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

Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application

Finding Truth In Science, Justice And Journalism



Constructive recollection is a systematic retake of philosophical Modernism, which is mainly characterized by "duality of origin" (Bergs - See more at:




Dualism and independent confirmation are like the gimbals carrying the gyroscope, pointing back to where I came from, so I know where to go, if I explore- or get lost in space. Each "bi-polar" axis or dimension is positioned perpendicular to the other, which makes them independent, however together they are functional by taking away any biases from the gyroscope which needs to keep spinning, unaffected by gravity. Dualism is also the mark of Western religion, philosophy, science, justice and journalism, as opposed to monism, cultural pluralism or multiculturalism of the counter-cultural (philosophical) movement in the West which has been very active over the past half century, since May 1968.

Constructive recollection could be the next step in philosophical Modernism, which is mainly characterized by "duality of origin" (Bergson 1932). Separating body and mind, or object and subject, has been pivotal in Christendom, reassuring us that when the body dies, the spirit carries on living, which has made the most difficult part of life more bearable for many. Heaven and earth were separated painstakingly at zero AD and dualism as a result of that still characterized the beginning of mainstream philosophy or science at the middle of the 17th century, when Descartes first articulated what is still called Modernism. The central figure of the movement is Kant (Rohlf 2010), who produced his magnum opus at the end of the 18th century. Sensibility and understanding are the central concepts.

Here sensibility and understanding will be referred to as "sensing what-is-sensed" and "knowing what-is-known", to include the difference between source and reflection on the one hand, and the difference between content and form on the other, which are needed to describe and explain how constructive recollection continuously integrates and differentiates my duality of origin: by coordinated reflection- and independent confirmation of the content in social interaction. The externally sensed- or known environment/other/reality and the internally sensing- or knowing organism/self/belief, process all culture-historical content that is supposed to be meaningful and justified true belief.

Social interaction is dominated by either power and politics or truth and ethics and constructive recollection only works under the latter circumstance. Power and politics, or dialectics as Marx and Hegel called it, are modus vivendi of Post-Modernism starting right after Kant had published. Truth and ethics, need balance or independent confirmation to have something to offer, or to pay respect and attention or forward own freedom of choice to a deserving cause. Seeking this balance and finding it in the best possible way, is how constructive recollection works, both internally and externally. Politics do not seek independent confirmation but simply let the most powerful party win.

Hegel and Marx changed Kant's fundamental insight, the Copernican revolution in philosophy, that we produce our own sensing and knowing of space and time. Instead of relating the subjective coordinates of the organism/self/belief to the objective coordinates of the environment/other/reality, Hegel maintained Kant was wrong that the object cannot be sensed or known: "Hence one can only read with surprise the perpetual remark that we do not know the thing-in-itself. On the contrary there is nothing we can know so easily" (Hegel 1830). This is how Post-Modernism let go of Modernism. The object was replaced by the "recognition of other self-conscious subjects as self-conscious subjects" (Hegel 1807). Thus, critical dualism was replaced by dogmatic monism, only divided in itself, without the inconvenient object, while the ideal condition for the recognition of other self-conscious subjects, the collective, will only derealize (Dell 2009) and lose all respect for the object, as in Hegel's adagio "Too bad for the facts".



1. Coordinated Reflection

Like being "my own man", I am my own organism/self/belief, interacting with the environment/other/reality. Both are forms and sides of the same divide, which has been called in traditional philosophical Modernism "duality of origin" (Bergson 1932). Each form contains one original source of content and one reflection of the original source of content from the other side. Forms process contents, either as sensing (and) what-is-sensed or as knowing (and) what-is-known.

Past "theres and thens" have prepared an explosive package for the "here and now", of means and ends, to detonate, for future "theres and thens". I can only know or sense those causes and ends when "there and then" is "here and now" using my best memory for the past or best conjecture for the future. Content from "there and then" has its own qualities and I do or do not truly represent those qualities. Being factually what they are, they should sanction anything I think, say or do, which refers to them.

after the fact, sensing reflects what-is-sensed in material reality, while before the fact, knowing is reflected by what-is-known in cultural belief. These two systems can become one, if and when they meet "here and now", which is not as easy as it sounds, when I do not "go with the flow", having my sensibilities from the past and my understanding of the future, or what I recollect and what I construct, perfectly aligned. Both the organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality need to bring both sides together, as functional structures, celebrating- or at least respectful of their common truth.



figure 1

Opposite sources and their opposite reflections on the other side of my duality of origin, need to coordinately reflect themselves and each other, because living with a "here and now" that is not one and the same, is very hard if not impossible. Reflections can be moved by their sources, however only indirectly. Sources can only move the coordinates between themselves and their own reflection on the opposite side, not the opposite source's reflection on their own side. Coordinates are moved between sensing and what-is-sensed from "there and then", after the fact in the past, and/or between knowing and what-is-known from "there and then", before the fact in the future, towards the shared present "here and now".

Naturally, by instinct or object-orientation, and culturally, by intellect or multi-perspectivism, the organism/self/belief reflects its environment/other/reality. Both sources are more coordinated, sharing one and the same "here and now", the more they are agreeable to each other. The "here and now" moves in space-time and culture-history as object-orientation, by sensing what-is-sensed, and as subject-perspective, by knowing what-is-known. Power and politics can keep me in place against my will. Truth and ethics always leave me in peace, strengthening the spirit if and when possible, instead of breaking it.

From the depth of being to the outmost periphery, I recollect and construct forms I believe, will fit the contents of my world, intuitively yet precisely, until I realize my dream or I realize my mistake. Sensing what-is-sensed happens immediately, at the peripheries of the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, while knowing what-is-known happens mediately, at their depths.

Form and content develop the organic and the fabricated from the inorganic, at all levels of functional structure (Bergson 1911, Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1972). The environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief sense what-is-sensed at their peripheries, where object-orientations expand into subject-perspectives by temporalization of space or content shaping form, while they know what-is-known at their depths, where subject-perspectives expand into object-orientations by spatialization of time or form shaping content.


figure 2


Sensing what-is-sensed, although this is how I impress myself, cannot be known ("noumenon") without knowing what-is-sensed, while knowing what-is-known, although this is how I express myself, cannot be sensed ("phenoumenon") without sensing what-is-known. Therefore, knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known should (made) be possible. Duality of origin enables this. The organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality are forms consisting of their own source, either what-is-sensed or what-is-known, and the other source's reflection. Forms must be functionally structured to process content (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1972), knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known. To achieve functional structure, they need to reflect themselves "in the image" of the other.

Space and time consist, or space-time consists (since Einstein), of the same form and content, in the environment/other/reality and in the organism/self/belief alike. Both origins and both their reflections on each other's side, repeat in space and in time separately, without losing each other and instead weaving a tapestry of temporalized space and spatialized time (Bergson 1922) around the "here" in space and around the "now" in time, coordinated by what should be one and the same "here and now" in space-time. While "here and there" are connected by space or culture, "now and then" are connected by time or history.

In space-time, culture-history is material, when it arrives from "then" in the past and after the fact, or immaterial, when it arrives from "then" in the future and before the fact. Materially, space temporalizes or integrates "here and now", when content shapes form and the sensed environment/other/reality reflects itself in the sensing organism/self/belief. Immaterially, time spatializes or differentiates "here and now", when form shapes content and the knowing organism/self/belief reflects itself in the known environment/other/reality. The material brain and the immaterial mind mediate while being suspended in the balance. If the brain's self-reflection in the mind, or the mind's self-reflection in the brain, is uncoordinated, then tracing thoughts and feelings is impossible and hinders accountability.



figure 3


Self-reflections of the sources which are the organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality, coordinately move their shared "here and now", separately in their own space-time. When the sources interact, they take turns synchronizing with their dualistic opponent's reflection, on the opposite side, by making their reflections go around from "here and now" and come around from "there and then", in culture-history.

The environment/other/reality positions all object-orientations while the organism/self/belief chooses one subject-perspective at a time. Yet, content shapes form by sending what-is-sensed to all subject-perspectives from one object-orientation, while form shapes content by sending what-is-known to all object-orientations from one subject-perspective, "here and now". Therefore, form cannot process content properly, until all subject-perspectives have received what-is-sensed, filling them with culture-historical meaning, and all object-orientations have received what-is-known, relating them into a meaningful network by association, chronology and/or logic.

Once perspectives and orientations are all balanced and sorted out, synthetically within orientations between perspectives, and analytically within perspectives between orientations, beliefs are relatively justified and true in their cultural and historical context. This context may find the (ab)use of power and politics normal, so that balancing and sorting are conducted within one perspective more than others, let alone that all orientations were given a chance to fill all of them. The former without the latter is often already and therefore erroneously called pluralism or multiplicity. Subject-perspectives then are groups and their leaders, as object-orientations are group-members or people within groups, between whom there is positive discrimination of one perspective over others, by prejudice and cronyism. Object-orientations within people between groups should be the result of them being related within groups between people, across all subject-perspectives, by the associations, chronology and/or logic of all cultures, only after which they express truth and ethics.


figure 4


2. Independent Confirmation


Coordinated reflection should lead to independent confirmation between sources and their opposite source's reflection. Both sources and reflections each have form to process and content to be processed. Before that stage is reached, content shapes form in recollection and form shapes content in construction. If and when contents on both sides, that is in recollection and in construction, happen to independently confirm each other, rationally, emotionally or compassionately, their forms may switch contents or expand the noumenon of sensing what-is-sensed to knowing what-is sensed in recollection and the phenoumenon of knowing what-is-known to sensing what-is-known in construction. Independent confirmation of recollection by construction and construction by recollection, happens simultaneously, if and when it does. If what-is-known is true, then it should be verified and validated by what-is-sensed; if what-is-known is false, then it should be falsified and not be relied upon by what-is-sensed. Independent confirmation therefore happens if and when verification is possible and falsification is impossible. Otherwise, the noumenon remains unknown because it is no more than sensing what-is-sensed without knowing it, while the phenoumenon remains unsensed because it is no more than knowing what-is-known without sensing it (cf Kant 1781).

Knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known occurred simultaneously when independent confirmation happened, as form switching content. Let me call them realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what is intuited. This is the first level of functional structure that noumenon and phenoumenon can reach. The second level is reached, when contents in recollection and construction, which are now what-is-realized and what-is-intuited, independently confirm each other again, by possible verification and impossible falsification. Knowing what-is-sensed or realizing what-is-realized now expands to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed or valuing what-is-valued, while sensing what-is-known or intuiting what-is-intuited now expands to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known or trying what is tried. And under the same conditions, in the exact same manner, trying what-is-valued and valuing what-is-tried, or reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted, can be reached as the final level of functional structure. This is where internal processing may be externalized in social reality between the entities, or the externally normative environment/other/reality and the internally normative organism/self/belief, and the one reacts in response to the other's actions and acts in response to his own reactions.

As long as I don't affect another or do not let myself be affected, I wear a mask. One reason may be simple dogmatic mimetics (Girard 1961), not letting content shape form or form shape content. When memes go around, as spontaneous gestures and living expressions, driven by extrinsic motivation of mimetic desire and power-distancing  (Mulder 1973) between people within groups, it may seem as if they matter more than anything else, e.g. their scapegoats. This may even be more so in competition for leadership, called for by group polarization (Meertens 1980, 2007). As long as truth is hidden, it is merely pretending and keeping up appearances. Another reason may be that content has shaped form enough to let form shape content independently in return, which then however may be halted, by lack of verification of truth or falsification of falsity. Power and politics will force me through the gap by dependent rejection, where truth and ethics would keep me looking for independent confirmation. The masks are made of what looks like spontaneous gestures and living expressions (cf Shotter 2011), which, on the contrary, only camouflage missing truth and ethics. They may even demand it to be regarded as the result of independent confirmation, when it actually was pre-arranged or part of a common narrative.

Recollection of what has happened is externally normative content shaping form, while construction of what may happen is form shaping internally normative content. Processing shapes what-is-sensed and what-is-known internally into what-is-reacted and what-is-acted externally. When processing is intrinsically motivated, then "retrograde movement of the true growth of truth" (Bergson 1922) takes place, as it does in science, justice and journalism, by independent confirmation. At the depth of being, this is critique of true judgment or the categorical imperative "to act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" (Kant 1793).

Processing consists of both the internalization of externally normative content, and the externalization of internally normative content. External- and internal normativity may be effective simultaneously or consecutively, implying two different worlds, culturally and/or historically. Simultaneity implies internal control by intrinsic motivation, to balance or, even better, find independent confirmation between the two. Finding and staying on track of truth and ethics is guaranteed. Consecutiveness implies values and norms being imposed by the one (generation) upon the other, only recognizing power and politics, which supposedly are based on truth and ethics. When they are not, it does not really matter. This is external control by extrinsic motivation.

According to Post-Modernism, Bergson criticized philosophical Modernism by asking how "ideas could categorically demand their own realization" and shifting the attention from subject versus object to division and differentiation within the subject alone, without the object (Lawlor and Moulard 2004). However, the object, or the thing-in-itself, although it could not be known according to Kant, was never erased from the Modern view. Instead the object was always treated with respect, as external normativity, equal to the subject's own internal normativity. In spite of claims that he was on their side, Bergson therefore was critical of Post-Modernism, for power-distancing the inconvenient object, and not of Kant.


figure 5


The recollected environment/other/reality reflects itself in the recollecting organism/self/belief, while the constructing organism/self/belief reflects itself in the constructed environment/other/reality. Coordinated reflection enables independent confirmation, on both sides, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately. If and when this takes place, recollection and construction also reflect each other, in reaction (trying what-is-valued), action (valuing what-is-tried) and the three levels that are implied.

From ongoing social interaction, what-is-reacted is in response to what-is-acted by the environment/other/reality implying what-is-valued, implying what-is-realized and finally implying what-is-sensed. Towards ongoing social interaction, what-is-intuited occurs from what-is-known, what-is-tried occurs from what-is-intuited and what-is-acted occurs from what-is-tried. Content is both internalized and externalized, simultaneously in a continuous flow, if and when rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation takes place, when it is intrinsically motivated by duality of origin, in philosophical Modernism. However content is either internalized or externalized, without seeking and finding independent confirmation, with dependent rejection from one party, causing dependent confirmation from the other in cronyism and independent rejection of a third in prejudice, when it is extrinsically motivated by pluralistic monism in Post-Modern dialectics (cf Hegel 1821, Marx 1867).

Extra-sensory perception happens externally. I cannot sense what-is-sensed because it is not known (yet). Likewise, I cannot know what-is-known because it is not sensed (yet). Therefore, consciousness begins if and when either or both of these sources have been confirmed by the opposite source. Sensing what-is-known or intuition is the content of knowing, independently confirmed by sensing, while knowing what-is-sensed or realization is the content of sensing, independently confirmed by knowing. Independent confirmation can be rational, emotional or compassionate. When content is confirmed, it transforms to a higher level of functional structure with the Truth, or constructive recollection. What stays is form. Therefore forms cannot independently confirm each other. When content thus has shaped form, up to action and reaction, form can shape content, independently in return. This should by now be processing or continuous flow, if there was no blockage along the way and no masks had to be pulled out and put on.

The pulse of social reality is the recollection of what-is-sensed drawn in, followed by the construction of what-is-known pushed out, if and when what-is-sensed and what-is-known independently confirm each other. Thus, content shapes form in recollection, from the periphery to the depths, while form shapes content in construction, from the depths to the periphery. At every pulse, processing current content is drawn in deeper, until sensing what-is-sensed, through realizing what-is-realized and valuing what-is-valued, has become reacting what-is-reacted and knowing what-is-known, through intuiting what-is-intuited and trying what-is-tried, has become acting what-is-acted. Content may then be externalized, by reacting in response to the other's acting and acting in response to one's own reacting. Simultaneously or even serendipitously, extrinsic motivation (instead of intrinsic) may apply reinforced conditioning, not seeking independent confirmation, in the name of power and politics (instead of truth and ethics). This is how the mask is fitted on: one side is mine, while the other side is society's.  

In processing my world, I sense what-is-sensed and I know what-is-known. That means, (ap)perceptions are either traveling inward (what-is-sensed) or outward (what-is-known). What makes them Modern instead of Post-Modern is that they are independent, because the Modern belief is that I live in "duality of origin" and not in pluralistic, multicultural, passive-aggressive monism ruled by power-distancing elites. If and when the independent sides, of sensing and knowing, independently confirm each other, rationally, emotionally or compassionately, then they can process each other's contents, what-is-sensed and what-is-known. That means on one side knowing what-is-sensed takes place (realization) and on the other side sensing what-is-known (intuition). Therefore, recollection is sensing what-is-sensed and realizing what-is-realized, while construction is knowing what-is-known and intuiting what-is-intuited. This happens alternatingly in the organism/self/belief and in the environment/other/reality. What-is-sensed tonates from “there and then” to “here and now”, as what-is-known detonates from “here and now” to “there and then”. Space-time itself substitutes one place-moment for another in radical contingency (cf Gould 1989).


figure 6


Social interaction between the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief can only be one side reacting in response to the other side acting, followed by acting in response to the one side's own reaction. Reaction and action both expand content streaming subliminally, as consciousness and behavior. Content shapes form as space is temporalized, while form shapes content as time is spatialized. Similarly, behavior turns into consciousness at internalization, while consciousness turns into behavior at externalization. Therefore, space and time or behavior and consciousness, as forms, must continuously be developed by-, and develop themselves, content. They do so by constantly looking for- and once found, holding on to, independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation of what-is-known by what-is-sensed.

The sensing organism/self/belief senses the sensed environment/other/reality, or what-is-sensed. Independently confirmed at all four stages, sensing expands to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed, which is reacting, because knowing what-is-sensed is realizing, intuiting what-is-realized is valuing and trying what-is-valued is reacting, all by definition. What-is-sensed is a continuous stream of content shaping form as it expands by independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation, since normativity is external on this side of my duality of origin. When externalized, reacting what-is-reacted may be the reacting organism/self/belief, in response to the acting environment/other/reality.

In recollection, I remind myself of the goals I and my significant others had and still have, sorting out the means to get to them, setting those means as sub-goals which in their turn require means of their own to get there in the first place. As content shapes form, I have to do with what I got and make the best of it. The object always has the last say, therefore object-orientation builds from the means at my disposal to reach the ends I have set for myself, and others, as close as I can. What-is-sensed reaches from "here and now" to the end "there and then" for the other. Next, what-is-realized does the same, adding what-is-known from that particular end, back to "here and now". What-is-valued does the same, adding what-is-sensed in the  direction of my own main goal, recollecting means towards it and its sub-goals. Finally, what-is-reacted specifies what I need exactly "here and now". Reacting what-is-reacted has been formed and can be externalized at any moment social reality may call for it.

The knowing organism/self/belief knows the known environment/other/reality, or what-is-known. Independently confirmed at all four stages, knowing expands to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known, which is acting, because sensing what-is-known is intuiting, realizing what-is-intuited is trying and valuing what-is-tried is acting, all by definition. What-is-known is a continuous stream of content shaped by form as it expands by independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation, since normativity is internal on this side of my duality of origin. When externalized, acting what-is-acted may be the acting organism/self/belief, in response to the reacting organism/self/belief.

In construction, I set my goals and so do my significant others. Each of these goals is a point-of-view, from where I have one particular perspective and from where I design my worldview as I want it or believe it really will be. Multiple perspectives may use the same elements and links between them. This allows me to create panorama-views from overlapping mindmaps, which provide insight into my fantasies or definition-of-the-situation (cf Thomas 1928). My overall understanding sets the standards for recollection, which strives to get as close to them as possible, so I might want to think again when fantasies are too far removed from reality. From "there and then", at the depths of being, what-is-known as the goal, constructs the means or sub-goals and the means they need in their turn, until "here and now" is reached. What-is-intuited adds what-is-sensed towards the other's goal and what-is-tried adds what-is-known from the other's goal to construct the means or sub-goals and the means they need in their turn, until "here and now" is reached again, from the other side. Finally, acting what-is-acted adds what-is-sensed and I may or may not externalize the action, depending on how that would make me feel.


figure 7


3. Constructive Recollection



The expansion of pure sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted and of pure knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, are recollection and construction, or constructive recollection. Expansion may be continued externally, in social reality, where reaction in response to the other's action and action in response to one's own reaction, amount to social interaction. Truth, or what can only be detected by independent confirmation, has then been externalized, although it still motivates intrinsically. Extrinsic motivation would turn independent confirmation into dependent rejection, whipping people into group-polarization (Moscovici & Zavalloni 1969, Meertens 1980), dependently confirming friends who are "more equal" (Orwell 1945) and independently rejecting enemies, as cronyism and prejudice. Intrinsic motivation attracts independent individuals towards each other's independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation or Truth. Independence is kept alive or is strengthened, if and when one individual can confirm another, so that strength is passed on from one independent individual to the next and never should die.

Reflection and confirmation in duality of origin make what-is-sensed and what-is-known "here and now" detonate or map to "there and then" on the opposite side, so that what-is-sensed as one single object-orientation, is distributed across what-is-known as multiple subject-perspectives, whereas one single subject-perspective, is distributed across multiple object-orientations. Over time, all distributions add up or escalate, to new, single and unique, perspectives and orientations, tonated to detonate again. These double-crossed one-to-many relations between contents in what-is-sensed and what-is-known, or between the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, account for people's roles, role-positions as well as tensions within- and between role-senders and role-receivers (cf Boekestijn 1978). Similarly, meaningful- and meaningless- or conflicting relations are constructed and recollected within- and between subject-perspectives and object-orientations.

The body and the mind consist of two halves, both of which process content from the periphery to the depths of being and back again. Form processes content, growing as it is shaped by content on the one side, into the depths, and shapes content itself, back to the periphery, on the other. In other words, while form evolves and devolves, content moves inward and outward, as a continuous flow. And while this is so, many believe there is no interaction between the two sides. However, there is or there can be, and it is very important, because it keeps body and mind alive, healthy and even happy: the one side that recollects, seeks to independently confirm the other side that constructs, by verifying what is true, for a reliable sensibility, and by falsifying what is not true, for a valid understanding.


To confirm another strengthens independence, while independence is a necessary prerequisite to confirm another. - See more at:

figure 8


In social interaction, when the other acts and in response one reacts, form shapes content and content shapes form, unless processing no longer requires either of them. Still, action implies trying, trying implies intuition and intuition implies knowledge, while reaction occurs out of valuing, valuing occurs out of realizing and realizing occurs out of sensing. Each of these entities of content is connected to its opposite's reflection, hopefully by independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation or else by mimetics, in spontaneous gestures and living expressions.

The realm of social reality was annexed by Hegel and Marx, shortly after Kant had given us all we needed in philosophical Modernism. Therefore, Post-Modernism is socialized and communized, while the essence of Modernism is swept under the rug: there is no mention in Post-Modernism of God, Truth, Self or Reality, as they supposedly are all figments of my imagination. Therefore I must return to philosophical Modernism. Social reality continuously provides me with all I seem to need to react to, in response, and then to act in response to my reaction, as if this always implied independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation. Judging from mimetic desires of people in groups, group-polarization and political activism, this does seem the case, had I never heard of these critical theories. Post-Modernism calls itself the "critical movement", however criticism and especially the kind Kant had in mind, targets it as nothing or nobody else. Therefore, I must be sensible and understanding enough, to detect truth if and when it is present in social reality and social interaction, by looking for independent confirmation and not dependent confirmation in cronyism and/or independent rejection in prejudice, into which the masterminds of power and politics whip me if they can, by dependent rejection.

Memes as spontaneous gestures and living expressions, pass from one to the other in chiasmic relations (Shotter 2011),  motivated intrinsically by truth and ethics and not extrinsically or dogmatically by power and politics, to prevent social and moral disasters resulting from mimetic desire, group-polarization and power-distancing. Extrinsic motivation is external normativity for children, followers and conquered or internal normativity for parents, leaders and conquerors, while intrinsic motivation is both externally- and internally normative for equals, critically looking for independent confirmation. Content from what-is-sensed to what-is-reacted in recollection, shapes form, if and when it independently confirms construction from what-is-known to what-is-acted, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately. It may then be shaped by form as implied sub-processes (cf Gendlin 1997), in reverse, from what-is-acted to what-is-known, expressed in true judgment, immediately, since it has already been independently confirmed (cf Kant 1793).


figure 9


The organism/self/belief is form that is first created by the environment/other/reality reflecting itself, and then is used to process content. Form cannot be independently confirmed; it can only be mimicked by those who do not have form of their own. Content can be independently confirmed and it must be, to stay on track of truth and remain healthy and happy. For it must follow the path of its own creation, when it was confirmed in recollection, now that it is about to construct what is outside of it, itself, in its turn, if it has reason enough to do so. It should be - once again - independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation in social reality. It should not be mimicry for power and politics.

To enable the organism/self/belief to operate sensibly and understandingly towards the environment/other/reality, responsive reaction and action evolved from trying what-is-valued (reaction) and valuing what-is-tried (action), which evolved from intuiting what-is-realized (valuing) and realizing what-is-intuited (trying), which evolved from knowing what-is-sensed (realizing) and sensing what-is-known (intuiting). This is like the gyroscope suspended in a gimbal, suspended in another gimbal, suspended in a third. It is immune to surprise and absorbs all shocks, keeping sensibility and understanding from independence bias (prejudice) and confirmation bias (cronyism) in social reality, to stay on track of truth. 

The roles people play in society (baker, butcher, husband, wife, etc), differentiate within-groups-between-people. The most essential role-differentiation is that between man and woman. In society, constructive recollection recollects, knowing that it needs to construct again, or constructs, sensing that it needs to recollect again. Therefore one role is knowing what-is-sensed, intuiting what-is-realized and trying what-is-valued, while the other role is sensing what-is-known, realizing what-is-intuited and valuing what-is-tried. I may play both roles only consciously, however once externalized in behavior, they soon become acting what-is-reacted and reacting what-is-acted.

Phases expand from one stage to the next, if and when independent confirmation happens. Repeatedly, alternatingly and overlapping each other, what-is-sensed (i) expands to what-is-realized (ii), what-is-valued (iii) and finally what-is-reacted (iv), as what-is-known (i) expands to what-is-intuited (ii), what-is-tried (iii) and finally what-is-acted (iv). The stream of content in social interaction between the organism/self/belief (A) and the environment/other/reality (B), who respond to themselves and to each other, is one and the same, as the four phases of social interaction are: 1. A responds to B (AB), 2. A responds to A (AA), 3. B responds to A (BA) and 4. B responds to B (BB). Each response begins with what-is-sensed when the previous response has been what-is-known or what-is-known when the previous response has been what-is-sensed. 

One knows, intuits, tries and/or acts (externally). Then the other senses, realizes, values and/or reacts to that. Next, the roles reverse and the other knows, intuits, tries and/or acts, followed by the one's sensing, realizing, valuing and/or reacting (internally). All responses overlap and they are all one phase apart. Through these four forms, meaningful content is earned or paid-forward. Otherwise the flow stops.


figure 10


Social interaction seeks independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation. Reacting in response to the Other and acting in response to the Self, normally does not imply independent confirmation. It may seem to be the case, however then it almost always is dependent confirmation within the group or group-member, linked to independent rejection between groups (group members), which boils down to cronyism between friends and prejudice against common enemies. If and when independent confirmation between independent individuals indeed happens, then confirmation reinforces the other's independence, which in its turn enables independent confirmation of another again, keeping me in good healthy spirit. 

There is one more kind of independent confirmation in social interaction, which is an extra expansion on top of reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted, because acting what-is-reacted and reacting what-is-acted are the Self finding itSelf through the Other, which is very Good and very True. The environment/other/reality in very special cases may, under the right constellation of culture and history, provide all the answers one asks oneself, the same way it may be totally against the grain at other places and other times.

The more significant the Other is to me, the more freedom of choice I should provide, including freedom to choose against my will/freedom and my Self. Providing freedom of choice is necessary to have independent confirmation, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, if and when it happens, which is the only way truth can be detected and is detected in realms such as science, justice and journalism, as it should be in my everyday life. Limiting my own freedom of choice to providing unlimited freedom of choice to the Other, particularly my Significant Other, is ethics. Relationships therefore edify ethics.

The question is, do I need to take freedom of choice and be independently confirmed for being my Self, indicating Truth, or do I need to give freedom of choice and independence to the Other, making sure that confirmation, if any, is independent, indicating Truth? The two go together, however taking must follow giving and not proceed it. The reverse would imply, if it were successful, that I was conditioned by the same circumstances and therefore was able to independently confirm the other. What was found could be patriotism or mimetic desire, but it would not be Truth.

Freedom of choice, which is taken only after it is given by the Self, to the Other, is like money or attention paid forward, economically. My Self gives freedom of choice to the Other, the more significant the Other is to me. Once I make up my mind, and my choice is made, I no longer need my own freedom of choice. I must be my choice to optimize the chance that the independence I provided, will become independent confirmation by the Other, of my Self, as it can now be judged by all, particularly by my Significant Other, positively or negatively.

Society is not the masses. People should all be independent individuals, independently confirming what is true and not what is false. Although society is "ordered" through power-distancing by the haves, of the havenots, sending them off to war if they can, people can always strengthen the other by independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, to make him/her self-confident enough (in their womanhood or manhood if necessary), to do the same for still others. Damage to truth and ethics by power and politics is equal for both men and women, who must play their roles in society and even more in their relationship, to let the other find him- or herself. If he lets her make him truly find himself, which he cannot manage on his own, before she makes him find her, he implicitly makes her find herself, which she wants and needs, in her role and identity. Only the level of sensibility and understanding differs between relationships and from one generation to the next, sometimes steeply.


  figure 11

Independent confirmation can easily be replaced by dependent rejection, which requires the presence and ownership of power. Power is in high demand, because it is associated with the expected fulfillment of practically all human desires. Money is power and money buys almost anything. Social reality is ordered or structured through the mechanism of power-distancing and the effort to reduce the distance to the next higher- and to increase the distance to the next lower social echelons. The threat to inflict physical or mental harm, would neither be possible without power, nor would the allure of externally induced self-fulfilling prophecy, where and when God's mysterious ways in the end turn out to be man-manufactured.

To stay away from dependent rejection, people organize themselves in groups, with or without leadership, dependently confirming each other as friends and independently rejecting others as enemies, thus maintaining cronyism and prejudice. These social dynamics are taken from the officious to the official realm by politics. Post-Modernism as conceived by Hegel shortly after Kant published his authentic views, abides by this minimal understanding of social reality as so-called dialectics. Unfortunately, the environment/other/reality thus can be a cesspool of corruption, fraud, scam, backbiting, quackery, cheating and espionage.

Does the economy have to be ruled by power & politics, or could it also be ruled by truth & ethics? The Protestants emigrating to North America over two hundred years ago, had clear ideas about this (Weber 1905). Pay it forward as you would provide freedom to significant others, ethically, in order to stay on track of Truth, which can only be detected by independent confirmation, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately. Post-Modernism has accused them of Social Constructionism (cf Shotter 1984), both materially and mentally, which it believes did not amount to anything. Today, of course, life is in the grips of power & politics, only reinforcing selfishness of a whole group or individuals who can afford it. Even the way many view genetics has been tarnished by it (cf Dawkins 1976).

To be independent, I need to be confirmed. That used to happen in church or at ceremonies. No doubt it still does. However, it has become clear, that independent confirmation, apart from being the essence of science, justice and journalism which look for truth, or at least used to (before Post-Modernism re-emerged in 1968), is essential to the quality of life. What can be independently confirmed, must be true, whereas the concept of truth, like that of God, self and reality are all being deconstructed, annihilated and swept up as nothingness by Post-Modernism, in a furious attempt to return to Marx' and Hegel's politics. What can be independently confirmed, rationally, emotionally or compassionately, is divine enough to bow my head for, deeply, because if it isn't God's Truth, it is nature's, which is still awesome. If and when it happens between me (no dependent rejection in sight and therefore no need to flee into dependent confirmation of friends/cronies and independent rejection of enemies), then I have found my 'better half', whom I looked for and now look after. It all depends on the Significance of the Other for me: the more significant, the more I feel obliged, ethically, paying forward to her, freedom to choose, for or against me, for or against what I believe, say or do, to confirm only what is true. Therefore, independent confirmation is ethics.

Breaking from good to bad may happen unnoticeably in two ways. First, it may be the replacement of truth by power as the criterion to confirm what-is-known, by what-is-sensed. This happens when I am power-distanced or dependently rejected if I do not dependently confirm (cronyism) and independently reject (prejudice). Second, it may be the reinterpretation of honesty as disloyalty or of loyalty as dishonesty. The latter may even be intentional, to put the pressure on or to manipulate. Independent confirmation should reinstall the valid and reliable truth again, including my intentions.

Practically everything that can happen, has happened before. What I did when it happened before, that which is happening now, is what I can repeat and improve upon, if there is a lesson in it. And literally in my dreams, I send that wisdom to the forefront and use it to refine my ways and live through my problems again to better cope with-, or even solve them. So the body already knows how to heal and grow. It just needs quality time for itself, as in sleep or dreams, to constructively recollect.

The grand total of experience in the past and all that may happen in the future, is content from social reality, what-is-sensed and what-is-known. It shapes form that is sensing, and it is shaped by form that is knowing. Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known are autonomous, because I do not (yet) know what-is-sensed or sense what-is-known. Constructive recollection is processing that is no longer autonomous and that is under my control. All that is sensed and all that is known, is processed into sensibility and understanding that I can share in social interaction, to continue seeking independent confirmation once processing can be externalized, between myself and others and no longer within myself. What happens within-people-between-groups may lead to what happens within-groups-between-people, however this culture-historical outcome is radically different from a reverse of the two. It is how cultural history in the late 1700s and the early 1800s in old Europe between Kant and Hegel, has turned the field upside down and it is still present, especially since May 1968 when it got a blank cheque to grow as it wished as long as a third World War was deflected, or rather seemed, for this was war itself. I now know how things should not be and how bad breaks. 

Cultural history is determined either by truth and ethics or by power and politics. Truth and ethics operate as the search for independent confirmation within-people-between-groups, externalized to within-groups-between-people. Power and politics operate as the execution of dependent rejection by power-distancing within-groups-between-people, internalized to within-people-between-groups. Intra- and inter-personal conflict of (mental) attitudes is therefore to be expected.



figure 12


Society can be "ordered" or structured in two ways which both have philosophical underpinnings, and each can really do without the other badly. In the way people are motivated by normativity, these two ways are diametrically opposed to each other. As the one is mainly structured by limitative forces, the other focuses on potential. Limits are spaces and times in cultural history, where Post-Modernism locates changes of power, politics and their use or abuse. They determine Marx' Historical Materialism. Potential on the contrary, is what people need to live meaningful lives, what is good and true. Philosophical Modernism found this in duality of origin, comparable to the separation of heaven and earth at the beginning of Christianity.

Motivation is extrinsic, when normativity is either external or internal. Groups have values and norms, which are passed on from one generation to the next, if they are not changed or invented along the way by those currently in power and politics, probably clinging to it, if not personally then by their whole family, one generation after another. When the group is a family, parents are in power and children are not. When it is a company, leaders are and followers are not. When it is a whole country, conquerors or masters are and conquered or slaves are not. On the contrary, motivation is intrinsic, when normativity is both external and internal. If and when the environment/other/reality independently confirms the organism/self/belief, by sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known, then motivation flows freely from what is good and true. It confirms independence so that independence can again confirm other independent individuals on other occasions, being its own virtue.

There are limits to extrinsic motivation where normativity is either external or internal, personally in disorders or socially in sociosis (Van den Berg 1956). Dialectics of Historical Materialism may use power and politics to put one collective or generation in charge of the other or the next, once the narrative is no longer supported by the facts and looking away no longer helps. Disorders may occur within the collective at the personal level as derealization from prejudice or independent rejection, which could induce depersonalization (ibidem), leading to cronyism or dependent confirmation in those independently rejected. Socioses then occur at the collective level, differing across communities.

Prejudice causes cronyism and cronyism causes prejudice. Casting someone out, independently rejecting him, takes away his ability to express criticism or to independently confirm what feels true from personal experience, in a common effort to find and follow truth. With this option off the table, all that is left is dependent confirmation - which is pure cronyism. It may happen in various degrees of transparency, from the beggar in the street who says you have a good heart, to backroom deals where you get one last chance to do what your benefactor tells you what to do and possibly turn criminal, to undisclosed thoughts deciding on what is the safest although unethical way to finally get somewhere desirable. One way or another, power and politics will always power-distance themselves from truth and ethics.

Real dialectics is not what happens between groups and between people within groups. It is the dynamic between (A) what happens within-people-between-groups and (B) what happens within-groups-between-people. (A) can lead as (B) follows, for a world of truth & ethics, or (B) can lead as (A) follows, for a world of power & politics. This is dialectics as it was understood by Kant, not by Hegel and Marx.

Social order created by constructive recollection, uses independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation between equals. Social order created by dialectics or historical materialism, uses dependent rejection or power-distancing between presumably non-equals. Power remains the same and distance is widened, when loyalty is reinterpreted as dishonesty (by the Left). Distance remains the same and power is shifted, when honesty is reinterpreted as disloyalty (by the Right).

Every group has its unique perspective, which often coincides with (or is applied by) its leader. The longer this subjective perspective is maintained, the more it turns into values and norms for the group, that is, for each group member. Making the group include other groups, dialectically, does not change the principle. It only, hypothetically, leaves no other group behind. This, however, will never happen, for all groups need common friends and common enemies, except for one kind of group: the one that consists of independent individuals who have found each other through independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation. Relations within-groups-between-people then extend to those within-people-between-groups. There is no need to shift responsibility for one's view to representatives or leaders under those circumstances. Everybody will by held accountable and nobody will have a problem with that.


figure 13


My world is nothing but content that my form processes. The organism/self/belief senses what-is-sensed and knows what-is-known about the environment/other/reality. If and when what-is-known/intuited/tried/acted cannot be falsified by what-is-sensed/realized/valued/reacted in reflection of the source, the rationality, emotionality or compassion is still standing, connecting the dots or notes I take. If and when what-is-known/intuited/tried/acted in reflection of the source can be verified by what-is-sensed/realized/valued/reacted, the notes are taken, object-oriented in multi-perspectivism. The objects are reused in as many perspectives as they appear. They enable me to overlap all perspectives and detect patterns. These are the patterns of my belief-system. I can now apply critique of pure reason, practical reason and judgment to improve myself, as philosophical Modernism suggested I should, before the Post-Modern hijack that immediately followed.

The mind moves synthetically and analytically, Kant discovered or assumed and proved. Synthetically, I explore all things new, like a baby putting things in its mouths. Analytically, I consolidate my knowledge. This continues all of my life, although synthesis and analysis alternate in a changing way, for every person differently and depending on my social, that is cultural-historical, conditions of living. The older I get and the more I synthetically explored, the more synthesis or integration is necessary for the mind to stay healthy. The younger I wase and the sooner analysis began, the higher the chance wrong precepts entered and caused damage. Therefore I need to synthesize my mind later in life, from the best precepts I found. They can be "seen with the brain" (Sacks 2012) because I feel the difference, before and after, when they order my thoughts. I have been using software to record these entities and relations for quite some time now, for this purpose: to sense what I know and still believe is true. It protects me from falling down, mentally speaking, and it helps me get up again more effortlessly, when I did.

Every new entity of meaningful content entering behavior and consciousness, brings along its own context of meaningfully related entities of content, and any further development within that context. Form or the organism/self/belief will process this content, from sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted and from knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted. Content may have to shape form before it can be shaped, or processed, by form. When meaningfully related entities are ready to be processed, they bring more of their own related content into the process. Meaningfully, this will all happen spontaneously in gestures and lively in expressions, however it may also struggle because the meaning is lost along the way. Therefore, I need attitudes and perhaps tools to keep those meanings alive, other than damaging group dynamics like mimetic desire or group polarization. I can keep track of my own meaningful associations simply by reminding myself one way or another.

I am capable of lighting up my whole universe of insight, if I can make sure I don't doubt any single thought any more. This must be the greatest gift of all, because it strengthens my spirit. Implied is a lot of doubt which must be cleared up first, before I can reach this "enlightenment". Content must be validated by verification of what is true and relied upon by falsification of what is false. First, between realization and intuition (knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known). I express what impresses me, over time. Second, between evaluating and trying (intuiting what-is-realized and realizing what-is-intuited). What the organism/self/belief tries is evaluated by the environment/other/reality. Third, between reaction and action (trying what-is-valued and valuing what-is-tried). Within the meaningful network of roles people play, from sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted and from knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, related entities have their own functional structure or élan vital. Spontaneous gestures and living expressions, sanctioned by independent confirmation or truth, carry far and wide, including past and future.

A great way to learn, is to (1) name things, (2) link between the names in an multi-perspective mindmap and (3) make the links thicker every time I can confirm them from my current perspective. That confirmation will be independent when my view has changed, and it changes constantly while learning. Strong relations will be salient and clearly visible on all subsequent maps when named things (yellow notes) have been recollected and reused to construct any new perspective. 

"Where is memory stored? First, I don't think anything is stored in this sort of way and I think that the notion of a store is the right one. The brain is not a library, it's not a granary, it's not a computer and I think that what happens, comes into the mind again always with a different context and a different construction. So I think memory is close to imagination and I think memories are constructions and not Xeroxes, not facsimiles", according to Oliver Sacks (1993). Constructive recollection of memories into imaginations reuse the same elements in different contexts or maps all the time. Yet, however, all these contexts do add up and trigger synthesis, which can be analyzed to inspire me with meaning, when they are drawn together at least in one common element or possibly many more.

When A relates to B, and B relates to C, there is a good chance A relates to C. This is one of the benefits of mindmapping, or the entity-relationship model. Meaningful networks are united by using the same elements or notes, and logical or chronological relations between them are drawn closer, handing me the strongest links in the networks of my thoughts. This allows me to be more sensible and better understand my own consciousness and behavior, giving me a fighting chance to escape the constant pressure of extrinsic motivation. Power and politics, media and marketing condition me into these controls to regulate the political economy. Truth and ethics however, leave the control in my own hands, to always be intrinsically motivated and constructively recollect the world I actually want to live in. The organism/self/belief can let itself be conditioned a-selectively by the environment/other/reality, which may be selectively using power, or by the criterion that is not selective and needs no power to reinforce itself, which is independent confirmation.

Constructive recollection as a philosophy application is meaningful in the contexts of discovery and justification (cf Reichenbach 1949).

My very own feelings and thoughts are basically what-I-sense and what-I-know. They are my prize possessions because they are meaningful to my own private culture, history and evolution in particular, and hopefully to the public's in general. When they are the same, I reuse them in different manners, one at a time, and when they are different, I use them in the same manner, one at a time. One thought or feeling then triggers all other thoughts and feelings, unified as one, as I grow, uniquely and essentially, more into my own being.




CRPA software application


figure 14




As form processes content, the organism/self/belief constructively recollects the environment/other/reality. Between recollection and construction, contents must look for- and look after independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation which leads to offering a product or freedom to choose, if and when it is found. Constructive recollection is a functional structure resulting from logical-, chronological- or associative relations, within- and between object-orientations and subject-perspectives, or individuals and groups. Values and norms on both sides are processed simultaneously or consecutively, which choice of lifestyle determines how well social reality is metabolized, or how much life hurts (others).



Berg, J.H. van den (1956). "Metabletica of leer der veranderingen. Beginselen van een historische psychologie" p125. Nijkerk: Callenbach.

Bergson, H. (1911). "Creative Evolution". New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Bergson, H. (1922). "Durée et Simultanéité". Paris: Félix Alcan.

Bergson, H. (1932). "The Two Sources Of Morality And Religion" p79. London: Macmillan And Company Limited.

Bergson, H. (1939). "Matière et mémoire. Essai sur la relation du corps à l’esprit". Paris: Les Presses universitaires de France.

Bergson, H. (1946). "The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics". New York: Citadel Press.

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

Campbell, D.T.; Stanley J.C. (1963). "Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research". Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dawkins, R. (1976). "The Selfish Gene". New York City: Oxford University Press.

Deleuze, G. (1991). "Bergsonism". New York: Zone Books.

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.

Duijker, H.C.J. (1980). "Psychopolis". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Gendlin, E.T. (1997). "A Process Model". New York: The Focusing Institute.

Gilens, M.; Page, B.I. (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Cambridge: Perspectives on Politics.

Gould, S.J. (1989). "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History". New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Girard, R. (1961). "Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque". Paris: Grasset.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1807). " Phänomenologie des Geistes”. Bamberg und Würzburg: Joseph Anton Goebhardt.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1830). "Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften Pt. I". Von eigener Hand.

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

Kant, I. (1793). "Kritik der Urteilskraft". Berlin und Libau: Lagarde und Friederich.

Lawlor, L.; Moulard, V. (2004). "Henri Bergson". Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.

Lewin, K. ; (1945). "The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology". Sociometry 8 (2): 126–136.

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

Meertens, R.W. (2007). "The Hofstadgroep".

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

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

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.

Orwell, G. (1945). "Animal Farm". London: Martin Secker & Warburg.

Popper, K. (1935). "Logik der Forschung". Vienna: Julius Springer Verlag.

Redding, P. (2010). "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel". Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.

Reichenbach, H. (1949). "The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity". In Schilpp, P. A., "Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist". Evanston: The Library of Living Philosophers.

Rohlf, M. (2010). “Immanuel Kant”. Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.

Rotter, J.B. (1954). "Social learning and clinical psychology". New York: Prentice-Hall.

Sanders, C. (1972). "De behavioristische revolutie in de psychologie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

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

Sanders, C.; Rappard, J.F.H. van (1982). "Tussen Ontwerp En Werkelijkheid". Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.

Sacks, O. (1993). "Een schitterend ongeluk (A Glorious Accident) 1/7”.

Sacks, O. (2012). "Hallucinations”. New York: Random House.

Shotter, J. (1984). "Social Accountability and Selfhood". Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Shotter, J. (2005). "Moving on by backing away". In G. Yancy, "Narrative Identities: Psychologists Engaged In Self-construction". London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Shotter, J. (2011). "Draft: ‘Spontaneous Responsiveness, Chiasmic Relations, And Consciousness – Inside The Realm Of Living Expression’",

Simon, H.A. (1971), "Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World". In: Martin Greenberger, "Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest". Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Turner, M. (1968). "Psychology and the Philosophy of Science". New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Weber, M. (1905). "Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus". In: Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik, 20. Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr.

Wit, H.F. de (1991). "Contemplative Psychology". Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

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






M2M Matter to Man
Amsterdam, Netherlands
31 - 6 - 533 - 03 - 061