• Ton Jörg


This book may be viewed as a complex book about the topic of complexity. It is both critical of the present state of art in the social sciences and constructive in its view about the possibility of building a new science for the future. A science that takes the complexity of reality as real. A science that is based on a new framework: a framework that does not yet exist. The new framework, therefore, will be a framework that has to be invented.


Social Science Nonlinear Reality Rich Culture Linear Causality Computational Complexity Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bhaskar, R. (2002). Reflections on meta-reality: Transcendence, emancipation and everyday life. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bohm, D. (1996). On creativity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brockman, J. (1995). The third culture: Beyond the scientific revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  6. Brockman, J. (2006, January 1). Edge The World Question Center. The Huffington Post, pp. 1–2. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from
  7. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Gohr, S. (2000). Magritte. San Francisco: Abrams Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Jardine, D. W., Friesen, S., & Clifford, P. (2006). Curriculum in abundance. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Jörg, T. (2004a). A theory of reciprocal learning in dyads. Cognitive systems 6(2, 3) 159–170. Groningen: European Society for the Study of Cognitive Systems (ESSCS).Google Scholar
  11. Jörg, T. (2004b). Complexity theory and the reinvention of reality of education. In Proceedings of the 2004 complexity science and educational research conference (pp. 121–146), September 30–October 3, 2004. Canada: Chaffey’s Locks. (
  12. Kauffman, S. (1995a). Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kauffman, S. (1995b). At home in the universe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Morin, E. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Schama, S. (2006). The power of art. London: BBC Books.Google Scholar
  17. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Stanley, D. (2005). Paradigmatic complexity: Emerging ideas and historical views of the complexity sciences. In W. C. Doll Jr., M. J. Fleener, D. Trueit, & J. St.Julien (Eds.), Chaos, complexity, curriculum, and culture (pp. 133–151). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  20. Von Foerster, H. (1993). Understanding understanding. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. (1987a). Thought and language (A. Kozulin Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Vygotsky, L. (1987b). In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Problems of general psychology, Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Education and Learning (former IVLOS)University of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations