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




Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application

Finding Truth In Science, Justice And Journalism

    

 

 
Constructive recollection is a systematic retake of philosophical Modernism, which is mainly characterized by "duality of origin" (Bergs - See more at: http://crpa.co/#14c
Constructive Recollection aims to be a renewal of philosophical Modernism. It adds personal freedom and responsibility to the view that the object-in-itself cannot be known and the subject-in-itself cannot be sensed. It is not enough to recognize other self-conscious subjects as self-conscious subjects, because this only allows for collectivism, socialism and communism. Personal freedom and -responsibility call for independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation. This implies coordinated reflection in duality of origin and occurs as methodology in Constructive Recollection. ooooo
 

   

Introduction

"How far you gonna go before you lose your way back home?"1 A gyroscope suspended in three gimbals aboard a spaceship indicates which direction is home. The outer- and inner components operate independently of each other, even though together they are a whole. The independence of parts is essential to this system's functionality. Friction would cause the position of the central element, the gyroscope, to point into a different direction, away from home.

Object and subject, which will be called here the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, must be independent, to stay on track of truth and ethics, indicated by mutual independent confirmation. The discovery of this "duality of origin" (Bergson 1932) itself, has been a foundational achievement of faith, separating the spiritual from the material, and reason, separating what could- from what could not be doubted (Descartes 1644).

Dualism was thrown under the bus, right after it had been superbly articulated by Kant at the end of the 18th century, in philosophical Modernism (Rohlf 2010), by Post-Modernism. Now, object and subject were the same and only dialectics or imminence remained, as monism. The "thing in itself", of which Kant had said it could not be known, became the "self-conscious subject desiring to be recognized as self-conscious subject" (Hegel 1807).

Basic categories of the human mind, Kant had discovered, the organism/self/belief produced itself: space and time. For Hegel and the Post-Modernists, this became the leverage point to eliminate objective space and time in the environment/other/reality. Hegel's infamous "too bad for the facts" offends Modernists who believe that facts do matter. Social Constructionism (Shotter 1984), applied to truth and ethics, is unacceptable moral relativism.

    

1. Coordinated Reflection

Space and time are not the same, yet spatiotemporally they are whole. We experience space-time, in our being, at its depths as time or duration "sub-specie durationis" (Bergson 1911b) and at its periphery as space or the plane between ourselves, the organism/self/belief on the inside, and the environment/other/reality on the outside. "Intuition of duration" (Bergson 1907) connects the inside to the outside.

What-is-sensed reflects itself in sensing, while knowing reflects itself in what-is-known. Thus, the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief, and the sensed- and known environment/other/reality, both are their own source and the other's reflection. Sensing what-is-sensed by temporalizing space into time and knowing what-is-known by spatializing time into space, are coordinated by compatible use of space-time.

    

 

figure 1

    

The two sources and their reflections need to coordinate, so that the one's form can process content from the other. Therefore, each has to move its "here and now" coordinates to "where and when" they meet. After the fact "there and then" in the past, sensing what-is-sensed must temporalize space in actual sensibility, while before the fact "there and then" in the future, knowing what-is-known must spatialize time in actual understanding.

Between recollection and construction, or sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known, sources and opposite reflections merge, "where and when" they meet. If and when this happens, knowing, apart from producing what-is-known, now also processes sensing, and what-is-sensed, apart from making us sense, now also processes what-is-known. In other words, thoughts, apart from producing ideas, now also process feelings, and facts, apart from producing feelings, now also process ideas.

   

figure 2

    

Temporalizing space into time in sensibility or recollection, by sensing what-is-sensed, and spatializing time into space in understanding or construction, by knowing what-is-known, happen in duality of origin. Once sources can produce their own- and process the other source's contents, delivered by the other source's reflection in compatible space-time, then facts can process ideas in behavior and thoughts can process feelings in cognition, independently and still whole.

Content from sources is picked up by their reflections and delivered to the opposite source for shaping form, until it can process content continuously. Shaping form takes place at successively higher levels of functional structure (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976). Sources' contents are differentiated after the fact in the environment/other/reality as spatialized time, and integrated before the fact in the organism/self/belief as temporalized space, leaving traces across time or history.

   

   

figure 3

    

Sources' contents shape forms until these forms are whole and continuously process content. Facts are contents from the recollected environment/other/reality, which shape feelings until they are ready to be internalized as cognition. Thoughts are contents from the constructing organism/self/belief, which shape ideas until they are ready to be externalized as behavior. Internalizing the external and externalizing the internal, happens interactively.

Reflection moves content from one source to the other, surrounded by the other source's reflections, which creates relations within- and between the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, or within-object-between-subjects and within-subject-between-objects. Within object or subject, relations shape form or develop functional structure, from one stage to the next, for their content. Between objects or subjects, relations are logical, chronological or associative.

     

figure 4

  

2. Independent Confirmation

    

Sensing what-is-sensed is not known (noumenon) and knowing what-is-known is not sensed (phenomenon). The noumenon and phenoumenon (Kant 1781) are lifted from subliminal awareness by knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known, if and when contents from the one source independently confirms contents from the other source, delivered by its reflection. Delivered contents shapes form together with original content, lifting it into awareness.

Original content from one source, independently confirming-, and being confirmed by, reflected content from the other source, shapes sensing what-is-sensed into knowing what-is-sensed (realization) and knowing what-is-known into sensing what-is-known (intuition). It could then also shape intuiting what-is-realized (valuation) and realizing what-is-intuited (trial), plus finally trying what-is-valued (reaction) and valuing what-is-tried (action), by anticipated social interaction.

   

figure 5

   

The pulse of social reality is the recollection of what-is-sensed, followed by the construction of what-is-known, if and when recollection and construction independently confirm each other, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, sustaining intrinsic motivation. Content shapes form as it is being internalized as external normativity and externalized as internal normativity, between the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, until processing is continuous.

Independent confirmation travels as a pulse, tonating and detonating content from sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known, from one stage to the next, to reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-reacted, in response to the environment/other/reality and then to the organism/self/belief. Thus content shapes form from one stage to the next in recollection, until form is complete and may process content at once, in return, by critique of true judgment (Kant 1793).

    

figure 6

   

Independent confirmation adds sensing to knowing and knowing to sensing. Then recollection expands from sensing, to realizing (know what-is-sensed), valuing (sense what-is-known-what-is-sensed) and reacting (know what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed), while construction expands from knowing, to intuiting (sense what-is-known), trying (know what-is-sensed-what-is-known) and acting (sense what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known).

Content shapes form in recollection and construction, if and when they independently confirm each other in social interaction. Without the need for independent confirmation, sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known could operate separately, within- or between people. They could consecutively move from child, follower or conquered to parent, leader or conqueror. Fear of dependent rejection would then have replaced independent confirmation.

      

figure 7

     

3. Constructive Recollection

    

Our genus or duality of origin is the reflection of one source in the other and the other in the one, or the recollected- and constructed environment/other/reality (source resp reflection), in the recollecting- and constructing organism/self/belief (reflection resp source). The recollected source is the same for all, while the constructing source should be the same for all, re-legating in morality and religion, by independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation.

Expansion of subliminal sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted and knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, are recollection and construction, processing content as Constructive Recollection. Expansion may be continued externally, in social reality, where behavioral reaction in response to the other's action and action in response to one's own reaction, are social interaction. Although externalized, motivation is still intrinsic, from independent confirmation.

The threat of dependent rejection replaces independent confirmation, whipping people into dependent confirmation of friends and independent rejection of enemies, by prejudice and cronyism. Power and politics within-groups-between-people thus motivate extrinsically. Truth and ethics within-people-between-groups motivate intrinsically, when independent confirmation happens between independent individuals, which strengthens independence to confirm again.

     

To confirm another strengthens independence, while independence is a necessary prerequisite to confirm another. - See more at: http://www.crpa.co/#sthash.hUwqPmhs.dpuf

figure 8

    

   

Processes occur, implying deeper processes (Gendlin 1997). Constructive Recollection occurs overtly or covertly in social interaction. The environment/other/reality acts and the organism/self/belief reacts in response, then reacting in response to its own reaction, implying and occurring as stages built up in recollection and building up in construction. The pulse of recollection and construction is their simultaneous seeking and finding independent confirmation at every stage.

Occurrence and implication require coordinated reflection between the sources and independent confirmation between them and their reflections. Reflections offer content expecting independent confirmation to happen between it and the opposite source's content. If and when it does, content shapes form by expanding it to the next stage. Sensing is added to knowing or knowing to sensing, until action or reaction is ready to be externalized in overt social interaction.

Once content no longer needs to shape form so that form can process content continuously, the organism/self/belief is ready to engage in social interaction. What occurred covertly in reaction and was implied overtly in action, is now shared as internal normativity in response to internalized external normativity. Social interaction requiring independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation is intrinsically motivating. Otherwise motivation is extrinsic.

    

figure 9

     

While content shapes form and form shapes content, there is no sharing, because processing has not finished yet for this content and form. Once it has, form will no longer change and content may now be communicated, since sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known for both the organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality are now included, at four stages, each at a different phase of the empirical cycle (De Groot 1966). Since shaping is no longer necessary to reach the final stage for the current content, forms at the outer stages now operate independently: reacting in response to the other's acting and acting in response to one's own reacting, now operate independent from sensing and knowing, or sensibility and understanding, like the outer gimbal operates independent from the inner gyroscope in the spacerocket. Noumenon as thing-in-itself and phenoumenon as person-in-him/herself remain untouchable (cf Kant 1781).

    

figure 9.1

   

Coordinated reflection between the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, facilitates independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation within them, between what is externally- and internally normative to them. Reacting in response to the other's acting and acting in response to the one's own reacting in social interaction, are occurrences implying responses (cf Gendlin 1997) at every stage.

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

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

Behavior as content, and consciousness as form processing content, recur as long as the organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality interact. Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known both dwell in as sensed content independently confirms known content and the flows of internalization and externalization therefore continue. Independent gimbals or dipoles thus constructed for all content, are unified in one system, yet the outermost layer of internal reaction in response to external action and external action in response to internal reaction, and the innermost layer of sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known, always remain independent, so that no bias will occur or be implied, and purity at the depth- as well as at the periphery of being can be maintained eternally.

     


figure 10

                       

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extrinsic motivation is generated within-groups-between-people, while intrinsic motivation happens, if and when it does, within-people-between-groups, or between independent individuals. This is a chain reaction of independents being enforced by confirmation of their beliefs, by other independents, who in their turn have received their confirmation from third parties. The foundational circle in here is the one between Significant Others.

 

  figure 11

Independent confirmation can easily be replaced by dependent rejection, which requires the presence and ownership of power. Power is in high demand, because it is associated with the expected fulfillment of practically all human desires. Money is power and money buys almost anything. Social reality is ordered or structured through the mechanism of power-distancing and the effort to reduce the distance to the next higher- and to increase the distance to the next lower social echelons. The threat to inflict physical or mental harm, would neither be possible without power, nor would the allure of externally induced self-fulfilling prophecy, where and when supposedly God's mysterious ways in the end turn out to be no more than social constructs like political correctness and positive discrimination.

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

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

The self consists of thoughts and feelings. It can be intrinsically motivated by thoughts seeking independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation from feelings, in verification for reliability, and in (hopefully unsuccessful) falsification for validity. It can also be extrinsically motivated by, classical- or operand, reinforced conditioning and self-fulfilling prophecy of both feelings and thoughts, as quasi spontaneous gestures and living expressions in chiasmic relations.  

Victims to the schism of social reality, are up against groups' prejudice and cronyism or independent rejection of others and dependent confirmation of themselves, whipped into these attitudes by the scare of victimhood or dependent rejection. Maybe that explains politically correct cultural pluralism to prevent outcasts, if not to promote the reign of the elites. True victims of power and politics long for truth and ethics to condition their social interactions, so they can confirm and be confirmed in their independent individualism.

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

Breaking from good to bad may happen unnoticeably in two ways. First, it may be the replacement of truth by power as the criterion to confirm what-is-known, by what-is-sensed. This happens when I am power-distanced or dependently rejected if I do not dependently confirm supposed friends (cronyism) and independently reject supposed enemies (prejudice). Second, it may be the reinterpretation of honesty as disloyalty or of loyalty as dishonesty. The latter may even be intentional, to put the pressure on or to manipulate. Independent confirmation should reinstall the valid and reliable truth again, to prevent depersonalization or derealization (cf Dell & O'Neill 2009).

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

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

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

Coordination between the environment/other/reality and its reflection in the organism/self/belief is needed in a healthy body. Coordination between the organism/self/belief and its reflection of the environment/other/reality is needed in a healthy mind. Independent confirmation between both sources and the other source's reflection of them is needed for a healthy mind in a healthy body, which is very good.

While content is internalized by external normativity, it is also externalized by internal normativity, as one constant flow. All the while, content shapes form while form shapes content, towards the deepest levels of functional structure and towards the most superficial levels of reduction, simultaneously. That is why action and reaction basically are sensing and knowing interchanged and why they still are most basic and central. At all levels, they only seek and hopefully find, independent confirmation or truth and ethics.

Truth and ethics fight power and politics by bending dependent confirmation or cronyism and independent rejection or prejudice towards independent confirmation and replacing the scare of dependent rejection. Power within-perspectives-between-orientations is confronted with truth within-orientations-between-perspectives, while politics within-groups-between-people is confronted with ethics within-people-between-groups. Negative, very bad recollection or predictability and construction or accountability thus turn positive or very good.

    

   

figure 12

     

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

Extrinsic motivation is either externally- or internally normative, within-groups-between-people, creating top-down relations by power-distancing (Mulder 1973) and group-polarization (Moscovici & Zavalloni 1969, Meertens 1980) by mimetic desire (Girard 1961). Intrinsic motivation is both externally- and internally normative, within-people-between-groups, when independence is confirmed in one who can then confirm independence in another, if and when independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation happens.

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

There are limits to extrinsic motivation where normativity is either external or internal, personally in disorders or socially in sociosis (Van den Berg 1956). Dialectics of Historical Materialism may use power and politics to put one collective or generation in charge of the other or the next, once the narrative is no longer supported by the facts and looking away no longer helps. Power and politics or dialectics induce fear for dependent rejection so that prejudice must occur to independently reject enemies of the collective and cronyism to dependently confirm friends, thus escaping peer pressure, excommunication or homelessness. Dissociations may occur as derealization and depersonalization, which may then be masked by acting as if nothing is the matter. Collectively and culture-historically, this may lead to all sorts of socioses across different communities.

As long as people don't affect others or do not let themselves be affected, they wear masks, which separate their public- from their private opinions. Keeping up appearances or dogmatically believing that extrinsic motivation of spontaneous gestures and living expressions (cf Shotter 2011), is all that is needed to satisfy mimetic desire within-groups-between-people, from the upper-upper- to the lower-lower classes, through power-distancing.

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

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

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

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

Dynamic religion and open morality (Bergson 1932) call for constructs like God, Truth, Self and Reality, which can be detected by independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation between the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief in philosophical Modernism. The claim that dynamic religion and open morality are inherent to Post-Modernism is untrue, since violence cannot be eliminated from dialectics and phenomenology (Lawlor 2014). Deconstruction of constructs that have always been so close to people's hearts, by Post-Modernism, only secularizes and segregates society by cultural- and moral relativism in support of power and politics.

    

figure 13

     

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

According to Post-Modernism, Bergson criticized philosophical Modernism by asking how "ideas could categorically demand their own realization". This prompted him and Einstein to be invited to publicly discuss the newly found concept of multiplicity in physics and psychology, at the founding of the UN, since supposedly only different cultures could demand this of each other (Lawlor and Moulard 2004). Allegedly, Bergson had lost the debate and cultural pluralism as Post-Modernism's ideological dogma was boosted for the UN. However, externally normative content or the object is integral to duality of origin.

When Hegel changed Kant's Modernism into his own Post-Modernism, the object was eliminated and replaced by the 'intersubject', launching collectivism, socialism and communism. Supposedly, this was because Kant had brought the Copernican Revolution to philosophy, pointing out that space and time were products of the mind. Therefore Post-Modernism is now phenomenology. However, Kant never abandoned the object and only called it unknown in-itself (noumenon), just like the subject (phenoumenon). It is a necessary prerequisite for the critiques of pure reason, practical reason and true judgment. It plays a role in the synthetic a priori because it is synthesis itself.

The object is needed to find truth and to be critical whether or not it was found, by independent confirmation. The Post-Modernists claim that Kant and Bergson were on their side (Deleuze 1991), while they weren't. When Bergson supposedly criticized Kant, he was actually criticizing the idea that "...there is nothing we can know so easily" (Hegel 1830), referring to the object as the intersubject, by asking "how an idea can categorically demand its own realization". When Einstein and Bergson debated multiplicity, the latter did not deny there being real space-time out there. He only contended that the same or something very similar was true for the subject (Bergson 1922).

The mind moves synthetically and analytically, Kant discovered or assumed and proved. Synthetically, people explore all things new, like babies putting things in their mouths. Analytically, they consolidate their knowledge. This continues all of their lives, although synthesis and analysis alternate in a changing way, for every person differently and depending on their social, that is cultural-historical, conditions of living. The older people get and the more they synthetically explored, the more synthesis or integration is necessary for the mind to stay healthy. The younger they were and the sooner analysis began, the higher the chance wrong precepts entered and caused damage. Therefore they need to synthesize their minds later in life, from the best precepts they found. These can be "seen with the brain" (Sacks 2012) because the difference is felt, before and after, when thoughts are ordered.

I have been using software to record these entities and relations for quite some time now, for this purpose: to sense what I know and still believe is true. It protects me from falling down, mentally speaking, and it helps me get up again more effortlessly, when I did.

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

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

Politics determine the economy and ethics, unfortunately, do not. On the Left, independent rejection of the common enemy is economically rewarded. On the Right, dependent confirmation of the common friend is economically rewarded. However, most important to account for, is dependent rejection, which is very bad, ethically, against which independent confirmation is very good, ethically. Although ethics do not determine the economy, the future may be different. In social media, independent confirmation is having followers for the right reasons, not those who jump the bandwagon. Ethics calls for attention-economy based on reliable realism and valid idealism, by verification and non-falsification of what-is-constructed by what-is-recollected, so that predictions are true and accounted for.

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

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

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

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

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

Feelings and thoughts are consistent within beliefs. They may lose their consistency or form between beliefs, when these are dissonant (Festinger 1957) or not well thought through. Therefore, first principles must always be transparently accessible. When feelings and thoughts are formed and remain consistent between beliefs, they begin telling stories of their own. That is where sensibility and understanding are maximized (cf Kant 1793).

Studying human behavior over an extended period of time is possible, in terms of logically-, chronologically- or associatively related entities instead of interval-scale scores on a set of (in)variables. ICT's entity-relationship model has proven its worth in designing practically every application humans use in daily life, so why not in designing life itself, without the technology aspect. Entities can be thoughts, verified for reliability and (hopefully, unsuccessfully) falsified for validity by the person him- or herself. Such independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation between thoughts and feelings is what all humans are after all their lives, if only to remain healthy and not get off track of truth and prevent- or empower what, truthfully, can be predicted. Another life is possible, and often lived, replacing truth and ethics by power and politics, however this would not interfere with modeling. Immediately, all relations may be recollected over extended periods of time, from all different perspectives the individual has chosen at one time in his life. The same entities in different contexts, if they will not show flaws which may be corrected after the fact, will converge from the context of discovery, slowly but surely, into the context of justification (Reichenbach 1949) and from being related within-groups-between-people to within-people-between-groups. Power and politics would be dogmatically holding on to one context between all others. Truth and ethics would construct (grow) the person one is, one's accountable identity.

Relations between concrete feelings and abstract thoughts in people seeking more self-confidence, within-groups-between-people, may internalize within-people-between-groups when values and norms or the sensibility towards-, and the understanding of what meaningful life is, change as people interact with different groups and no longer need or want to be extrinsically motivated. Thoughts and feelings intrinsically verified for reliability and remaining unfalsified for validity, will start to unfold as personal stories when their logical-, chronological- or associative relations keep their form in the person between groups, as in how dreams develop. 

As relations become functional or dysfunctional within object-orientations, between subject-perspectives, they can also turn into intra-personal role-conflict (cf Boekestijn 1978), within-people-between-groups. In social interaction, roles people play are sent and received by members of a community. When these are not based on coordinate reflection and independent confirmation, power and politics must be central to the communication instead of truth and ethics. Intra-receiver conflicts caused by inter-sender conflicts, would not exist without fear by one-, or lust by the other party, for dependent rejection, whipping people into dependently confirming- and independently rejecting groups. Independent confirmation however, could form a group based on truth and ethics.

  

   

  

CRPA software application

     

figure 14

 

   

Conclusion

The content of life-in-itself consists of what-is-recollected and what-is-constructed, while the form of living consists of recollecting and constructing. Living forms are the recollecting and constructing organism/self/belief plus the recollected and constructed environment/other/reality. Forms process content from recollecting into constructing. They do so sequentially or simultaneously. The latter is needed to stay on track of truth and ethics, or what can be predicted and must be accounted for.

 

References

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

Bergson, H. (1907). "La Pensée et le Mouvant". New York: The Citadel Press.

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

Bergson, H. (1911b). "The Perception of Change". Oxford: Clarendon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Derrida, J. (1992). "Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice". New York: Routledge.

Descartes, R. (1644). "The Principles of Philosophy".

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

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

Festinger, L. (1957). "A theory of cognitive dissonance." Evanston: Row, Peterson & Co.

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

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

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

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

Groot, A.D. de (1966). "Methodology. Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences". The Hague-Paris: Mouton & Co.

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

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

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

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

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

Lawlor, L. (2014). " Is it Happening?, or The Implications of Immanence". Research in Phenomenology 44 347-361.

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

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

Meertens, R.W. (2007). "The Hofstadgroep". transnationalterrorism.eu/tekst/publications/Hofstadgroep.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacks, O. (1993). "Een schitterend ongeluk (A Glorious Accident) 1/7”. http://youtu.be/wrcl9mHx_Q0?t=34m3s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other

http://www.metrolyrics.com/tryin-to-throw-your-arms-around-the-world-lyrics-u2.html u21991

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope gyroscopegimbal1
http://www.yourdictionary.com/gimbal gyroscopegimbal2

 

 

  

       

 
 
Send Feedback
E-mail: rc.deweijze@telfort.nl