Methodological fixation has proven to be a quite obvious intellectual disease in academia. It wreaks cognitive destruction in most areas of study, though it seems more prevalent in the social studies. The causes are obscure, at least according to the quietness in the evaluations of educational strategies. In any way, the risk that whole young generations may know only one side of looking at things is real.

Passing on knowledge ordained by a single methodological principle is an efficient perspective in a reductionist sense, for the finality of intellectual formation. The results may be notable - in an actional way; they are surely so in the short term and punctually: fundamentalist actions prove this daily.

Despite the torrent of manifestations, which seem to represent the normality of the social phenomenology, the single-voiced preference for the methodological principle is still problematic in its area of inclusion and in the durability of its effects on the real world. The problem is especially felt in the consequences wrought upon the consistency of hominization - here in the spiritual sense of the idea of man and mankind - where the all-encompassing meanings should not be affected by cognitive partisanship and by methodological feuding.

Curiously for the intellectual world, the methodological reductionism in arranging the packets of information within the education and formation process constitutes a recipe for the undermining of the principal quality of the mind: its openness to diversity, which is also the only way to formulate adequate answers to the challenges of real life.

The closing of perspectives means less solutions and reduced freedom of movement in the area of affirmation - which is naturally situated beyond the limits of survival. In juridical terms, the single-voice-ness of methodological principles in the formative and cognitive approach can be viewed as an attempted crime on the spirit, a sequestration of personal reasoning, an attack on free-will.

The ravages are even greater as the involvement in social life increases, with the parti pris of the methodologically restricted vision determining the stunted actional schemes. The most dangerous consequence to the quality of the action is the loss of the spirit of criticism, which is the essential ingredient of social innovation.

In the absence of possible alternatives for the creation of actional channels, the pre-configuration of the acts and facts of society is done within the tight confines of thematic fixations and methodological habit. Out of what should be a natural and complex existential field, the societal system turns into an artificial one, with a selective function, deficiently combining factors of emergence and negatively coagulating the cohesive forces. The theory whose principles limit the perspective of actional options projects beams of stunted meaning over reality, instituting a mechanism for the recessiveness of the functions of evolution in all fields of creation, perversely more so in the case of reason.

What is truly a conceptual trap is the ignoring of the problems arising from the actual application of a theory. In practice, the rule is to solve the problems identified in its particular way by a single theory. In reality though, many more problems crop up, caused by the implementation of the ideas of a single theory. The overly dedicated advocates of this theory vow to disregard these problems as irrelevant.

Such problems are absent when disseminating knowledge, due perhaps to a bigoted mentality. The economic crises, for instance, seem to explain themselves quite well through effects which are inadequate to various equilibriums, as a result of the patterns recommended by mainstream theory for conceiving the combination of factors. The persistence beyond limits of the state of crisis is an explicit product of the persistence of the unilateralism of approaches, which was derived from theories adopted without criticism. Doctrinary dogmatism is the source of the failure to overcome the blockages.

Antinomical expressions such as "exiting the crisis is done through more market/more state" point to the risk of measures which follow doctrinary preferences and ideological assumptions, meaning that exiting the crisis would be achieved by inventing the causes of another crisis. The alternative option does not solve the true problem, it only creates a new series of problems whose real solutions could be found in the trans-alternative approach - an approach which somewhat naturally unfolds over a horizon (a Susskindian landscape!) which encompasses the perspectives, combines the forces and unifies the fields of thought.

The trans-alternative movement does not disturb the preference for the methodological principles, allowing them space to manifest. Except that the consequence-level antinomies do not compensate within the new horizon of understanding and action. The problems of economic, social and political life draw their solutions from completely unrestricted sources, which we could call holotropic sources.

The problems of self-learning complex dynamic systems, such as societal systems, can only be understood through the prism of the absolute principle of "nature does not make leaps". The contingent sense of this principle is that development, in all its supposed diversity of quantitative and qualitative processes, keeps interior and exterior equilibriums - within the limits of the perpetuation of life - both with regard to space and time, and causality as well. Understanding the construction of this system is, thus, impossible: it guides thought on parsimonious principles.