The reflection on the fundamentals of economicity gathers arguments for a reestablishment as the theoretical acquisitions of the complexity are being internalized. The ideatic movement of this nature surprizes through amplitude and profundity, announcing itself as an epistemic break with regard to the intellectual model of knowledge.

It is, essentially, the recharging of the guidelines of cognition and of the spheres of rational reflection with content and with sense. The representation of the world targets the completeness of universal knowledge, in all material and imaginary dimensions. The equation of Nature is thus solved by the human mind through the solutions offered by non-exclusive reasoning, which is a true co-integration of the forms of knowledge.

In the way in which the components of the human condition are manifested – through work, labour and action – the understanding is radically changed: α) the causality becomes multi-stratified, with non-linear genetics and sensitive to stochastic rules; β) time exhibits a dynamics which is increasingly imposed by the expectations; ω) space dematerializes its representation, with the world already experiencing a virtual geography.

For Economics the situation is only apparently similar to the great stages of synthesis which were covered in the experience of knowledge after the emergence of macroeconomics. As it is already known, its vision has generated the radical reconfiguration of the explicative models. This was all done with the perspective of including the inner workings of political arrangements and those of wealth creation. The challenges of methodology and principle faced by the complexity are found at the origin of a novel double movement: the more there is a careful interpretation of things as elements in a complex, multi-faceted web, the more visible becomes a differentiation between the spheres of meaning of the economical. This also happens at the various levels of aggregation, which further complicates the understanding of reciprocal movements and even more so the rationalization of the results at the governance level.

In other words, in Economics the knowledge cumulates expressions on fusion into a cognitive entity structured on integrative organic principles and on functional segregation, in a somewhat non-complementary manner. The body of the economy is multi-formatted both on the horizontal and on the vertical, assimilating values and principles, and achieving symbiosis with all of the components of the global social system. These obviously include the political and the juridical but also nature in general, not just in the ecological sense. The trend toward unity is also influenced by the trend toward diversity, with the two being hard to reconcile conceptually. The two trends are not correctly defined anyway, as the theory proposes for now only a federalized cognitive entity – a shortened version for the understanding of the state of complexity.

In a surprizing way, the trends seem to be in concordance with a unification of the perspectives of various social sciences, with Economics being ever more permissive to developments into the conceptual territory of anthropology when deciphering the grand evolutional paths of a history constantly pushing towards the performance of progress, when incorporating the practices of establishing fairness in terms of freedom of action, when rationally accepting the behavioural aspects which exceed the legal or moral norms and when deciphering the biological determinants of economicity. The perception and interpretation of economic problems according to the vertical micro-macro complementarity has prevailed until recently, while today it seems natural for the explanations to follow the meanings of various spheres such as the natural economy, the underground economy, the behavioural economy, the institutional economy and the political economy, which are all relevant to the complex texture of the economic phenomenon.

The great epistemic challenge is that these spheres must be considered – from the perspective of the theory of complexity – as being parts of an organic whole, which exists inside the human phenomenon and which we label as economicity. The cognitive dependencies coagulate into a coherent formula when using the human phenomenon as a starting point. Its sphere becomes an object of study, which in Economics is focused on the human action. And even though Economics targets the explication of the randamental facets of the inter-subjective transactions, it also incorporates various spheres of meaning from all of the other spheres of the human action. For some time now we have been even able to talk about a holistic recuperation of the economic knowledge and a recrystallization of some compounds which until now have only been obtained from separate rational crucibles.

There may exist a possible acceleration of the cognitive restructuring of Economics due in part to the strain put by the global crisis on the limits of the standard explicative model. These are clear indicators of the depletion of the potential for understanding and for explaining which is available to Economics.

The epistemological key of the new synthesis is to consider the meanings relevant according to their degrees of complexity, which are marked as states of aggregation on the vertical – from elements to structures made up of them – and on the spheres of consistency, with regard to their functionality and finality. The difficulty in understanding comes from the slowness of the process for learning a certain route for the metamorphosis of principles. We usually deal with these principles separately in the complex horizon of complexity, among others which offer an explanation of the human nature provide us with its source in the integrated context, as a form of non-fragmentary finitude. If it is relatively common for us to accept that at a microeconomic level the source of the human action is the individual, or that at a macroeconomic level it is the constitution inter-individuality, when it comes to socio-economy, or political economy, or even the underground economy and the natural economy, the crystallization of the source remains a challenge with no clear answers, obscuring or deforming the perception of the principles of complexity. Furthermore, the understanding of the co-substantialization of the sources of action in stages of complexity and in spheres of functionality and meaning for economicity (which insure the fundaments of the organic complexity), or in other words the correlation of principles, remains a challenge to economicians.

There is no doubt that the scientific community’s acceptance of the cognitive impasse is not the winning path. The preservation of today’s theoretical model sits at the origin of the unprecedented prolonging of the state of crisis. In a more or less conclusive manner, the reality pushes toward a new theoretical positioning, where the only reasonable solution is the synthesis of economic knowledge within the guidelines of the theory of complexity.