1 Transmethodological rhizome. Research challenges, transparadigm and transmethod

The complex and liberating legacies of history have been erroneously linked to traditional modernist-postmodernist-colonial research; for example, inquiring with Paulo Freire in oppressive inquiries, or with Edgar Morin in reductionist inquiries. In these cases the colonial type of research prevails and attenuates liberating, decolonial and complex ideas; pigeonholing them in their own oppression.

Therefore, decolonial research is indicated, since it takes away the diminution and avoidance of the method, deconstructing it in order to adequately analyze in all its splendor the liberating, decolonial and complex ideas. In this sense, giving decolonial planetary opening as apodictic of complexity (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2022b}) beyond paradigms, in the complex transparadigm is “[…] the dismantling of the exercise of power of modernist research” (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2020}a, p. 705), entangling complexifying and recognizing the insufficiency of what we know. While coloniality, the world-system operated as “[…] a powerful machine of subalternization of knowledge [...], simultaneously establishing a planetary epistemological model” (^{MIGNOLO, 2003}, p. 122).

In the same liberating sense, instead of thinking in colonial methodologies, we are decolonizing, complexifying and weaving in “[…] transmethodology, which consists in thinking beyond the traditional methods of academic research and writing” (^{FORTUNATO, 2022}, p. 46), leads to transmethods that are deconstructions and reconstructions, de-linking and re-linking of traditional methods, inheriting the connotation and prefix trans, which means beyond, of transmodernity; being the planetary decoloniality the project of it, which leads us to the liberation of any global coloniality. This being the continuation of the colonization project, begun on this side in 1492.

Especially with the Freirian legacy in the lines of exploration, which have several published results: Paulo Freire: the wanderer of utopia in transmethodologies; transepistemologies of knowledge-knowledges and transcomplex transmethodologies and planetary decoloniality-complexity in re-linking; we go with the complex objective to support some theoretical-transmethodological challenges of research in the Freirian legacy, making explicit some re-linkages of the teacher and his training. All this is done with the transmethod of rhizomatic deconstruction. Why rhizomes in transmethodical inquiries? Because we need to break, to open, its essence is inclusion, rhizomes are philosophical concepts presented in the first chapter of A thousand plateaus (1980), developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in their project Capitalism and schizophrenia (1972). “The rhizome as a case of complex system” (^{INGALA GÓMEZ, 2008}, p. 258).

Three entangled significances are designated to the rhizome:

To think is not to represent (one does not seek an adequacy with a supposed objective reality, but a real effect that relaunches life and thought, displaces their challenges, takes them further and elsewhere); 2) there is no real beginning but in the middle. There where the word ‘genesis’ fully recovers its etymological value of ‘becoming’, without relation to an origin; 3) if every encounter is ‘possible’ in the sense that there is no reason to disqualify a priori some paths more than others, not for that reason every encounter is selected by experience (some assemblies, some couplings do not produce or change anything). (^{ZOURABICHVILI, 2007}, p. 95).

In this sense, rhizomatically deconstruction as transmethod carries with it a reinventing and rethinking (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2019a}) in which the untying of the old vices of modernist-postmodernist-colonial research lead us to go beyond classifications: introduction, methodology, results and conclusions and we re-link (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2019b}) to rhizomatic frameworks in Freirian research, which are undoubtedly decolonial.

After analyzing the decolonizing crisis, we go to the reconstruction; this is in an unfinished way, complexifying and transdisciplining the knowledge-knowledges (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2019a}), which come from the recognition of the knowledges in equal degree of importance of the knowledges, which must be decolonized in order to recognize them and these are intertwined with the knowledges.

It should be noted that transmethods, such as rhizomatic deconstruction, rescue the research subject in the first person, contributing with his sentimental thinking, with his professional life actions. The author, as in this case, the author participates in her experience in Freirean studies and uses her words to make herself understood. So did Paulo Freire, with remarkable words such as: word hollow of alienating verbalisms. Here the author speaks of the beggar's bowl, to speak of emptiness in the crisis, but she also speaks of the halterophilia of thought, to incite us to think deeply and to decant us from the old global colonial fashion.

Transmethods are deconstructive essences of modernist methods; break with the imposed status. For example, the researcher remains objectively on the object of study; their feelings and subjectivities in general do not intervene in the investigation. In homage to the creator of the planetary-complex decolonial transmethods, in one of his articles Andrés Velásquez asks the researcher in an interview: “What are transmethods?”, and she replies that they are paths from:

[...] disjunctive and reductive thinking to complex thinking in decolonial, complex and transdisciplinary research. It is an alternative to complexify methods rooted in the task of constructing knowledge and that require correcting points about their scope and possibilities. (^{VELÁSQUEZ, 2022}, p. 18).

It is important to understand that it is not easy for colonized minds to understand the trans-methodical, planetary-complex decolonial inquiries, which are not an exercise of scientific bricolage, nor of mixtures, clearly we affirm that we are decolonizing; beyond oppression, with the liberation of Paulo Freire.

Freire's works are not recipes but challenges, they are a counter-face to the consequences of barbarism that is repeated as a tare embedded in the genes, now by the hand of a global coloniality that includes our own brothers directing governments disguised as decolonial. Therefore, we cannot understand the liberating sense of love and faith for the oppressed in the Freirian legacy if we investigate under the oppressive colonial methods, which hide the great human being of Paulo Freire. That is the challenge to assume with minds unlinked from the old oppressive minds, which visit the legacy of Paulo Freire as a Sunday in the cemetery to make sure he is well dead; or use him in curricula to boast of having liberating laws.

2 Rhizome crisis. The Freirian legacy in traditional research

To bequeath Paulo Freire from traditional inquiries is to conceal his liberating essence, of love and faith; it is to accommodate him to the colonial in which it is very difficult to think, for example, that to educate is to liberate the oppressed from the very center of their communities: to educate to critically know reality and empower oneself to transform it refers to political literacy (^{FREIRE, 1970b}). Colonial inquiries imprint educating by passivity and repetition; just the struggle that Paulo Freire led against bookishness is his insurrection; which will not be possible with hot water cloths in the immense oppressive fever that eats away at the educational institutions that carry, in the century of technologies, the oppressive education with other instruments; that is why the Freirian legacy continues to beat.

The methodical investigation does not incite to the transforming education, to educate as practice of freedom (^{FREIRE, 1970a}), in that education the student is investigated with quantitative methods only, it continues thinking in his ill-defined intelligence lodged in the mind, ignoring his soul and spirit; it continues with the lack of faith in the student; and in that the masses of poverty, aberrant facts where the resources abound and are extracted in agreements of governments that sell us, will not be able to learn. And there to free themselves.

The pedagogy of indignation clearly Freirian (^{FREIRE, 2012}) is not possible to be unveiled under the passive reading, with the inactive voice in the actors of the educational process; while they continue obeying in a repetition and copying; the indignation that leads to liberation cannot be provoked under the colonial pedagogies that serve the oppressor that mark the history of obedience the best, supposedly superior that imposes how to be educated. It would seem that we are writing in the times of Paulo Freire, but it is that today as yesterday are his times; where it is urgent to teach to investigate to rummage in the unsaid; and under reductionism this is not possible; “[…] it confronts the educated as its necessary antinomy” (^{FREIRE, 1970b}, p. 79).

We must demystify the way of investigating and reading Paulo Freire in repetitive passivity, freeing ourselves from our own objectivity outside of sentipensar because “[…] liberation is a childbirth. A painful birth” (^{FREIRE, 1970b}, p. 47). If this liberation demands a change in the form in which he will give birth, it demands a correct breathing, a staunch will and a cry of pain and at the same time of love for the one he knows, his son, will enlighten him and give meaning to his life. As the freedom that must be longed for even in our countries, where not to investigate decolonized, under other minds leads to serious problems of thought, where the halterofilia of it does not have its chance; because today as Paulo Freire did yesterday an awakening is needed; teaching to revive his letters in the life of each one, of each being who lives the opprobrium and the use of his strength to serve the State that deigns to be decolonial, but is filled with riches, while it distributes gifts, in some opportunities, declaring equality.

Why have we not understood what is brewing in the pot of oppression, under the loom of domination? Because the struggles are carried in minds that believe in themselves with faith, awakening from lethargy, “[…] critically understanding reality in such a way that the limiting and oppressive situations are confronted and transcended in the process of pronouncing our word and re-writing - here is the transforming action - the history and destiny of our world” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 68). Yes, these needs must be provoked in the conscientization of our sight, our heart and our whole being; and to demystify and eradicate the conformism that beats in each one, accepting the bitter reality of ignominy.

Modernist research loaded with reductionism, sentimental thinking, full of an aberrant objectivity that discards all that is human, and injects all that is convenient; where even in the postgraduates it is repeated as firmness what should be said or not, even in that place where the letters should shine with their best dimensions there is a lack of critical thinking, distant from the complex, that intertwines, interacts, feeds back and dialogues in order to unveil the hidden, to unlink even in the supposed decolonial struggles of the underhanded of the global coloniality; “[…] in order for the oppressed to unite among themselves, it is necessary that they cut the umbilical cord of magical or mythical character, through which they find themselves linked to the world of oppression” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 229)

This inquiry, and the transmetodicas, beyond the method that try to complexify, transdisciplinary and transversalize, looking for the black holes of the elusiveness, are the desirable ones where the true participative action the author is suffering and suffers from the problematic, where the ethnographer becomes autoethnographer, re-linked that the research cannot be carried out in the modernist-postmodernist-colonial reductionist, paradigm that “[…] conceals Paulo Freire as the possibility that in every place where oppression occurs there may be the legacy of the pedagogue burning in the minds, beating in the hearts and activating liberation in the same field of action” (^{RODRÍGUEZ; LEMUS, 2022}, p. 138).

What has happened to one of the essential Freirian categories: dialogue? Are we sure that we provoke the dialectical-dialogical dialogue? In the investigations we go to the depth of the facts, of the categories that we investigate, at the same time that we complement them with a sentimental logic of the other? The lack of dialogue with the subjectivity of human beings, the denial of being in all its complexity is subverted with the Freirian conception; let us not forget who is Paulo Freire? “[…] the sensitive being who suffered the streets of hunger, prison and exile; leaving an immense legacy that we must inherit and make ours as a praxis of love” (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2021a}, p. 199); here I listen to reread and evaluated myself with Paulo Freire with Jesus Christ my greatest example of liberation; is love an act of romantic illusionists that does not materialize in a liberating action? No, on the contrary, love is the engine of liberation.

We want to clarify: what is love for Paulo Freire; “[…] love is an act of courage, not of fear, love is a commitment to others. No matter where the oppressed are, the act of love is the commitment to their cause, the cause of liberation” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 70). The love for our fellow men can be educated, provoked, identifying us with all our complexity, with beautiful slogans of our ago: as we are nature on earth as homeland; it is excellences that lead us to recognize the necessary recivilization of humanity. You who read me: do you evidence these needs in the provoked researches? Under which lens do you look at the urgent needs of humanity, under the same one that hides them and the king paradigm that provokes them, in the blindness of knowledge, under the same reductionist window; is it that you fear to look through the balcony of excellence, fear to provoke thinking minds?

Therefore, in order to guide to sincerity and liberation, the pedagogue of the favelas speaks that “[…] it is necessary that this love be in reality an ‘armed love’, a fighting love of one who affirms the right or the duty of one who has the right to fight, to denounce, to announce [...] and that it is necessary that all of us learn and live” (^{FREIRE, 1994}, p. 62-63). This political literacy of love in the inhumanity that insurges in the propagation of lack of love and lack of compassion for fellow human beings on planet earth is of special care.

In this sense, the actions of the teacher, teacher, professor at any level must be reviewed in the light of the true Freirian understanding of what it means to educate, to train for life, kindness, love for our fellow men outside the oppressive reality imposed in the curricula, in the false policies of the state. A de-linking to which not all are willing; because in the blindness of their thinking they serve the global coloniality; and they are in charge of repeating the colonial way of how they were educated.

On the other hand, under the mechanisms that provoke the brief theoretical, the elusive method and the unchangeable steps, ethnography is done looking from afar, a participative action is provoked where one does not participate, but in an auditorium far from the place where one lives and coexists with the pain; a theory is imposed as an attraction where concreteness is lacking; moreover, it is known as topoi: theory-practice, global-local, black-white, qualitative-quantitative, quantitative-socio-critical, among others; conveniently forgetting the nature of life, the reality of the problems and the complexity of everything on the face of the earth.

The assumption of dialogical life “[…] implies a displacement from the concrete context, which provides the facts, to the theoretical context, in which these facts are analyzed in depth, to return to the concrete context, where men experience new forms of praxis” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 56). What accurate words, and what a distant reality when man has already gone to the moon, and we write by ordering a word verb in the computer. We are unworthy when we promote parcelled knowledge, disguised research and knowledge distant from knowledge; we continue to provoke global coloniality, the drying up of our peoples, the ruin of the soul.

Qualitative-quantitative research remains a disguise because it continues to separate the qualitative from the quantitative; they do not dialogue in the facts, nor in the categories; if it is worth breaking this rhizome to think in high-level Freirian categories: liberation, human condition, human being, dialogue, liberating education, indignation, faith, love, educating, subversive thinking; among so many others; now let us ask: under the lens of colonial research are the complexities of these categories provoked? We usually answer by excusing ourselves in supposed programs, curricula, guidelines to comply with. Thank you Paulo Freire for not stopping in the face of opprobrium; on the contrary, you show us that it is possible to fight against it!

^{Freire (1995}, p. 101) touches on very valuable categories that we should investigate in his shoes, putting on his shoes: reflexivity, action, utopia, etc.:

To dialogue rather than mutism; to praxis rather than ‘law and order’; to men who organize themselves reflexively for action, rather than those who organize themselves for passivity; to creative and communicative language rather than prescriptive signals; to reflexive challenges rather than domesticating slogans; and to values that are lived rather than myths that are imposed.

We know we are unfinished in the face of the enormous criticisms and the holes we have found when we investigate Paulo Freire, when we put his liberating example in the lenses of universities, graduate programs, communities. In the coming rhizome we will continue with the construction and at the same time we will rebuild with decolonial, complex and decolonial views.

3 Rhizome reconstruction. Getting bogged down with Paulo Freire, liberating the oppressed in transmethodologies

Transmethodology is complex and transdisciplinary, that is transcomplex, it interweaves an ethical responsibility of non-reductionist and inclusive knowledge, through the “[…] understanding of the multiple levels of reality designates the conjunction of the simple and disciplinary, which crosses and transcends them” (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2021a}, p. 200). This way of thinking in research needs to complexify and transdiscipline, to concretize, unveil, incur and this has been erroneously conceived under the cone of modernity; this is postmodernity. In our conception we conceive transmethodology in the first place for being decolonial, which apodictically provokes the understanding of complexity and transdisciplinarity. Transmethodological thinking in multiple knowledges, critical sources and transformative configurations (^{MALDONADO, 2019}) is of special consideration in complex thinking as a conception of oppressive crisis in every sense.

Complex and transdisciplinary thinking leads the teacher, the educator to break the boundaries of the discipline that he imposes in oppression and banking education before the life of the student who does not discern the expired teaching. Therefore, it is desirable to leap discipline as insurrection and go to other complexities that help us to understand the sea of uncertainty in archipelagos of certainty; for this, returning to Paulo Freire is a must more than a century after his birth.

One of the Freirian essences is connectivity, interweaving, relationality; the rhizomatic investigations that we advocate in the Freirian legacy are deeply relational (^{ANDRADE; RIVERA, 2019}). Together with the deep transdisciplinarity in transmethodical research it results:

[...] intermediary and connector of the articulated dialogue between the multiple fields of knowledge [...] in this sense the social complexity of the studied phenomena can be nourished by all the fields of knowledge, given the multidimensional conditions that make it possible. (^{ANDRADE; RIVERA, 2019}, p. 85).

Transdiscipline prevents the mutism of disciplines, leads them to coexistence, to break the exercise of power, to liberation above all things:

There is no discipline in immobility, in the indifferent, distant authority that surrenders its own destinies to freedom. In the authority that renounces in the name of respect for freedom. But neither is there freedom in the immobility of freedom to which authority imposes its freedom, its preferences, as the best for freedom. Immobilism that submits to freedom, intimacy or movement of pure revolt. (^{FREIRE, 1994}, p. 129).

In decolonial, complex, transdisciplinary, rhizomatic, and generally transmethodical research, we fly with Paulo Freire to respect for existence, and we provoke it in its full understanding, as an expressibility of responsible freedom in the ecology of the action of its acts; “[…] as human, it cannot be mute, silent, nor can it be nourished by false words but by true words with which men transform the world” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 71). But then let us remember what it is to be, to be and to feel humanly with the Freirian legator: “[…] to exist, humanly, is to pronounce the world, is to transform it. The pronounced world, in turn, returns problematized to the pronouncing subjects, demanding from them a new pronouncement” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 71).

Of course, thinking about transmethodologies is not simple in exploration planes with legacies such as those of Paulo Freire, it is a never-ending process, an effort to go deeper into knowing in such research. A process that, as we have mentioned, the principle of the reintroduction of the subject interlocks uncertainty in the production of knowledge by highlighting that all knowledge is a reconstruction of the mind; that goes from concretion to abstraction that permeates the soul and spirit.

Therefore, the relevance in knowing, in the study and search for solutions to our vital problems is essential, in education “[…] the contributions of teachers to the commitment of students are carried out through active learning proposals, meaningful experiences and a relationship of trust and security between teacher and students” (^{ROSSI; BITTENCOURT; MARQUEZAN, 2021}, p. 1). It should be noted that relevance and motivation in education and research is a theme of awareness in the legacy, in Freirian works.

Just like planetary decolonial research with the property of the assigning rupture, the rhizome “[…] does not cease to reconstitute itself” (^{DELEUZE; GUATTARI, 1980}, p. 15) in a continuous dialectic of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, for which Paulo Freire must be felt; his legacy is urgently needed to understand the processes of openness in which what matters is inclusion while respecting the complexity of the processes of liberation. It is urgent to consider that “[…] epistemic decolonization involves various forms of transdisciplinarity but not all forms of transdisciplinarity are decolonial” (^{MALDONADO-TORRES, 2015}, p. 1).

To inquire into the different colonial forms to which we teachers are subjected in an expeditious way to unlink ourselves and recognize as a self-evaluation our scarce practice in the light of the new needs in the communities and on the planet; to think globally, act locally. To provoke liberation in our students; the Freirian reading in the light of today's needs. To go with Paulo Freire beyond a reading or research for his anniversary.

We propose to investigate and interpret Paulo Freire beyond methods, in deep criticality; beyond the complacency of the elites who dictate the way to investigate, Freirian re-readings in the light of the oppressed, in deep decoloniality of minds, understanding his extremely complex praxis, praxis as action, utopia as walking, the process of struggle that does not stop. It is to seek the art of inhabiting the planet, the ecosophy, to conjugate diatopically the topoi, the separabilities that have made us uninhabitable and incommunicable places and that we reconcile with the transepistemic depths of knowing beyond the repetitive and definitive.

How did Paulo Freire do his research in the favelas, bogged down in the pain of the oppressed, making them his own, risking his life in inhuman conditions. His faith and love for the oppressed is a mark that few can deign to bear in erecting great legacies by empowering the oppressed. Inciting him to liberate himself and with it the oppressor himself. Therefore, they cannot ask us to alienate ourselves to methodologies, alienating verbalists; concealers of the power of the oppressor who oppresses himself, because it is not convenient that he revolts and raises his voice; because the overcoming project is in danger.

To rethink Paulo Freire in the light of ecosophy as the art of inhabiting the planet, as a process of liberation of minds; “[…] ecosophy goes far beyond the vision of the Earth as a living being; it reveals matter as a factor of the real as essential as consciousness or what we usually call divine” (^{PANIKKAR, 2005}, p. 202). But also to fully understand Paulo Freire is to glimpse the conscientization provided by learning around the perspectives of meaning (^{FREIRE, 1974b}).

In this sense, to provoke the awareness-awareness dyad is permeates research that teaches us to teach in the mind-social-spirit classroom; this is beyond the physical place of educational institutions where the human being learns in every place and time with reason lodged not only in the mind, but also in the soul and spirit; assuming that the human being is: nature-body-mind-soul-spirit-God; how does Freirean education connect with the mind-spirit classroom? Of course, education in community is that which allows “[…] learning in any place, space and time, and this mind-spirit classroom is permeated by the community dialectic, by the consciousness of liberation from overlapping, culture, daily life and by being subjective, it learns at all times” (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2022a}, p. 107).

The conscientization to be provoked must always have an impact on a literacy process that calls for liberation, for decoloniality, for example, the training process of these teachers requires the expansion of collective work spaces and the understanding of the specificity of literacy (^{MONOSSO; ESCO, 2021}), which leads us to liberation and the continuous way to demystify the need to oppress in education; in our actions.

What is the role of conscientization - conscientization in Freirean education with the mind-spirit classroom? “Conscientization implies that, when people realize that they are being oppressed, they also understand that they can liberate themselves to the extent that they manage to modify the concrete situation in the midst of which they perceive themselves as oppressed” (^{FREIRE, 1974a}, p. 25); for this we must give them tools, unveil them with them to find out and understand their own reality; their pain and the way to transform it. But for this, we must train ourselves as Continuous teacher training shows it a Paulo Freire-inspired study with early elementary school teachers (^{SOARES, 2019}), where it is indicated that “[…] principles such as listening, dialogue, participation and action-reflection-action movement” must be materialized (^{SOARES, 2019}, p. 151).

From the planetary decolonial research, professors in universities must return to the communities where our students come from, return them to their struggles in their regions; give them tools for solutions. Empower them with a pertinent action. Practical, from the abstract to the concrete; from the concrete to the abstract; the teacher who goes to the communities to look for the least contaminated center of the struggle for liberation.

It is to consider how to provoke research in the teaching processes, where the student discerns in a teaching not with obedience but with dissent, but how to investigate when your praxis is liberating; when you want to detach yourself from your own colonial evils that you bring to education? First of all, to be formed outside the anti-educational policies that are imposed in the curricula disguised as liberating and to understand that “[…] to educate is to know critically the reality in the sense that education is full of a pertinence of the actors of the educational process (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2021b}).

With Paulo Freire we must have learned that education must allow the criticality of the crisis, in which the learner is immersed “[…] education is considered as an act of knowledge, an awareness of reality, a reading of the world that precedes the reading of the word” (^{FREIRE, 1983}, p. 51). If this has not happened, we have read but not understood Freire's work; moreover, to educate is not to repeat, but to provoke childbirth.

What do we think about the painful childbirth of educating in Paulo Freire? Undoubtedly, the teacher must know that as education is not ours, neither is research as a way of educating; thus the political is service to the humanization and identity of communities as a mission to demystify the oppression, coloniality and exploitation of their resources; to return to Paulo Freire is to empower the student of their crops, weavings, wefts, songs, and everything that the cultivation of their intellect comes from their regions. Projecting them to the planet earth.

Once again, in the aforementioned lines of research, we have returned to Paulo Freire and asked ourselves: what is education from Paulo Freire's point of view? To educate is to form problematizing subjects like the wanderer of utopia (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2021c}). We have returned to the Freirian legacy in the places as thinkers that lead us to our innermost being as an evaluation of our praxis; “[…] in the liberating perspective, the teacher has the right but also the duty to question the status quo, especially with regard to issues of gender, race and class domination” (^{FREIRE; SHOR, 1986}, p. 265).

That is a re-linking of the teacher, of the teacher first untying himself from his oppressive practices and decolonizing his thought towards liberating stages of the most valuable essences of the human being; educating in: love, faith, compassion and all this in the light of the recivilization not only of the planet; but starting with its practice. Therefore, we begin with our own ethical duty for humanity.

Therefore, we are moved to educate faith towards our students and how we will transcend in them, not as repetition, but as movements in their lives, the onto-epistemological liberation of their knowledge; “[…] the dialogical educator has no right to impose his position on others. But he can never remain silent in the face of social issues; he cannot wash his hands of these problems” (^{FREIRE; SHOR, 1986}, p. 265). In this we know that we must do participatory action that becomes transformative.

We recommend investigating Paulo Freire from a re-linking of participatory action research to complex participatory action research (CPAR) (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2020}); with the dialogic in the complex strategy in the CPAR we will “[…] rationally assume the inseparability of contradictory notions to conceive the same complex phenomenon” (^{MORIN, 2002}, p. 126). Here the centenarians of history contribute from liberating and recivilizing complexities, it is known that the Morinian recivilization has its Freirian contribution, as the existence of “[…] authentic dialogue, recognition of the other and recognition of oneself in the other, is decision and commitment to collaborate in the construction of the common world” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 16).

From coexistence in communities, the CPAR is going to build a sociability of:

[...] conviviality based on a virtuous hybridization between the most comprehensive and emancipatory conceptions of human dignity subscribed both by the tradition of human rights and by the other traditions of human dignity present in the contact zone. (^{SANTOS, 2012}, p. 114).

Therefore, the south as a metaphor for the oppressed of the earth, need to be touched by love, action that transforms them and recognizes them as humans with rights to live humanely.

They have been filled with palliative to the oppressed, but these zones that accompanied each other, but that do not embrace each other that were not recognized or legitimized break their intelligibility and understand that in the world created by God, we all have the right to live well, living well, with their rights legitimized in their coexistence without exclusion needs (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2022a}). For this reality to be possible, “[…] conscientization cannot exist outside praxis, that is, without the act of action-reflection. This dialectical unity constitutes, in a permanent way, the way of being or of transforming the world that characterizes men” (^{FREIRE, 1970a}, p. 30).

In complex participatory action research, the necessary convergence is provoked by getting bogged down in the communities with the knowledge-knowledges, the transdisciplinary research groups that give a complex and transversal sense that complexify the reality of the communities; thus “[…] the CPAR is freed from the reductionist contribution of the disciplines to go to the conformation of transdisciplinary research groups that transversally cross the knowledge of the communities” (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2022a}, p. 19).

In the same way, praxis as action, the Freirian utopia entails the CPAR to the awareness of action, in empowerment of the communities of their culture, “[…] the elevation of their self-esteem; all these previous activities belong to research; they do not have recipes or defined steps but we can take as a premise that the IAPC is more than research, action and participation” (^{RODRÍGUEZ, 2022a}, p. 19), if we know that getting bogged down with the oppressed, suffering in it, is a recipe for doing CPAR without definitive recipes.

To investigate and teach from the Freirian legacy is to go decolonially and complexly beyond the “[…] hollow word of alienating verbalisms” (FREIRE, 1970, p. 20). It is certainly to provoke group or collective emancipation, political scenarios in struggles beyond individualisms (^{RODRÍGUEZ; LEMUS, 2022}). But not as visits to the communities as a pantheon on a Sunday to make sure that our liberators are well dead; Jesus Christ is risen and lives in us; it is to stay and dwell in them and provoke liberation. To strip the universities of their eticity and to bring them down to the communities to meet with them in their mind-social-spirit classroom in their sentiment-thinking.

Finally, in the midst of the pain, of the deep complexity of the oppressed, culture is the least contaminated center for liberation and here appears a concept that is worthy of studying transmethodically with the subjectivities of the authors of the researchers; an impossible question under methodical research, here we turn to a very special Freirean concept: cultural action (^{FREIRE, 1975}), where we turn to the ethics-liberation in his political philosophy that is for the Freirian legacy the planetary decoloniality itself in the peoples of the world, this is the example of the pedagogue's life. Where we return to resignify as yesterday with the legendary as Paulo Freire of decoloniality that is “[…] the freedom to produce, criticize and change and exchange culture and society. It is part, finally, of the process of social liberation from power organized as inequality, as discrimination, as exploitation, as domination” (^{QUIJANO, 1992}, p. 20).

In the rhizome that comes we conclude with the effect of fulfilling the complex objective of research; but the struggle yesterday as today must burn in each investigative work; because the colonial wound is alive, it hurts, it disarms of disaffection; it is imposed as research a brief reality, which is not the one that the oppressed of the earth live.

5 Conclusive rhizome. The Freirian legacy continues to beat with the transmetodologies

Especially with the Freirian legacy in the lines of exploration, which have several published results: Paulo Freire: the wanderer of utopia in transmethodologies; transepistemologies of knowledge-knowledges and transcomplex transmethodologies and planetary decoloniality-complexity in re-linking; we have fulfilled the complex objective of sustaining some theoretical-transmethodological challenges of research in the Freirian legacy. All this was done with the transmethod of rhizomatic deconstruction, and we can continue to break with it in order to complexify the journey of the pedagogue of the earth, where the oppressed of it were always the favelas of his beloved Brazil.

We want to emphasize that to read, to investigate, to discern Freirianly is to transform minds, it is to see the forbidden of coloniality, it is to discover exercises of power behind every act, behind every word; reading demands “[…] that the reader commits himself to the text, in an attitude capable of unraveling meanings, hidden truths, intentions and purposes, for which critical thinking is necessary that allows him to reach the deepest” (^{FREIRE, 2004}, p. 14). Can such excellences be realized under the forbidden minds?

Therefore, we must look for the salvation of humanity in Jesus Christ, the unique liberator of the Earth, and without comparing him, look for the reform of thought in the words of Michel de Montaigne and Edgar Morin, the conscientization-consciousness in Paulo Freire, the halterophilia of thought lodged in the mind-soul-spirit of Milagros Elena Rodríguez, the cosmotheandric intuition of Raimón Panikkar; the latter worthy of being studied in the Freirian processes in the mentioned lines of research.

We see then that colonial methods must be de-linked, de-eliticized from oppression, complexified and decolonized in order to investigate beyond them, with transmethods that renew our minds, to re-link us to the complexity of research; processes in which Paulo Freire's legacy is provocative of his praxis, of the possibility of concretizing such actions in research. And to take advantage of the splendor and the source of teaching that the pedagogue of the favelas has left us; of the courage of his actions, of the love for the oppressed and the profound faith in them.

Note that in the conformation of the rhizomes that we have already completed, these seem to break up in order to continue including categories liberated in the deep, Freirian discourse; and this is so. It is the difference with the investigations that believe to dictate the ultimate and definitive truth of the paradigm that was believed to be king: the simplifier. The one that Paulo Freire fought against in education. Being in the field of action, teaching literacy to enhance life, love and dignity. So, for now, we are culminating. And despite this, at any point of the inquiry we can resume a similar research with high complex lines in the discourse; which give continuity to the lines of research.

With the promise of disrupting the investigations, to see the Christian legacy as a unique wonderful love, imitated by liberators of history as Paulo Freire with faith in the world; the Christian author, freed from the objective oppression of the demystifying investigations of the subjects, thanks God my provider of wisdom that always gives me for his eternal glory on this earth; “[…] and God sent me before you to preserve you a remnant on earth, and to give you life by means of a great deliverance” (GENESIS 45:7). Always keeping in mind that “You are my refuge; you will keep me from trouble; you will surround me with songs of deliverance. Selah” (PSALMS 32:7). And therefore, “[…] for I know that, through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, this will result in my deliverance” (PHILIPPENS 1:19). Amen.