coproduction and disruption of traditional epistemological

divisions. The ﬁndings conﬁrm the value of a comprehensive approach that recognizes the multidimensionality

of knowledge systems, suggesting an emancipatory reappropriation of the relationships between the human

and the non-human. The study concludes by afﬁrming the need to ﬁnd a planetary ethics of co-responsibility

and a radical ecosystemic intelligibility.

Keywords: transdisciplinary epistemology, complex systems, knowledge cartography, relational ontologies,

planetary ethics.

Resumen

Seproponeellogosecosistémicocomounaepistemologíanovedosadeculturamuyavanzada,requiriendo,por

lo tanto, la conceptualización transdisciplinaria innovadora del conocimiento. Desarrollando una perspectiva

‘transdisciplinaria’ que mantiene como marcos analíticos las teorías de la complejidad (Morin, 2006), la ecología

del conocimiento (Santos, 2009) y las ontologías relacionales (Descola, 2013), es posible construir un mapa

conceptual que va más allá de las lógicas reduccionistas. El estudio analiza las interfaces del conocimiento,

revelando estrategias metodológicas para constituir una racionalidad compleja que produzca horizontes de

sostenibilidad. Se critican los entrelazamientos de diferentes formas de conocimiento, enfatizando también

la coproducción y la disrupción de las divisiones epistemológicas tradicionales. Los hallazgos conﬁrman el

valor de un enfoque comprensivo que reconoce la multidimensionalidad de los sistemas de conocimiento,

sugiriendo una reapropiación emancipadora de las relaciones entre lo humano y lo no humano. El estudio

concluye aﬁrmando la necesidad de encontrar una ética planetaria de corresponsabilidad y una inteligibilidad

ecosistémica radical.

Palabras clave:epistemología transdisciplinaria, sistemas complejos, cartografía del conocimiento, ontologías

relacionales, ética planetaria.

8

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Introduction

Dialogue as the Foundation of Ecosystemic Logos

Today’s civilizational crisis calls for a fundamentally new way of thinking about how different ﬁelds

of human understanding intersect. This paper argues that dialogue serves as the essential foundation for

an ecosystemic logos—a framework in which knowledge emerges from the integrative and transformative

intersections across disciplines. Inter- and transdisciplinary discussion extends science, technology, nature,

and culture to the generative core of how sustainable horizons become possible in a globally divided world

marked by overspecialization and narrow disciplinary perspectives. As Edgar Morin (2006, p. 143) points out,

“hyperspecialization obstructs the vision of the global (which breaks down into fragments) and of the essential

(which becomes diluted).” Against this complex reality, the ecosystemic logos emerges as an integrative

epistemological proposal.

Building on this integrated framework, this paper investigates the dialogical encounters that arise

between disparate bodies of knowledge, perceiving dialogue as more than merely juxtaposing knowledge,

but rather as a transformation during which (disciplinary) boundaries become malleable and new patterns of

thought emerge. For as Santos (2009, p. 182) argues, “knowledge worthy of the name has always been inter-

knowledge,” and it is impossible to separate any genuine knowledge from dialogical relationships with others.

The proposition of an ecosystemic logos means that science, technology, and nature—or culture—are

not distinct spheres but rather intertwined dimensions of the same complex reality. According to Castro-Díaz

et al. (2022), interconnections of this nature require “emergent cartographies”: ways of seeing and shaping

these relationships, tensions, and possibilities in contact zones through knowledge systems.

As Barth et al. (2023) demonstrate, transdisciplinary approaches and multimodal algorithms have

proven to be powerful tools. They make these dialogues possible by forging hybrid epistemological spaces

where different perspectives can meet without completely collapsing into one another. This dialogical mode

“opens up a space” that is essential for transcending the oppressive determinism of the dominant models of

monological communication that have generally prevailed in modern science, playing a major role in producing

the current global socio-ecological crisis.

Science and Nature: dialogues for a situated epistemology

The ﬁrst dialogue in this series emerged as we explored the relationship between science and nature. It

challenges the Cartesian division between subject and object, which has been a hallmark of modern scientiﬁc

thought. This becomes particularly clear when considering the limitations of any science that is detached from

the natural systems it seeks to understand.

The objectiﬁcation of nature becomes one of its themes

Nature understood purely as an object has been deeply questioned. As Descola (2013) states, this is

only one of many possible ontologies—speciﬁcally, Western naturalism. Numerous indigenous and traditional

cultures,incontrast,conceiveofnatureasasubjectwithintrinsicmeaning.Theyestablishdialogicalrelationships,

as nature possesses energetic capacities for action and response at all times. Policies that effectively support

their own sustainability have never been implemented.

This shift toward viewing nature as a subject with whom to have a conversation is one of the challenges

in reformulating scientiﬁc practice. Charting its course in health policy, the journal publication by Anchea-

Monreal et al. (2015) argued in favor of this ecology-health approach: the minor roles played by natural systems

and their capacity to respond to human interventions did not behave as expected or predicted.

9

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Scientiﬁc Awareness of Ecology

If science wishes to communicate with nature, it must develop a “scientiﬁc awareness.” According to

Morin (2006), this is not a self-indulgent whim of academia; rather, it acknowledges its own limitations more

frankly than mere reﬂection. Science that takes its own context into account transcends the supposed neutrality

of positivism to assume responsibility for a more sustainable future. The moral impetus and the means to build

new futures in a sustainable way are quite evident.

Expanding on this approach, Capra and Luisi (2014) developed a comprehensive vision of the life

sciences. This alternative, which reconciles modern scientiﬁc ﬁndings with a contemporary ethical vision of

the human-nature relationship, is perhaps a prerequisite for overcoming what Val Plumwood (2002) calls an

“ecological crisis of reason.” Speciesism is the radical separation of human rationality from natural processes

and animals.

The dialogue between science and nature also involves understanding that there are multiple ways

of knowing that can contribute to our understanding of natural systems. In his work on spiritual ecology,

Berkes (2018) has shown that knowledge. Traditional ecological knowledge provides important insights into

ecosystem dynamics that Western science is only beginning to appreciate.

Technology and Culture: sociotechnical reconﬁgurations

The second thematic area examines the interface between technological systems and cultural

conﬁgurations; both co-produce a mutual inﬂuence on dynamic processes. In the era in which we live, digital

technology is changing all our lifestyles for better or for worse. Therefore, this dialogue is particularly relevant

today, as we can investigate how technological systems themselves can catalyze efforts toward sustainability

or, alternatively, present major obstacles in their path.

Beyond Technological Determinism

Technological determinism is a misconception that attributes to technical artifacts the autonomous

capacity to shape society. On the other hand, extreme social constructivism holds that humans make

technology rather than the other way around. In contrast to these two one-sided views, thinkers such as Yuk Hui

(2019) propose a “cosmotecnia”: this term implies the materialization of speciﬁc cosmologies, or how science

functions in conjunction with different parts of the social order. It has been proposed that, in fact, ideologies,

worldviews, and social relations are all mapped onto technology as material structures, but technology also

incorporates certain material characteristics that condition its possible uses and appropriations.

I emphasize this point to highlight the importance of Bratton (2016), since contemporary technological

infrastructures are in fact meta-structures that mix and recompose humans and non-humans, creating contracts

that encompass new forms of sovereignty and control of authority.

Situated Technologies, Technical Pluriverse

The dialogue between technology and culture allows us to consider the existence of what Escobar

(2018) termed a ‘technical pluriverse,’ that is, many possible technological paths, rooted in different cultural

contexts. This perspective challenges the supposed universality and neutrality of conventional technological

systems, revealing the situated and contingent nature of technology.

Cases of appropriate technology development, free software, or participatory design show that it is

possible to build technical artifacts that respond to the speciﬁc needs and values of diverse communities. As

Lagunas Vázquez (2021) argues, transdisciplinarity offers both conceptual tools for this project and methods to

facilitate ways in which local knowledge can interact with specialized scientiﬁc knowledge.

10

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

This dialogical approach, therefore, recognizes the technology-culture interface as a privileged space

in which to imagine and construct alternative socio-technical futures, where technological innovation emerges

from a perspective of sustainability and social justice. A realization of this premise is that participatory

methodologies allow for the integration of a variety of types of knowledge in the evaluation and design of

socio-technical systems. In this way, they help foster solutions that are both localized and culturally appropriate,

as discussed by Castro-Díaz et al. (2022).

Nature and Culture: relational ontologies

Regarding this third axis of dialogue, it inﬂuences how modern Western thought has engendered what

Descola (2013) called the “great ontological divide,” a phrase that highlights the antagonism in that philosophy

that separates the human world from the rest of nature, with disastrous results for both.

Beyond the Nature-Culture Divide

One of the main areas criticized by the ecosystemic logos is the nature-culture divide. As Descola (2013)

has shown, this divide, rather than being truly universal in nature, is merely a particular ontology that emerged

with modern Western thought. Their comparative research on animism, totemism, naturalism, and analogism

reveals the multiple frameworks available for understanding the relationship between human society and its

environment. The relational ontologies of many indigenous cultures offer an alternative to the nature-culture

divide. The approaches of Castro-Díaz et al. (2022) bear witness to this. They recognize that non-human

agencies can have an effect, with the result that life becomes for them simply a series of connections in which

the event or occurrence is just another point among many others.

Hybrid Territorialities and Multispecies Assemblages

This hybridization of nature and culture has given rise to what we might call “hybrid territorialities,” areas

where human activity and ecological processes intermingle in all sorts of complex ways. These are what Latour

(2007) refers to as “hybrid assemblages,” where human and non-human actors work together to produce

certain socio-ecological realities.

The framework of “multispecies studies” (Tsing, 2015) provides tools for analyzing such assemblages,

revealing the complex interplay of symbiosis, competition, and coevolution among different forms of life. This

is particularly relevant in the Anthropocene era, when human inﬂuence now extends to nearly all ecosystems

on Earth, giving rise to diverse socio-ecological conﬁgurations. As Arenas-Monreal et al. (2015) discovered in

their research on ecosystem health, these hybrid territorialities require knowledge from diverse disciplines and

cultures to come together in order to be explained. It is an admission of impossibility

Science and Culture: toward cognitive justice

The fourth theme of the dialogue delves into an analysis of the scientiﬁc systems that permeate cultural

environments. It challenges the hierarchies of knowledge that have favored knowledge derived from Western

scientiﬁc practices over other ways in which people know and are in the world. For Santos (2009), this dialogue

is fundamental to advancing toward what he calls “cognitive justice,” a necessary condition for any genuine

project of social justice.

Ecology of Knowledge and Intercultural Translation

The notion of the “ecology of knowledge” (Santos, 2009) is a basic framework that allows us to reevaluate

the relationship between scientiﬁc knowledge and cultural diversity. It recognizes the irreconcilable plurality of

knowledge and advocates for its pragmatic articulation around concrete problems, so that no set is reduced

to another.

11

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

The dialogue between science and culture also requires what Santos calls a “process of translation.” It

is necessary to facilitate communication between different universes of meaning, without reducing them all

to a common language that would inevitably lose its speciﬁcity. As Castro-Díaz et al. (2022) argue, this work of

translation is crucial in Latin American contexts characterized by great cultural and ecological diversity.

Citizen science and situated knowledge

Initiatives in citizen science and people-centered science are promising spaces for a broader dialogue

between scientiﬁc systems and diverse cultural environments. These approaches recognize the value of local

and experiential knowledge, integrating it into the cooperative process of studying questions relevant to the

community.

As demonstrated by the work of Arenas-Monreal et al. (2015) on participatory health assessment, the

combination of scientiﬁc and community knowledge allows for a richer, more situational understanding of

problems and their causes. It can lead to more effective interventions that are better adapted to the culture

in which they are implemented. The concept of “situated knowledge” proposed by Donna Haraway (1988)

offers a valuable perspective for this dialogue, recognizing that all knowledge is produced from particular

positions within social, cultural, and ecological networks. This perspective challenges the supposed neutrality

and universality of scientiﬁc knowledge, revealing its partiality and situated nature, without falling into absolute

relativism.

Cartographic Methodologies for Interdisciplinary Dialogue

Knowledge cartographies are tools for visualizing and facilitating the complex dialogues surrounding

the thinking that is shaping the ecosystemic logos. These methodologies allow us to capture connections,

conﬂicts, and emerging possibilities at the interfaces between different knowledge systems. They create

spaces for navigating complexity.

Mapping Complexity

Mapping complexity involves efforts to explain the multiple dimensions and interrelationships that

characterize today’s socio-ecological systems. As Morin (2007) points out, complex thinking posits that we need

tools that represent both unity and diversity, continuity and discontinuity, and the emergence and necessity

of these systems. These cartographies go beyond linear and reductionist logic, adopting reticular, rhizomatic,

or fractal formats that show multiple levels of organization and nonlinear processes. As explained by Castro-

Díaz et al. (2022), such visualizations allow for the identiﬁcation of critical points where small interventions can

trigger major systemic changes that emerge from them.

Participatory Mapping and Territorial Knowledge

Participatory mapping is a methodology that combines various types of knowledge in the description

and understanding of a geographic region. These approaches recognize that territory is not an impartial

physical space, but rather a socio-cultural construct imbued with many meanings, values, and power structures.

As Arenas-Monreal et al. (2015) have demonstrated in their research on community health, such

participatory maps reveal socio-environmental determinants of health that are not visible from standard

technical perspectives. These approaches integrate local experiential knowledge of the landscape with

scientiﬁc data, providing more comprehensive and contextualized representations that are also more user-

friendly.

12

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Mapping Controversy and Dialogue of Knowledges

Mapping controversy is an important tool for visualizing the conversations, tensions, and contradictions

that characterize any ﬁeld of knowledge. In line with Latour (2007), in these methodologies, each party maps

its perspectives, arguments, and evidence within complex socio-technical conﬂicts.

These approaches are particularly useful for fostering constructive dialogues in ﬁelds characterized by

signiﬁcant epistemological, ontological, or axiological differences. As Barth et al. (2023) note, transdisciplinary

learning thrives on such divergences; it uses them as a resource for innovation and transformation.

Horizons of Sustainability: ethics as the foundation of dialogue

The interdisciplinary dialogues that make up the ecosystemic logos go beyond epistemology

and methodology; building meaningful horizons of sustainability requires an ethics. Recognizing basic

interdependence, this dialogical ethics fosters both reciprocity and co-responsibility.

Planetary Ethics and Interspecies Co-responsibility

In the face of the modern socio-ecological crisis, the proposal for a planetary ethics is necessary. As

Hans Jonas (1984) argues, new ethical concepts are needed because humanity’s technological powers require

moral principles regarding future generations and non-human life.

Based on the recognition of the fundamental interrelationship of all living systems, this ethics goes

beyond abstract individualism or homogenizing collectivism. In the words of Arenas-Monreal et al. (2015),

an ecosystemic approach to health reveals how human well-being is inseparable from the well-being of the

ecological systems of which it is a part.

Cognitive justice as the foundation of sustainability

Cognitive justice, a term coined by Santos (2009), is essential to any authentic sustainability project. It

asserts that the epistemological foundations of our contemporary sustainability crisis run deep. One aspect

is that established knowledge systems have separated nature and culture rather than integrating them into a

single unit; another aspect concerns the value and politics of science.

Engaging in sustainable action means recognizing that there are different forms of knowledge and

other modes of existence—that is, cognitive justice. This idea was veriﬁed by Castro-Díaz et al. (2022): by

integrating a diverse range of knowledge types and perspectives, we arrive at a more comprehensive and

locally grounded understanding of complex problems, thereby giving rise to new solutions.

From Anthropocentrism to Pluralist Biocentrism

The emphasis on the intrinsic value potentially possessed by all forms of life is a key feature in the shift

from anthropocentrism to the ecosystemic perspective. This does not destroy human speciﬁcity nor does it

overlook differences to arrive at an undifferentiated monism; rather, it emphasizes the plural compendium of

beings and ways of being.

Plumwood (2002) adopted a pluralist biocentrism that distanced itself from both hierarchical

anthropocentrism and abstract biocentric egalitarianism. This position emphasizes both censorship and

difference in interventions regarding forms of life. It is particularly useful for rethinking the relationship between

humans and other species in terms of reciprocity and mutual respect.

13

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Methods

The research employed qualitative methods involving a hermeneutic-dialectical approach, based on

the complex systems paradigm (Morin 2006) and transdisciplinarity. The methodological design took the form

of theoretical research of an analytical-interpretive nature that applied a dialogical perspective to facilitate the

integration of various ﬁelds of knowledge. Its three main theoretical and conceptual frameworks were:

1. Complexity Theories (Morin, 2006, 2007)

2. Ecology of Knowledge (Santos, 2009)

3. Relational Ontologies (Descola, 2013)

Data Collection and Interpretation Procedures

Systematic Literature Review A systematic literature review was conducted of primary and secondary

sources related to: 1) Transdisciplinary Epistemologies, 2) Complex Systems and Complexity Theories, 3)

Knowledge Mapping, 4) Relational Ontologies, and 5) Planetary Ethics. The selection was based on theoretical

relevance, recency (publications predominantly from the last 15 years), academic impact, and epistemological

diversity.

Analysis of Epistemological Interfaces

To analyze the interfaces, four basic dialogical axes were adopted: 1) Science and Nature, 2) Technology

and Culture, 3) Nature and Culture, and 4) Science and Culture. For each axis, the following points were

distinguished: 1) Key concepts and emerging patterns, 2) Epistemological tensions and contradictions, and 3)

Points of convergence and possibilities for integration.

Conceptual Cartography

This is a cartographic methodology designed to visualize and study the subtle interrelationships that

exist between various knowledge systems. This mapping was organized into three levels: 1) Mapping the

many dimensions and interconnections of modern socio-ecological systems, 2) Complexity Cartographies—

Integration into territorial descriptions and understanding of various types of knowledge in participatory

cartographies, and 3) Controversy Cartographies.

Research Methodology and Case Studies

In “The Common Units,” the researchers sought to examine the development of a global consciousness.

To ensure methodological rigor, the following criteria were applied: 1) Theoretical coherence: Logical

articulation between the different conceptual frameworks used, 2) Reﬂexivity: Explicit acknowledgment of the

researcher’s position within the ﬁeld of study, 3) Transparency: Clear explanation of procedures and criteria

for analysis, and, 4) Validation through interdisciplinary dialogue: Comparison of perspectives from different

disciplines and traditions of thought.

Results

Ecosystemic Logos

Conﬁguration

An analysis of the interdisciplinary dialogues revealed the emergence of an ecologically balanced

logos characterized by: 1) Epistemological integration: Overcoming dichotomies inherent

in modern Western thought, 2) The interaction of different beings and systems can be called

“ontological relationality,” 3) The ability to think on many levels and in many dimensions at the

same time—multidimensionality, 4) An athletic (processual) dynamism: emphasizing process and

change rather than the person and the state.

14

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Table 1

Characteristics of the ecosystemic logos contrasted with Western modern rationality

Dimension

Epistemological

Ontological

Methodological

Ethical

Western Modern Rationality

Disciplinary fragmentation

Nature–culture dualism

Analytical reductionism

Anthropocentrism

Ecosystemic Logos

Integrative transdisciplinarity

Relational continuity

Systemic complexity

Pluralistic biocentrism

Emergent circularity

Situated diversity

Temporal

Progressive linearity

Spatial

Universal homogeneity

Note: The table is based on an own elaboration derived from the analysis of the epistemological characteristics of the

ecosystemic logos in contrast with Western modern rationality. Source: Pérez-Villafuerte, R. (2025).

Emerging Cartographies in Dialogic Axes

Science-Nature Axis

Analysis of the dialogue between science and nature revealed the following emerging patterns: 1)

Overcoming the objectiﬁcation of nature: Transition from a conception of nature as a passive object to its

recognition as a subject with agency and internal meaning; 2) Scientiﬁc awareness of ecology: Development

of a reﬂective science that acknowledges its limitations but assumes responsibility for its effects; and 3)

Integration of traditional ecological knowledge: Recognition of the epistemological value of indigenous and

local knowledge about ecosystems.

Figure 1

Mapping the Science-Nature Dialogue

Note: Author’s own work. Conceptual map of emerging dimensions in the Science-Nature dialogue. Source: Pérez-

Villafuerte, R. (2025).

Technology-Culture Axis

The analysis of the dialogue between technology and culture revealed: 1) Overcoming technological

determinism: Recognition of the mutual interaction between technological systems and cultural conﬁgurations,

2) Emergence of the concept of cosmotecnics: Materialization of speciﬁc cosmologies in technological

development, and 3) Technological pluralism: Identiﬁcation of multiple possible technological trajectories

rooted in different cultural contexts.

15

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Table 2

The content of different contexts in which the technical pluriverse is evident

Context

Technological Approach

Distinctive Characteristics

Modernity

Universal technology

Standardization, scalability,

Western orientation, centralized

control

Communities

Appropriate technologies

Local adaptation, low impact,

indigenous knowledge, traditional

knowledge

Alternative movements

Emerging approaches

Open technologies

Ecotechnologies

Participatory design,

collaboration, accessibility

Biomimicry, circularity,

regeneration

Note: Own elaboration based on the analysis of different manifestations of the technical pluriverse in diverse cultural

contexts. Source: Pérez-Villafuerte, R. (2025)..

Nature-Culture Axis

An analysis of the dialogue between nature and culture revealed: 1) A challenge to the ontological

divide: A critique of the conceptual boundary between nature and culture as a speciﬁc construct of Western

modernity, 2) Multiplied Being: Recognition of the many ways in which humans can form relationships with

nature (animism, totemism, naturalism, analogism), and 3) Transition Zones: Creation of spaces where human

activities and ecological processes intertwine to create unique patterns.

Figure 2

The mapping of relational ontologies under Descola’s analysis

Note: Adapted from Descola (2013). Schematic representation of the four fundamental ontologies. Source: Pérez-

Villafuerte, R. (2025).

Science-Culture Axis

The analysis of the dialogue between science and culture revealed: 1) Ecology of knowledge: Striking

a balance between the recognition of the irreducible plurality of knowledge and its practical application, 2)

Intercultural dialogue: Designing and initiating forms of dialogue that can facilitate relationships between

different universes of meaning, and, 3) Citizens for Knowledge: An opportunity to create knowledge in a space

where experiential wisdom and science blend equally.

16

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Table 3

Intercultural Dialogue of Knowledge

Process

Characteristics

Concrete Examples

Dialogue of knowledge

Horizontal exchange among different

forms of knowledge

Incorporation of Indigenous

knowledge into ecosystem

management

Epistemological

hybridization

Creation of new forms of knowledge

through the integration of diverse

traditions

Agroecology as a combination of

scientiﬁc agronomy and peasant

knowledge

Co-laboratory

Spaces for collaborative experimentation

between scientists and communities

Citizen science projects for

environmental monitoring

Participatory mapping

Collective construction of territorial

representations

Community-based mapping of

socio-ecological resources and

vulnerabilities

Note: Own elaboration based on the analysis of intercultural translation processes identiﬁed in the research. Source: Pérez-

Villafuerte, R. (2025).

The Spectrum of Modern Sustainability Viewed Through Ecosystemic Logic

An integrated examination of the four dialogical axes allows us to identify three main areas for new

sustainable development: 1) Planetary Ethos: Based on a recognition that all forms of life are interconnected

and interdependent, 2) Cognitive Justice: recognition and celebration of the diversity of forms of knowledge

regarding how people live in the world, and, 3) Planetary Biocentrism: The recognition of the intrinsic values of

life is one of the modes of pluralistic biocentrism. And it is human-centered.

Discussion

Ecosystemic Logos as a Response to the Civilizational Crisis

The results of this research suggest that ecosystemic logos is a coherent epistemological response to the

contemporary civilizational crisis as outlined in the introduction. As Morin (2006) noted, “Hyper-specialization

obstructs a vision of the whole and the essential,” and the resulting fragmented knowledge is incapable of

capturing current challenges.

In this context, the ecosystemic logos emerges as an integrated proposal that transcends modern

dichotomies and creates new conceptual maps. The relevance of this epistemological proposal is perhaps

best illustrated by considering what Santos calls “interknowledge” (2009), that is, that “knowledge worthy of

the name always occurs among knowledgeable people.” This dialogical perspective is quite different from the

monological models of communication that have prevailed in modern science and that, as noted at the outset,

have played “an important role in producing our current global socio-ecological crisis.”

Implications for the Science-Nature Relationship

Findings regarding the science-nature axis fundamentally challenge René Descartes’s division between

person and object, which has dominated Western scientiﬁc thought for four centuries. This challenge

corresponds to that of the “objectiﬁcation of nature” raised in the introduction, and to the idea that Western

naturalism is merely one ontology among many possible ontologies (Descola 2013).

The emergence of an approach in which nature is regarded as a subject with whom to communicate

marks a radical shift in scientiﬁc practice. This transformation corresponds to the “scientiﬁc consciousness of

ecology” described in the introduction—according to Morin (2006), it is not merely a self-indulgent academic

17

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

exercise but also the realization that science has limitations and bears responsibility for our existence on

Earth for future generations. The approach proposed by Berkes (2018), which integrates traditional ecological

knowledge, offers a concrete example of this new dialogic exchange between science and nature. In this sense,

from the perspective of Western science, it is the ﬁrst time in history that we are beginning to understand some

important facts about ecosystem dynamics.

Tensions and Contradictions at the Technology-Culture Interface

The spirit of inquiry at the technology-culture interface reveals tremendous tensions between thinking

that follows technological determinism and the most extreme forms of social constructivism. It is these tensions

that point to what Yuk Hui (2019) calls “cosmotekhnika: The process of materializing speciﬁc cosmoses in

technology,” a concept that transcends the one-sided view of technology as either an autonomous entity or a

mere social product.

With this dialogical approach working within this perspective, we agree here with Bratton (2016), who

argues that new metastructures are emerging around technical infrastructures: “...metastructures that mix

and recompose humans with non-humans.” The emergence of new metastructures inevitably leads to new

forms of governance and control. As a result, this poses new ethical and political challenges for all of us. The

emergence of the concept of the “technical pluriverse” (Escobar, 2018) in these ﬁndings thus establishes a

new horizon for considering technology from the perspective of cultural diversity. This concept critiques the

so-called universality and neutrality of traditional technologies and offers opportunities for the development

of technical artifacts that adapt to the particular needs and values of each society, as suggested by Lagunas

Vázquez (2021) from a transdisciplinary perspective.

Cognitive Justice: The Foundation of Sustainable Development

The ﬁndings related to the nature-culture axis conﬁrm Descola’s (2013) critique of “the great ontological

divide”: the separation between the human world and the rest of Nature. This emerges as an idiosyncrasy of

Western naturalist ontology that is rooted in history. The relational ontologies found in the results also propose

concrete alternatives to this chasm, as noted by Castro-Díaz et al. (2022), each of which recognizes that non-

human agents help shape the world. From this perspective, life itself shifts the dramatic South, giving us a new

meaning: “life is just a long series of connections in which an event (or occurrence) is right in between.”

The concept of “hybrid territorialities” identiﬁed in the results directly responds to Latour’s (2007) idea

of “hybrid assemblages”—situations in which human and non-human agents interact together to produce

complex sociopolitical ecologies. This concept is particularly important in the Anthropocene era, where human

inﬂuence reaches virtually every ecosystem on Earth.

Cognitive Justice: The Foundation of Sustainable Development

Analysis of the science-culture axis reveals that cognitive justice lies at the heart of genuine sustainability

projects. This form of justice, presented by Santos (2009), is a necessary condition for any genuine project of

social justice; it challenges the hierarchies of knowledge that have placed Western scientiﬁc knowledge at the

top and other forms of knowing and being in the world.

But the “ecology of knowledge” highlighted in the results does indeed offer an indispensable general

framework for rethinking the relationship between scientiﬁc knowledge and cultural diversity. This perspective

acknowledges, as stated in the introduction, that “knowledge worthy of the name has always been inter-

knowledge.” No system of knowledge can be reduced to another without signiﬁcant loss.

18

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

“Intercultural translation” processes emerge as essential tools for facilitating dialogue between different

universes of meaning. As Castro-Díaz et al. (2022) argued, translation is an integral part of the work of biologists

and anthropologists; these processes take on particular vitality in ﬁelds where cultural diversity conﬂicts with

ecology, as in Latin America.

Emergent Cartographies as Tools for Reorienting Knowledge

This fundamental epistemological framework represented by the emergent cartographies in the results

is a mechanism for going beyond the scientiﬁc concept of socio-ecological systems and provides a broader

lens through which to interpret the modern world. Moving away from linear ideas of relationships, these

cartographies represent a shift toward non-linear thinking: they are networked, like rhizomes, or fractals, and

can represent multiple levels of organization along non-linear paths.

As noted by Castro-Diaz et al. (2022), such visual representations illustrate “key control points where a

small intervention can produce major systemic changes.” Identifying these critical points is crucial in contexts

of systemic crisis, where resources are scarce and strategic interventions are required. Participatory mapping,

in particular, offers valuable approaches to territorial understanding by integrating diverse types of knowledge.

According to the study by Arenas-Monreal et al. (2015) on community health, these participatory mappings.

Horizons of Sustainability and Planetary Ethics

Expose socio-environmental determinants invisible to conventional technical analysis. Looking toward

the future of sustainability, the horizons mentioned in these results go beyond technical or methodological

dimensions and position ethics as a crossroads for interdisciplinary dialogue. The proposal for a planetary

ethics grounded in the realization of this fundamental mutual dependence responds to what Hans Jonas

(1984) saw as the need for new moral principles in the face of humanity’s technical powers.

This ethics of the planet is grounded in the idea that “human well-being is not separate from the well-

being of the ecological systems in which it ﬂourishes,” as noted by Arenas-Monreal et al. (2015). An ecosystemic

perspective on health rules out any artiﬁcial separation between humans and other types of life systems.

Valle’s normative framework for biocentrism takes on a pluralistic character, in line with Plumwood’s

(2002) view that rejects both hierarchical anthropocentrism—which is ethically unacceptable—and generalized

biocentric egalitarianism, which reduces nature to an abstraction rather than respecting individual creatures.

By emphasizing both the commonality and the differences among various forms of life, this perspective offers

a particularly fertile ground for ethical reﬂection on how interspecies relationships should be restructured from

a standpoint of pure reciprocity and mutual aid.

Limitations and Future Challenges

Although ecological logos holds transformative potential, it also faces clear limitations and challenges.

The ﬁrst is the immense difﬁculty of putting these epistemological frameworks into practical action within an

institutional context that remains dominated by fragmented discursive logics. Today’s academic, political, and

economic structures tend to resist transdisciplinary approaches that break down established boundaries.

Second, transforming these conceptual frameworks into actual operational methodologies requires

extensive experimentation and validation across different settings. The new cartographies promised by the

above could indeed be useful tools, but they still need to be tested in the ﬁeld as mechanisms for constructive

dialogue between different forms of knowledge.

19

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

Finally, the proposal for an ecosystemic logos faces the challenge of not becoming a new totalizing

metanarrative. As Stengers (2018) has urged, we need an “ecology of practices” that recognizes the unique

pluralism present in all the different ways of being—without attempting to assimilate them all into a system

that would instantly give rise to so many new ways of epistemologically excluding its own Creation.

Conclusions

Interdisciplinary dialogues between science, technology, and nature with culture form the boundaries

of a radical ecosystemic intelligibility: an emerging way of understanding and inhabiting this world that, for

better or worse, transcends those old dichotomies of Western modernity. A new complex rationality, horizons

of sustainability waiting to be built against the backdrop of a civilizational crisis.

The ecosystemic logos of these dialogues is not a closed system or a new overarching metanarrative,

but rather an open space for conversation among vastly different forms of knowledge and life that have yet

to coexist without translating one another. As Isabelle Stengers (2018) proposes, we need an “ecology of

practices” that recognizes, without hierarchizing, the incommensurable pluralism of modes of existence.

The emerging cartographies we have explored offer ways to navigate this complexity; tools to make

visible connections, tensions, and possibilities at the interfaces across various knowledge systems. These

mappings do not merely seek to depict pre-existing landscapes, but to participate in the ongoing creation of

new ways of thinking and acting.

Sustainability means building horizons from the ecosystemic logos, which does not conceive of

sustainability as a ﬁnal state to be attained, but rather as a continuous process of conversation, learning, and

transformation. As Barth et al. (2023) have demonstrated, transdisciplinary learning is a lever for meaningful

transformations, providing a space where different perspectives can engage in productive dialogue with one

another.

At a historical moment marked by multiple overlapping crises, the ecosystemic logos offers us not

only analytical tools for understanding complexity, but also ethical and political resources for imagining

and beginning to realize more just and sustainable worlds. As Morin (2006) notes, we need an “ethics of

understanding” that is both realistic and attuned to human needs, mindful of our intrinsic interdependence

and the shared responsibility that all living beings on Earth bear for its future.

The radical ecosystemic intelligibility emerging from these interdisciplinary dialogues calls for a new

sensibility. What is needed is to keep the doors open even in the face of surprise and uncertainty; to remember

the limits of human knowledge without faltering in our quest for understanding. Perhaps this is where our

future lies—the most precious thing that ecosystemic logos, as horizons of sustainability, can offer to the

people living in this century.

20

Revista Conexiones UG, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - June 2026

e-ISSN: 2960-8147 ISBN: 978-9942-44-827-9

References

Arenas-Monreal, L., Cortez-Lugo, M., Parada-Toro, I., Pacheco-Magaña, L. E., & Magaña-Valladares, L. (2015).

Population health diagnosis using an ecohealth approach. Revista de Saúde Pública, 49, 78. https://doi.

org/10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005842

Barth, M., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Lam, D. P., Bürgener, L., & Lang, D. J. (2023). Transdisciplinary learning as a key

leverage for sustainability transformations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 64, 101361.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101361 Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred ecology (4th ed.). Routledge.

Bratton, B. H. (2016). The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. MIT Press.

Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press.

Castro-Díaz, R., Delgado, L. E., Langle-Flores, A., Perevochtchikova, M., & Marín, V. H. (2022). A systematic

review of social participation in ecosystem services studies in Latin America from a transdisciplinary

perspective, 1996–2020. Science of The Total Environment, 828, 154523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

scitotenv.2022.154523

Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. University of Chicago Press.

Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds.

Duke University Press.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial

perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 Hui, Y. (2019). Recursivity

and contingency. Rowman & Littleﬁeld International.

Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. University

of Chicago Press.

Lagunas Vázquez, M. (2021). Transdisciplinarity as a useful tool for addressing socio-environmental phenomena

from the social sciences. In VII Latin American Meeting on Social Science Methodology (ELMECS).

Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

Morin, E. (2006). The Sixth Method: Ethics. Cátedra.

Morin, E. (2007). Introduction to Complex Thought. Gedisa.

Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. Routledge.

Santos, B. (2009). An epistemology of the South: The reinvention of knowledge and social emancipation. Siglo

XXI.

Stengers, I. (2018). Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science. Polity Press.

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton

University Press.

Translation Note: Special thanks to professor Eva Mascaró (University of Guayaquil) for the academic translation of this

manuscript into English.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0197-714X

21