You can’t be rooted unless you’re free and you can’t be free
unless you’re rooted
Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application
Finding Truth in Science, Justice and
Ron de Weijze - August 2016
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Finding truth is an art we learned and
deliberately unlearned. Truth can only be found by looking
for independent confirmation for our beliefs, from reality.
This methodology requires dualism which is difficult to
apply in personal- and social settings, because power and
politics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into
'avoiding dependent rejection'. A completely different
social order is implied and the one keeps running the other
into the ground like a tectonic plate. Philosophical
Modernism may show us how dualism found truth, before
Post-Modernism hijacked it, regretfully, regressing us all
back into monism and its vices.
When philosophical Modernism
had developed most articulately, Post-Modernism was just around the
corner, reducing the two sources of life, or duality of origin
1932), to one. At the beginning of the French Revolution
(1789), Kant was finishing the greatest work on modern philosophy (Rohlf
2010), which was dualistic. Mind and body were believed
to be independent. What followed was monistic Post-Modernism. The
body or object from then on was considered "intersubjective" at
best, extending subjectivity, instead of the reverse (Kant's
phe-noumenon extending the noumenon). There was no longer a really
independent object for the subject to have to take into account. It
was now dependent and obliged to submit, no longer free, independent
and critical. Or else, on the opposite side, it was now dominantly
in charge, through power and politics, instead of truth and ethics.
The Cultural Revolution
(1968) doubled down on the monistic premise, after Post-Modernism
returned from a trip around the world to sell itself, leaving behind
its brand of social order, as collectivism, socialism or communism.
We fail to associate the transition from dualism to monism, since it
happened along the way, in so many local histories, like in
Roman-Catholicism, architecture, art or philosophy1.
Yet it had a deep impact upon many everyday lives, including our
own. According to Post-Modernism, if we deconstruct our world (Žižek
2012, Derrida 1992), the self does not
1959, Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche
1882), there are multiple dialectical truths (Marx
1867) and reality is only a phenomenon of the mind (Hegel
1807), without an independent object. Although
post-modern philosophers include Kant as the "Copernicus" of the
Philosophical Revolution, I do not, as he never dismissed the
noumenon or object.
Our two sources are
after-the-fact sensibility and before-the-fact understanding, or the
"synthetic a posteriori" and the "analytic a priori" (Kant
1770). Assuming that sensibility may also be called
"sensing what-is-sensed" and understanding may also be called
"knowing what-is-known", then the following concepts describe and
explain modern dualism, as opposed to post-modern monism. The
sources coordinately reflect 
themselves, as what-is-sensed, which is reflected in sensing, and as
knowing, which is reflected in what-is-known. Truth may be found,
only if and when sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms
knowing what-is-known. Through states of coordinated reflection, at
stages of independent confirmation and in phases of
constructive recollection ,
a cycle appears, maintaining itself through social interaction [a],
in social reality [b]
and as social identity [c]
of the independent individual.
In recollection, sensing is
the spatial self-reflection of what-is-sensed
after-the-fact. In construction, what-is-known is the temporal
self-reflection of knowing before-the-fact. Sources create their own
self-reflections, co-ordinated spatially or temporally, relative to
the tangent points between them. These points create room, as the
sphere comes into being. The spatial point stays at the periphery-,
as the temporal point stays at the depth, of the expanding spatial-
and temporal spheres or beings, which are both our sources and both
their self-reflections. The spatial point at the periphery and the
temporal point at the center move away from each other to create
room for their spheres. The periphery of the spatial sphere consists
of all "theres" and one "here", while the periphery of the temporal
sphere consists of all "thens" and one "now".
What-is-sensed and sensing
are 2 spheres, each with 3 spatial dimensions of a convex periphery.
What-is-known and knowing are 2 spheres, each with 1 temporal
dimension of a radius, in all directions. The ratio between the
circumference and radius of a spatial-and-temporal sphere combined
or coincided, is π ("pi"), a number carrying infinite decimal
places, indicating irreducibility or independence, between space and
time or temporalized space and spatialized time (Bergson
1922). Temporalized space is not original time and
spatialized time is not original space, although they are
compatible. Time at the depth of the sphere or being is either the
self-reflection of temporalized space or the source of time itself,
while space at the periphery of the sphere or being is either the
self-reflection of spatialized time or the source of space itself.
Space and time are united as
space-time in the environment/other/reality before their contents
enter processing. They are separated in the organism/self/belief,
where space temporalizes while time spatializes, content-shapes-form
while form-shapes-content, and behavior internalizes as
consciousness while consciousness externalizes as behavior. These
are all part of the expanding spheres, of which two belong to the
environment/other/reality and two to the organism/self/belief
(which-is-which being relative to the point of view), one as
recollection and one as construction. After processing, they are
reunited in the environment/other/reality, now involving the
organism/self/belief "here and now" in truth, if and when
they co-incide or co-ordinate again, around π.
Spheres' peripheries are
spatial, while their depths are temporal. The spatiality of the
spheres' peripheries enables them to share tangential points or
locations, which should be the same, although possibly they are not,
when sensing and what-is-sensed or knowing and what-is-known are
dissociated, while source and/or reflection may even be replaced by
something else. What-is-sensed as content at the source, the
environment/other/reality, should be what processes sensing as form,
pushing inward causally at both spheres. Knowing as form at the
other source, the organism/self/belief, should process what-is-known
as content, pulling inward teleologically at both spheres. When
locations are shared or the same and change co-ordinately,
reflections may be viewed as "wandering around" their
The sensed environment/other/reality reflects
itself in the sensing organism/self/belief, while the knowing
organism/self/belief reflects itself in the known
environment/other/reality. Self-reflections wander around their
sources, both being spheres, coordinated by their tangent point,
"here" in temporalizing space or "now" in spatializing time. In
recollection, sensing wanders around what-is-sensed from "here" to
"there" while independently, in construction, what-is-known wanders
around knowing from "now" to "then". The source's self-reflection is
a separate sphere or being and not a mirror image of the source
itself. Wandering in (spatializing) time or knowing what-is-known is
necessary, whereas wandering in (temporalizing) space or sensing
what-is-sensed is optional.
Before- and after processing
in the organism/self/belief, the separated "here" and "now"
naturally reconnect into one "here and now" again.
All tangent points across the environment/other/reality add up to a
tangent line, horizon or (bigger) sphere. Processing had taken them
apart, separating recollection or sensing what-is-sensed by
temporalizing space, content shaping form and behavior internalizing
as consciousness, from construction or knowing what-is-known by
spatializing time, form shaping content and consciousness
externalizing as behavior, to compare them and find (or stay on
track of) truth. Seeking co-incidence, between forms (sensing,
knowing) and contents (facts or what-is-sensed, ideas or
what-is-known), is necessary to keep a healthy mental- and physical
If recollection or sensing
what-is-sensed, and construction or knowing what-is-known, were not
dualistically independent processes, there would be no need for the
sources' self-reflections to coincide with the opposite source.
Sensing would not need to coincide with knowing, nor would
what-is-known need to coincide with what-is-sensed. Interaction
would then depend entirely on power and politics or dominance and
submission, by reinforced cultural conditioning, dialectically
between people, within one (monistic) group. Everybody would
(eventually) have the same, uniform, group identity, and the
independent individual would no longer exist. The only other way out
of this monistic, post-modern sociological realm would be
agnosticism and anarchism (Hanna and Chapman 2016).
Sources and the
self-reflections of their opposites, are like outcomes and
predictions, or "sensibility after-the-fact" in Anglo-Saxon
philosophy and "understanding before-the-fact" in Continental
philosophy, which Kant had discovered (Sanders 1976), in science,
justice and journalism. They need to coincide for truth to become
apparent. Each outcome or source, has its own self-reflection that
depends on it, in space and time, content and form, behavior and
consciousness, although it is dualistically independent from its
prediction or opposite's reflection, even when it has the same
aspects. The difference lies in their being either a prediction or
an outcome. If and when the they do coincide, the purpose of their
separation is fulfilled, to assess identicality, and therefore the
truth of the prediction as determined by the outcome.
If and when the one source's
self-reflection coincides with the opposite source (one sphere
temporalizing space and the other spatializing time), it would seem
as if the sources interacted directly upon each other, as if there
were only one source (monism), which would be an illusion. Instead,
their interaction is conducted indirectly, through their
self-reflections, seeking positive verification and negative
falsification, or truth, in coincidence. Space/content/behavior is
at the periphery of the one sphere or being, recollecting towards
the depth, while time/form/consciousness is at the depth of the
other sphere or being, constructing towards the periphery.
Coincidence of temporalized space and spatialized time reunites
temporalized space with time at the depths-, and spatialized time
with space at the peripheries, of the spheres.
What can only be sensed in
sensing, cannot be known, and what can only be known in knowing,
cannot be sensed, since these sources and their self-reflections are
always dualistically separate and independent from each other.
Therefore, initially, we are only subliminally "aware" of facts, and
supraliminally "aware" of ideas. The organism/self/belief is not
able to sense or know the environment/other/reality, in itself
(Kant's "noumen-non"), of which it is a part, itself. These are
precisely the points where subliminally, spatialized time coincides
with space at the peripheries, and supraliminally, temporalized
space coincides with time at the depths of the spheres, if and when
What-is-sensed must be known
and what-is-known must be sensed, so that space/content/behavior at
the periphery-, and time/form/consciousness at the depth of the
sphere or being, may have impact beyond subliminal sensing and
supraliminal knowing. The sensed environment/other/reality has the
sensing organism/self/belief wander around it, while the knowing
organism/self/belief has the known environment/other/reality wander
around it. The reflections in recollection (sensing) and
construction (what-is-known) therefore wander around their sources,
bringing their spheres for possible coinciding and reuniting with
the other source, hopefully more than coincidentally, indicating
As sources coordinately
reflect themselves, so do space/content/behavior at the periphery
and time/form/consciousness at the depth of their spheres or beings.
As long as wandering in recollection and construction does not
coincide the sources' self-reflections with the opposite source at
their peripheries and their depths, no justification of one side by
the other in duality of origin is found or perhaps even sought. This
'non-incidence' between sensing what-is-sensed and knowing
what-is-known could drive communities to traumatizing sociosis (Van
den Berg 1956) and drive individuals to tormenting
dissociation disorder (Dell
and O'Neill 2009).
The tangent line or -plane of
all "heres" and "nows" or "theres" and "thens", in
space/content/behavior and time/form/consciousness, between sources
and reflections, show co-inciding contents and forms by levels of
functional structure (Dooyeweerd
1935, Sanders 1976). Both recollection
and construction build these structures by processing current
content. Recollection does so causally, away from the plane, while
construction does so teleologically, towards the plane. As the
sphere or being grows, depth and periphery move apart, until the
next level of functional structure is reached of current content,
among all currents.
Dualism suggests that we need
two sources, sensibility or sensing what-is-sensed and understanding
or knowing what-is-known, to live our lives, while monism states
that we only need one source. As a consequence, we not only have
different world-views, we have two different worlds, unhappily
mixed! Dualism is related to theological- and philosophical
Modernism, while monism is related to "God is dead" anti-theist- or
atheist philosophical Post-Modernism. From the start of our era,
Judeo-Christianity was dualistic, having separated heaven from
earth. Around the mid-17th century, dualism entered philosophy (Descartes
1644), by separating what he doubted from what he could
not doubt, as in "I think, therefore I am". Post-Modernism took over
from Modernism at the end of the 18th century, when Hegel
monistically reinterpreted Kant's dualistic magnum opus on
Modernism and the French Revolution started.
The object of our
sensibilities, or Kant's noumenon, Hegel dismissed, claiming there
was only the subject, phe-noumenon or understanding,
inter-subjectively recognizing other subjects. Without a critical
object, monistic top-down dominance and submission through immanent
dialectics, could replace the old regime, which had just been
guillotined indeed. The dualistic view was different. One source may
confirm the other independently or without bias, to bring truth to
light and follow it. If and when possible, one source independently
confirms the other, as what-is-sensed (source1) positively verifies
what-is-known (reflection2), and sensing (reflection1) negatively
falsifies knowing (source2). Independent confirmation seeks positive
verification and negative falsification, while dependent rejection
seeks negative verification and positive falsification. One upholds
truth and ethics, the other power and politics (dialectics).
Hegel cut modern philosophy
in half by removing the object and keeping the subject. Kant had
described so well how the subject related to the object, that it
seemed almost natural that Hegel reduced dualism to monism, by
calling the object the "intersubject" in dialectics. Since Kant's
position was that the subject itself created the categories of space
and time, objective spatiotemporality seemed redundant and
dismissible. This became known as "the Copernican Revolution in
philosophy". Monists claim that there is no God, truth, self or
reality, and that Kant was one of theirs. Hegel told a reporter that
it was "too bad for the facts" (1804). This post-modern position is
still widespread and almost insurmountable due to inherent power and
politics, which can always deny truth and ethics. Modern dualism is
opposed to post-modern ideas. Kant was a dualist and not a monist,
therefore he is modern, not post-modern.
To make sure that knowing
what-is-known is true, construction must be prior-, or a priori
(before-the-fact), to a posteriori (after-the-fact) recollection, to
detect independent confirmation by sensing what-is-sensed.
Independent confirmation consists of both negative falsification of
knowing by sensing, for validity, and positive verification of
what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for reliability. If and when
sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known,
sources and opposite reflections coincide or coordinate in space and
time. It is then possible for contents in recollection (facts
or what-is-sensed) and construction (ideas or what-is-known) to
swap forms (sensing, knowing). Sensing what-is-sensed turns
into knowing what-is-sensed, which is no longer subliminal, and
knowing what-is-known into sensing what-is-known, which is no longer
supraliminal. We can now be aware of current content.
Truth and ethics motivate
intrinsically in modern dualism, while power and politics motivate
extrinsically in post-modern monism. Intrinsic motivation
is the product of independent rational-, emotional- and/or
compassionate confirmation between external normativity in
recollection and internal normativity in construction. Extrinsic
motivation is the division of internal normativity in one,
sending, "more equal than others" (Orwell
1945), part of the population (one or many), and external
normativity in the other, receiving, part of the population (many or
one). Roles and role-positions are sent and received, including
inter- and intra- sender and -receiver conflicts (Boekestijn
1978), to establish a power-distancing (Mulder
1973) hierarchy or pyramid-scheme for all people to adapt
to, as in "the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he
goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel
The sensed- and known
environment/other/reality plus the sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief, positioned opposite each other, which include
the wandering self-reflections bringing content to the other side,
are all spheres. If and when independent confirmation happens
between forms and between contents, forms can and do swap their
positions or roles, to extend current content with new form, leading
the wave, reducing the last form to content itself, for processing.
This happens to and from the "here" and "now" in π, extending both
recollection and construction with the latest form that was swapped.
For the "other", in the environment/other/reality, is an
organism/self/belief as well, having content shape form in
recollection and form shape content in construction, extending the
meandering content between them with his or her (reflected) form,
not content which he or she is for the one organism/self/belief.
By stages of independent
confirmation, for greater sensibility in recollection and greater
understanding in construction, facts develop from sensing
what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted, if and when the facts
positively verify the ideas for reliability, while simultaneously
ideas develop from knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, if
and when the facts negatively falsify the ideas for validity.
Independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation
should reliably coincide constructed ideas with facts, in
space/content/behavior at the periphery-, and validly coincide
recollected facts with ideas, in time/form/consciousness, at the
depth of the sphere or being. Facts in recollection and ideas in
construction remain apart, when forms are swapped, because contents
(facts or what-is-sensed and ideas or what-is-known) alternate, each
time temporalized space and spatialized time coincide.
From one stage to the next,
more (refined) recollection and construction is involved. Much
sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known goes into realizing
what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited. Even more realizing
what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited goes into valuing
what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried. And most valuing
what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried goes into reacting
what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted. That is why reacting and
acting may take relatively much time. Reflections will need to
continue wandering around their sources, as long as there can be no
independent confirmation from their source's opposite, let alone a
swapping of forms, at which time the forms and contents enter their
next stage, both in recollection and in construction. Once
consciousness has been externalized into behavior, the same goes on
in social interaction.
What-is-sensed is one source,
the sensed environment/other/reality, recollecting from the
periphery to the depth of the sphere or being, where space
temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as
consciousness. Knowing is the other source, the knowing
organism/self/belief, constructing from the depth to the periphery
of the sphere or being, when time spatializes, form-shapes-content
and consciousness externalizes as behavior. Both sources reflect
themselves on the other side of the shared tangent-line or -plane,
as the sensing organism/self/belief and the known
environment/other/reality. If and when independent confirmation or
truth is found between the sources and their opposites'
self-reflections, space/content/behavior at the peripheries and
time/form/consciousness at the depths, are shared between the four
spheres or beings (two sources and two self-reflections).
From sensing and knowing to
reacting and acting, each stage of independent confirmation adds an
alternate form to the pre-existing content, to which the old or
previous form was added, now treated as content. Sensing thus turns
into realizing, valuing and reacting, on the recollective side,
while knowing turns into intuiting, trying and acting, on the
constructive side. The organism/self/belief then first reacts to the
environment/other/reality and second acts to its own reaction.
However, at this stage, the environment/other/reality may be
another organism/self/belief, recollecting and constructing on
its own, so that social interaction may have started, in social
reality. The one's recollection is then the other's construction and
the one's construction the other's recollection. The one reacts
what-is-acted by the other and acts what-is-reacted by himself. This
swap takes place externally and no longer internally.
confirmation takes place between forms (sensing and knowing) in
time/form/consciousness, and between contents (what-is-sensed or
facts and what-is-known or ideas) in space/content/behavior. When
form and content surf by wandering self-reflection, going around
from-, and coming around to, one source it hopefully coincides with,
and so does the other side around its source, then at the final
stage of coincidence or independent confirmation for the current
content, action calls for reaction between the sides (between the
one's construction and the other's recollection), through
space/content/behavior, while reaction calls for action within the
sides (between recollection and construction), through
time/form/consciousness. This is external communication between
sources or social interaction, which continues as long as there is
some degree of independent rational-, emotional- and/or
By coordinated reflection ,
our two sources seek independent confirmation 
for- and from each other, to stay on track of truth, in constructive
This is the purpose of dualism in modern philosophy, as opposed to
its monistic, post-modern descendent, which denies the existence of
God, truth, self and reality. Both foundations for social order
social interaction [a],
identity [c]. Although
they are mutually exclusive, each creating and maintaining its own
world, we are often caught in the middle of these two worlds,
stressed, confused and harmed, both physically and mentally.
In terms of coordinated
social interaction is construction between the one as source and the
other as self-reflection of that one source, and recollection
between the other as source and the one as self-reflection of that
other source. Who is the one and who is the other, is a matter of
role-division. The one may be more apt to be the source of
recollection and the other that of construction, to make social
interaction happen. Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known
interact by surfing self-reflections, around their sources, until
they independently confirm ,
rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, the other source,
which in social interaction is the other person. Therefore, in
social interaction, what-is-sensed by the one is self-reflected as
sensing in the other, while knowing in the other is self-reflected
as what-is-known in the one, if and when the other independently
confirms the one.
Groups are formed and society
is ordered, either dualistically by the intrinsic motivation of
truth and ethics, or monistically by the extrinsic motivation of
power and politics. Finding independent confirmation for our beliefs
about reality motivates intrinsically, to externalize consciousness
as behavior. Offering the (Significant) Other freedom of choice,
rationally-, emotionally- or compassionately earned and paid
(forward), intrinsically motivates by independent confirmation as
well. If and when independent confirmation happens and is shared in
social interaction, the one's independence confirms and strengthens
the other's independence. This is one's reaction in response to the
other's action and one's action in response to his or her own
re-action, made noticeable by externalizing consciousness as
behavior. It is the final stage of independent confirmation for
current content, reacting what-is-acted and acting what-is-reacted.
As long as truth is
maintained by independent confirmation in social interaction,
between sides, recollection happens in response to construction,
through space/content/behavior, whereas on each side, construction
happens in response to recollection, through
time/form/consciousness. The environment/other/reality is then the
other organism/self/belief, with whom the one interacts.
Two cycles are needed for both sides to respond to the other's
construction, in their own recollection, and then to their own
recollection, in their own construction, as they take the other's
response into account. There are four phases in a cycle, two for
each side, one for the other and one for themselves. Independent
confirmation, at four stages, corresponds to these phases, because
each phase commences from a degree of independent rational-,
emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, or social interaction
has to stop in its tracks.
From one person's point of
view, in social interaction, content from the sensed
environment/other/reality, is recollected and surfs by its
coordinated self-reflection, the sensing organism/self/belief, to
the other source, the knowing organism/self/belief, where the two
forms (sensing and knowing), being shaped by-, and shaping, content
(what-is-sensed and what-is-known), may coincide in
time/form/consciousness at the depth of the sphere or being. More
than coinciding, they may find truth by independent confirmation in
negative falsification. Simultaneously, content from the knowing
organism/self/belief, is constructed and surfs by its coordinated
self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality, to the other
source, the sensed environment/other/reality, where the two contents
(what-is-known and what-is-sensed), being shaped by-, and shaping,
form (knowing and sensing), may coincide in space/content/behavior
at the periphery of the sphere or being. More than coinciding, they
may find truth by independent confirmation in positive verification.
People adapt to the other
person, to accommodate him, and make him adapt to them in
return, to assimilate (Piaget
1936). In post-modern monism, accommodation and
assimilation are dominance and submission of one group or group
member towards another, extrinsically motivating them or him to
avoid fear of dependent rejection by using power and politics,
dependently confirming friends (cronyism) and/or independently
rejecting enemies (prejudice). This process does not take into
account staying on track of truth, whereas looking for-,
finding-, and looking after independent confirmation, in modern
dualism, does. Independent confirmation consists of negative
falsification, of knowing by sensing, for validity, at the depth
of the one sphere or being, in time/form/consciousness, and of
positive verification, of what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for
reliability, at the periphery of the other sphere or being, in
space/content/behavior. Thus, knowing assimilates sensing, as
what-is-known accommodates what-is-sensed, if and when
independent confirmation happens.
If and when independent
confirmation does happen on both sides of social interaction,
then recollection and construction swap forms (not contents)
between the one's source and opposite reflection, to transform
into the next stage's substance of recollection and
construction, separately yet simultaneously. The new substance
is more extended than the old while it does include the old,
putting a new form in the lead which is the opposite of the old
form, due to the swap, and which turns the old form into new
content, which must now be processed as well and does no longer
process content all by itself. This continues until new
substances are no longer formed, either because independent
confirmation is no longer happening, or because the highest
stage has been reached, for the current content, which is
reacting what-is-acted by the other and acting what-is-reacted
by oneself, externally in social interaction and no longer
internally. Recollection and construction thus are waves between
the sources by coordinated reflection, for every bit of current
content, overlapping each other, making it seem as if there is
only one meandering stream, while there are actually four, two
for each side.
in social belief and not yet in social reality, involves both
sources as independent individuals, a priori or before
independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate
confirmation has happened. Both sources and their (opposite's)
self-reflections have form and content, as content-shaping-form
in recollection and form-shaping-content in construction.
Content streams from one side to the other, pushing causally in
recollection as what-is-sensed and pulling teleologically in
construction as what-is-known. Both sides, separately yet
simultaneously, recollect in response to the other's
construction and construct in response to their own
recollection. These are four phases in a social cycle, at
maximally four stages of independent confirmation. Phases begin
one state apart, as a response to the previous phase, and then
overlap. A social cycle therefore consists of the one's
recollection and construction, followed by the other's
recollection and construction, when it is the one's turn and
then when it is the other's turn to respond, in a double
back-and-forth, totaling eight states, across four phases, one
state apart, of four stages each.
Content streams from one
form to another, for processing. It processes form in
recollection and is being processed by form in construction. The
two forms, as well as the two contents remain dualistically
independent, as long as they process or are being processed,
between the subliminal (sensing what-is-sensed) and the
supraliminal (knowing what-is-known). Beyond these limits, they
are one, as they were before- and should be after processing.
The beating heart of processing, is looking for-, finding- and
looking after truth or what independent confirmation detects,
between recollection after-the-fact and construction
before-the-fact, or between outcome and prediction (the outcome
independently confirming the prediction, if and when it does).
Every state of sensing extends until it turns into reacting, and
every state of knowing extends until it turns into acting, if
and when truth is found. Thereafter, content is cast as dice, in
social interaction, where one's reacting what-is-acted by the
other, is followed by one's acting what-is-reacted by the self,
after processing. Meanwhile, new content has come to fruition
from later states, and is ready to enter the social arena
The one's recollection is
the other's construction and vice versa. What looks like one
wave, is actually a compilation or overlap of four waves into
one stream or flow: two waves for the one side, or source plus
opposite self-reflection (the sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief), and two waves for the other side (the
sensed- and known environment/other/reality). For each side,
that is one wave of recollection plus one wave of construction,
either one of which is the self-reflection of the opposite
source, wandering or traveling by coordinated reflection, to
recollect behavior or construct consciousness, having its
content and form independently confirmed, by the other side, on
a regular basis, to stay on track of truth. Independent
confirmation and the resulting swap of forms (sensing and
knowing), lines them up with contents (facts or what-is-sensed
and ideas or what-is-known), enabling a stream in one direction.
This continues as long as sources and their self-reflections,
the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief plus the sensed-
and known environment/other/reality, simultaneously produce new
form and content.
stage-specific for the interacting sources and reflections. When
the next stage is reached, after reflections have wandered
around their sources specifically enough to find coincidence or
independent confirmation and swap forms, interaction is
stage-specific for the next stage. Thus the process continues,
including at the final stage, where consciousness is
externalized into behavior to interact with the
environment/other/reality in social reality. Following stages
include previous stages, therefore they take longer, because
every alternatingly added sensing or knowing as leading form,
from the swap, takes a more refined processing in preparation of
the moment that consciousness is externalized into behavior,
verbally or non-verbally, awaiting a response. Therefore, later
stages may be a long time in the making or even never be reached
for current content. Meanwhile, interaction may continue as
small-talk, where reactions in response to others' actions and
actions in response to own reactions remain mere evaluations in
response to others' tries and tries in response to own
evaluations, and so on, back to the sub- and supraliminal stage.
Cultural reinforcement by the
power and politics of post-modern monism, extrinsically motivates
people, to avoid fear of dependent rejection by excommunication and
homelessness. Externally induced self-fulfilling prophecy, through
media and marketing, favors or dooms people. "One adapts and loses
oneself, or one does not adapt and loses the world", in Hegel's
words, loosely translated. Therefore, people must civilly,
uncritically and politically correct, be conditioned (prejudiced) to
independently reject enemies, and/or be cronyistic to dependently
confirm friends (cronyism). The distance between themselves and
those lower in the pecking order is increased, while the distance to
those of higher rank is decreased, so that "some animals [become]
more equal". Normativity is either internal. for some, in command,
or external for the others, receiving the orders (ever so subtly).
Therefore, mimetic desire (Girard
1977) and group-polarization (Moscovici
Meertens 2007) turn relations
within-groups-between-people into hierarchies of dominance and
submission, by immanent dialectics, closed morality and static
Natural reinforcement by the
truth and ethics of modern dualism, intrinsically motivates people,
to look for-, find-, and look after independent confirmation, to
strengthen each other as independent individuals. Offering or
(forward) paying freedom of choice, which the other noticeably
earned, in our estimation, may serve the whole community, going
around to come around. Relations within-people-between-groups
are never corrupted, and within-facts-between-ideas
they never entangle, since normativity is dualistic: external in
recollection of facts, and internal in construction of ideas. Both
types of normativity are needed for comparison to find truth by
independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation,
if and when facts positively verify ideas for reliability, and facts
negatively falsify ideas for validity. People can adapt to groups
without losing themselves, be independent without being isolated, or
create groups of their own, of independent individuals, who need
strength (not power), which they all send and receive, if and when
truth is found, by keeping morality open and religion dynamic, to
welcome critique. It was not true, what Hegel stated in 1807, that
"the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into
himself and loses the world". That was simply intended to turn the
psychological- into a sociological realm and start a new
hierarchical social order for a new elite, after the old elite had
been decapitated, at the beginning of the French Revolution.
While coordinated reflection
appears in both worlds, the one created by post-modern, immanent
dialectic monism or power and politics, and the other created by
modern, independent individual dualism or truth and ethics,
independent confirmation 
matters to the latter only. Monism may look like dualism, since it
is dialectic, yet its basic assumption is that we are all one group
within which subgroups or individuals compete for dominance while
submitting others who will eventually all fall into place and assume
their assigned role if they want to survive (Hegel
1807, Marx 1859,
Nietzsche 1901). Dualism, on the contrary, assumes there
are two sources, instead of one, which interact between any two
individuals, to stay on track of truth and not to gain dominance
over-, and submit, "less equal" others. Living in the one world or
the other, is the outcome of our upbringing and the vices of monism
(prejudice, cronyism). As we all live on the same planet, we are
challenged, all the time, by a social order that is completely
different from our own and that we must accept, even if it runs us
into the ground like a tectonic plate.
Where and when post-modern
monism and modern dualism run into each other, role-sending and
role-receiving by the former may grow intense, or it may diminish
under the influence of the latter. Internal normativity is sent from
the one to the other who is to receive it as external normativity.
The sender's external normativity and the receiver's internal
normativity are ignored, when monism takes over from dualism, which
happened at a large scale since the French Revolution and,
revitalized, since the Cultural Revolution. Group-polarization at
crucial episodes in history, such as the Second World War, has
extremized monism into absolute dictatorship. This stimulates the
will to power (Nietzsche
1901) and a propensity for action through politics, media
and marketing. Power can simply bulldoze its way forward and let the
facts it created "prove" its predictions. This is what Hegel meant
by "too bad for the facts". Thus, power and politics can
disguise as truth and ethics. Power changes the facts to fit
its ideas, making innocence defenseless, while truth
changes its ideas to fit the facts.
3c. Social Identity
between sources, the knowing organism/self/belief and the sensed
environment/other/reality, by their self-reflections, the known
environment/other/reality and the sensing organism/self/belief, can
be very consistent. That is when one source may become part of the
other, by social identity and not only by independent confirmation.
The other will then be the Significant Other. Construction under
those circumstances, will lead recollection, and not the other way
around, as it is believed to be true. It will no longer be subjected
to verification and falsification, before it can move forward or
else processing current content would be halted. When each is a
source him- or herself and the other's self-reflection, the one's
construction self-reflects in the other, while the other's
recollection self-reflects in the one, as part of the other
independent individual and not only for one's own processing. The
two are as one, interacting by spontaneous gestures and living
2011), and without a doubt about the fortitude of their
continuing togetherness under any circumstance.
It is between, on the one
hand, modern dualism or intrinsic, ethical motivation to seek
independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation
or truth, and on the other hand, post-modern monism or extrinsic,
political motivation to avoid dependent rejection or power, where
and when the relationship between Self and Significant Other is
mostcritical for the kind of social order, that will
surround- and support it. For the latter, independent rejection of
enemies, or prejudice against those above the comparison level, who
are bringing jealous tensions into the relationship (Thibaut
and Kelley 1959), and dependent confirmation of friends
with whom cronyism is group-polarized and exploited, taking away
from others, are the only possible ways to avoid dependent
rejection. However, relationships are also built on giving and
taking, or offering and paying forward, independent rational-,
emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation between sources
(Significant Others), if and when they can, by positive verification
for reliability, and simultaneously, negative falsification for
validity, when that is even still required.
While power and politics of
the group are central to post-modern monism, truth and ethics of the
individual are central to modern dualism. The one avoids dependent
rejection within-groups-between-people and
within-ideas-between-facts, creating problems of dissociation
for people and of existence for facts, while the other
seeks independent confirmation within-people-between-groups and
within-facts-between-ideas, solving those same problems. Closed
morality and static religion do not allow people to defect to other
groups and facts to be understood in other contexts, as opposed to
open morality and dynamic religion. The latter are dualistic
interactions and not immanent dialectics, because fighting over
dominance and submission presupposes all sub-groups to belong to one
global group, that will eventually dominate and submit all others
and have its own uncriticizable ideas or dogmas. People belonging to
different groups will want to avoid cognitive dissonance (Festinger
1962) and return to this one group and one set of ideas,
unable to bear the undogmatic 'lightness of being' (Kundera
within-groups-between-people naturally translate into
relations within-people-between-groups, since they are basically the
same. This is also true for relations within-ideas-between-facts and
relations within-facts-between-ideas. Dissonant relations cannot
logically, chronologically or associatively maintain themselves and
force people to dissociate from their groups or facts from their
ideas. They can do so unilaterally as monism requires, to guarantee
trust and safety. However, truth and ethics would soon be replaced
by power and politics, if they would wholly accept this "solution".
Relations entangle when the same facts are reused
in different ideas, relating them differently and creating
meaningful contexts for them which are incompatible. To cope with
entanglements, constraints or conflicts of interest, socioses are
invoked in communities, calling for collective dissociation
disorders, like derealization and depersonalization, in the
independent individuals living in these communities (Dell
and O'Neill 2009).
Ideas relate facts in
spatializing time, form-shaping-content and consciousness
externalizing as behavior, by the logic, chronology or association
of these multi-perspective ideas, allowing access from all sides of
their contexts. Facts relate ideas in temporalizing space,
content-shaping-form and behavior internalizing as consciousness, by
the (social) identity, identicality or object-orientation towards
these facts. Relations within-ideas-between-facts, naturally
translating into relations within-facts-between-ideas, get entangled
by shifting orientations towards the environment/other/reality.
Untangling may still be possible, holding on to truth and
innocence, seeking independent confirmation where it has (at
least nominally) always been critical to the highest standards in
science, justice and journalism. Modern dualism can beat post-modern
monism, since minority influence is strong when consistent over long
periods of time and not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici
1974). Otherwise, facts dissociate from ideas, or the
person from his or her own identity, by traumatizing socioses and
tormenting identity disorders2.
Finding truth is an art we
learned and deliberately unlearned. Truth can only be found by
looking for independent confirmation for our beliefs, from reality.
This methodology requires dualism which is difficult to apply in
personal- and social settings, because power and politics turn
'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent
rejection'. A completely different social order is implied and the
one keeps running the other into the ground like a tectonic plate.
Philosophical Modernism may show us how dualism found truth, before
Post-Modernism hijacked it, regretfully, regressing us all back into
monism and its vices.
Berg, J.H. van den (1956). "Metabletica of leer
der veranderingen. Beginselen van een historische psychologie".
Bergson, H. (1922).
"Durée et Simultanéité". Paris: Félix Alcan.
Bergson, H. (1932). "The
Two Sources of Morality and Religion". London: Macmillan and Company
(1978). "De psychologie van relaties tussen groepen". In: Jaspars,
J.M.F.; Vlist, R. v.d. "Sociale Psychologie in Nederland". Meppel:
Dell, P.F.; O’Neil, J.A.
(2009). "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and
Beyond". New York: Routledge: 750.
Descartes, R. (1644). "The Principles of
Derrida, J. (1992).
"Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson
"Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice". New York:
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.
Girard, R. (1977).
"Violence and the Sacred". Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Hanna, R.; Chapman, A. (2016). "Kant,
Agnosticism, and Anarchism: A Theological-Political Treatise".
Hegel, G.W.F. (1807). "Phänomenologie des
Geistes". Bamberg und Würzburg:
(1959). "Introduction to Metaphysics". New Haven: Yale University
Kant, I. (1770). "De
Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis".
Regiomonti: Impensis Io. Iac. Kanteri.
Kant, I. (1781). "Kritik der reinen Vernunft".
Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1783). "Prolegomena". Riga: J.F.
Kant, I. (1785).
"Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1788). "Kritik der praktischen
Vernunft". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1793). "Kritik der Urteilskraft".
Berlin: Bey F. T. Lagarde.
Kundera, M. (1984). "The Unbearable
Lightness of Being". Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Marx, K. (1867). "Das
Kapital". Berlin: Verlag von Otto Meisner.
Meertens, R.W. (2007).
"The Hofstadgroep". transnationalterrorism.eu.
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
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.
Nietzsche, F. (1882). "Die fröhliche
Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.
Nietzsche, F. (1883).
"Also sprach Zarathustra". Chemnitz: Verlag von Ernst Schmeitzner.
(1901). "Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.
Orwell, G. (1945).
"Animal Farm". London: Martin Secker & Warburg.
Piaget, J. (1936).
"La naissance de l'intelligence chez l'enfant". Neuchâtel: Delachaux
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.
Sanders, C.; Rappard, J.F.H. van (1982).
"Tussen Ontwerp En Werkelijkheid". Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.
Sartre, J-P. (1943).
"Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.
Shotter, J. (2011).
"Draft: ‘Spontaneous Responsiveness, Chiasmic Relations, And
Consciousness – Inside the Realm of Living Expression’",
Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social
psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.
Žižek, S. (2012). "Less than Nothing: Hegel
and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism". London: Verso.