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


Ron de Weijze - March 2016

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam


 Finding truth is an art we learned and unlearned. Truth can only be found by the methodology of scientific research, looking for independent confirmation of our hypotheses. This is extra difficult in social settings, where seeking it is destroyed by avoiding dependent rejection (prejudice, cronyism), on the widest scales thinkable. This challenge is philosophical and must reach back to philosophical modernism, which ended after the takeover by postmodernism somewhere around the time of the French Revolution (1793), which raised its head again during the Cultural Revolution (1968). Modernism is dualistic and postmodernism is monistic. Dualism assumes that sensibility and understanding are independent (Kant 1781). This independence was created to enable us to look for-, find- and look after truth. It is what I call Constructive Recollection.  


When philosophical Modernism was described most articulately, Post-Modernism was just around the corner. Modernism was dualistic, while Post-Modernism is monistic, reducing the two sources of our lives to just one. The impact of this new view has been, and continues to be, enormous. We fail to notice that, since the exact date of this transition is missing or represented at different moments according to disciplines such as art, architecture, Roman-Catholicism or philosophy1. It seems that at the beginning of the French Revolution (1789), as Kant finished the best work on modern philosophy (Rohlf 2010), culture turned, misinterpreting Kant's work, reducing it to monism. Post-Modernism pretends to be Modernism.

Our two sources coordinately reflect [1] themselves, "here" in recollection and "now" in construction. The one is material space and immaterial time, which the other interacts with, being an "independent part" of it in duration (Bergson 1922), as what-is-sensed reflects itself in sensing and knowing reflects itself in what-is-known. The interaction between these two sources is motivated by either power or truth. Power motivates politically within-groups-between-people, while truth motivates ethically within-people-between-groups. Truth matters, while power should not matter. Independent confirmation [2] detects truth. The contents of space and time, or spatialized time and temporalized space, reunite "here and now", as content-shaping-form in recollection and form-shaping-content in construction, thus called constructive recollection [3].


1. Coordinated Reflection


The two sources of life, or "duality of origin" (Bergson 1932), comprise Modern dualism, "the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided: a dualism between man and nature."2 Modernism is opposed to Post-Modern monism, which proclaims only one source for all, as Zarathustra spoke, climbing down the mountain (Nietzsche 1883). The age of Modernism began AD 0, as heaven and earth were separated, at the Cross, in Judeo-Christianity. From the mid-17th century, it entered philosophy, separating the phenoumenon or subject from the noumenon or object. From the early 19th century, around the time of the French Revolution, the noumenon was 'lost'. Only the phe-noumenon was kept, which is now phenomenology. Modernism was effectively cut in half by Post-Modernism. Facts or noumena were lost, not ideas or phenomena. Ideas wreak havoc, when they are not independent, or when facts do not confirm them. If they categorically demand their own realization through power and politics, they railroad the facts, impose guilt and leave no room to prove innocence, in a dominant/submitting power-distancing hierarchy (Mulder 1973).

The sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief senses and knows the sensed- and known environment/other/reality or what-is-sensed (facts) and what-is-known (ideas). The dualistic distinction was made by Kant when he highlighted philosophical Modernism (Kant 1781). What-is-sensed moves sensing, while, separately, knowing moves what-is-known. Content determines form on the one hand, while form determines content on the other. These sorts of determinations require one or many moves, or changes of position, either physically in object-orientation or mentally in multi-perspectivism.

Our two sources together make up one four-dimensional sphere, before the organism separates them. Space and time are separate, because the ratio between the sphere's circumference and its radius is π, which has an infinite number of decimal spaces. The one source cannot be reduced to the other. Sensing what-is-sensed, or one source (what-is-sensed) and its self-reflection (sensing), both have their three-dimensional "here" in space at the periphery through π (pi). Knowing what-is-known, or the other source (knowing) and its self-reflection (what-is-known), both have their one-dimensional "now" in time at the radius through π. The separation is between one point which stays at the sphere's periphery, and the other which remains at the depth. Content has a "causal push" from π, as a fact, or a "teleological push" towards π, as an idea.

Facts and ideas, what-is-sensed and what-is-known, perception and apperception, are closely linked, although they are separate processes. As content, they shape form or they are shaped by form. That form may be the same, although any time between the two makes them different, even when they stem from the same composite event in four-dimensional space-time. Causes get trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended teleologically, by natural- or reinfor- ced conditioning. Consciousness thus seems to take over from behavior, turning into a separate, independent entity.

In processing, our two sources reflect themselves on the other side of their tangents. The sensed environment/other/reality (source1) reflects itself in the sensing organism/self/belief (reflection1 in source2) and the knowing organism/self/belief (source2) reflects itself in the known environment/other/reality (reflection2 in source1). What-is-sensed is absolute and after-the-fact (a posteriori), whereas what-is-known is relative and before-the-fact (a priori). Reflections are not sour- ces, although both are spheres. Space is commensurable with spatialized time at the periphery and time is commensurable with temporalized space, at the depth of the spheres. Continuously, spatial content is temporalized from the periphery to the depth, while temporal content is spatialized from the depth to the periphery of the sphere. Space transfigures into time while time transfigures into space, within each of the four spheres. Each source (what-is-sensed and knowing) reflects itself to coincide with the other, by content-shaping-form in temporalizing space, and by form-shaping-content in spatializing time.

Normativity is external in recollection and internal in construction. The sensed environment/other/reality reflects it- self in the sensing organism/self/belief as fact or what-is-sensed. The source and its reflection express themselves inwardly, by external normativity. Facts are content-shaping-form, a posteriori or after-the-fact, from the periphery to the depth of being, temporalizing space. In dual opposition, the knowing organism/self/belief reflects itself in the known environment/ other/reality as idea or what-is-known. The source and its reflection express themselves outwardly, by internal normativity. Ideas are content-shaped-by-form, a priori or before-the-fact, by spatializing time from the depth- to the periphery of being.

Sources and their self-reflections interact either through behavior or through consciousness. The organism/self/belief is independent from the environment/other/reality, even while being part of it or constructing it mentally. What-is-sensed is reflected inwardly through space, from the periphery of the sphere of being into the depths, whereas what-is-known is reflected outwardly through time, from the depth of the sphere of being onto the periphery. What-is-sensed impresses itself upon the one, unnoticeably to the other, whereas what-is-known expresses itself noticeably, if the one wishes to do so. Behavior is the material basis for consciousness and consciousness the orientation upon behavior (De Weijze 1982).

If the sources of recollection and construction were not independent, there would be no need for their self-reflections. Coordinated reflection would then be no more than a certain degree of correspondence between sources, by mimesis or convention, while interaction would only be one's unnatural, cultural, reinforcement of the other, by prejudice towards enemies and cronyism towards friends. Dualism would not be needed, as one source ends up like the other, in Post-Modern monism. However, independence means that one source cannot be reduced to the other.

Content is what-is-sensed and what-is-known or facts and ideas, springing "here" in space that is to be temporalized, and deposited "now" in time that has been spatialized, as we process it. Content always correspond to itself, across the tangent, and it does not necessarily correspond to the opposite source's content although it should, to stay on track of truth. It shapes form in one source and reflection, recollecting, while form shapes content in the opposite source and reflection, constructing. It then travels from one source to the other and back again, through the reflections, if and when truth between one source and the opposite source's reflection is sought. Content from "here and now" will be embedded "there and then".

Sources and their self-reflections always share particular points in space or time at the peripheries of their spheres, as they connect, "here" in recollection (sensing what-is-sensed) and "now" in construction (knowing what-is-known). Where and when these points change their relative positions in space-time, a flat surface or field unfolds in experience or cultural history. This is a horizon of all "heres" and "nows". "Here" and "now" are naturally connected, except where or when we are processing their contents, by temporalizing space of what-is-sensed (facts) and spatializing time of what-is-known (ideas).

Content (what-is-sensed or what-is-known) is picked up "here" in recollection and deposited "now" in construction, by form (sensing or knowing), between sources and their self-reflections. Content that is sensed, or facts, is processed "here", by temporalization of space, content-shaping-form or behavior conditioning consciousness. Content that is known, or ideas, is processed "now", by spatialization of time, form-shaping-content or consciousness conditioning behavior.

Space and time, or "here" and "now", are separately recollected and constructed, to reunite again as "here and now". If possible, the self-reflection of one source coincides with the other source. The source of recollection, that is the content of space, what-is-sensed or facts, coincides with the self-reflection of the source of construction, the content of time, what-is-known or ideas, in the environment/other/reality, while the source of construction, that is the form of time or knowing, coincides with the self-reflection of the source of recollection, the form of space or sensing, in the organism/self/belief itself.

The organism/self/belief is shaped by-, and shaping, the environment/other/reality, just like objects in space-time. Recollection and construction temporalize towards-, and spatialize away from depth. Space and time, processed separately, can reunite by opposing sources and reflections. Contents separated for processing, can coincide, as facts or what-is-sensed, recollected from material space, and ideas or what-is-known, constructed from immaterial time, reunited "here and now".

Temporalized space at the depth of the source and its reflection in recollection, is commensurable with real time at the depth of the source and reflection in construction, through consciousness, to coincide with it. Spatialized time at the periphery of the source and reflection in construction, is commensurable with real space at the periphery of the source and reflection in recollection, through behavior, to coincide with it. Therefore, consciousness and behavior are reuniting space and time.

The sources connect the "here" in recollection and the "now" in construction. What-is-sensed and knowing, our two sources, thus proceed in lockstep. The sources' self-reflections, sensing and what-is-known, must be free to roam across their sources. Recollection (sensing what-is-sensed) and construction (knowing what-is-known) differ in how their sources and self-reflections interact, by looking either for "theres" or for "thens" to coincide and reunite "there and then" with the other source and "here and now" with the other source's self-reflection, driven by naturally- or culturally reinforced conditioning.

Reflections roaming across their sources, do need memory, for sensing to move around what-is-sensed in recollection and for what-is-known to move around knowing in construction. They can roam or move in any direction across the periphery of the sphere, back to anywhere they came from, by using memory of any physical or mental move that was made, from "here and now" to "there and then" or even to "there" in recollection and, separately, "then" in construction.


The organism/self/belief cannot sense or know the environment/other/reality in itself (Kant's "Ding an sich"). What can only be sensed, cannot be known, and what can only be known, cannot be sensed. Sources and reflections condition content, from the periphery to the depths; sensing what-is-sensed (recollection) temporalizes space while knowing what-is-known (construction) spatializes time. Conditioned content is trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed or intended.

We transition from being dependent to being autonomous and independent by conditioning the environment/other/reality, as content, into the organism/self/belief. The help and support we first needed, is slowly phased out until we stand on our own feet. Content that was conditioned, is now used internally to predict what will happen, before it actually does (a priori). Independence is now a tool in the search for truth. True is what could be predicted and was independently confirmed, without the use of physical power or dominance and submission. Predictions or hypotheses may apply to more or (far) less familiar situations and they may be applied more or less immediately. Also, autonomy in society may not be realized at all, if dependency in adulthood is continued as a state of dependent rejection, or fear thereof, driving people into preju- dice towards enemies, and cronyism or sycophantism towards friends (independent rejection and dependent confirmation).

Predicted content is what-is-known before-the-fact, or the known environment/other/reality as a reflection of the source, which is the knowing organism/self/belief. Actual content is what-is-sensed after-the-fact, or the sensed environment/other/reality, the source, of which the sensing organism/self/belief is the reflection. Reflections are always changing, unbound to the "here and now", and therefore dualistic. A source and its opposite's reflection always go together, at least as (sensed and known) environment/other/reality or as (sensing and knowing) organism/self/belief, even in dualism, although put to the challenge of using this dualism to find-, and stay on track of truth, by co-incidence of (reflected) sources.

Sensing what-is-sensed in recollection and knowing what-is-known in construction, are independent even when the sources, what-is-sensed and knowing, are "here and now" in lockstep. For their reflections, sensing and what-is-known, roam free, to recollect facts or to construct ideas. Roaming is to recollect or construct content that will coincide with content in the other source. In recollection, roaming happens subliminally, by sensing what-is-sensed and not knowing what-is-sensed. In construction, it happens supraliminally, by knowing what-is-known and not sensing what-is-known. It happens at the peripheries of sources'- and reflections' spheres, where interaction is recollection of facts or construction of ideas.

What-is-sensed must be known and what-is-known must be sensed, to make it effective. Reflectively sensed- and known content is taken to the opposite kind of content. The sensed environment/other/reality (source1) makes the sensing organism/self/belief (reflection1) roam around it, while the knowing organism/self/belief (source2) makes the known environment/other/reality (reflection2) roam around it. Salient content for recollection and construction by the organism/self/belief, is what is trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed or intended, about the environment/other/reality, as determined by their interaction. The reflecting spheres in recollection (sensing) and construction (what-is-known) roam their sources, in coordinated reflection, all around them, to bring themselves and their content, to the source on the opposite side, to coincide.

In recollection, space temporalizes from "here", at the peripheries of the source (what-is-sensed) and its reflection (sensing), to their depths. In construction, time spatializes from the depths of the source (knowing) and its reflection (what-is-known), to "now" at their peripheries. Temporalized space coincides with real time at the depths, while spatialized time coincides with real space at the peripheries. Thus, the "here" and the "now" are reunited into one "here and now" again, between both sources and both (other source's) reflections, like they were before their separation for dualistic processing.

Materially recollected facts and immaterially constructed ideas, shaped "here and now", differentiate multiple facts and ideas, for the next stage's categories. Content shapes form in recollection, as form shapes content in construction, across as many "heres" and "nows" as are implied at that stage. If and when the two contents (facts and ideas) do not coincide, they must roam and try again, to prevent sociosis (Van den Berg 1956) and dissociation disorder (Dell and O'Neill 2009).

figure 4


Content-shapes-form in recollection (for example sensing what-is-sensed), while form-shapes-content in construction (for example knowing what-is-known). Recollecting what-is-sensed happens after-the-fact, from the periphery to the depth of being, by temporalizing space. Constructing what-is-known happens before-the-fact, from the depth to the periphery of being, by spatializing time. Thus, form recollects- and constructs content, that we believe, will fit our world intuitively yet precisely, until we realize our dream, or we realize our mistake, through our faith in belief or in reality.

Sensing synthesizes what-is-sensed "here" and "there", temporalizing space in recollection. Knowing analyzes what-is-known "now" and "then" (both past and future), spatializing time in construction. Spatial content temporalizes into temporal form, immaterializing as consciousness, while temporal form spatializes into spatial content, materializing as behavior. Content synthesized into form is functional structure, which may be used to analyze form back into content. Levels of functional structure spread out both materially and immaterially, as layers of personal space-time in common culture-history.

Behavior in the sensed environment/other/reality at the periphery of the sphere, needs object-orientation. Consciousness in the knowing organism/self/belief at the depth of being, needs multiple perspectives. Object-orientation recollects facts from "here" to "there", while multi-perspectivism constructs ideas from "now" to "then". What-is-sensed in sensing, and what-is-known in knowing, moves from "there" and "then" to "here and now" (π), to be processed separately as space, by temporalization, and as time, by spatialization. Content-shaping-form and form-shaping-content functionally structure consciousness and behavior, either free in nature, or by reinforced conditioning in our common culture and history.

Culture and history, facts and ideas or what-is-sensed and what-is-known, can be separated from ourselves. Space and time process contents in the organism/self/belief, separately in recollection and construction. Recollection processes pure content into pure form by temporalizing space, while construction processes pure form into pure content by spatializing time. We may internalize form at the depth of being, into duration (Bergson 1922) or consciousness, whereas we may externalize content at the periphery of the sphere, into behavior. Spontaneous gestures and living expressions (Shotter 2011) could keep behavior external, when conscious control in duration is bypassed. It might spin into group-polarization (Moscovici and Zavalloni 1969, Meertens 2007) or sociosis at the group level and dissociation disorder at the personal level.

In duality of origin around π, temporalizing space "here, from now to then" and spatializing time "now, from here to there", "there" turns into a new "here" and "then" into a new "now", expanding content at the periphery of the sphere, layer by layer, and form at the depth of being. Levels of functional structure or form, in spatializing time and temporalizing space, are shaped by-, and shape, cultural- and historical content (Kant 1781, Bergson 1922, Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976).

2. Independent Confirmation


Truth is detected by one source's independent confirmation of the other. Belief that only one source is needed, is monism, as belief that two are needed, is dualism or belief in "duality of origin" (Bergson 1932). One source independently confirms the other by positive verification of what-is-known, from what-is-sensed and negative falsification of knowing, from sensing. At 0 AD, Judeo-Christianity turned dualistic by separating heaven from earth. Descartes entered dualism into philosophy around 1644 AD, by separating what was doubtful from what could never be doubted ("I think therefore I am").

Dualism is associated with theological- and philosophical Modernism, while monism is associated with atheism and Post-Modernism. Although opinions vary, Post-Modernism seems to have taken over Modernism most clearly, when Kant delivered his magnum opus on Modernism, shortly after which the French Revolution broke out. Kant's object or noumenon (literally: "unnamable") was chaotic during these turbulent times. Hegel, however, rose to the occasion by dismissing the object altogether ("too bad for the facts") and replacing dualism, with monism. Supposedly, since Kant's position was that the subject created the categories of space and time, they should no longer be considered to exist in reality as well.

False ideas cannot guide behavior. Therefore, they need independent confirmation from the facts, both as negative falsification for validity, and as positive verification for reliability. Construction must then be prior-, or a priori (before-the-fact), to a posteriori (after-the-fact) recollection, to have recollection independently confirm any constructed idea and maintain truth. If and when sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known, then sensing can also process what-is-known and not only what-is-sensed, as knowing can also process what-is-sensed and not only what-is-known, since forms (sensing and knowing) and contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) are the same in space-time, although one is material (facts) and the other is immaterial (ideas). The organism/self/belief (form, or sensing and knowing) and the environment/other/reality (content, or what-is-sensed and what-is-known) interact to maintain factual truth. The swap, of contents by forms, implies that ideas were independently confirmed and therefore may keep us on track of truth.

From the periphery to the depth of the sphere, content-shapes-form as facts temporalizing space into ideas, in recollection. From the depth to the periphery of being, form-shapes-content as ideas spatializing time into facts. Ideas may be positively verified at the periphery-, for their reliability, and negatively falsified at the depth for their validity, by facts, by looking for independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation. Contents coincide (independently confirming each other), through behavior at the periphery of the sphere, as forms coincide through cognition at the depth of being. Sources and their opposite's reflections reunite space and time, what-is-sensed and what-is-known, or facts and ideas.

Both in the environment/other/reality and in the organism/self/belief, what-is-sensed and what-is-known are compared in duality of origin, by looking for independent confirmation in positive verification at their peripheries, to establish reliability, and negative falsification at the depth, to establish validity. Once found, it is kept in memory. Recollection and construction are independent streams of content-shaping-form in the former and form-shaping-content in the latter, by temporalizing space and spatializing time. When contents are compared (facts and ideas), recollection and construction develop from behavior, at the peripheries of sources and reflections. That is from where facts are recollected causally and towards where ideas are constructed teleologically, together expanding the periphery of the sphere and the depth of being.

Content is processed as what-is-sensed (facts) and what-is-known (ideas). What-is-sensed must be known and what-is-known must be sensed. On the recollective side, knowing turns what-is-sensed into what-is-realized. It then is "what-is-known-what-is-sensed", which can be sensed again, turning it into what-is-valued. It then is "what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed", which can be known again, turning it into what-is-reacted. On the constructive side, sensing turns what-is-known into what-is-intuited. It then is "what-is-sensed-what-is-known", which can be known again, turning it into what-is-tried. It then is "what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known", which can be sensed again, turning it into what-is-acted.

By stages of independent confirmation, facts develop in recollection from sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted, if and when facts positively verify ideas, whereas ideas develop in construction from knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, if and when facts negatively falsify ideas. Independent confirmation should reliably coincide constructed ideas with facts, through behavior, and validly coincide recollected facts with ideas, through cognition.

Both sources and reflections are spheres and beings, with periphery and depth. Sources' spheres coincide with reflections from their opposite sources, if and when their contents independently confirm each other. Sources or their self-reflections themselves cannot coincide with each other, because they always are on opposite sides, in dualism. Content travels from one source to the other, by coordinated reflection between each source and its self-reflection [1]. Contents are causally- and teleologically pushed, between the sphere's periphery, "here and now" at π, and its depth. Contents' independent confirmation is positive verification at the periphery for reliability, and negative falsification at the depth for validity.

Content in recollection is a fact, or what-is-sensed, while content in construction is an idea, or what-is-known. Contents may independently confirm each other, so that their forms, sensing and knowing, can also process the óther con- tent. Now both contents on both sides coincide, in recollection as knowing what-is-sensed or realization, and in construction as sensing what-is-known or intuition. This first stage of independent confirmation pushes the slumbering "noumenon" causally from subliminal awareness, and the "phenoumenon" teleologically from supraliminal awareness. What-is-known and what-is-sensed swap, to create new forms and contents, including the old. They may coincide and swap again, creating new forms and contents as well. Realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited could create valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried, which precede reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted, before social ínteraction.

Content in recollection is a fact, or what-is-sensed, while content in construction is an idea, or what-is-known. Contents may independently confirm each other, so that their forms, sensing and knowing, can also process the óther con- tent. Now both contents on both sides coincide, in recollection as knowing what-is-sensed or realization, and in construc- tion as sensing what-is-known or intuition. This first stage of independent confirmation pushes the slumbering "noumenon" causally from subliminal awareness, and the "phenoumenon" teleologicallyintoosupraliminal awareness. What-is-known and what-is-sensed swap, to create new forms and contents, including the old. They may coincide and swap again, creating new forms and contents in trern. Realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited could create valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried, which prepare reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted, for any social ínteraction.turn. Realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited could create valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried, which prepare reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted, for any social ínteraction. - See more at:

Internally normative construction looks for independent confirmation from externally normative recollection, as positive verification for the reliability-, and negative falsification for the validity of ideas. If and when these are found, spatial content (material facts, what-is-sensed), after shaping form, temporalizes and internalizes at the depth, through cognition, while temporal content (immaterial ideas, what-is-known), after being shaped by form, spatializes and externalizes at the periphery, through behavior from the organism/self/belief. Internal normativity may also dominate and submit external normativity, when some supposedly are "less equal than others" (Orwell 1945), losing themselves in a power-distancing hierarchy, as in "the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807). Thus truth and ethics motivate intrinsically in dualism, while power and politics motivate extrinsically in monism.

Sensing and knowing are the forms of our two sources and their opposite's self-reflections. Continuous streams of what-is-sensed and what-is-known, are their contents, which these four forms are processing, shaped by them and shaping them in return, as incoming, externally normative facts in recollection, and outgoing, internally normative ideas in construction. The four forms are always present in their own positions, while the presence of the contents in four modes (facts and ideas, on both sides), depends on the interaction between the sources, in coordinated reflection, with- or without independent confirmation within them, between incoming and outgoing contents. Self-reflections recollect facts and construct ideas which will differentiate if and when independent confirmation is possible and does happen. Sub-liminal noumena and supra-liminal phenoumena shape into engaged reactions, in response to others' actions, and actions in respon- se to own reactions, through four stages. For that to happen, they must independently confirm each other and have their contents swapped between their forms. Otherwise the differentiation halts and the streams of content will no longer flow.

From facts and ideas to reacting and acting, each stage of independent confirmation adds new content to be processed. The organism/self/belief or form, grows more aware of content from the environment/other/reality. At every stage, the contents of recollection and construction renew, while the old content is included and therefore still present. Thus content is shaping form in recollection, while form is shaping content in construction. Content-shaping-form and form-shaping-content finally turn into form which is continuously processing current content, at the interactive stage of independent confirmation between present contents. Reaction independently confirms action, if and when it does, in social belief or in social reality. Externalization makes it noticeable to the environment/other/reality, through behavior. Independent confir- mation happens for both sources in two stages, thus processing contents in four stages, since they must include each other.

As space temporalizes and content-shapes-form, while time spatializes and form-shapes-content, independent confirmation extends both forms and contents. This happens in each of the two sources and their opposite's reflections, if and when re- collection coincides with construction, internally, in four stages. The independent confirmation is rational, emotional and/ or compassionate, between forms (sensing and knowing) in time, or cognition, and between contents (what-is-sensed or facts and what-is-known or ideas) in space, or behavior. Each time, content is swapped so that the two kinds form a new kind. New content shapes new form in recollection, from what-is-sensed to what-is-realized, to what-is-valued and to what-is-reacted, while new form shapes new content in construction, from what-is-known to what-is-intuited, to what-is-tried and to what-is-acted. The final stage of independent confirmation may be externalized. This is reacting what-is-acted and acting what-is-reacted, to be externalized, from cognition or social belief, into behavior or social reality.

When content travels, by self-reflection, from one source plus coincided other-reflection to the other, at the end stage of independent confirmation, action calls for reaction between them through behavior, and reaction calls for action within them through cognition. Preparing to externalize from cognition into behavior, or social belief into social reality, took place in four stages of independent confirmation, ensuring that belief was real, by positive verification (reliability) and negative falsification (validity). At that stage for the current content, reaction and action independently confirm each other, reacting what-is-acted in response to the other and acting what-is-reacted in response to the self. One's independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation of the other strengthens the other's independence to do the same.


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

figure 8



3. Constructive Recollection


Coordinated reflection [1] between-, and independent confirmation [2] within sources, or the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, functionally structure social interaction [3a] and constitute social reality [3b]. Functional struc- turing takes place either in one direction, through a command structure, in unilateral monism, or in two directions, through dialogue, exchange and interaction, in bilateral dualism. Personal relations are not necessarily compromised, within either system, although they easily are, betwéén systems. Relations within-groups-between-people can or cannot naturally trans- late into relations within-people-between-groups without entanglements, potentially frustrating people's social identity [3c], by power and politics or dialectics, disguised as truth and ethics. Monism then can always "beat" dualism rather easily.

3a. Social Interaction

Groups are formed and society is ordered, either by the extrinsic motivation of power and politics, in monism, or by the intrinsic motivation of truth and ethics, in dualism. Intrinsic motivation to independently confirm (Significant) others by freedom of choice, which is (forward) paid or offered, may be ethically or altruistically accounted for, against one's own interest. Extrinsic motivation to escape dependent rejection of oneself by dependently confirming friends (crony- ism) and/or independently rejecting enemies (prejudice), creates a power-distanced hierarchy of "more equal animals", by group-polarizing mimetic desire (Girard 1961). This structure is needed for ideas to categorically demand their own realiza- tion. Thus intrinsic motivation is altruistic at the personal level, while extrinsic motivation is egoistic at the collective level.

Finding truth within us, may be as important as finding truth between us. In social belief, within us, recollection may independently confirm construction, unnoticeably to others, while in social reality, between us, the other's recollection may independently confirm the one's construction. Therefore, within us, what-is-known is proved to be true or false by what-is-sensed, while between us, one's independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation for the other may indicate truth. In social reality then, the one's independence may confirm the other's independence, needed to main- tain his or her own independence. This is one's reaction in response to the other's action and action in response to his own reaction, made noticeable. Action and reaction at the last stage of independent confirmation for current content, unnotice- able to the other, then become noticeable, in dualism. The monistic, Post-Modern alternative would be just to dominate and submit, however friendly, telling the other what to think, say and do, sanctioned by group membership acknowledgement.

Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known, happen simultaneously. The idea (before-the-fact) has not yet been independently confirmed by the fact (or after-the-fact). Forms swap contents, if and when independent confirmation happens between them, giving rise to realizing what-is-realized (knowing what-is-sensed) and intuiting what-is-intuited (sensing what-is-known), plus the next three stages, emerging in exactly the same way. Through all four stages, what-is-sensed and what-is-known alternate both in recollection and in construction. Content passes within- and between sources and their self-reflections through four forms, transported by coordinated reflection and proven true by independent confirmation. Swapping what-is-sensed and what-is-known, then aligns them into continuous flows of alternating content.

Within people, recollection goes before construction, while between people, construction goes before recollection. It is a socially interactive cycle, in social belief and social reality, which grows larger when new currents of content emerge "here and now" from the periphery. It may only be an interaction between independent individuals reacting in response to the other and acting in response to themselves. It also may only happen, unnoticeably for the other, cognitively in social belief and not (yet) behaviorally in social reality. These reactions are content-shaping-form in recollection and actions are form-shaping-content in construction, at stages of independent confirmation, if and when this may happen, within- and between them. Reaction starts from sensing and action starts from knowing. Then, sensing is known (realizing), within them, while knowing is sensed (intuiting), between them, at the first stage. Next is realizing what-is-intuited (valuing) within them, and intuiting what-is-realized (trying) between them. Next, trying what-is-valued is reacting within them, and valuing what-is-tried is acting between them. Finally, for the current content, reacting what-is-acted by the other and acting what-is-reacted by the self, completes the cycle, before behavior externalizes it from social belief into social reality.

Sources internalize external content or facts and externalize internal content or ideas. One's reaction in response to the other's action and action in response to one's own reaction, may happen only cognitively, even if internalization and exter- nalization did happen. Social interaction may happen only in social belief and not yet in social reality. Social belief then masks intentions by not yet showing them in behavior, either in truth and ethics, out of uncertainty that independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation did not happen yet, or in power and politics, to manipulate others.

Sources and reflections feed content to form, making facts shape form in recollection and form shape ideas in construction, to social interaction, the highest stage of independent confirmation. In social interaction, social behavior may find inde- pendent confirmation all by itself, between Self and Significant Other. It maintains itself in spontaneous gestures and living expressions and it is not caused by mimetic desire. Then, facts in recollection do not need to positively verify and negatively falsify ideas in construction, reliably and validly, as interaction already is operational, externally in social reality.

Sources and their opposite's self-reflections are able to find each other directly, by coordinated reflection and independent confirmation. Then the One is the source of knowing while the Significant Other is the source of sensing, as each Signifi- cant Other's self-reflections of their sources' content. The One senses what-is-sensed by the Significant Other, while the Significant Other knows what-is-known by the One. Sensing what-is-sensed by the Significant Other and know- ing what-is-known by the One, are the One's knowing what-is-sensed, or realization, by the Significant Other, and the Significant Other's sensing what-is-known, or intuition, by the One. These positions of realization and intuition may re- mind us of the classical marital 'roles' that we may observe or play ourselves, as they are explored in socio-cultural history.

Between the Significant Other and the Self, reflections are Other-reflections, instead of Self-reflections, for both sources. The (Significant) Other-reflection is constructed by the One, without the need to have the recollected a posteriori positively verify and negatively falsify the constructed a priori, since social interaction, through behavior, has already sanctioned the relation(ship). Spontaneous gestures and living expressions keep this particular social interaction going, in dualism, withóut a dominant-submissive command structure, as in monism. Self and Significant Other are as one, having their roles of construction and recollection divided between them, reflected by the Significant Other and not by themselves. Their differentiation of sources and integration into One, lifts the Self and the Significant Other above their potential Selves.

Pair-bonding between Self and Significant Other for each is coordinated Other-reflection without the need for independent confirmation, since that is already evident: the other can do no wrong. The Self-reflection of the other source, the Signifi- cant Other, is replaced by the Other-reflection of the Other, by the One. Since the Other-reflection is Self-produced, the need to find independent confirmation between contents, is waived. Significance which should be proven by inde- pendent confirmation, is inherent and indisputable, while questions of dependency and rejection are not raised.

Independent rational-, emotional- and/or (com)passionate confirmation between Self and Significant Other is sa- meness in spite of independence and difference in spite of confirmation. When the environment/other/reality is the Significant Other and the organism/self/belief is the Self, then independent confirmation is not necessary, since truth appa- rently was found. Being someone's Significant Other is the greatest independent confirmation or truth One could wish for.

In social interaction, content travels between sources. Through coordinated self-reflection, if and when content is inde- pendently confirmed as the other's self-reflection, it starts traveling. It moves from one source to the other, and back again. To and from "here and now", at the peripheries of both spheres, facts are causally recollected towards the depth of one, as ideas are teleologically constructed from the depth of the other. These are two streams of content, alternating what-is-sen- sed and what-is-known, one phase apart in their interaction. Social content leaves the sphere of knowing and enters that of what-is-sensed, or leaves that of what-is-known and enters that of sensing. Recollection and construction are alternating sequences, of sensing or knowing what-is-sensed or what-is-known, realizing or intuiting what-is-realized or what-is-intui- ted, and valuing or trying what-is-valued or what-is-tried. Each stage adds validity to behavior (reacting what-is-reacted) and reliability to consciousness (acting what-is-acted), to which current recollection of facts and construction of ideas strive.

Content is facts and ideas. Content-shapes-form as facts or what-is-sensed, in recollection. Separately, form-shapes-content as ideas or what-is-known, in construction. Ideas are a priori hypotheses from one source, which do or do not coincide "here and now" with a posteriori facts from the other source. Both sides in this duality of origin can influence the other side by positive verification or accommodation (Piaget 1936) at the periphery of the sphere, for reliability-, and/or by negative falsification or assimilation (idem) at the depth, for validity, of ideas by facts. As long as positive verification and/or negative falsification do not happen, the search for independent confirmation goes on, in truth and ethics, or hiding for the pyro- clastic cloud of dependent rejection begins, in power and politics. Content-shaping-form in recollection assimilates the organism/self/belief, like content-shaped-by-form in construction accommodates the environment/other/reality.

The environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief coordinately reflect themselves, to bring content to the other source, while the other's self-reflection, as content, is to be independently confirmed. Internalizing from the periphery to the depth, facts develop in recollection, as content-shapes-form causally, whereas ideas develop in construction, as form- shapes-content teleologically. If and when independent confirmation happens between the contents of recollection, or facts, and of construction, or ideas, and a swap can take place, then one functional structure of relations within- and be- tween facts and ideas breaks up into relations within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, at every stage of independent confirmation, from what-is-sensed to what-is-reacted in recollection and from what-is-known to what-is- acted in construction. Relations naturally translate from within-ideas-between-facts to within-facts-between-ideas, with- or without entanglement, depending on the order of social reality: truth and ethics or power and politics.

Facts involve both sources, or people socially interacting, while ideas do not necessarily do so. What the organism/self/belief knows-intuits-tries-acts as an idea, before-the-fact (a priori), is what he senses-realizes-values-reacts about the envi- ronment/other/reality as a fact, after-the-fact (a posteriori), if and when the idea was independently confirmed, by the fact. Social interaction is to provide independent confirmation rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately. Ideas also involve people socially interacting, however not until after these ideas were consciously decided to be externalized into noticeable, social behavior. Objectivity is maintained within-facts-between-ideas, while it may not within-ideas-between-facts.

Interaction in social belief, and not yet in social reality, consists of the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief. Both sources and their self-reflections have form and content, either as content-shaping-form in recollection or as form-shaping-content in construction. Content meanders between sides, alternating causally as what-is-sensed and teleologically as what-is-known. Social interaction in social belief, between sides, has both sides recollect in response to the other's construction, followed by construction in response to their own recollection, one after another. These are 4 pha- ses in every cycle. Both recollection and construction of current content may reach 4 stages, one for every time indepen- dent confirmation is found between facts and ideas. Phases may therefore consist of 1 to 4 states and they are 1 state apart. Therefore, the interactive social cycle consists of maximally 8 states, 4 by separation and 4 by their own (maximum) length. Interaction in social reality differs from that in social belief insofar the same functional structure applies to the other party.

Two cycles of social interaction are needed to have both sources in social reality process the same content in each of their social beliefs. The 4 spheres of one cycle representing both sources and their self-reflections, are generated and shared by the one and then by the other, by reacting in response to the other's acting and acting in response to the one's own reacting. Therefore, 8 states are divided up by 4 phases of 2 cycles, 1 for each participant in social interaction, to represent other and self in interaction. The 4 phases are each 4 states long and 1 state apart. They expand from 1 to 4 states maximally, as long as independent confirmation or truth is found again. This does not necessarily happen, when social order is monistic instead of dualistic, in which case mimetic desire determines a unilateral command structure between sources.

All processing stems from the swap of forms between contents, which lines up what-is-sensed and what-is-known, for each source. From that moment on, both processes, recollection and construction, have a chance to look for-, and find, independent confirmation or truth between their streams of content. Every time they find it, content evolves to the next stage, adding the form of the next sphere to what is to become one more cycle of social interaction, while the previous front-runner form is reduced to content to be processed as well. Thus, sensing turns into knowing what-is-sensed (or realizing what-is-realized) and knowing turns into sensing what-is-known (or intuiting what-is-intuited). These expansions of current content streams in recollection and construction across the 4 spheres (2 sources and 2 reflections), are one cycle of social interaction, before currently processed content is made noticeable to the real other, out from social belief, into social reality, for the other to process it for him- or herself. The cycle across 4 spheres has maximally 4 phases, starting with the form of the current sphere, which then turns into content, as the stream expands into the next form, of the next sphere.

States of constructive recollection alternate between recollective- and constructive content and/or form. Between one and the next of these contents and/or forms, independent confirmation happens. When construction follows recollec- tion, validity is not in question, or else what was recollected, could not be constructed (e.g. what-is-sensed could not be known), and falsification must be negative. When recollection follows construction, reliability is not in question, or else what was constructed, could not be recollected (e.g. what-is-known could not be sensed), and verification must be positive.

3b. Social Reality

Society is ordered by the monism of power and politics or by the dualism of truth and ethics. In monism, normativity flows in one direction, from where the power is to where it is not, friendly or unfriendly, by closed morality and static religion (Bergson 1932), within-groups-between-people. The "sender" has power and the "receiver" does not. Over time, or as social order is implemented in roles and positions, receivers may become, or may also be, senders. In dualism, on the other hand, all send and receive information and power, which cannot be personalized, emerges if and when truth is found by indepen- dent confirmation between recollection, which is externally normative, coming from the environment/other/reality, as well as internally normative, coming from the organism/self/belief. This can only happen by open morality and dynamic religion (idem), within-people-between-groups. The difference between monism and dualism may then be best described as both internally and externally normative for dualism, versus either internally or externally normative for monism.

One adapts and loses oneself, or one does not adapt and loses the world, Hegel claimed. In a monistic world, within-groups-between-people, this is true, because criticism is directed outward, protecting the central idea, dogma or belief, which must never be questioned and always be trusted. In a dualistic world, within-people-between-groups, central ideas can always be challenged by facts or by other ideas, to detect truth, by seeking independent confirmation between facts and ideas, what- is-sensed and what-is-known or external- and internal normativity. Within-people-between-groups, relations within-facts-between-ideas never should be entangled by the same facts having different meanings or the same meanings having diffe- rent facts (Duijker 1981). In dualism, one could adapt without losing oneself, or be independent without isolation.

Dualism may easily be dominated and submitted by monism. Relations within-groups-between-people always trans- late naturally into relations within-people-between-groups. It may turn out that after this translation, there are all sorts of dissonants, entanglements and stress within the person who may also belong to other groups of any kind. To lift those, the easiest way is to simply never leave and always follow the rules of one group and one group only. However, there is another way to live peacefully, without the need to give in to monism. This is by handling the different (central) ideas from diffe- rent groups, relating the facts as they see them, in such a way that truth is maintained within-facts-between-ideas by see- king independent confirmation from the facts for the ideas at all times, so that truth also reigns within-ideas-between-facts.

Open morality and dynamic religion, in truth and ethics, guarantee that relations remain untangled. Relations with- in-groups-between-people and within-ideas-between-facts, naturally translate into relations within-people-between-groups and within-facts-between-ideas. They entangle when the same facts are reused in different ideas, relating them differently and creating meaningful networks for them which are incompatible or incommensurable. To cope with entanglements, constraints or conflicts of interest, socioses are called for in communities, with dissociation disorders, like derealization and depersonalization, as a consequence, in the independent individual members of these communities (Dell and O'Neill 2009).

Coordinated reflection enables the other source's self-reflection to coincide with the source's self, if and when the one's facts independently confirm the other's ideas. Coincidence expands sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted in recollection and knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted in construction, one stage of independent confirmation at a time. Power and politics can overthrow and disrupt truth and ethics here, by making ideas wanting to coincide with facts that it manipulated, after it caused dissociation by abusing power (derealization from- or depersonalization into harsh reali- ty). Following truth and ethics, relations within-groups-between-people or within-ideas-between-facts, do not entangle when they naturally translate to relations within-people-between-groups or within-facts-between-ideas.

In dualism, the one recollects the other's constructed self-reflection and so does the other regarding the one, keep- ing external- and internal normativity balanced. Nobody is "more equal" than any other. Content is sent from the one to the other, and received in return, as long as it fulfills the criterion of truth, detected by independent rational-, emotional and/or compassionate confirmation. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" (Kant 1785). A hierarchy with a centrally dominant or submissive figure will not be missed.

While coordinated reflection [1] appears in both worlds (the one created by Post-Modern, imminently dialectic monism or power and politics; the other created by Modern, interactive dualism or truth and ethics), independent confirmation [2] 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 only compete for dominance while submitting others (Hegel 1807, Marx 1859, Nietzsche 1901). Dualism, on the contrary, has two sources, instead of one, which interact 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 up- bringing. As we all live on the same planet, we are challenged, all the time, by a completely different social order.

Monism and dualism must live side by side. The possibility of dependent rejection by the threat of excommunication or homelessness, indicates a need for solidarity, safety and security, never minding the facts, which motivates extrinsically and politically, within-groups-between-people, by the monism of closed morality and static religion. Independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation on the other hand, detects factual truth of ideas, if and when found, which motivates intrinsically and ethically, within-people-between-groups, by the dualism of open morality and dynamic religion.

Social interaction between systems is awkward and threatening. The one is extrinsically motivated by the power and politics of dependent rejection, which people try to avoid, while the other is intrinsically motivated by the truth and ethics of independent confirmation, which people are looking for. Avoiding dependent rejection happens through dependent con- firmation of friends (cronyism) and independent rejection of enemies (prejudice), which are one-directionally normative actions to create a power-distanced hierarchy or pyramid to order or control society. It is dialecticism through which parents, leaders and conquerors dominate and submit children, followers and the conquered without their consent. It is one-directional monism requesting obedience to dogma which can never be questioned. Finding independent confirmation in this kind of social order is nearly impossible. Independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, to stay on track of truth, is obstructed as it was when Post-Modern monism hijacked Modern dualism, two hundred years ago.

Accidentally or not, cultural revolutions are associated with important changes in philosophical outlook. For example, the French Revolution and the takeover of philosophical Modernism by Post-Modernism, both happened around 1789. Dualism became monism. During the Cultural Revolution of 1968 the same thing happened, when dualism had more or less restored itself. Hegel and Marx took out the object or noumenon from Kant's capitalization of Modernism (Rohlf 2010) and dualism, keeping only the subject or phe-noumenon and not the truly critical criterion, so that facts could more easily be changed instead of being left intact, to accommodate power and politics, not truth and ethics. Ironically, dualism needs the object to independently confirm the subject, critically determining reliability and validity, while monism calls itself "the critical mo- vement", without the objectivity requirement. Thus, power and politics may easily be disguised as truth and ethics.

Both power and truth predict the future, therefore both politics and ethics are accountable. However, power and politics accommodate themselves, while truth and ethics accommodate others. Truth is detected by independent confirmation in natural conditions, whereas the will to power (Nietzsche 1901) is imposed by reinforced conditions in politics, media and marketing. When power does not match truth, facts do not matter, as they are simply changed, instead of the ideas (by falsi- fication). Power and politics, disguised as truth and ethics, make us look away from innocence that is defenseless.


3c. Social Identity

Critical case studies should exemplify the paradigm of philosophical Modernism and how it runs into the intolerance of Post-Modernism. Coordinated reflection and independent confirmation within-facts-between-ideas and/or within-people-between-groups, maintain truth and ethics as much as they can. Looking for-, finding- and looking after the truth were always essential to science, justice and journalism, if not religion. Philosophical Modernism and its dualism, were hijacked by Post-Modernism and its monism, during the French Revolution of 1789 and again by the Cultural Revolution of 1968. Facts are manipulated by power and politics, that would be kept intact by truth and ethics, tormenting those who needed the truth they always defended since innocence is defenseless3. It creates dissociative identity disorders.

If and when forms (sensing, knowing) can swap their contents (what-is-sensed, what-is-known), since they were united as space and time in the environment/other/reality, and the organism/self/belief expands them in recollection and construc- tion, then processing begins. Swapping contents by forms implies that facts and ideas alternate within both streams, one of recollection and one of construction. Since our world is both a fact that consists of countless smaller facts, and an idea that consists of countless smaller ideas, multiple ideas may be related within one fact, in recollection and multiple facts may be related within one idea, in construction. Relations between facts or ideas are installed by power, politically motivated within-groups-between-people, or by truth, ethically motivated within-people-between-groups. Relations within-facts-between-ideas entangle by logical translation from relations within-ideas-between-facts, as politics and media adapt them each to their own liking, seeking power, while ethics leave them intact, seeking truth, since innocence is defenseless.

Ideas stem from beliefs and facts stem from reality. Within beliefs, represented facts are related simply by logic, chronology or association. Before- or without independent confirmation, they may be independence biased in prejudice against enemies and/or confirmation biased in cronyism towards friends, to avoid dependent rejection by power and politics. Truth and ethics of honesty are then replaced by power and politics of loyalty. Relations within-ideas-between-facts will then naturally translate into relations within-facts-between-ideas that are stressed by entanglement, accounting for the different uses or abuses of power and politics between groups, of which the same individuals are members. The stresses on these 'linking-pin' facts or people may lead to breakage or dissociation. Loyalty may be abused by being called dishonesty, while honesty may be abused by being called disloyalty, to traumatize someone's sense of self or social identity.

The attention economy, like the financial economy, is about supply and demand. Obviously people can pay attention to one thing at a time only and there is just a limited amount of time in a day or a lifetime. Relations between facts should not be entangled by the same facts reused by different, incompatible ideas. In Post-Modernism, incompatible ideas of pow- er and politics or imminent dialectics, disrespect truth found by independent confirmation and agree on convenient "truth".

Relations within-ideas-between-facts are constructed within-groups-between-people, in social belief and maybe in social reality. These relations are logical, chronological or associative. When groups are closed and static, motivated by power and politics, no criticism and only a priori "truth" is allowed, remaining dogmatically untouched. When groups are open and dy- namic, motivated by truth and ethics, nothing is true until it was independently confirmed, within-people-between-groups. Social reality and social belief untangle within-facts-between-ideas by the application of constructive recollection.

Intrinsic motivation within-people-between-groups can beat extrinsic motivation within-groups-between-people, since mi- nority influence is strong when consistent over long periods of time and not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974). Closed and static ideas in power and politics, reuse the same facts without transparency for questioning the validity of the ideas behind them. Relations within-ideas-between-facts, naturally translating to relations within-facts-between-ideas then can only become stressed and entangled. Untangling may still be possible by holding on to truth, ethics, inno- cence and faith, not dissociating the facts from the ideas, or the self from the groups, by the organism/self/belief.

Although facts may relate many ideas, and ideas may relate many facts, they remain single facts (noumena) or ideas (phe- noumena). The organism/self/belief constructs relations within-ideas-between-facts, as the environment/other/reality recollects relations within-facts-between-ideas. What-is-sensed, what-is-realized, what-is-valued and what- is-reacted, are facts relating ideas in recollection. What-is-known, what-is-intuited, what-is-tried and what-is-acted, are ideas relating facts in construction. Between stages, content-shaping-form in recollection relates many facts at a lower stage to one fact at a higher stage, as form-shaping-content in construction relates one idea at a higher stage to many ideas at a lower stage. When ideas are incoherent, uncoordinated or aim for separate targets, within-facts-between-ideas, then input- and output-conditions for these facts may wreak havoc and halt all processing of current content in deadlock. The same is true for relations within-people-between-groups, when groups are incoherent, uncoordinated or aim for separate targets.





Philosophy Application


figure 14



Two social systems confront each other in our daily lives, making us feel awkward and unable to choose. The one motivates politically to avoid power or reach for it, ourselves, while the other motivates ethically to seek truth or avoid falsity. These two systems developed in philosophical Modernism since the rise of Christianity and in Post-Modernism since the French Revolution, otherwise known as dualism and monism. Everyday stresses between these radically diverse social systems, stem from the one's disguise as the other, entangling relations within-people-between-groups, and even more, relations within-facts-between-ideas. Constructive Recollection aims to untangle these relations, for the sake of truth and innocence.



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

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

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

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

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

Duijker, H.C.J.; Vroon, P.A. (1981). "Codex Psychologicus". Amsterdam/Brussel: Elsevier.

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

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

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

Kant, I. (1783). "Prolegomena". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Nietzsche, F. (1883). "Also sprach Zarathustra". Chemnitz: Verlag von Ernst Schmeitzner.

Nietzsche, F. (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 et Niestlé.

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.

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

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



1encyclopedia Britannica

2dictionary Oxford's

3website TormentedInHiding

 also on Academia



Send Feedback