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" (Bergson 1932) as is central to Christianity in the separation of body and mind, which was studied scientifically for the first time in the 17th century (Descartes 1644) and articulated best in the 18th century (Kant 1781-1793). The two sources are presumed to be what-is-sensed (Kant: sensibility) and knowing (Kant: understanding) and both sources are presumed to coordinately reflect themselves, as sensing by what-is-sensed and as what-is-known by knowing. Source and reflection on both sides of the duality are then supposed to seek independent confirmation, in possible verification and impossible falsification. If and when independent confirmation happens, the content and form on each side of the duality transform and reach a next stage in their four stage development. At the final stage, internal processing may turn into external, socially interactive processing. Internal and external normativity are controlled by intrinsic motivation generated by truth that was indicated by independent confirmation. Limitations and threats to the system are posed by Post-Modernism and uniting body and mind in monism. Internal or external normativity is then controlled by extrinsic motivation generated by power that was exerted in dependent rejection (the opposite of independent confirmation). ooo 


Coordinated Reflection

The knowing organism/self/belief and the sensed environment/other/reality are our two sources and they reflect themselves in opposite directions. Source and reflection are coordinated "here and now", after the fact, in material space-time, relative to sensing what-is-sensed, and before the fact in immaterial culture-history, relative to knowing what-is-known. Before and after the fact, "here and now" is the same. Therefore we need ways to coordinate the two. One is to take away their independence and replace it with dependency by power & politics. Another is to keep independence intact and instead look for truth & ethics. Philosophical Modernism at the beginning of Christianity, found the latter and formalized it after the Middle Ages had ended, by separating subject from object in duality of origin (Descartes 1644, Bergson 1932) as heaven and earth had been at the Cross.

Sensing reflects what-is-sensed, from where source and reflection originate, materially after the fact, "there and then" in past space-time. Knowing is reflected by what-is-known, towards where source and reflection will meet, immaterially before the fact, "there and then" in future culture-history. The organism/self/belief coordinates sensing and knowing as forms, while the environment/other/reality coordinates what-is-sensed and what-is-known as contents. We can move the coordinates between sensing and what-is-sensed from "there and then" in the past, after the fact and/or we can move the coordinates between knowing and what-is-known from "there and then" in the future, before the fact, towards the present "here and now". Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known can always be more precise, if they should meet in space-time and culture-history.

From the depth of our being to the utmost periphery, we recollect and construct forms that we believe, will fit the contents of our world, intuitively yet precisely, until we realize our dream or we realize our mistake. Sensing and what-is-sensed descend from the periphery to the depth, while knowing and what-is-known ascend from the depth to the periphery. At different levels of functional structure (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1972) then, content shapes form and form shapes content, until form processes content and structure is functional. In the deep, form or the organism/self/belief converts sensing into knowing, while at the surface, content or the environment/other/reality converts what-is-known into what-is-sensed. Recollection is sensing what-is-sensed, while construction is knowing what-is-known. Constructive recollection must integrate and differentiate them.



figure 1


Space and time are the basic categories of philosophical Modernism, in 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 1781, 1793). Basically, the object cannot be known ("noumenon"), as we can only subliminally sense what-is-sensed and not yet know what-is-sensed, while the subject cannot be sensed ("phe-noumenon"), as we can only supraliminally know what-is-known and not yet sense what-is-known. Similarly, space and time can only be sensed and known when they combine in space-time or temporalized space and spatialized time. This was debated by Einstein and Bergson, comparing the newly discovered laws of the universe to the duality of origin in philosophical Modernism (Bergson 1922). Einstein believed he had "won" the debate, however Bergson was to be rediscovered later in the century, notably by a Post-Modernist (Deleuze 1991), although he actually was a Modernist.

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 is from the past and after the fact, or immaterial, when it is from the future and before the fact. Materially, space temporalizes "here and now", when content shapes form and the sensed environment/other/reality reflects itself in the sensing organism/self/belief. Immaterially, time spatializes "here and now", when form shapes content and the knowing organism/self/belief reflects itself in the known environment/other/reality. Temporalized space is knowing what-is-sensed, or realization, approaching the "here and now" after the fact from the past, while spatialized time is sensing what-is-known, or intuition, approaching the "here and now" before the fact from the future. Realization is content shaping form while intuition is form shaping content. Once form is wholly shaped by content, form only processes or converts content.



figure 2


The "here and now" moves through all of space-time and culture-history in object-orientation, by sensing what-is-sensed, and in multi-perspectivism, by knowing what-is-known, until "there and then" is the starting point again. When the reflection of one source coincides with the other source, normativity may shift from the external source or what-is-sensed, to the internal source or knowing, and back again, in the short- or the long term. This can be by either extrinsic- or intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation between people makes the one submit to the other by external normativity, or sensing and knowing what-is-sensed, and the other dominate the one by internal normativity or sensing and knowing what-is-known. Relations like these can be between parent and child, teacher and pupil, leader and follower or conqueror and conquered. Intrinsic motivation within people has nothing to do with submission and dominance and instead compares external- and internal normativity. Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known may combine into knowing what-is-sensed (or realization) and sensing what-is-known (or intuition). Normativity of independent individuals is therefore much less dogmatic and much more critical.


figure 3



Independent Confirmation

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 hardest part of life, dying, so more bearable. To unify object and subject into a collective inter-subjective, while deconstructing the ideas of God, Truth, Reality and Self, as Post-Modernism did, has nearly eliminated this effect and replaced it with soothing of its own brand, although this is less effective and seems to have reduced the religious- to merely the political realm. Another virtue could not as easily be replaced, or at all, which has always been essential to at least science, justice and journalism: to find the truth. Its absence is harmful to our health and happiness. If and when what-is-sensed can verify what-is-known while sensing cannot falsify knowing, then the object independently confirms the subject, or the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief independently confirm reflection, from the other side.

In recollection, what-is-sensed reflects itself in sensing. Being content, it shapes form as space is temporalized. If and when what-is-sensed could verify what-is-known and sensing could not falsify knowing, then both sides are now independently confirmed. This causes new stages to be reached, which we shall define:"sensing what-is-sensed" becomes knowing what-is-sensed or "realizing what-is-realized", which then becomes intuiting what-is-realized or "valuing what-is-valued", which then becomes trying what-is-valued or "reacting what-is-reacted". When the organism/self/belief reacts in response to action from the environment/other/reality, all the above is implied. When content is processed, it shapes form as space temporalizes, taking these steps: from sensing what-is-sensed, to realizing what-is-realized, to valuing what-is-valued, to reacting what-is-reacted. The flow of content, from what-is-sensed to what-is-reacted, shapes form, until form processes or converts content all by itself.


figure 4


In construction, knowing reflects itself in what-is-known. Being form, it shapes content as time is spatialized. If and when knowing could not be falsified by sensing while what-is-known could be verified by what-is-sensed, then both sides are now independently confirmed. This causes new stages to be reached, which we shall define:"knowing what-is-known" becomes sensing what-is-known or "intuiting what-is-intuited", which then becomes realizing what-is-intuited or "trying what-is-tried", which then becomes valuing what-is-tried or "acting what-is-acted". When the organism/self/belief acts in response to its own reaction, all stages are implied necessarily by definition. Content gets processed by form as time spatializes, taking these steps: from knowing what-is-known, to intuiting what-is-intuited, to trying what-is-tried, to acting what-is-acted. Form, from knowing to acting, shapes content as it was shaped by content, until it finally can process or convert content all by itself.


  figure 5


Recollection of what has happened is externally normative content shaping form, while construction of what may happen is internally normative content shaped by form. Processing shapes what-is-sensed and what-is-known into what-is-reacted and what-is-acted in social interaction. When processing is intrinsically motivated, by truth and ethics or finding independent confirmation, as in science, justice and journalism, then "retrograde movement of the true growth of truth" (Bergson 1922) took place. At the depth of being, this becomes critique of true judgment or a 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). Truth is independent confirmation, as possible verification, and impossible falsification, of internal normativity by external normativity at every stage. Only concomitant processing of external and internal normativity allows for independent confirmation between recollection and construction. Sequential processing does not allow for independent confirmation and denies existence of truth.

Processing is the internalization of content that is externally normative, plus the externalization of content that is internally normative. Only the environment/other/reality can separate these in time, in space or both. We allow this to happen when we let ourselves be extrinsically motivated by power and politics, between people within groups or parties, where mimetic desire (Girard 1961) in spontaneous gestures and living expressions (cf Shotter 2011) may fuel group-polarization (Moscovici & Zavalloni 1969, Meertens 1980, 2007) and a social order characterized by power-distancing between elites and outcasts (Mulder 1973), leading to sociosis in the group and dissociation disorder in the group members. Group dynamics and dialectics may or may not balance out the extremes. If not, then intrinsic motivation by truth and ethics, within people between groups or parties, may come to the rescue, as is critical for balance in duality. If and when internal- and external normativity happen to independently confirm each other, including other independent individuals, then concomitant processing will detect it, as truth.


figure 6


The organism/self/belief knows or senses the known or sensed environment/other/reality by finding independent confirmation in possible verification of its own reflection by the other source and impossible falsification of itself by the other's reflection. It knows from the inside out and it senses from the outside in. Knowing always follows sensing and sensing always follows knowing. What-is-sensed and what-is-known used to be sensing and knowing, before they became what knowing and sensing were about. At every one of four stages, sensing and knowing evolve to a new state: sensing evolves to realizing, valuing and finally reacting, while knowing evolves to intuiting, trying and finally acting. If action and reaction are externalized in social interaction, each participant reacts in response to the other's action and acts in response to his own reaction. Thus, content is continuously processed within- and between people. When a next stage is not reached, it is because independent confirmation did not happen. Gaps in social interaction as a consequence of this, may be caused by power abuse, disguised as mimetic desire.


figure 7


Constructive Recollection

Coordination and independent confirmation between sources and their reflections, transform these, in recollection, from sensing (reflection) what-is-sensed (source) to realizing what-is-realized, to valuing what-is-valued, to reacting what-is-reacted, and in construction, from knowing (source) what-is-known (reflection) to intuiting what-is-intuited, to trying what-is-tried and to acting what-is-acted. Acting what-is-reacted and reacting what-is-acted is the logical next step. However, apart from coordinated reflection and independent confirmation, this stage involves four phases of interaction between the organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality as another organism/self/belief: (1) the one's reaction in response to the other's action, (2) the one's action in response to his own reaction, (3) the other's reaction in response to one's own action and (4) the other's action in response to his own reaction. The other may still be internally represented by the one, when interaction is merely a mental perspective, or interaction may be for real. Since reaction is trying what is valued by the other and action is valuing what is tried by the one, both of which can be positive or negative, this describes authentic feed-back and feed-forward.


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

figure 8


If one internally constructs what-is-known and externalizes it, the other recollects what-is-sensed. What-is-known may have been sensed, if and when sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known could and did independently confirm each other, and therefore have been intuited, which may have been realized and therefore have been tried, which may have been valued and therefore have been acted in social interaction. By the same token, what-is-sensed, may be known and therefore realized, which may be intuited and therefore valued, which may be tried and therefore reacted in social interaction. Independent confirmation in construction and recollection is maintained in social interaction, as the one nor the other should not agree to what cannot be verified and can be falsified, when acting in response to his own reacting. This is where morality and religion evolve creatively from our two sources (Bergson 1932). Both the organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality thus have the retrograde force of the true growth of truth shape form by content and content by form, anticipating critique of true judgment (Kant 1790).


figure 9


Constructive recollection of culture-historical elements in space-time, immaterially before the fact in construction and materially after the fact in recollection, must begin at the first stage of knowing what-is-known and sensing what-is-sensed, which can then move to the next stage if and when independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation happens. Only the form of the element then changes, first from knowing what-is-known to intuiting what-is-intuited and from sensing what-is-sensed to realizing what-is-realized. Transformation may repeat between the next stages until reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted at the final stage are reached. Each stage of the four is dualistic (know|sense, intuit|realize, try|value and act|react). Their two modalities, from the first to any of the higher stages, occur immediately and imply related occurrences ahead of time, because at any time there was or there will be recollection and construction. It can therefore be anticipated, including cases in which we should return to the past. Recollection is implied after the fact happened, caused by the environment/other/reality, while construction is implied before the fact happens, called for by the organism/self/belief. Interaction uses four phases, because both sides react in response to the other's action and act in response to their own reaction.

From the periphery- to the depths of being, the four stages of constructive recollection or social interaction internalize and externalize truth by independent rational- or emotional confirmation, if and when it is found. Reacting what-is-reacted (or trying what-is-valued) and acting what-is-acted (or valuing what-is-tried) may still be internal or they may be externalized and shared in social reality, as reacting in response to the other's acting and acting in response to the own reacting. However, then intrinsic motivation and self-control may be taken over from the organism/self/belief by the environment/other/reality and turned into extrinsic motivation and -control. It is likely that social interaction allows intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation to alternate, as long as truth and ethics in constructive recollection, from either side, are not consummated by power and politics. Truth should lead and power should follow - not vice versa. External normativity or recollection, and internal normativity or construction, which constitute constructive recollection, may both be motivated and controlled by either side, as long as morality or religion are not sidelined by aggression or war. Constructive recollection could guarantee this, dialectics could not.


figure 10


Intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation in social interaction between the organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality may bond, when both sides are self-confident enough, through independent confirmation, to let the other side take control or take control themselves, when this would be appropriate for both. External- and internal normativity, in (alternating) extrinsic- and extrinsic motivation, in culture-historical morality and religion instead of war, bond when independent confirmation remains in spite of handing our motivation and self-control to the other. This is when the other may soon become our Significant Other. Culture-historical content shapes form because of external normativity under our own control and motivation, or because of extrinsic motivation which we are confident enough to let the other have, over us. The same is then true in reverse: culture-historical content is shaped by form because of internal normativity under our own control and motivation, or because of intrinsic motivation which the other is confident enough to let us have, over him or her. This content is functional structure at the level of social interaction, which is morality or religion, maintaining our independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation, not leading us from the one to the other but staying with one and the same, Significant Other (SO). Interaction between Self and SO is therefore unlike interaction between self and other in general: it happens externally as it still happens internally at an extra fifth stage, that of reacting what-is-acted and acting what-is-reacted.



  figure 11


Truth leads and power follows, when others are needed to find independent confirmation, which is the only indication that truth was found, so that the seeker is confirmed in his independence, so that he can confirm another. Morality and religion can take this so far, that the independent individual is prepared to let go of intrinsic motivation and self-control, alternatingly, in exchange with other independent individuals. This is how a group may form by independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation. On the contrary, however, power leads and truth follows, when confirmation is not independent but dependent, in cronyism, and independence is not to confirm but to reject, in prejudice. This is the political power of parties, into which people are whipped by the threat of dependent rejection, in excommunication and homelessness. When groups thrive, chiasmic relations appear in spontaneous gestures and living expressions, either by independent confirmation in constructive recollection or by (the threat of) dependent rejection in mimetic desire. Truth and ethics, morality and religion, in social reality, are thus positioned perpendicular to power and politics, socioses (Van den Berg 1956) and dissociation disorders.



figure 12


Truth and ethics intrinsically motivate independent individuals to constructively recollect their world by independent rational-, emotional or compassionate confirmation, while power and politics extrinsically motivate to stay loyal to the group even at the cost of personal honesty. Intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation happen concomitantly between Significant Others. Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation happens complementarily for those who socially interact, as long as both feel morally or religiously confident enough to temporarily hand over motivation and control to the other, trusting that truth can be found by verification and cannot be lost by falsification. When social interaction around truth and ethics is replaced by dialectics around power and politics, true compassion is replaced by cronyism and prejudice, or independent confirmation is replaced by dependent confirmation of friends (cronies) plus independent rejection of enemies. The independent individual as the focal point of accountability becomes the independent group where accountability is distributed and likely out of control. Groups self-organize by group-polarization and power-distancing. Power consolidates domination and submission throughout life, where children become parents, followers become leaders or conquered become conquerors themselves. Duality of independent confirmation is thus exchanged for monism of mimetic desire and chiasmic relations without true reflection and confirmation.


figure 13



Philosophy Application

Religion, morality, philosophy or what we fight for, is motivated by normativity. Extrinsic motivation is externally normative for followers and internally normative for leaders, while intrinsic motivation is concomitantly externally normative and internally normative for independent individuals. The one is Postmodern chiasmic/mimetic monism, the other Modern critical/transcendental dualism. Implicit dogmatism or explicit criticism determines whether we communicate dialectically or interactively, in mimetic desire that keeps us from dependent rejection or in truth paid forward by independent confirmation. The power and politics of financial accountability bring a lot of disorder and sickness into our world and mind, while the truth and ethics of attentive accountability bring order and health. Polarization and socioses, within groups between people, or emotional- and rational balance and clarity, within people between groups, is not a difficult choice to make, when we fight for compassion instead of cronyism, where truth leads and power follows. Not the other way, where power leads and truth follows.

Culture-history in space-time, materially after the fact and even immaterially before the fact, is truth when it can be independently confirmed rationally, emotionally or compassionately. Truth drives this content into form by the four (or five) stages of constructive recollection and the retrograde force of the true growth of truth (Bergson 1932), from which the categorical imperative is formed (Kant 1790). In constructive recollection, both recollection after the fact in temporalizing space and construction before the fact in spatializing time, are functionally structured, by content shaping form in recollection and form shaping content in construction, until the process has become the product with a functional structure of itself and form now only processes this functionally structured content. Internally or externally, what-is-sensed/realized/valued/reacted and what-is-known/intuited/tried/acted have now become one interactive element of culture-history, an action in response to a reaction of one's own, or a reaction in response to an action of the other's. These phases used to be called stimulus and response.

What matters to us, is to materialize from immaterial belief to material reality, structure that is not only functional but good and true as well. Both at the group- and the personal level, the environment/other/reality should independently confirm belief, by successful verification and unsuccessful falsification, always attempting both, facilitated by the organism/self/belief to make sure it is still on track. This applies to all culture-historical content that is processed at all four or five levels of constructive recollection. Culture-history has shown us, that heaven and earth can be separated if we want to survive the trauma of death. Subject and object or belief and reality, can look for independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation and when they find it, treasure it as in the Old- and New Testaments. Philosophical Modernism has demonstrated that the categorical imperative "to act only according to that maxim whereby we can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" thus should guide our critique of true judgment. Therefore, philosophical Post-Modernism is not what matters to us, and only hijacked Modernism to hold on to the bad and the very bad: cronyism instead of compassion, confusing the two.

Feeling strong or weak may be determined by the extent to which the organism/self/belief is being independently confirmed or verified, and not falsified, by the environment/other/reality. When content cannot be processed by form, the latter feels inadequate and useless. Constructive recollection cannot take place or go to the next stage. However, this may be caused by content itself and not by form, especially when weakness has led people into power and politics, where cronyism and prejudice keep them from the weakest place of all: to be excommunicated and homeless. Culture-historical content like this can only be processed by form in a similar situation or where "breaking bad" is allowed to progress. While looking for independent confirmation, intrinsic motivation should not be hijacked by extrinsic motivation of dependently confirming- or independently rejecting others, fearing dependent rejection oneself. Cronyism may feel a lot like ethics and prejudice may feel a lot like truth however they are not the same. Normativity in extrinsic motivation, like in politics, turns out to be of the elite, by the elite and for the elite instead of the people (cf Gilens & Page 2014), and should include this truth and ethics to avoid unbalanced growth.





CRPA software application


figure 14





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.

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

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.

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

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

Hegel, G.W.F. (1821). "Grundlinien Der Philosophie Des Rechts". Berlin: In der Nicola'ischen Buchhandlung.

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.

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.

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.

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


Follow me on




M2m Matter to Man
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)20 - 618.1632