You can’t be rooted unless you’re free and you can’t be free unless you’re rooted L. Ingalls Wilder

Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application

Finding Truth in Science, Justice, and Journalism

 

R. de Weijze - Feb. 2018

 independent research

 

  Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned. Truth may strictly be found by looking for the facts, to prove our ideas by independent confirmation. Independence needs dualism, which is difficult to practice in personal- and social settings, because invariably, power and politics, or post-modern dialectics, convert 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts, whereas power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. After Kant, this post-modern philosophical monism seized modern philosophical dualism. The present article aims to resume modern dualism, searching for antecedents in space-time, and consequents in social interaction, to refute post-modern celebrations of power and politics, in favor of modern truth and ethics.  

      

When Immanuel Kant preeminently articulated modern philosophy (Rohlf 2016), post-modern philosophy was an accident waiting to happen, ready to proclaim the two sources of dualism, or 'duality of origin' (Bergson 1932), to actually be one, in monism. At the arrival of the French Revolution, Kant had published his masterpiece (1781-1790), in which Anglo-Saxon philosophical 'sensibility after-the-fact' and Continental philosophical 'understanding before-the-fact' were put together as 'sensibility before-the-fact' or the 'synthetic apriori'. The subject or 'phe-noumenon' extended the object or 'noumenon', to establish inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it. However, in a terrible twist of fate, Hegel proclaimed the object to extend the subject. As a celebration of power and politics, one inter-subjectively 're-cognizes' the other to befriend- and dependently confirm him, independently rejecting common enemies. "The subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807). Thus, dependent confirmation and independent rejection disqualify independent confirmation, which is still astonishing to us now.

Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992) declared that existence is nothingness (Heidegger 1959, Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche 1882), truth is multiplicit or dialectical (Marx 1867), and reality is only a mental phenomenon without an independent object (Hegel 1807). Pronouncing Kant the 'Copernicus of the Philosophical Revolution', since he called space and time 'basic categories' of the phe-noumenon or subject, pretexted losing the noumenon or object. One and a half century after the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Cultural Revolution (May 1968) doubled down on the monistic premise, as Post-Modernism had come around the world, leaving behind its brand of values like collectivism, socialism, and communism. Confronted with missing open- and dynamic dualism (Bergson 1932), monism deflects to the closed- and static dogmatism of group-polarization (Moscovici 1969, Meertens 1980, 2006), power and politics, or dialectics in groups fighting for domination and submission. Thus, post-modern philosophical monism or (phe) nominalism is wholly different from its ancestor, modern philosophical dualism or (phe) noumenology.

Kant divided between 'synthetic aposteriori sensibility' in space and 'analytic apriori understanding' in time (1781: 75-105). Therefore, dualism of sensibility and understanding is also dualism of space-time. The sensible environment/other/reality or object recollects space/content/behavior from the sphere's periphery or space source, into time/form/consciousness at its depth, which the sensible organism/self/belief or subject mirrors in space reflection. The understanding organism/self/belief or subject constructs time/form/consciousness from the depth or time source, into space/content/behavior at its periphery, which the understood environment/other/reality or object mirrors in time reflection. The sources and their self-reflections co-ordinate at their peripheries, whereas the sources and their opposite's self-reflections co-incide at their depths and their peripheries. Thus, 'spatiotemporal duality of origin' happens by states of co-ordinated co-incidence [1], at stages of apriori understanding independently confirmed [2] by aposteriori sensibility, during phases of constructive recollection [3] in social interaction [a] between social reality [b] and social identity [c].

 

1. Co-ordinated Co-incidence

    

According to physics, space and time are near identical in the monistic concept of 'spatiotemporality'. Relativity theory tells us, that speed and acceleration of objects curve space and slow time, warping spatiotemporality around them, reminiscent of Euclidean spheres. In a sphere like that, the three spatial dimensions of its periphery, and the one temporal dimension of its radius, are dualistically irreducible to each other, as their ratio π ("pi") holds infinitely many non-repetitive decimal places. 'Duality of origin' co-incidentally co-incided space and time. Spatiotemporal dualism in the environment/other/reality also exists in the organism/self/belief, if subjects can be objects (De Weijze 2017). From the outside, the subject is a part of the sensible object, whereas from the inside, the understanding subject "ob-jects" or "throws-off" the object, setting it apart. The subject needs dualism, to find independent confirmation or truth, processing space separately through time. Space/content/behavior at the sphere's periphery is resembling 'res extensa' ("extended substance"), whereas time/form/consciousness at the sphere's depth is resembling 'res cogitans' (Descartes 1644).

Sources are space, for objective recollection, reflecting itself in subjective recollection, and time, for subjective construction, reflecting itself in objective construction. Between recollection's spheres, the source reflects itself "here", materially or causally at the peripheries. Between construction's spheres, the source reflects itself "now", immaterially or teleologically at the depths. The subject manages to co-incide the time source with the temporalized space reflection, at the depths, and the object manages to co-incide the space source with the spatialized time reflection, at the peripheries. Spatialization of time in construction ends, where temporalization of space in recollection begins, at the periphery in space/content/behavior, while temporalization of space in recollection ends, when spatialization of time in construction begins, at the depth in time/form/consciousness. "Thoughts without contents are empty and intuitions without conceptions are blind" (Kant 1790). The space source and its reflection are 'empty', whereas the time source and its reflection are 'blind'. Therefore, the subject processes space in time, contents in forms and behavior in consciousness.

Sources and their self-reflections consist of space/content/behavior at the peripheries, and time/form/consciousness at the depths of their spheres. Thus, space reflection is phe-noumenology or epistemology, and time reflection is noumenology or ontology. Temporalization of space and its reflection, in recollection, purifies time from space, to enable co-incidence with the time source and its reflection, at the depths of their spheres. Spatialization of time and its reflection, in construction, purifies space from time, to enable co-incidence with the space source and its reflection, at the peripheries. Content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as consciousness, by temporalization, as form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes as behavior, by spatialization. Spatializing time enables form-shaping-content, which enables consciousness externalizing as behavior, while temporalizing space enables content-shaping-form, which enables behavior internalizing as consciousness. Eventually, all current content dissolves, in consciousness when the subject reacts in response to the object's action, and in behavior when the subject acts in response to its own reaction.

In the object, the space source and spatialized time reflection potentially co-incide at the peripheries of both their spheres, as space/content/behavior, while in the subject, the time source and temporalized space reflection potentially co-incide at the depths of both their spheres, as time/form/consciousness. By each co-incidence, subject and object reconstitute "here" and "now" in space and time, fact and idea in content and form, as well as the material basis and immaterial orientation of behavior and consciousness (De Weijze 1982). Construction in the one sphere continues as recollection in the next, by co-ordination between-, and co-incidence within subject and object. All content is processed, from depth to periphery, along spatializing time in construction, and from periphery to depth, along temporalizing space in recollection, conveying across peripheries of space/content/behavior, between subject and object, and across depths of time/form/consciousness, within subject and object. Spatializing time externalizes conscious form-shaping-content as behavior, whereas temporalizing space internalizes behavioral content-shaping-form as consciousness.

The space source causes facts, while time reflection implies ideas. Within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, different ideas reuse the same facts. In recollection, sensibility springs from relations within-facts-between-ideas. In construction, understanding springs from relations within-ideas-between-facts. When group-polarization draws relations within-groups-between-people closer to one extreme opinion, likely the leader's, the same relations within-people-between-groups are strained, and eventually turn into conflicts of interest. To solve this, the group's narrative treats the same facts as different, and/or different facts as the same, altering facts to fit the ideas, instead of altering ideas to fit the facts, twisting truth into lies, to reduce cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1962). Altering facts purges people's freedom to prove their innocence or the guilt of others. Options which are left, are dissociative disorders such as derealization and/or depersonalization (Dell and O'Neill 2009), at the level of the independent individual, possibly widening into socioses (Van den Berg 1956), at the level of the (inter) dependent collective.

Sensibility after-the-fact or the 'synthetic aposteriori', synthesizes facts, while understanding before-the-fact or the 'analytic apriori', analyzes ideas (Kant 1781). Relations in space/content/behavior, recollected from the peripheries of spheres to their depths and from the past (after-the-fact), through the present, cause future relations to occur, within-facts-between-ideas, while those in time/form/consciousness, constructed from the depths of spheres to their peripheries and from the future (before-the-fact), through the present, teleologically imply past relations, within-ideas-between-facts. Thus, sensibility and understanding within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, celebrate truth and ethics, altering ideas to fit the facts, by open and dynamic dualism, in Functional Structuralism (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976), like the "retrograde movement of the true growth of truth" (Bergson 1922), while the same within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, celebrate power and politics, altering facts to appease ideas, dogmatically fitting their narrative by closed and static monism, in Structural Functionalism (Parsons 1975).

The spatial- and temporal organism/self/belief or subject interacts with the spatial- and temporal environment/other/reality or object. The space source and its reflection co-ordinate "here" in recollection, and co-incide with the time reflection and its source, co-ordinating (or synchronizing) "now" in construction, "here and now" in space and time, content and form, as well as behavior and consciousness. The space source and time reflection, "not here and not now", must also be trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed, and intended, for the space reflection and time source to process it. Space is temporalized in recollection, and time is spatialized in construction, to bridge the spatiotemporal divide. Both spheres of the subject and both of the object co-incide, "here and now". All other locations at the peripheries and moments at the radii (in all directions except one) of the spheres, have behavioral content and/or conscious form attached to them, extending either towards- or from the depths of the spheres. The "here and now" relates to all the other "theres and thens", all of which have conducted, or do currently conduct, their own "here and now".

For recollection, "now" in time is invariable, while "here" in space varies, from "there" on one side to "there" on the other, and for construction, "here" in space is invariable, while "now" in time varies, from "then" in the past to "then" in the future. Co-varying relations between variables and/or invariables functionally structure recollection within-facts-between-ideas, from all "theres and thens" intrapolated to the one "here and now", and construction within-ideas-between-facts, from the one "here and now" extrapolated to all "theres and thens" in cultural history. Relations functionally structure entities, as the space reflection subliminally co-ordinates the space source in recollection, and the time source supraliminally co-ordinates the time reflection in construction. They are constituting the object, or the spatial- and temporal environment/other/reality, including the subject, or the spatial- and temporal organism/self/belief, both sources of which need to co-incide with their opposite's self-reflections, to be trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended, like in Kant's 'transcendental idealism', 'sensibility before-the-fact', or the 'synthetic apriori'.  

2. Independent Confirmation

    

We can hardly do without recognition, as it makes us feel stronger. Recognition is organized by social interaction into social reality. It can be taken away as a punishment for not 're-cognizing' power and politics, encouraging us to avoid dependent rejection, and warning us against seeking independent confirmation. Puritans do not 're-cognize' or compliment each other, except for the word of God. A third option is letting truth speak for itself, as 'things-in-themselves', or 'particular material bodies' (Strawson 1959), including rationality, emotionality, or compassion, only shared if they appear to the one, as they do to the other, as to everybody, by independent confirmation. Thus, nature precludes abusive nurture, like subject-mediated 're-cognition', internalism, favoritism, nepotism, or cronyism. Just a nod should be enough, a smile, or how one looks out of one's eyes. The organism/self/belief should not dissociate from the environment/other/reality, which should independently confirm one's belief-system and keep one on track of truth. 'Re-cognition' must be based on objective independence, as one earns- and pays attention in everyday life's attention economy.

The object was irrelevant, Hegel claimed, opposing Kant. The thing-in-itself was clear to him, and not opaque, as he stated that the object was really the subject itself, dismissing Kant's foundational dualistic premise. If facts would not fit ideas, it was “too bad for the facts”, as power and politics changed them to 're-cognize' ideas. For Kant, the object or 'noumenon' was the 'unnamable' thing-in-itself, establishing intersubjectivity between subjects referring to it. For Hegel, intersubjectivity was the way one subject should dependently confirm (or ‘re-cognize’) another, independently rejecting nonconformists. By literally ‘re-cognizing’ another person, “the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or [else] he goes into himself and loses the world”. To nurture one's self-consciousness, Hegel deemed selective reciprocity for 're-cognition' necessary. Thus, to Kant the subject or 'phe-noumenon' extended the object or 'noumenon', in modern philosophical dualism, while to Hegel the object, by intersubjective 're-cognition', extended the subject, in post-modern philosophical monism. An underhanded change, cutting in half one of the greatest works in philosophy.

Founded on intersubjectivity, phe-noumenological monism paints cultural reality as a set of social constructs (Schütz 1945, Berger and Luckman 1966). We may wonder, whether such intersubjectivity leaves room for independent confirmation, as independence needs dualism, which is difficult to apply in social- and personal settings, while power and politics invariably turn one's efforts to seek independent confirmation into anxiousness to avoid dependent rejection, dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting enemies. Power and politics change facts to fit the ideas, when they treat different facts as if they were the same, or the same facts as if they were different. In social reality, when voters demonstrate behavioral contagion (Wheeler 1966), votes cannot be interpreted as independent confirmations. Truth and ethics' intrinsic motivation to seek independent confirmation should not be confused with power and politics' extrinsic motivation to avoid dependent rejection, through gatekeepers' requests to first 're-cognize' them, thereby polarizing the minds of group-members. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit facts, not change facts to fit ideas.

figure 6

In truth and ethics, if and when sources and their opposite's reflections are positioned to independently confirm each other, sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known. As a result, both forms, or sensing and knowing, can process both contents, or what-is-sensed and what-is-known, which allows contents to copy-and-swap forms, between recollection and construction. Emerging from subconsciousness as different material- and immaterial substances, 'knowing what-is-sensed' or realization, and 'sensing what-is-known' or intuition, use the new forms to process the old ones, reduced to contents. Copying-and-swapping multiple times, forms generate streams of content as well, relative to form, within- and between object and subject. To- and from peripheries and depths of spheres, two extending streams spatialize time, shape content, and externalize as behavior, before- and after they temporalize space, shape form, and internalize as consciousness. The one stream, in recollection, keeps adding new forms copied-and-swapped from construction, while the other stream keeps adding new forms copied-and-swapped from recollection.

Intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, to seek independent confirmation, modern dualism parts subject and object. Space, subliminally sensing what-is-sensed, or external normativity in recollection, may co-incide with time, supraliminally knowing what-is-known, or internal normativity in construction. As a result, within each sphere, in recollection, space can temporalize, content shape form, and behavior internalize as consciousness, while in construction, time can spatialize, form shape content, and consciousness externalize as behavior. Co-incidence and independent confirmation may recur at the next stage, 'inter-liminally', in the subject between forms and in the object between contents. By contrast, extrinsically motivated by power and politics, in post-modern monism, the subject ignores the object (Hegel 1807). Internal normativity is sent from the top-, while external normativity is received at the bottom of the hierarchy, as roles (cf. Boekestijn 1978), by dependent confirmation, to gain selective reciprocity for protégés at the top, independent rejection executed at the bottom, and class warfare about sharing power and politics in between.

Co-incidence and independent confirmation occur again at the higher stages, if and when the reliability of current contents, and the validity of current forms, are robust enough, between the contents (this time what-is-realized and what-is-intuited instead of what-is-sensed and what-is-known), and between the forms (this time realizing and intuiting instead of sensing and knowing). They emerge as (1) 'valuing what-is-valued', or 'intuiting what-is-realized' ('sensing what-is-known' merged with 'knowing what-is-sensed', or 'sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed') in recollection and (2) 'trying what-is-tried', or 'realizing what-is-intuited' ('knowing what-is-sensed' merged with 'sensing what-is-known', or 'knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known') in construction. If reliability and validity then are still robust enough to copy-and-swap forms, extending substances within- and between subject and object, it reappears, between valuing and trying, to emerge as 'trying what-is-valued', or 'reacting what-is-reacted', and 'valuing what-is-tried', or 'acting what-is-acted'. Newly copied forms occur, while old forms are reduced to new contents, extending old contents.

Co-inciding facts (what-is-sensed) and ideas (what-is-known), like white swans and "white swans", are proexamples of each other (Corcoran 2005). Contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) can then copy-and-swap forms (sense and know), to emerge as realizing ('know what-is-sensed') white swans, and intuiting ('sense what-is-known') "white swans". Realizing of counterexamples, like black swans, falsifies intuiting and halts processing. The proexamples make contents (what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or what-is-realized, and what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or what-is-intuited) copy-and-swap forms (realize and intuit), to emerge as valuing ('intuit what-is-realized') and trying ('realize what-is-intuited'). Valuing counterexamples falsifies trying and halts processing. Proexamples make contents (what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or what-is-valued, and what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or what-is-tried) copy-and-swap forms (value and try), to socially interact as reacting ('try what-is-valued') and acting ('value what-is-tried'). Therefore, the refining of "white swans" increases, every time a fact can independently confirm an idea.

If one acts, one values what-is-tried; if one tries, one realizes what-is-intuited; and if one intuits, one senses what-is-known. Moreover, if one reacts, one tries what-is-valued; if one values, one intuits what-is-realized; and if one realizes, one knows what-is-sensed. Recollection, represented by the latter sequence, needs to sanction construction, represented by the former sequence, for the next stage of independent confirmation to be reached, and for contents (both what-is-sensed or fact, and what-is-known or idea) to keep their meaning. The meaning is kept in time/form/consciousness for construction, and in space/content/behavior for recollection. The meaning is about trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief and intent, fought over by truth and ethics on the one side, versus power and politics on the other. The power of the latter practically always makes it win. Power follows from politics, or Marx'/Hegel's dialectics, as one group of people dominates and submits another. Group formation is frequently associated with group-polarization, or avoiding dependent rejection by dependently confirming friends, and/or by independently rejecting enemies.

At the highest stage of processing current content, 'trying what-is-valued', or reacting, and 'valuing what-is-tried', or acting, emerge as social interaction between subject and object. The subject, or the organism/self/belief, has built trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief, and intent for current content, as 'sensibility before-the-fact' or the 'synthetic apriori', and is now exchanging it with other subjects, in social interaction. Internalized external normativity, or behavior internalized as consciousness, cannot be responded to by externalized internal normativity, or consciousness externalized as behavior, until the subject's internal normativity has been independently confirmed, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately, by the object's external normativity, or that of the environment/other/reality. The subject's action before-the-fact "detonates" in response its own reaction after-the-fact (in response to the other's action). Thus, a social cycle appears, as one reacts in response to the other's action, and acts in response to one's own reaction, succeeded by the other's reacting in response to one's action, and finally acting in response to his own reaction.

Recollection and construction take place in the sensing- and knowing subject, as well as in the sensed- and known object. Thus, constructive recollection happens in the subject, between forms, and in the object, between contents (facts and ideas). The self-reflections of the sources co-incide with their opposite sources, if and when recollection independently confirms construction, in the subject by negative falsification for validity, and in the object by positive verification for reliability. If and when independent confirmation has happened, contents can copy-and-swap forms. The new forms in recollection and construction process old-forms-reduced-to-contents, extending the old- with new contents, at a higher level of functional structure, or stage of independent confirmation. At the highest stage, recollection and construction positioned themselves in social reality, where subject and object publicly interact, being noticeable to each other. Thus, they externalize as behavior in construction, while they internalize as consciousness in recollection, between time/form/consciousness at the depth-, and space/content/behavior at the periphery of each of the spheres.

Self-reflections between subject and object are like self-representations between subjects, in social interaction. In modern dualism, the object's source reflects itself in the subject, whereas the subject's source reflects itself in the object. Truth and ethics motivate each subject intrinsically, to seek and find independent confirmation. One truly represents her- or himself in the other, as the other truly represents him- or herself in the one, by means of independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation. Independent individuals are still represented, if they do not presently represent themselves. In post-modern monism, representations are of an entirely different disposition, as power and politics motivate extrinsically, to avoid dependent rejection from the group, 're-cognizing' the other as a friend, through dependent confirmation (cronyism), or as an enemy, through independent rejection (prejudice), both of which call for reciprocity, since 're-cognition' allegedly leads to self-consciousness (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867). Thus, power-distancing grows hierarchy, increasing distance to those below- and decreasing it to those above oneself (Mulder 1973).

    

    

figure 9

    

   

3. Constructive Recollection

    

After religion and philosophy, physical science appears dualistic, as spatiotemporality can be either ontologically material or epistemologically immaterial. Knowing what-is-known before-the-fact ought to be independently confirmed, in whichever way, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, by sensing what-is-sensed after-the-fact. If and when that is our goal, truth and ethics are on our side. However, seeking independent confirmation often is underhandedly replaced by avoiding dependent rejection. Instead of truth and ethics, power and politics then control social order. Politics accumulate power, to 'bulldoze' all the facts, to 'prove' or self-fulfill an idea, which ought to be trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed or intended, to then be independently confirmed by the facts. At present, by constructive recollection, social interaction [3a] between the sensing- and knowing subject, as well as between the sensed- and known object, may construct social reality [3b] and recollect social identity [3c], if modern philosophical dualism is free to develop, not being dialectically dominated and submitted by agents of post-modern philosophical monism.

3a. Social Interaction

Normativity between socially interacting, independent individuals, is different from normativity between group-members. By individually seeking independent confirmation, external normativity in recollection determines the truth of internal normativity in construction, and by collectively avoiding dependent rejection external normativity received from superiors, is separated from internal normativity sent to inferiors. Individually, truth does not change from within-facts-between-ideas to within-ideas-between-facts, or from within-people-between-groups to within-groups-between-people. Freedom of choice is offered or forwarded to whom deserves it. Collectively, group-polarization develops untruth from within-groups-between-people to within-people-between-groups, and from within-ideas-between-facts to within-facts-between-ideas. In other words, collectively, facts are turned and twisted, to fit the narrative, not allowing anyone to prove guilt or (one's own) innocence. Thus, normative rationality (Habermas 1982, 1991) for independent individuals and for 'dependently confirming friends' and/or 'independently rejecting enemies', are not alike.

Social interaction between subject and object, or forms and contents, causes relations to occur within-facts-between-ideas, as space temporalizes, content-shapes-form, and behavior internalizes as consciousness, in recollection, whereas it implies relations within-ideas-between-facts, as time spatializes, form-shapes-content, and consciousness externalizes as behavior, in construction, before independent confirmation has forms copies-and-swapped. While facts-relate-ideas in recollection, and ideas-relate-facts in construction, swapped forms continue to process old contents, extending what-is-sensed (facts) and what-is-known (ideas). Recollection and construction look for coordinated co-incidence and independent confirmation at successive stages, or sensing/realizing/valuing/reacting in recollection, and knowing/intuiting/trying/acting in construction, at which moments contents copy-and-swap new forms, to replace old forms, reducing those to contents. Swapping forms, at all stages of independent confirmation, alternates states of recollection and construction. Thus, form-plus-contents emerge into higher-stage substances, in both the subject and the object.

Contents are conveyed from one source to the other, by the sources' self-reflections, seeking co-incidence and independent confirmation, as they go around their source's peripheries, recollecting facts or constructing ideas, temporalizing space or spatializing time, shaping- or shaped by form, and internalizing behavior or externalizing consciousness. What is trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended in action before-the-fact, is freed in action after-the-fact, if and when the one's reaction (in response to the other's action), independently confirms the one's action before-the-fact, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. The one senses/realizes/values/reacts, what the other knows/intuits/tries/acts, whereas the other senses/realizes/values/reacts what the one knows/intuits/tries/acts. Thus, recollected content extends to 'knowing (by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known (by the self) what-is-sensed (by the self)', or what-is-reacted, whereas constructed content extends to 'sensing (by the self) what-is-known (by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known (by the self)', or what-is-acted, in a social cycle.

Coordinated co-incidence and independent confirmation, between sources and self-reflections of opposite sources, produce the extending states of substances, refined by sensing/what-is-sensed and knowing/what-is-known, emerging at consecutive stages, when contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) copy-and-swap forms (sensing and knowing). Substances extend and refine when next stages add new states, in four phases, in two social cycles, per one interaction. Phases begin one state apart from each other, overlapping three states, adding a state at every stage. Subject and object, or self and other, recollect and construct states, at stages, in phases of two social cycles, because both subject and object, alternatingly, address the self, the other, the other's self, and the other's other (themselves). Between them a single, differently experienced, extension of form-plus-contents exists, meandering between depths, as the one's extending substance (sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed etc) is conveyed to the other (knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known etc), and returned, finally between reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted, in social interaction.

All states of coordinated co-incidence, which alternate between recollection and construction, at four stages of independent confirmation, simultaneously play different roles in each of four phases of the social cycle for the object and for the subject. The phases overlap, across at least one-, and at most three states, depending on the stage they reached, processing current content. What-is-sensed and what-is-known, by the subject and the object, should be the same, in social interaction. What-is-sensed is included in what-is-realized, what-is-valued, and what-is-reacted, like what-is-known is included in what-is-intuited, what-is-tried and what-is-acted, through social interaction. Even though the states are the same, and happen at the same time, phases containing the states begin and end one state apart, while they follow each other through the social cycle. Therefore, each state represents four separate phases, at four separate locations, playing a different role in each of them. The states of reduced forms, which are now contents, either are facts (what-is-sensed) or ideas (what-is-known), identical in all phases, determining the logic and logistics of social interaction.

The four states per phase, in four phases per cycle, in two cycles per interaction between subject and object, address self and other, integrated logically and logistically. Phases repeat themselves and overlap each other, starting and finishing one state of separation, from (1) the self in recollection responding to the other's self in construction, to (2) the self in construction responding to the self in recollection, to (3) the other's other in recollection responding to the self in construction, to (4) the other's self in construction responding to the other's other in recollection. Independent confirmation takes place, contents copy-and-swap forms for more refined substances to emerge, whereas each state plays roles in four separate phases at once. Contents processed to find independent confirmation, are taken from previous phases, handed over across states separating phases, to following ones. The first cycle of four phases applies to states and stages of recollection and construction per the subject, addressing self and other, and the second cycle applies to states and stages of recollection and construction per the object, addressing the other's self and the other's other, as well.

In social interaction between object and subject, or other and self, both have their own source and their own self-reflection, in the other, as well as the other's reflection from the other's source, in themselves. If and when independent confirmation happens, they have their forms (sensing and knowing) copied-and-swapped by their contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) as well, to convey substance (form-plus-contents) from the one's depth, through both peripheries, to the other's. There, independent confirmation hopefully repeats itself, to continue social interaction. One's recollection, independently confirming one's construction, independently confirms the other's construction likewise, if the one's construction matches the other's recollection, consciousness externalizing as behavior in the one, and behavior internalizing as consciousness in the other (like time spatializing and space temporalizing, or form-shaping-content and content-shaping-form). Independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation is shared in social interaction, positively verified for reliability, in the object, while negatively falsified for validity, in the subject.


3b. Social Reality

Social reality insists on social recognition, personally or collectively. At the personal level "an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow, despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary” (Johnson & Cureton 2016), was Kant's Categorical Imperative, instructing the autonomous individual to “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 1785). This is the 'synthetic apriori', 'sensibility before-the-fact', what is trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended. 'Sensibility after-the-fact' independently confirms 'understanding before-the-fact', to establish inter-subjectivity between the subjects referring to it, recognizing the object. Underhandedly, literally 're-cognizing' one subject by another took over, dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting enemies, "to boost one's self-consciousness", "to go into the world and lose oneself", and not "to go into oneself and lose the world" (Hegel 1807). Power and politics' only 're-cognizing' the subject ended truth and ethics' only recognizing the object.

Power and politics change facts (what-is-sensed), to fit the ideas, while truth and ethics change ideas (what-is-known), to fit the facts. Facts relate ideas (within-facts-between-ideas), as ideas relate facts (within-ideas-between-facts). If facts are used in one idea, and reused in another, relations within-facts-between-ideas may entangle, for instance if a single fact is treated as multiple, or multiple facts are as single, abusing independent confirmation. Also, groups relate people and people relate groups. If people belong to one group, and to another, relations may entangle, for instance by conflicts of interest. Power and politics motivate extrinsically to avoid dependent rejection, by threats of excommunication or homelessness, within-groups-between-people and, by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups. Truth and ethics motivate intrinsically by finding independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, in recollection or within-facts-between-ideas and in construction or within-ideas-between-facts. Closed- and static power and politics replacing open- and dynamic truth and ethics (Bergson 1932), do entangle people's relations.

Consciously or not, we seek loyalty in power and politics, or honesty in truth and ethics. Power and politics make us (inter) dependent, if we avoid dependent rejection from the group by excommunication or homelessness. Independent rejection of (the leader's) enemies and/or dependent confirmation of (his) friends, out of loyalty, trigger selective reciprocity and access to privilege. Truth and ethics, on the other hand, call for independence, letting reality independently confirm our beliefs, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. The object establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it, and independent confirmation, strengthening them as honest and independent individuals, conditioned by reality alone. Independence cannot do without dualism, which is difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, as power and politics invariably turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change the ideas to fit the facts, while power and politics change the facts to fit the ideas. Thus, relations entangled within-ideas-between-facts turn up within-facts-between-ideas like stress and dissociation.

Truth is understanding, 'knowing "now" what-is-known' or ideas, before-the-fact in construction, proven by independent confirmation from sensibility, 'sensing "here" what-is-sensed' or facts, after-the-fact in recollection, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. In the organism/self/belief, sensing negatively falsifies knowing for validity, unable to disprove, as in the environment/other/reality, what-is-sensed positively verifies what-is-known for reliability, able to prove. However, power and politics invariably turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection', between the sensing- and the knowing organism/self/belief, and/or between the known- and the sensed environment/other/reality, however underhandedly and subtly, by giving up one's identity while giving in to identity politics. This creates monistic dialectics, forcing people to loyally take sides (or leave the party) and dependently confirm the unavoidable friends as well as independently reject the unavoidable enemies, of their own or of their leader's, to strip away peoples' personal identities and dress them up in the uniforms of closed- and static systems.

Our world is cut up and mixed. Post-modernism created immanently dialectic monism from power and politics, after the Kantian era and the French Revolution, expanding into the European Revolutions fifty years later. Modernism however, created independent individual dualism from truth and ethics, before the revolutions. If interpreted as dialectics, monism looks like dualism, although monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent subgroups or individuals, competing for our own domination and all others' submission (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867, Nietzsche 1901). Monistic (inter) dependency leads to 're-cognition', by dependently confirming one's own people, and independently rejecting others, bypassing truth, provoking group-polarization and extremism. Dualistic independence trusts that there are two sources, not one, which socially interact through any two independent individuals, object and subject, or other and self, to stay on track of truth. Dualistic (inter) dependency of autonomous individuals primarily needs, and seeks, independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation for their own- and for every other's belief system.

To avoid dependent rejection from a group having us as a member, when they excommunicate us or make us homeless, we are most likely tempted to dependently confirm (the leader's) friends and/or independently reject (the leader's) enemies, to pay our dues, within-groups-between-people. Relations within-people-between-groups and within-groups-between-people are the same. Groups can manipulate people or group members by explaining their honesty as "disloyalty" and/or loyalty as "dishonesty". Taking the opposite side to explain their behavior, is intimidating. Hegel's (1807) opposite explanation of 're-cognition', not reading Kant any further, eliminated the object from modern philosophical understanding, that it establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to-, and recognizing the object, by independent confirmation, and turning it into post-modern philosophy. Hegel replaced the object with the social pecking order between subjects, 're-cognizing' each other's social status. Marx turned Hegel's top-down opinions bottom-up, calling it 'historical materialism' (1859), although he did not recognize independent material objects' importance.

If post-modern monism and modern dualism run into each other, either structural functionalism's collective role-sending and role-receiving grows more intense, or functional structuralism's responsibility of independent individuals. In monism, the sender's internal normativity is the receiver's external normativity, ignoring the sender's external- and the receiver's internal normativity, as if they play no role. Monism loomed after Hegel hacked Kant's and Christianity's dualism, splitting it, to promote the subject and ignore the object. Since the French Revolution, doubling down since the Cultural Revolution of May 1968, group-polarization extremizes monism into closed and static societies, separating people by alleged superiority and inferiority, following the Will To Power (Nietzsche 1901). Able to perversely bulldoze their way forward, power and politics back self-fulfilling prophecies, letting facts it creates 'prove' their after-the-fact ideas. This is Hegel's "too bad for the facts". Therefore, power and politics can disguise as truth and ethics. Power changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence defenseless, whereas truth instead changes ideas to fit the facts.

Power and politics create groups, held together by loyalty, as truth and ethics create independent individuals, held together by honesty. Loyalty violates truth and ethics, when it changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence defenseless, within-groups-between-people, and within-people-between-groups, by group-polarization. Honesty explained as disloyalty, could no longer enable honest people to avoid dependent rejection. As the common enemy, they increase dependent confirmation of friends, and are independently rejected themselves. There exist (human) angels who offer themselves completely, to save these souls, independently confirming their talents, so they can at least continue to be compatible and compete to survive in an unjust world. However, this type of independent confirmation is not the same, as that which is critical to find truth and ethics. Although loyalty can be explained as dishonesty, this makes no difference to whom it may concern. The world is consumed with desire for global statism and sociology's Structural Functionalism, not wishing for psychology's Functional Structuralism, which is more complicated and not controllable.

 

3c. Social Identity

In the sphere of recollection, from periphery to depth, what-is-sensed is temporalizing space, content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness, while its substance extends by contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from subliminally sensing what-is-sensed to interactive reacting what-is-reacted. In the sphere of construction, from depth to periphery, what-is-known is spatializing time, form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as behavior, while its substance extends by contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from supraliminally knowing what-is-known to interactive acting what-is-acted. As substance extends, alternatingly by sensing and knowing, to be reduced to what-is-sensed and what-is-known at the next stage, it meanders between subject and object, at the depths of their spheres, crossing peripheries. Once a stage reaches social interaction, it can fulfill its purpose, by conveying valid and reliable knowledge, and the social cycle starts over, carried by the opposite party (self or other). Each time a sphere is passed, one state and stage are concurrently added, to all phases of the interactive social cycle.

The kind of social order which is recollected and constructed, determines how social identity develops. Social 're-cognition' reciprocally avoids dependent rejection, in monism, or it seeks independent confirmation, in dualism. Monistically created social order, by power and politics, motivates avoiding dependent rejection, by dependently confirming all friends, ranking higher or lower, while independently rejecting all enemies. Hierarchy defines identity, as (inter) dependent upon friends, rejecting- and rejected by enemies. Dualistically created social order, by truth and ethics, motivates seeking independent confirmation, fortifying independent individuals' social identities, as the object establishes inter-subjectivity between them. While the object is rejected in monism, it controls the subject in dualism. Extrinsically- or intrinsically controlled, reflexes are conditioned responses by conditioning stimuli. Power and politics discipline the reflexes, through classic- and operant conditioning (Pavlov 1910, Skinner 1930), to secure 're-cognition' of the subject in the social hierarchy. Truth and ethics recognize all belief-systems, spontaneously, through the object.

The object's source, the sensed object or what-is-sensed, reflects itself in the subject, the sensing subject or just sensing, and the subject's source, the knowing subject or just knowing, reflects itself in the object, the known object or what-is-known. As long as subject and object, or self and other, socially interact, they may become each other's Significant Other, next to-, although apart from, their Selves. If and when that happens, the one's Self reflects itself as the other's Significant other, while the other's Self reflects itself as the one's Significant Other. The knowing subject or knowing Self reflects itself in the known object or known Significant Other, while the sensed object or sensed Significant Other reflects itself in the sensing subject or sensing Self. Knowing and what-is-known, in construction, as well as sensing and what-is-sensed, in recollection, divide within- and between subject and object, or within- and between themselves. Significance eliminates the need to seek independent confirmation and it engages fully with sensibility before-the-fact, in which construction applies recollection, being the same for the partners, while co-inciding with reality.

Between modern dualism or truth and ethics on the one hand, and post-modern monism or power and politics on the other, the relation between Self and Significant Other is critical for the kind of social order, it will be surrounded with. When there is competition valued at-, or above, the comparison level, relations grow tense (Thibaut and Kelley 1959). Will the Self and Significant Other seek each other's independent confirmation, or will they avoid each other's dependent rejection, dependently confirming each other while independently rejecting the competition? The former option relies on truth and ethics of relations within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, not being entangled, as facts are used in one idea and reused in another, to establish objectivity or inter-subjectivity between the subjects independently referring to them, like in modern dualism. The latter option relies on power and politics of relations, within-groups-between-people, as well as within-people-between-groups, by group-polarization. That is how subjective cultural belief-systems protect each other against the objective world, like in post-modern monism.

Partnerships or relationships are often based on power and politics, instead of truth and ethics. Loyalty towards one another requires suppression of truth, unless reality kicks in, making them fight over who is more dependent upon the other than vise versa. "You need me more than I need you" striggers either or both parties to break up the relationship. This implies economic ties, as one provides the other with what he or she needs, and vice versa. It also implies that bonds are created by providing what is needed, including when this is impossible. It could be balanced out by the larger economy, providing the income to restore balance. Thus, a "working" relationship, in power and politics, depends on the group as a whole, and its economy. This is completely different in truth and ethics, where partners, like everybody else, share independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, the former more in general, and the latter more in particular, between the two. Thus, social identities can all be honest and different, and do not require loyalty and uniformity. Sharing independent confirmation is recognizing the object, not the anxious subject.

Somehow we are all related, either through dependent confirmation (cronyism), receiving- and returning favors, or through seeking independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for the other. If the schemas are mixed, monistic power and politics extrinsically and opportunistically motivate dependent reaction-and-action within groups, changing facts to fit ideas or the narrative, as dualistic truth and ethics intrinsically motivate independent action-and-reaction between independent individuals, if and when after-the-fact recollection independently confirms before-the-fact construction, by changing ideas to fit facts. If facts are changed to fit the ideas or the narrative, then changing ideas to fit the facts is useless. Intrinsically motivated reactions, in response to extrinsically motivated actions, are only intended as independent confirmations, claiming to wholly understand current extrinsic motivation, which is improbable. Conversely, extrinsically motivated reactions in response to intrinsically motivated actions, are most likely to interpret the independent confirmation as a return of favor, which it never signaled to be.

There is a third schema, in between monism and dualism, which were mentioned above: independent confirmation applied to the independently rejected, offering fortitude against those dependently confirmed, paying forward to whom we believe deserves it, or we consider victims of power and politics. This may be truth against power, although it is probably power against power, enlarging the (support) group of the rejected. Our independence for their confirmation necessarily ends in our own self-rejection. Therefore it can only be dependent confirmation, which is identity politics, positive discrimination, or affirmative action. Even if this were national policy, it only stirred Marxism or Hegelianism, letting group-polarization develop wildly, drifting away from truth and ethics, or believing power and politics were just that (for one's own group). It is where current racism, sexism, etc., stem from. Relations entangle within-people-between-groups, which keep people in (manageable) collectives, letting personal opinions shift in risky directions, the only ones allowed by the narrative, never minding to change facts, if and when needed for corroboration.

The sensing subject, or recollective self-reflection, and the knowing subject, or constructive source, copy-and-swap forms if and when forms in the subject co-incide, and contents in the object, for recollection to independently confirm construction. Within-facts-between-ideas, facts-relate-ideas or ideas reuse facts as linking-pins, in 'knowing what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized', or 'trying what-is-valued', for recollection, and within-ideas-between-facts, ideas-relate-facts, in 'sensing what-is-known', 'realizing what-is-intuited', or 'valuing what-is-tried', for construction. Relations do generate meaningful networks, continuously expanding their horizon, since the facts (or objects) establish inter-subjectivity between the ideas (or subjects) referring to them, looking for- and finding independent confirmation. Power and politics, motivating to avoid dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and, by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups, disregard truth and ethics, motivating to seek independent confirmation, preventing recollection within-facts-between-ideas from finding a match, with construction within-ideas-between-facts.

Modern philosophical, open- and dynamic dualism can prevent post-modern philosophical, closed- and static monism, by group members polarizing their opinions, through power and politics, creating intolerant majorities. Minority influence is strong, if consistent for a long time, not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974). Relations within-facts-between-ideas or within-people-between-groups should not entangle, which happens when ideas treat different facts as the same, to untruthfully find independent confirmation, or treat the same fact as different, and make finding independent confirmation impossible. For instance, in a closed and static approach, Bergson was interpreted as if he criticized Kant, asking how ideas categorically demand their own realization, following the Categorical Imperative (Lawlor and Moulard 2016). Stating that "by re-establishing the duality, the difficulties vanish", Bergson (1932) emphasized seeking independent confirmation, between the two sources, in "duality of origin" (p.79). His post-modern biographers dubiously called it, from a single-source monistic view, "but two complementary manifestations of life".

Notions of rationality, emotion, and compassion, are recollected facts and constructed ideas, co-inciding and independently confirming each other, for contents about to copy-and-swap forms. To achieve our full potential, recollection within-facts-between-ideas has to independently confirm construction within-ideas-between-facts, which is impossible within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, due to group-polarization, as it shifts personal opinions to a dominant extreme, of concentrated power and politics. Independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation creates meaningful networks of logical-, chronological-, and/or associative relations within-ideas-between-facts, reusing facts as linking-pin objects, which expand the network of meaningful relations. Reusing facts to link ideas should not change the meaning of these networks, calling the same facts different, or different facts the same, driven by power and politics. Once relations entangle, no truth proves one's innocence, facts isolate from their meaning, and people isolate from their identity, stoking up traumatic stress, as well as tormenting dissociation1.

 

   

  

  

Philosophy Application

     

figure 15

   

Conclusion

Underhand inversion of 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection' by the adversary of modern philosophical dualism, post-modern philosophical monism, is a celebration of power, rather than truth. To resume modern dualism, its antecedents were traced to Kant and physics, in the concept of 'spatiotemporality', as temporal understanding is sanctioned by spatial sensibility through the co-ordinated co-incidence of space and time, processed by the subject and/or the object, while the consequents of dualism were explored in a model of social interaction, constituting co-ordinated co-incidence, independent rational-, emotional, and/or compassionate confirmation, and constructive recollection within- and between people. Truth and ethics at the level of the independent individual, who alters ideas to fit the facts in open- and dynamic dualism, should replace power and politics at the level of the dependent collective, where group-polarization alters facts to fit the ideas of closed- and static monism, which easily results in the traumatizing impossibility to prove innocence or guilt, which in turn leads to dissociation and loss of identity.

    

References

Berger, P.L.; Luckmann, T. (1966). "The Social Construction of Reality”. New York: Anchor Books.

Bergson, H. (1922). "The Retrograde Movement of the True Growth of Truth". In: "Creative Evolution". New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Bergson, H. (1932). "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion". London: Macmillan and Company Limited.

Boekestijn, C. (1978). "De psychologie van relaties tussen groepen". In: Jaspars, J.M.F.; Vlist, R. v.d. "Sociale Psychologie in Nederland". Meppel: Boom.

Corcoran, J. (2005). "Counterexamples and Proexamples". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11, 460.

Dell, P.F.; O’Neil, J.A. (2009). "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond". New York: Routledge: 750.

Derrida, J. (1992). "Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice".  New York: Routledge.

Descartes, R. (1644). "The Principles of Philosophy".

Dooyeweerd, H. (1935-36). "The Philosophy of the Law-Idea". Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.

Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107.

Habermas, J. (1982). "A reply to my critics". In: Thompson, J.B.; Held, D. "Habermas: Critical Debates". London: Macmillan.

Habermas, J. (1991). "A reply". In: Honneth, A.; Joas, H. "Communicative Action". Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1807). "Phänomenologie des Geistes". Bamberg und Würzburg: J.A. Goebhardt.

Heidegger, M. (1959). "Introduction to Metaphysics". New Haven: Yale University Press.

Johnson, R.N; Cureton, A (2016). "Kant’s Moral Philosophy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Kant, I. (1781). "Kritik der reinen Vernunft". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.

Kant, I. (1785). "Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.

Kant, I. (1790). "Kritik der Urteilskraft". Berlin: Bey F. T. Lagarde.

Lawlor, L.; Moulard, V. (2016). "Henri Bergson". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Marx, K. (1859). "Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie". Wien: Alfred Hölder.

Marx, K. (1867). "Das Kapital". Berlin: Verlag von Otto Meisner.

Meertens, R.W. (1980). "Groepspolarisatie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Meertens, R.W.; Prins, Y.R.A.; Doosje, B. (2006). "In iedereen schuilt een terrorist. Een sociaal-psychologische analyse van terroristische sekten en aanslagen." Schiedam: Scriptum.

Moscovici, S.; Zavalloni, M. (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12 (2): 125–135.

Moscovici, S.; Nemeth, C. (1974). "Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations."  Oxford: Rand Mcnally.

Mulder, M.; Veen, P.; Rodenburg, C.; Frenken, J.; Tielens, H. (1973). "The power distance reduction hypothesis on a level of reality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.

Nietzsche, F. (1882). "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.

Nietzsche, F. (1901). "Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.

Parsons, T. (1975). "The Present Status of 'Structural-Functional' Theory in Sociology", Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory, New York: The Free Press.

Pavlov, I.P. (1910). "The Work of the Digestive Glands". London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd.

Rohlf, M. (2010). "Immanuel Kant". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Sanders, C.; Eisenga, L.K.A.; Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1976). "Inleiding in de grondslagen van de Psychologie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Sartre, J-P. (1943). "Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.

Schütz, A. (1945). "On Multiple Realities." In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 5: 533–576. Rhode Island: Brown University.

Skinner, B.F. (1930), "On the conditions of elicitation of certain eating reflexes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 16, 433-38.

Strawson, P.F. (1959). "Individuals". London: Methuen.

Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.

Weijze, R.C. de (1982). "Het gedrag als de materiele basis voor het bewustzijn en bewustzijn als oriëntatie op het gedrag". Free University Amsterdam.

Weijze, R.C. de (2017). "The Logic of Spatiotemporal Dualism". http://bit.ly/2FNMEA9

Wheeler, L. (1966). "Toward a theory of behavioral contagion". Psychological Review, 73(2), 179-192.

Žižek, S. (2012). "Less than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism". London: Verso.  

 

1Website TormentedInHiding

 

 

  

       

 
 
 
 
feedback:
email ron.de.weijze@crpa.co