The Newtonian-Cartesian Paradigm ruled alone from the XVII century until the beginning of XX, when it became more and more evident that it could not give answers to complex phenomena.
Freud discovers and tries to map the unconscious; there is the explosion of knowledge of the infinitesimal world; the emergency of the concept of “auto-organization” that promotes the inversion of entropy in living beings (which does not follow the second law of thermodynamics; in fact, they should not because they are OUT of equilibrium); all this shakes the old paradigmatic building. Then the sciences of complexity appear: Psychoanalysis, Quanta Physics, Thermodynamics of the Dissipative Systems, and so on. The basic assumption of them all is the complexity, whose concept is, to Edgar Morin, ” . . . that . . . which is woven together.”
Life is complex and the classical paradigm violates this, trying to approach it with linear cognitive instruments. Psychoanalysis conforms to another paradigm because the unconscious has a different logic (to Matte-Blanco, a symmetric one) far away from the formal one (Aristotelian or asymmetric, for Matte-Blanco). This new logic is related to the “net” model that characterizes the complexity paradigm, the auto-organization and autonomy, which dynamically interact in the unconscious without melt with each other, nor one excluding the other (Bi-logic to Matte Blanco).
This special moment of the “science in expansion,” to use an expression so cherished to Bion, is a turbulent one, allowing us to invent a way of constructing methodologies of the complex, giving to the epistemological question a Psychoanalytical approach, constructing subject and knowledge at the same time, interacting in the setting in a weave of narrative, or we risk letting Psychoanalysis to be domesticated by a neo-positivism wave and fall again in the formalism that sucks the life of psychoanalytic process (as already seen in some parts of the world).