What is the underlying epistemological paradigm of this theory?
Human beings, like every living being, not an aggregate of juxtaposed elements, is anintegrated whole which is a dynamic supra, formed by many perfectly coordinated subsystems: the subsystem physical, chemical, biological, psychological, social, cultural, ethical, moral andspiritual. Integrated together constitutes the personality, and lack of integration or coordination triggers pathological processes of different nature: organic, psychological, social, orseveral together. Therefore, the complexity and uniqueness of person also requires a different interpretation of the concept of “science” with its philosophical and rigorous methodology.All this has required the structuring of a complexity paradigm, a paradigm emerges in demanding form of human life itself, from a purely epistemological paradigm post-positivism, sinceit relies on some new rules of rationality that require versatility and agility of dialectical logic, ie logic that integrates many views in a unified vision.
The need for such aposition was already recognized and accepted-a level of philosophy of science towards the end of the decade of the '60s, when, after five symposia on the epistemological foundations of modernscience, the last and most famous (Urbana, USA, 1969), according to Echeverria (1989), "rose the death certificate of the received view (logical positivism), which, thereafter, wasabandoned by almost all epistemologists" (p. 25) because, as pointed out by Popper (1977), "their inherent difficulties insurmountable" (p. 118); even seriously questioned the inadequacy of theaxiomatic model for many sciences, even natural ones, and, Instead, it was suggested to include the adoption of other models, such as taxonomic, descriptive, graphics, computer, etc.