You can’t be rooted unless you’re free and you can’t be free unless you’re rooted L. Ingalls Wilder
Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application
Finding Truth in Science, Justice, and Journalism
R.C. de Weijze - Oct. 2017
Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned. Truth can only be found by looking for the facts, which independently confirm our ideas. Independence needs dualism, which is difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, as invariably, power and politics or dialectics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts, while power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. Thus, post-modern philosophical monism took over modern philosophical dualism.
When modern philosophy developed most articulately in Immanuel Kant's work (Rohlf 2016), post-modern philosophy was an accident waiting to happen, declaring our two sources of life, in dualism, or
'duality of origin' (Bergson 1932), to be one, in monism. At the beginning of the French Revolution (1789), Kant published his great work (1790), in which Anglo-Saxon philosophical
'sensibility after-the-fact' independently confirms Continental philosophical
'understanding before-the-fact', turning it into his famous 'sensibility before-the-fact',
'synthetic apriori'. The subject or 'phe-noumenon' extended the object or
'noumenon', establishing inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it. Hegel
turned this upside down, calling the object an extension of the subject. A person or subject inter-subjectively
're-cognizes' another, dependently confirming him for selective reciprocation, while independently rejecting
others. "The subject goes into the world and loses himself, or [else] he goes into himself, and loses the world" (Hegel 1807).
Thus, the tendency was born to regress, and replace truth and ethics
with power and politics, as if they were interchangeable.
Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992)
points out that existence is nothingness (Heidegger 1959, Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche 1882), truth is multiplicit or dialectical (Marx 1867), and reality
is only a mental phenomenon (Hegel 1807),
without an independent object. Therefore, post-modern philosophical monism or
phe-noumenalism is totally different from modern philosophical
dualism or noumenalism. Proclaiming Kant to be the 'Copernicus of the
philosophical revolution', because he called space and time
of the phe-noumenon or subject, was a pretext for losing the
noumenon or object. One and a half century after the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Cultural Revolution of May 1968 doubled down on this monistic
premise, when Post-Modernism had gone- and come around the world, leaving
behind its brand of social values in collectivism, socialism, and communism. Confronted with
its missing open- and dynamic dualism, monism diverts to power, politics and dialectics, or groups competing to dominate and submit
others, until one is left on top of the vertically power-distancing
hierarchy (cf. Mulder 1973).
If our sources are sensibility for the object or
what-is-sensed, and understanding or knowing of the subject, then the subject
must be the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief, whereas the object
what-is-sensed and what-is-known or the sensed- and known environment/other/reality. The sensed object reflects itself in the sensing subject,
and the knowing subject reflects itself in the known object. Thus, what-is-sensed reflects itself "here" in sensing, where material
space in the 'objective object' acts on the 'objective subject', and knowing reflects itself
"now" in what-is-known, when immaterial time in the
'subjective subject' acts on
the 'subjective object'. Truth is found, if
and when sources and their opposite source's self-reflections
coordinately coincide ,
sensing what-is-sensed proves knowing what-is-known to be true by
independently confirming it ,
and the consecutive states of coordinated coincidence, at different stages of
independent confirmation, in phases of two social cycles, constructively recollect 
the independent individual's world, by
social interaction [a],
as social reality is constructed [b]
while social identity is recollected [c].
1. Coordinated Coincidence
Observed from the outside, the subject is a part of the object, while
experienced from the
inside, the object is "ob-jected" or "off-thrown" from the subject.
Sources are the sensed object (what-is-sensed), reflecting itself in the sensing subject, and the knowing subject,
reflecting itself in the known object (what-is-known). Sources and
self-reflections are spheres, expanding from the periphery towards
the depth, in recollected space/content/behavior, and from the depth
towards the periphery, in constructed time/form/consciousness. In
every sphere, from the periphery to the depth,
space temporalizes, content-shapes-form, and behavior internalizes
as consciousness. In the reverse direction, from the depth to the periphery, time spatializes, form-shapes-content, and consciousness externalizes as behavior. Sensing and what-is-sensed expand
facts, being used and reused by different ideas, in three spatial dimensions
at the periphery, from the
contact point between the spheres, while knowing and what-is-known expand
the ideas, as they use and reuse the facts, synchronously in
every direction, from the one temporal dimension, at the radii or depths of their spheres.
In today's physics, space and time nearly united into one
However, in a Euclidean sphere, the three spatial dimensions of its periphery, and the one temporal dimension of its radius,
remain dualistically irreducible to each other, since their ratio π ("pi"),
carries infinitely many, non-repetitive, decimal places. When the organism/self/belief,
or subject, does interact with the environment/other/reality, or
object, it uses space and time,
each reflecting itself. Sensing "here" what-is-sensed at the peripheries of the
source's and its self-reflection's spheres, dualistically separated from knowing "now" what-is-known at the depths of the
other source's and its self-reflection's spheres, the subject attempts to
co-incide space and time, into their original state, as before processing. In
recollection, as space is about to temporalize, contents are the facts, used and reused by
the ideas, within-facts-between-ideas.
In construction, as time has
spatialized, contents are the ideas, using and reusing the facts,
within-ideas-between-facts. Facts-relate-ideas, to recollect space/content/behavior,
while amply ideas-relate-facts, to construct
Object and subject, or the
sensed and known environment/other/reality, and the sensing and
knowing organism/self/belief, represent our sources, space and time,
combined into the concept of 'spatiotemporality' . The
processes the object, or space,
where it senses what-is-sensed, apart from itself, or time, when it
We experience the spheres separately, one primarily for space at
its periphery, 'ob-jected' or 'off-thrown', and the other primarily for time at
its depth. Divided again for processing, each source co-ordinates exclusively with its self-reflection, at their peripheries. One source and self-reflection recollect,
or sense "here" what-is-sensed, while the other source and its
self-reflection construct, or know "now" what-is-known. The co-ordinated self-reflections
(sensing and what-is-known) of the sources and their opposites
(what-is-sensed and knowing) are now set up to potentially co-incide, if
and when they are commensurable. Thus, spatial co-ordination, at the
peripheries of the spheres, leads to temporal co-incidence, at the
depths of the spheres, while the self-reflections, going around their
sources, recollect and construct.
Relativity theory taught us
that speed and acceleration of an object curves
space and slows time, shaping around the object as a sphere. When these spheres
are human subjects, speeding along with their planet through
space-time, it appears that in recollection, from periphery to
depth, space temporalizes, content-shapes-form, and behavior
internalizes as consciousness, whereas in construction, from
depth to periphery, time spatializes, form-shapes-content, and
consciousness externalizes as behavior. Thus, at the depth,
recollection ends- and construction begins in
time/form/consciousness, while at the periphery, construction
ends- and recollection begins in space/content/behavior. It is
like looking through the rear window of a car, as what-is-sensed
disappears into the depth, merely known and no longer
sensed, or through the front window, as knowing appears
towards the periphery, merely sensed and no longer known.
Because both self and other have their subjective- and objective
self (subject) and -other (object) in mind, it should not come
as a surprise, if these do not fit, as in relativity, since
belief and reality are various, and necessitate social
Peripheries of spheres are material and spatial, as their depths are immaterial and temporal. The spatiality of the peripheries
of the spheres enables them to co-ordinate their locations, while the temporality
of their depths enables them to co-incide
and synchronize their durations. Co-incidence does imply coordination,
while coordination does not imply
co-incidence. Sources make their self-reflections go around and
come around them, by spatiotemporally coordinating
their locations at the tangent-line, where local "heres"
have met, meet
"now", or will meet. Sources' self-reflections also attempt to co-incide with
their opposite sources, to synchronize in the subject, as sensing and knowing,
and in the object,
as what-is-sensed and what-is-known. If and when possible, knowing and
sensing, or time about to spatialize in the source of the subject, and space
which has temporalized in the self-reflection of the object, both in the subject, plus what-is-known and
what-is-sensed, or time about to spatialize in the self-reflection
subject, and space
which has temporalized in the source of the object, both in the object, co-incide as two
Materially sensing what-is-sensed
only occurs (cf. Gendlin 1997) "here" in space/content/behavior, at the
peripheries of the spheres in recollection, between
the source, the sensed object, as it coordinates with its self-reflection, the sensing subject.
Immaterially knowing what-is-known is implied (idem) "now" in time/form/consciousness, at the
depths of the spheres in construction, between the opposite source, the knowing subject, and its coordinated self-reflection, the known object. The self-reflections go around- and come around
their sources, coordinately reflecting them at the three spatial dimensions of their peripheries.
They recollect or sense what-is-sensed (facts), subliminally, as sensing what-is-sensed is not
yet knowing what-is-sensed,
and construct or know what-is-known (ideas), supraliminally, as knowing what-is-known is not
yet sensing what-is-known. The self-reflections
have to co-incide with their opposite sources, at the one temporal dimension of their radii,
which requires commensurability between the two spheres, to stay on track of truth.
The three spatial dimensions, of all "heres", follow the temporal
dimension of all shared "nows".
The four spheres, of the two
sources and their two self-reflections, are all four-dimensional,
with three dimensions at their peripheries, and one dimension at
their depths. Coordination between sources and their
self-reflections, takes place "here", at their tangent points.
Peripheral coordination enables subject and object, or the
organism/self/belief, interacting with the environment/other/reality,
to co-incide or synchronize the spheres of their source and the
opposite source's self-reflection, "now". Once co-incidence has
taken place, in recollection, space begins temporalizing,
content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness,
whereas in construction, time begins spatializing,
form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as behavior.
Space/content/behavior transforms through recollection, from
periphery to depth, into time/form/consciousness. Simultaneously,
time/form/consciousness transforms through construction, from depth
to periphery, into space/content/behavior. Therefore, if coordination
and co-incidence happen again, and two spheres momentarily become
one, commensurability was present, at its periphery and depth.
"Thoughts without content are
empty and intuitions without conceptions are blind" (Kant 1790).
Initially, for new content, in recollection the one source or sensed
environment/other/reality and its self-reflection, the sensing
organism/self/belief, subliminally at the peripheries of their
spheres, have 'empty' space/content/behavior, and in construction the
other source or
knowing organism/self/belief and its self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality,
supraliminally at the depths of their spheres, have 'blind' time/form/consciousness.
In order to fill the emptiness in
recollection, and heal the blindness in construction, the subject or
sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief manages its forms to co-incide
at the depths of the spheres, as the object or sensed- and known environment/other/reality
manages its contents to co-incide at the peripheries of the spheres.
Then, space can temporalize, content-shape-form, and behavior
internalize as consciousness, in recollection, while time can
spatialize, form-shape-content, and consciousness externalize as
behavior, in construction. Sensing, what-is-sensed, knowing, and
what-is-known, then become noticeable.
The self-reflection of the
source in recollection, or sensing, brings space/content/behavior
from the object to the subject, to find validity, and the
self-reflection of the source in construction, or what-is-known,
brings time/form/consciousness from the subject to the object, to
find reliability, if and when self-reflections and opposite sources
co-incide. The sensing subject recollects the sensed object, going-
and coming around it, to bring facts of space/content/behavior to
the knowing subject, as the knowing subject constructs the known
object, going- and coming around it, to bring ideas of
time/form/consciousness to the sensed object. The self-reflections
go- and come around their sources, spatially co-ordinated at their
peripheries, to temporally co-incide with their opposite sources,
and determine if reflected, temporalized space,
form-shaped-by-content, and behavior internalized as consciousness,
are commensurable with the source of time/form/consciousness in the
subject, and if reflected, spatialized time, content-shaped-by-form,
and consciousness externalized as behavior, are commensurable with
the source of space/content/behavior in the object as well.
occurs causally between the one source and its self-reflection, what-is-sensed and sensing, at the
spheres' peripheries in recollection, if it can temporalize towards the depths,
shape form, and internalize as consciousness, while time/form/consciousness is implied teleologically
between the other source and its self-reflection, knowing and
what-is-known, at the spheres' depths in construction, if it can spatialize towards the
peripheries, shape content, and externalize as behavior. Sensing
goes- and comes around what-is-sensed, whereas what-is-known goes- and
comes around knowing, to coincide with the opposite source, being forms in the subject, and
contents in the object. Once co-incidence
in subject and object has taken place, their inner directions,
from peripheries to depths in recollection, and from depths to
peripheries in construction, go on between spheres. In one
direction, what-is-known continues in sensing, and in the
opposite direction, knowing continues in what-is-sensed, creating
possibilities to interact, even socially, for subject and
object. Construction by the one can be recollection by the
other, which goes two ways.
For sources to co-incide with self-reflections of the opposite
source, they must produce their self-reflections, subliminally in
recollection and supraliminally in construction. By way of coordinated
reflection, the source in recollection, or the sensed
environment/other/reality, creates its self-reflection in the
sensing organism/self/belief, while the source in construction, or
the knowing organism/self/belief, creates its self-reflection in the
known environment/other/reality. The self-reflections recollect or
construct content, by going around their sources, to bring it to the
opposite source for processing, if the spheres are spatiotemporally
commensurable. Space/content/behavior temporalizes, shapes form, and
internalizes as consciousness, by causal occurrence in material
recollection, from the peripheries to the depths of the source and
its self-reflection, at the spatial tangent-points "here" or
"there", whereas time/form/consciousness spatializes, shapes
content, and externalizes as behavior, by teleological implication
in immaterial construction, from the depths to the peripheries of
the source and its self-reflection, at the temporal tangent-points,
"now" or "then".
Sources reflect themselves in
space/content/behavior, "here" at the periphery's three spatial
dimensions, or "there" on the other side of the source, by
recollection, and in time/form/consciousness, "now" at the depth's
one temporal dimension, or "then" at some other time, by
construction, as the self-reflections go around their sources, to
"there" and "then", managed to co-incide with the opposite source,
by the interacting subject and object. In co-incided spheres, from
depths to peripheries, time can spatialize, form can shape content
and consciousness can externalize as behavior, and from peripheries
to depths, space can temporalize, content can shape form and
behavior can internalize as consciousness, all in the co-incided
spheres. Then, the subject, or the sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief, interacts with the object, or the sensed- and
known environment/other/reality, to continue knowing into
what-is-sensed, streaming in one direction, as well as what-is-known
into sensing, streaming in the other direction. Between the organism
and environment, self and other, or belief and reality, dynamic
social interaction might then continuously take place.
If space, "here" or "there" at
the object's spheres' peripheries-, and time, "now" or "then" at the
subject's spheres' depths co-incide, then spatializing time,
form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as behavior, in
construction, continue in both directions between subject and object, to temporalizing
space, content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as
consciousness, in recollection. Thus,
the objective source reflecting itself in the subject, and the
subjective source reflecting itself in the object, can interact
"here and now". The sensed- and known object are commensurable in
space and time, and what-is-sensed "here and now" can be critical
what-is-known, irrespective of their material- or immaterial
states. When they are commensurable, then what-is-known can be positively verified
and therefore proven reliable by what-is-sensed, to be
trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended. Also,
sensing "here and now" can be critical for knowing, when the
sensing- and knowing subject are commensurable in space and
time. Then knowing can be negatively falsified, by warding off
falsification from sensing, thereby validating itself.
What-is-sensed are facts
and what-is-known are ideas. Just as ideas relate facts, facts
relate ideas, as they are reused between ideas, in separate
meaningful networks. Thus, interpretations are relations
within-facts-between-ideas, in recollection, and
within-ideas-between-facts, in construction. Also, when relations
within-groups-between-people draw closer, as a result of
1969, Meertens 1980,
those within-people-between-groups become stressed, and turn
into conflicts of interest. To cope with this, the narrative of the
group may treat the same facts as different, and/or different facts
as the same, by changing the facts to fit the ideas, instead of changing
the ideas to fit the facts, only to reduce cognitive dissonance
1962), which changes the meaning of ideas, and twists the
truth into lies. Changing the facts takes away the ability to
prove innocence or guilt. The remaining options, at the level of the
independent individual, are to create dissociative disorders as
derealization and/or depersonalization (Dell
and O'Neill 2009), possibly spreading to socioses (Van
den Berg 1956), at the level of the (inter) dependent
Facts are synthesized in the
'synthetic aposteriori' or sensibility after-the-fact, and ideas are
analyzed in the 'analytic apriori' or understanding before-the-fact
1781). In recollection, relations in
space/content/behavior, from spheres' peripheries to depths and from
the past (after-the-fact), through the present, cause future ones to
occur, within-facts-between-ideas. In construction, relations in
time/form/consciousness, from spheres' depths to peripheries and
from the future (before-the-fact), through the present,
teleologically imply those in the past, within-ideas-between-facts.
The implications resemble the "retrograde movement of the true
growth of truth" (Bergson
1922). Functional structuralism (Dooyeweerd
Sanders 1976) contextualizes
interpretations within-facts-between-ideas and
within-ideas-between-facts, to find truth and ethics, changing
ideas to fit the facts, in open and dynamic dualism, unlike structural
1975) contextualizing interpretations
within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, to
find power and politics, by changing facts to fit the ideas,
dogmatically, in closed and static monism.
In recollection, "here" can be
invariable, while "now" continuously varies, from "then" in the past
to "then" in the future. In construction, "now" can be
while "here" continuously varies, from "there" on
to "there" on the other. Thus, relations in space between
"theres" and in time between "thens" functionally structure, in recollection,
within-facts-between-ideas, intrapolated from all "theres and thens"
to "here and now", and in construction,
within-ideas-between-facts, extrapolated from "here and now" to
"theres and thens", sharing social reality and cultural history.
Beyond subliminal sensing what-is-sensed, yet to be known, and supraliminal knowing what-is-known,
yet to be sensed,
people realize and intuit all these entities and how they are related.
They are the object, or the sensed- and known
environment/other/reality, including the subject, or the sensing- and
knowing organism/self/belief, both sources of which need to co-incide
with their opposite's self-reflections, to be trusted, expected,
presumed, predicted, believed and intended, like in Kant's
'transcendental idealism', 'sensibility before-the-fact', or the
The sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief or subject, interacts with the sensed- and
known environment/other/reality or object. "Here and now", sensing "here" what-is-sensed in
recollection, needs to coordinately co-incide with knowing "now"
what-is-known in construction, in space and time, content and form, or behavior and
consciousness. What-is-sensed and what-is-known, "not here and not
now", also need to be trusted, expected, presumed,
predicted, believed, and intended, by the sensing- and knowing
subject. Space is temporalized in recollection, whereas time is
spatialized in construction, to bridge the spatiotemporal
divide. Exclusively in what is "here and now", both spheres of
material recollection and both spheres of immaterial construction
make contact, being spatiotemporally identical.
All other locations at the peripheries and moments at the radii
(in all directions except one) of the spheres, have behavioral content or conscious form attached
to them, extending towards- or from the depths.
The "here and now" relates to all other "theres and
thens", all of which have conducted, or do currently conduct, their
own "here and now".
2. Independent Confirmation
We can hardly do without recognition, as it makes
us feel strong. Recognition has been institutionalized, to direct us,
and is only taken away as a punishment for not 're-cognizing'
superiors. Unfortunately, this punishment includes our own seeking independent
confirmation. Puritans and Protestants punish themselves, by
never complimenting others, nor expecting it to ever happen to them. A
third option is to let truth speak for itself, or the 'things-in-themselves',
which includes rationality, emotionality or compassion of 'particular things'
1959) or living beings, only shared when they
appear to the one, as they appear to the other, as to everybody, by
independent confirmation, without any nurture which is not in
nature, as upbringing, perceptual training, subculture or
general culture. A nod is enough, a smile, or just the way one
looks out of his or her eyes. This will never dissociate the
organism/self/belief from the environment/other/reality, which
keeps him or her on track of truth, unbiased judgment and
non-extremist self-expression. It can replace
all institutionalized recognition and it should, to support (mental)
health and happiness, to survive.
Opposing Kant, Hegel claimed
that the object was irrelevant. To him, the thing-in-itself was
clear, not opaque, as he alleged that the object was actually the subject
itself. If facts did not fit ideas, it was “too bad for the facts”,
since for 're-cognized' ideas, facts were changed to fit them, by
power and politics.
The object for Kant was the 'noumenon', or the 'unnamable'
thing-in-itself, establishing intersubjectivity
between people or subjects referring to it. Hegel interpreted intersubjectivity
as the one subject dependently confirming (or ‘re-cognizing’)
the other, while they independently rejected nonconformists. By literally
‘re-cognizing’ another person, “the subject goes into the world and loses
himself, or [else] he goes into himself and loses the world”.
Selective reciprocity for 're-cognition' was deemed necessary to
for Kant the subject or 'phe-noumenon'
extended the object or 'noumenon', in modern philosophical dualism,
while for Hegel the object, by 'intersubjective re-cognition', extended the subject, in post-modern
philosophical monism. A dramatic change indeed, cutting one
of the greatest works in philosophy in half.
Phe-noumenological monism depicts cultural reality
as social constructs, which are based on intersubjectivity (Schütz 1945, Berger
and Luckman 1966). We can wonder, whether such intersubjectivity
leaves any room for independent confirmation, because independence needs
dualism, which is difficult to apply in social- and personal
settings, as eventually, power and politics turn the effort to
seek independent confirmation into anxiety which avoids dependent rejection,
by dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting
enemies. Power and politics
change facts to fit the ideas, when they treat different facts as if they
were the same, or the same facts as if they were different.
E.g., in social reality, when voters show behavioral contagion (Wheeler 1966),
votes cannot be interpreted as independent confirmations. Truth and
ethics' intrinsic motivation to seek independent confirmation should
not be confused with power and politics' extrinsic motivation to
avoid dependent rejection, by requests of gatekeepers to 're-cognize'
them first, polarizing the minds of group-members. Truth
and ethics change ideas to fit facts, not change facts to fit ideas.
If and when sensing
what-is-sensed does independently confirm knowing what-is-known, then both forms, or sensing and
knowing, can process both contents, or what-is-sensed and
what-is-known, which allows contents to copy-and-swap forms, between
recollection and construction.
'Knowing what-is-sensed' (or realization) and 'sensing
what-is-known' (or intuition) can then emerge from subconsciousness, as
different material- and immaterial substances, using new forms to
process the old ones, reduced to contents. The forms also generate
streams of content, relative to form, between object and subject.
One stream spatializes time, shapes content, and externalizes as
behavior, from the depth of the first source's sphere, or knowing,
to its periphery, and it temporalizes space, shapes form, and
internalizes as consciousness, from the periphery of the second
source's sphere, or what-is-sensed, into its depth. The other stream
moves exactly in the opposite direction, from the depth of the
sphere of the first source's self-reflection, or what-is-known, to
its periphery and on from the periphery of the sphere of the second
source's self-reflection, or sensing, into its depth.
Intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, to
seek and find independent confirmation, modern
dualism parts subject and object. Space in recollection, subliminal
sensing what-is-sensed, or external normativity, hopefully
co-incides with time in construction, supraliminal knowing what-is-known, or
internal normativity. Within spheres, in recollection,
space can now temporalize, content shape form, and behavior
internalize as consciousness, while in construction, time can now
spatialize, form shape content, and consciousness externalize as
behavior. Co-incidence and independent
confirmation are possible, at the next stage, 'interliminally', in the subject between forms and in the object between contents. By contrast, extrinsically motivated by power and
politics, in post-modern monism, the subject ignores the object (Hegel
1807). Internal normativity is sent from the top-, while
external normativity is received at the bottom of the hierarchy as
roles (cf. Boekestijn
1978), by dependent confirmation to gain selective
reciprocity for protégés at the top, independent rejection executed
at the bottom, and class
warfare about sharing power and politics in between.
Co-incidence and independent
confirmation occur again at the higher stages, if and when the reliability of current contents, and the validity of current forms,
are robust enough, between the contents (this time what-is-realized
and what-is-intuited instead of what-is-sensed and what-is-known),
and between the forms (this time realizing and intuiting instead of
sensing and knowing). They emerge as (1) 'valuing
what-is-valued', or 'intuiting what-is-realized' ('sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed', or 'sensing what-is-known' merged
with 'knowing what-is-sensed') in recollection and (2) 'trying
what-is-tried', or 'realizing what-is-intuited' ('knowing
what-is-sensed-what-is-known', or 'knowing what-is-sensed' merged
with 'sensing what-is-known') in construction. If reliability and
validity then are still robust enough to copy-and-swap forms,
extending substances in- and between subject and object, it happens
between valuing and trying, to emerge as 'trying what-is-valued', or
'reacting what-is-reacted', and 'valuing what-is-tried', or 'acting
what-is-acted'. Thus, newly copied forms occur,
whereas old forms are reduced to new contents, extending old
(what-is-sensed) and ideas (what-is-known), e.g. white swans and "white
swans", are proexamples of each other (Corcoran
2005). Contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) can then copy-and-swap forms (sense and know),
to emerge as realizing ('know what-is-sensed') white swans, and
intuiting ('sense what-is-known') "white swans". Realizing
counterexamples, like black swans, falsifies intuiting and halts processing.
The proexamples make contents (what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or
what-is-realized, and what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or
what-is-intuited) copy-and-swap forms (realize and intuit), to
emerge as valuing ('intuit what-is-realized') and trying ('realize what-is-intuited').
counterexamples falsifies trying and halts processing. Proexamples make contents
(what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or what-is-valued, and
what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or what-is-tried)
copy-and-swap forms (value and try), to socially interact as
what-is-valued') and acting ('value
what-is-tried'). Therefore, the nuance of "white swans" increases, every
time a fact can independently confirm an idea.
At the highest stage of processing current content, 'trying
what-is-valued', or reacting, and 'valuing what-is-tried', or
acting, emerge as social interaction between subjects, other and
self in particular. The self has built trust, expectation,
presumption, prediction, belief, and intention, regarding the current
content, exchanged with the other subject(s), sharing social
reality. This consciousness or internal normativity, is not
externalized as behavior, before one's reaction in response to the
other's action, or external normativity, independently confirmed it,
rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately, internalizing it as
consciousness. One's action before-the-fact is "unleashed" in response to one's own reaction after-the-fact (in
response to the other's action). A social cycle appears, in which one reacts in response to the other's action, and acts in response to
one's own reaction, followed by the other reacting in response to one's action, and acting in response to
his own reaction. These four forms or phases are comprised in social
interaction between object and subject, or environment/other/reality and organism/self/belief,
by which route all contents are conveyed.
Recollection and construction take place in the sensing- and knowing
subject, as well as in the sensed- and known object. Thus, constructive
recollection happens in the subject, between forms, and in
the object, between contents (facts and ideas). The self-reflections
of the sources co-incide with their opposite sources, if and when recollection independently confirms
construction, in the subject by negative falsification for validity, and
in the object by positive verification for reliability. If and when independent confirmation
has happened, contents can copy-and-swap
forms. The new forms in recollection and construction process
old-forms-reduced-to-contents, extending the old- with new contents, at a higher level of functional structure, or stage of
independent confirmation. At the highest stage, recollection and
construction positioned themselves in social reality, where subject and
object publicly interact, being noticeable to each other. Thus, they
externalize as behavior in construction, while they internalize as
consciousness in recollection, between time/form/consciousness at
the depth-, and space/content/behavior at the periphery of each of
In recollection, the object's
source reflects itself in the subject, while in construction, the
subject's source reflects itself in the object. Representation for
monism and dualism is different. In modern dualism, truth and ethics
motivate intrinsically, to seek and find
independent confirmation. When the subjects socially interact, the one reflects her- or himself in the other,
and the other reflects him- or herself in the one, by independent
rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation.
Independent individuals are still able to relate to each other, without the other
representing himself or even being actually present. Representation
in post-modern monism is of a totally different order, as power and politics
motivate extrinsically, to avoid dependent rejection from the group,
're-cognizing' the other as a friend, by dependent confirmation
(cronyism), or as an enemy, by independent rejection (prejudice), both
of which might call for reciprocity, as they allegedly lead to
self-consciousness (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867).
Thus, hierarchies develop through power-distancing, increasing distance to
those below- and decreasing it to those above oneself (Mulder
3. Constructive Recollection
After religion and philosophy, physical science appears
as spatiotemporality can be either ontologically material or epistemologically immaterial.
Space/content/behavior in material recollection is commensurable
with-, although irreducible to time/form/consciousness in immaterial
construction. Within the four dimensions of a Euclidean sphere, in
recollection, from periphery to depth, space temporalizes,
content-shapes-form, and behavior internalizes as consciousness,
whereas in reverse, from depth to periphery, in construction, time
spatializes, form-shapes-content, and consciousness externalizes as
behavior. Empirical sensibility after-the-fact, in recollection, can independently
confirm rational understanding before-the-fact, in construction, to
produce Kant's famous 'sensibility before-the-fact',
or 'synthetic apriori'. Coordinated
and reflections seeking independent confirmation
with opposite sources , in constructive recollection ,
should lead social interaction [3a]
to social reality [3b],
and social identity [3c],
as long as subject and object, as well as recollection and
construction, remain spatiotemporally reducible (Turner
3a. Social Interaction
Normativity between socially interacting,
independent individuals, is different from normativity between
group-members. At the individual level, seeking
independent confirmation, the external normativity of
recollection sanctifies the internal normativity of construction. At
the collective level, avoiding dependent rejection separates
external normativity received from superiors, from internal
normativity sent to inferiors. Individually, truth does not change
from within-facts-between-ideas to within-ideas-between-facts, or
from within-people-between-groups to within-groups-between-people.
Freedom of choice is offered or forwarded to whom deserves it.
Collectively, group-polarization develops untruth from within-groups-between-people
to within-people-between-groups, and from
within-ideas-between-facts to within-facts-between-ideas. In other
words, collectively, facts are turned and twisted, to fit one's
narrative, not allowing anyone to prove guilt or (his own) innocence.
Thus, normative rationality (Habermas 1982, 1991)
for independent individuals and for 'dependently confirming friends'
and/or 'independently rejecting enemies', are not alike.
Recollection and construction continuously seek
coordinated co-incidence and/or independent confirmation, at
consecutive levels, or sensing/realizing/valuing/reacting, and
knowing/intuiting/trying/acting. Contents copy-and-swap forms,
replacing older ones and reducing them to content down the chain. Swapping forms alternates states of recollection
and construction, at all levels or stages of independent
confirmation, every time moving up one
level. Form-plus-contents expands into higher order substances, in
both subject and object. Swapped forms process alternating facts (or what-is-sensed), and ideas (or
what-is-known) as content. While subject and object are continuously
processing facts and ideas,
facts-relate-ideas, until behavior internalizes as consciousness, in
recollection, while ideas-relate-facts, until consciousness
externalizes as behavior, in construction. Thus, while subject and
interact, relations occur
causally within-facts-between-ideas, as content-shapes-form in
recollection, and relations are implied teleologically
within-ideas-between-facts, as form-shapes-content in construction,
before forms are copied-and-swapped.
Contents are conveyed from one source to the other,
by the sources' self-reflections, seeking co-incidence and
independent confirmation, as they go around their source's
peripheries, recollecting facts or constructing ideas, while they
are shaping-, or being shaped by form. What is trusted, expected,
presumed, predicted, believed and intended in action
before-the-fact, is freed in reaction after-the-fact, if and when
the subject's reaction, in response to the object's action,
independently confirms its own action before-the-fact, be it
rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. The self
senses/realizes/values/reacts, in social interaction, what the other
knows/intuits/tries/acts, whereas the other
senses/realizes/values/reacts what the self
knows/intuits/tries/acts. Recollected content extends to 'knowing
(by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known (by the
self) what-is-sensed (by the self)', or 'what-is-reacted', while at
the same time, constructed content extends to 'sensing
(by the self) what-is-known (by the other) what-is-sensed (by the
other) what-is-known (by the self)', or 'what-is-acted', following
the implied states, stages and phases all out.
Coordinated co-incidence and independent confirmation between
sources and self-reflections of opposite sources, produce
the states of forms-with-contents, materially in
recollection and immaterially in construction, which emerge at
consecutive stages, as the result of contents
copying-and-swapping (and therefore alternating) forms.
Substances are nuanced when new states are added and new stages
are reached, to a maximum of four, which is one of four phases
in a social cycle, one of two in an interaction. Phases are
located one state
apart from each other, overlapping maximally three states. Recollection and construction constitute two of the four phases
in the subject, and the
remaining two in the object, bound together in one social cycle. Two social
cycles comprise a single social interaction between subject and
object, since both subject and object, alternatingly, address
the (other's) self and the (other's) other. Only one meandering
"wave" between subject and object is interpreted
differently by the other and the self, which depends on the number of states and stages
completed per phase, changing
the current substance or contents processed by forms.
Every state of coordinated
co-incidence, alternating between recollection and construction, at four stages of independent confirmation,
simultaneously plays different roles in each of the
four phases of the social cycle between object and subject.
The phases overlap, across
at least one-, and at most three states, depending on the stage
they reached, processing current content. What-is-sensed and
what-is-known, by the subject and the object, should be the same, in social interaction.
What-is-sensed is included by what-is-realized, what-is-valued,
and what-is-reacted, like what-is-known is included by what-is-intuited, what-is-tried and what-is-acted,
through social interaction. Although the states are the same, and happen at the
same time, the phases containing the states begin and end one
state apart, while they follow each
other through the social cycle.
Therefore, each state is represented by four separate phases, at
four separate locations, playing a different role in each of
them. The states of reduced forms, or contents, are either facts (what-is-sensed) or ideas
(what-is-known), identical to
all phases, determining the logic and logistics of social
Four states per phase, four phases per
cycle, and two cycles per interaction between subject and
object, addressing self and other, integrate logically and
logistically. Phases repeat themselves and overlap each other,
starting and finishing one state after each other, from (1) the
self in recollection responding to the other's self in
construction, to (2) the self in construction responding to the
self in recollection, to (3) the other's other in recollection
responding to the self in construction, to (4) the other's self
in construction responding to the other's other in recollection.
Independent confirmation takes place, contents copy-and-swap
forms for more nuanced substances to emerge, while each state
plays roles in four separate phases at once. Contents processed
to find independent confirmation, are taken from previous
phases, handed over across states separating phases, to
following ones. The first cycle of four phases applies to states
and stages of recollection and construction in the subject,
addressing the self and other, while the second cycle applies to
states and stages of recollection and construction in the
object, addressing the other's self and other's other as well.
When two people
communicate or socially interact, the one's construction is
the other's recollection, and vice versa. The one's knowing,
or his consciousness externalized as behavior, is
what-is-sensed by the other, or behavior internalized as
consciousness. Also, the one's spatialized time is the
other's temporalized space, and the one's
form-shaping-content is the other's content-shaping form. If
and when the one's and the other's recollection
after-the-fact, independently confirms his or her
construction before-the-fact, rationally, emotionally and/or
compassionately, interaction continues. Therefore,
what-is-known or ideas-relating-facts in
space/content/behavior by the one, is what-is-sensed or
facts-relating-ideas in time/form/consciousness by the
other, which goes both ways. The people are each other's
objects, while they are their own subjects. What happens
between object and subject, in terms of recollection and
construction, happens to both, be it in reversed order.
Facts or what-is-sensed must positively verify ideas or
what-is-known, and sensing must negatively falsify sensing,
for independent confirmation to make social interaction go
3b. Social Reality
Social reality requires social recognition, personally or collectively.
At the personal level, "an objective, rationally necessary and
unconditional principle that we must always follow, despite any
natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary” (Johnson
& Cureton 2016), was Kant's Categorical Imperative,
instructing the autonomous individual to “act only according to that
maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law” (Kant
1785). This is the 'synthetic apriori', 'sensibility
before-the-fact', or what is trusted, expected, presumed, predicted,
believed and intended, or 'understanding before-the-fact',
independently confirmed by 'sensibility after-the-fact'.
Inter-subjectivity is established, by the object, between subjects
referring to it. Instead of object-recognition, literal 're-cognition'
was then revolutionary, by dependent confirmation of friends and
independent rejection of enemies, to boost self-consciousness and
make one "go into the
world and lose oneself", not "go into oneself and
lose the world" (Hegel
1807). Thus, power and politics motivate to avoid
dependent rejection, not seek independent confirmation.
Power and politics change facts (what-is-sensed) to fit the ideas (what-is-known), while truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts. Ideas relate facts,
while facts relate ideas, within-facts-between-ideas. If facts are used in one idea, and reused in another,
then relations within-facts-between-ideas may be logically
entangled e.g., if one fact was treated as
if it was multiple, or multiple facts as if they were one. Similarly, people relate groups and groups relate people. If people belong to one group,
and to another,
their relations may be entangled e.g., by conflicts of interest. Power and politics motivate extrinsically to avoid dependent rejection,
by the threat to be excommunicated or made homeless, within-groups-between-people
and, by group-polarization, within-ideas-between-facts. Instead, truth and ethics motivate intrinsically to seek independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, within-facts-between-ideas and within-people-between-groups.
Power and politics, in need of closed- and static monism, replaced truth and ethics,
in need of open- and dynamic dualism (Bergson 1932),
causing relations to entangle.
Consciously or not, we seek
power and politics, or truth and ethics. Power and politics make
(inter) dependent, if we avoid dependent rejection from the group,
fearing excommunication or homelessness. Independent rejection of
(the leader's) enemies "out of honesty" and/or dependent
confirmation of (his) friends "out of loyalty", may trigger selective reciprocity and access to
privilege as well. Truth and ethics, on the contrary, make independent,
if we look for reality, to independently
confirm our beliefs, rationally, emotionally, and/or
compassionately. Inter-subjectivity is established by the object,
between subjects referring to it, and independent confirmation,
both as independent rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate individuals. Independence needs dualism, which is
difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, because power
and politics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding
dependent rejection'. As truth and ethics change ideas to fit the
facts, power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. Thus, all entangled relations within-ideas-between-facts show up
within-facts-between-ideas, as stress and dissociation.
Truth is 'knowing "now" what-is-known', or ideas,
independently confirmed by 'sensing "here" what-is-sensed', or facts,
in a rational, emotional, and/or compassionate manner. Between the forms in
the organism/self/belief, sensing
(objectively the subject - cf.
De Wit 1991)
then negatively falsifies knowing (the subjective subject) for
validity, as between the contents in the environment/other/reality, what-is-sensed
or facts (the objective object) positively verify what-is-known
or ideas (the subjective object)
for reliability. However, power and politics invariably turn 'seeking independent confirmation' between the
sensing- and the knowing organism/self/belief (the objective and
the subjective subject), and between the known- and the sensed
environment/other/reality (the subjective and the objective object),
however subtly, into 'avoiding dependent rejection', by giving up
one's identity, giving in to identity politics. It creates monistic dialectics, forcing
people to take sides (or leave), to dependently confirm
friends and independently reject enemies, of their own or their
leader's. It is writing on collectivist-, socialist-, or communist
walls by Hegel and Marx.
Our world is divided and mixed. The
main part was created by post-modern, immanently dialectic monism or power and politics,
after the Kantian era and the French Revolution, while the remaining
part was created by modern, independent individual dualism or truth and ethics,
which preceded it. Monism can look like dualism,
interpreted as dialectics, although monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent and that subgroups or individuals will compete for their own
domination and all others' submission (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867, Nietzsche 1901).
Monistic (inter) dependency leads to 're-cognition', by dependent confirmation of
the dominator, and independent rejection of the dominated, bypassing truth,
provoking group-polarization and extremism. Dualism, on the other hand, assumes that there are two sources
and not just one, interacting
through any two individuals, other and self, or object and subject, in social belief and/or social reality, to stay on track of truth.
Dualistic (inter) dependency of independent, autonomous individuals seeks independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, for- and from each other, instead.
independent rejection of (the dominator's) enemies, and/or
dependent confirmation of (the dominator's) friends, help one to avoid
dependent rejection from the group, and being excommunicated or made
homeless. Relations within-groups-between-people naturally
translate into relations within-people-between-groups, which
manipulating individual group members. To explain individuals' honesty as
disloyalty, or their loyalty as dishonesty, deeply confuses the
them, if they are also members of other groups.
Therefore, choosing the opposite
explanation dominates and submits
another. The difference between, on the one hand, Hegel's (1807)
literal interpretation of 're-cognizing' the other, or dependent
confirmation of friends and independent rejection of enemies, and on
the other, Kant's independent rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate confirmation of another, might well be monism's
of dualism. We do not know what we do not know, unless the
group takes away our individual responsibility and independence,
telling us what it expects us to know, the way revolutions redefine
If post-modern monism and
modern dualism run into each other in daily life, role-sending and
role-receiving by the former may either grow more intense, or it may
be weakened by the latter. In monism, the dominator's internal
normativity, being sent, equals the external normativity of the
submitted, being received. This ignores the sender's external- and the
receiver's internal normativity. Monism exists since Hegel hijacked
Kant's dualism, cutting it in half, keeping the subject and ignoring
the object, since the French Revolution. It doubled down since the Cultural Revolution of May 1968.
crucial episodes in history, group-polarization extremizes monism into dictatorship, or the subject dominating and submitting the object. This has stimulated the will
to power (Nietzsche
1901) and activism through politics, media and marketing.
Power and politics can simply bulldoze their way forward and let
facts it created 'prove' the ideas. This is what Hegel meant by "too
bad for the facts". Therefore, power and politics can disguise as truth
and ethics. Power changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence
defenseless, whereas truth changes ideas to fit the facts instead.
3c. Social Identity
The kind of social order
which is recollected or constructed, determines how social identity develops.
Monistically created social order, by power and politics, motivates
avoiding dependent rejection, by dependent confirmation of the
other, hoping for selective reciprocity, and independent
rejection of the competition, to make up one's identity, as (inter) dependent
upon friends, and surrounded by enemies. Dualistically created
social order, by truth and ethics, motivates seeking independent
confirmation, strengthening the other's and one's own identity,
as the object establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects.
Thus, social 're-cognition' either (reciprocally)
avoids dependent rejection, in monism, or seeks independent confirmation,
in dualism. The object is neglected in monism, while it controls the subject in dualism, by
the use of classical and operant conditioning (Pavlov 1910, Skinner 1930).
Reflexes are conditioned responses to conditioning stimuli, controlled by
either the subject or
Power and politics condition reflexes by demanding
're-cognition' of a dominant other's cognition, threatening one
to be excommunicated and be made homeless.
The source of the object, the 'objective
object' or what-is-sensed, does reflect itself in the subject, the
'objective subject' or sensing. The source of the subject, the
'subjective subject' or knowing, does reflect itself in the object,
the 'subjective object' or what-is-known. While they are socially interacting,
the subject and the object could change into each
other's Significant Others, apart from their Selves. Then, the
one's Self turns into the other's Significant other, as its own self-reflection,
while the other's Self turns into the one's Significant
Other, as the other source's self-reflection. The subjective subject or knowing
Self, reflects itself in the subjective object or known
Significant Other, whereas the objective object, or sensed
Significant Other, reflects itself in the objective
subject or sensing Self. Therefore, knowing and what-is-known, in
construction, plus sensing and what-is-sensed, in
recollection, divide within- and between subject and object,
themselves and between themselves. The more
Significant the Other is to the Self, the less independent confirmation
must be only rational, and the more it may be emotional- or
compassionate social interaction.
Between modern philosophical dualism or truth
and ethics, and post-modern philosophical monism or power and
politics, the relation between Self and Significant Other is
critical for the kind of social order, compatible with it. A
partnership or relationship grows tense, when there is
competition which is valued at-, or above, the comparison level
and Kelley 1959). Are Self and Significant Other
(inter) dependent and therefore, will they avoid each other's
dependent rejection, by dependently confirming each other and
independently rejecting all the competition, or instead, will they seek each other's independent confirmation? The former relies on
the power and politics of the relations
within-groups-between-people and within-ideas-between-facts, as
in subjective cultural belief-systems, neglecting the objective
protecting each other against it, and the
latter relies on the truth and ethics of relations
within-facts-between-ideas and within-people-between-groups not
getting entangled, where the facts are used in one idea, and
reused in another, to establish objectivity or
inter-subjectivity between subjects independently referring to
Somehow we are all related,
either by receiving- and returning favors through cronyism and
dependent confirmation, or by seeking independent
rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for the other.
What happens if these two
schemas are mixed? Monistic power and politics extrinsically
motivate dependent reaction-and-action within groups, as friends
receive- and return favors, changing facts to fit the ideas. Dualistic truth and ethics intrinsically
motivate independent action-and-reaction between independent individuals, if and
when after-the-fact sensing what-is-sensed does independently confirm
before-the-fact knowing what-is-known, changing ideas to fit the
facts. When facts are changed to fit the ideas in monism, it is no
use to change ideas to fit the facts in dualism. Intrinsically
motivated reactions, in response to extrinsically motivated actions,
could only be intended as independent confirmations, which truly understand extrinsic motivation.
Extrinsically motivated reactions in response to intrinsically
motivated actions, likely interpret the independent confirmation as
the return of favor which it never meant to be.
The objective subject, or the
recollected object's self-reflection in the subject, and the
subjective subject, or the constructive source, if and when they
co-incide, and recollection independently confirms construction, are
able to copy-and-swap forms. In recollection, within-facts-between-ideas,
ideas reuse facts as linking-pins, relating them as 'knowing
what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized', or 'trying
what-is-valued', while in construction, within-ideas-between-facts,
ideas relate facts as 'sensing what-is-known', 'realizing
what-is-intuited', or 'valuing what-is-tried'. Relations generate
meaningful networks, continuously expanding their horizon, since the
facts (or objects), establish inter-subjectivity between the ideas (or subjects) referring to them, by seeking- and finding
independent confirmation. However, power and politics, motivating to
avoid dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and, by
group-polarization, within-people-between-groups, may ignore truth
and ethics, motivating to seek independent confirmation, and keep
recollection within-facts-between-ideas, for construction
within-ideas-between-facts, to obstruct.
Modern philosophical, open- and dynamic dualism
is able to prevent post-modern philosophical, closed- and static monism, from polarizing group members' opinions
by using power and politics. Minority influence is strong,
if it is consistent over long periods of time, and it does not divide the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974).
Relations within-facts-between-ideas or
within-people-between-groups crucially should not entangle, which
could happen if and when ideas treat different facts as the same,
to untruthfully find independent confirmation, or treat the same
fact as different, to make finding independent confirmation
impossible. E.g., in a closed and static approach, Bergson was interpreted as if he criticized Kant, asking how ideas categorically demand their own realization,
following the Categorical Imperative (Lawlor and Moulard 2016).
Stating that by "re-establish[ing] the duality, the difficulties vanish", Bergson (1932)
highlighted seeking independent confirmation, between
the two sources, in "duality of origin" (p.79). His post-modern biographers called it,
from a single-source monistic view, untruly, "but two complementary
manifestations of life".
Notions of rationality, emotion, and compassion,
are recollected facts and constructed ideas, co-inciding and
independently confirming each other, as contents about to
copy-and-swap forms. To achieve our full potential, recollection
within-facts-between-ideas has to independently confirm construction
within-ideas-between-facts, which is impossible
within-people-between-groups and within-groups-between-people, due
to group-polarization, as it shifts personal opinions to a dominant
extreme, of concentrated power and politics. Independent rational-,
emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation creates meaningful
networks of logical-, chronological-, and/or associative relations
within-ideas-between-facts, reusing facts as linking-pin objects,
which expands the network of meaningful relations. Reusing facts to
link ideas should not change the meaning of these networks, by
calling the same facts different, or different facts the same,
abusing power and politics. Once relations entangle, no truth proves
one's innocence, facts isolate from their meaning, and people
isolate from their identity, stoking up traumatic stress, as well as tormenting dissociation1.
Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned. Truth
can only be found by looking for the facts, which independently
confirm our ideas. Independence needs dualism, which is difficult to
apply in personal- and social settings, as invariably, power and
politics or dialectics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into
'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit
the facts, while power and politics change facts to fit the ideas.
Thus post-modern philosophical monism took over modern philosophical
Berger, P.L.; Luckmann, T. (1966). "The Social Construction of Reality”. New York: Anchor Books.
Bergson, H. (1922).
"The Retrograde Movement of the True Growth of Truth". In: "Creative
Evolution". New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Bergson, H. (1932). "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion". London: Macmillan and Company Limited.
Boekestijn, C. (1978). "De psychologie van relaties tussen groepen". In: Jaspars, J.M.F.; Vlist, R. v.d. "Sociale Psychologie in Nederland". Meppel: Boom.
Corcoran, J. (2005).
"Counterexamples and Proexamples". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11,
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.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1935-36). "The Philosophy of the Law-Idea". Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.
Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107.
Gendlin, E.T. (1997). "A Process Model". New York: The Focusing Institute.
Habermas, J. (1982). "A reply to my critics". In: Thompson, J.B.; Held, D. "Habermas: Critical Debates". London: Macmillan.
Habermas, J. (1991). "A reply". In: Honneth, A.; Joas, H. "Communicative Action". Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1807). "Phänomenologie des Geistes". Bamberg und Würzburg: J.A. Goebhardt.
Heidegger, M. (1959). "Introduction to Metaphysics". New Haven: Yale University Press.
Johnson, R.N; Cureton, A (2016). "Kant’s Moral Philosophy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Kant, I. (1781). "Kritik der reinen Vernunft". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1785). "Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1790). "Kritik der Urteilskraft". Berlin: Bey F. T. Lagarde.
Lawlor, L.; Moulard, V. (2016). "Henri Bergson". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Marx, K. (1867). "Das Kapital". Berlin: Verlag von Otto Meisner.
Meertens, R.W. (1980). "Groepspolarisatie".
Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Meertens, R.W.; Prins, Y.R.A.; Doosje, B. (2006). "In iedereen schuilt een terrorist. Een sociaal-psychologische analyse van terroristische sekten en aanslagen." Schiedam: Scriptum.
Moscovici, S.; Zavalloni, M. (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12 (2): 125–135.
Moscovici, S.; Nemeth, C. (1974). "Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations." Oxford: Rand Mcnally.
Mulder, M.; Veen, P.; Rodenburg, C.; Frenken, J.; Tielens, H. (1973). "The power distance reduction hypothesis on a level of reality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.
Nietzsche, F. (1882). "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.
Nietzsche, F. (1901). "Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.
Parsons, T. (1975). "The Present Status of 'Structural-Functional' Theory in Sociology", Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory, New York: The Free Press.
Pavlov, I.P. (1910). "The Work of the Digestive Glands". London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd.
Rohlf, M. (2010). "Immanuel Kant". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sanders, C.; Eisenga, L.K.A.; Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1976). "Inleiding in de grondslagen van de Psychologie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Sartre, J-P. (1943). "Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.
Schütz, A. (1945). "On Multiple Realities." In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 5: 533–576. Rhode Island: Brown University.
Skinner, B.F. (1930), "On the conditions of elicitation of certain eating reflexes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 16, 433-38.
Strawson, P.F. (1959).
"Individuals". London: Methuen.
Turner, M.B. (1968). "Psychology and the
Philosophy of Science". New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.
Wit, H.F. de (1991).
"Contemplative Psychology". Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Wheeler, L. (1966). "Toward a theory of behavioral contagion". Psychological Review, 73(2), 179-192.
Žižek, S. (2012). "Less than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism". London: Verso.