You can’t be rooted unless you’re free and you can’t be free unless you’re rooted L. Ingalls Wilder
Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application
Finding Truth in Science, Justice, and Journalism
R. de Weijze - Feb. 2018
Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned.
Truth may strictly be found by looking for the facts, to prove our
ideas by independent confirmation. Independence needs dualism,
which is difficult to practice in personal- and social settings,
because invariably, power and politics, or post-modern
dialectics, convert 'seeking independent confirmation' into
'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to
fit the facts, whereas power and politics change facts to fit the
ideas. After Kant, this post-modern philosophical monism seized
modern philosophical dualism. The present article aims to resume modern dualism,
searching for antecedents in space-time, and consequents in
social interaction, to refute post-modern celebrations of power
and politics, in favor of modern truth and ethics.
When Immanuel Kant
preeminently articulated modern philosophy (Rohlf 2016), post-modern philosophy was an accident waiting to happen,
ready to proclaim the two sources of dualism, or
'duality of origin' (Bergson 1932),
to actually be one, in monism. At the arrival of the French Revolution,
Kant had published his masterpiece (1781-1790),
in which Anglo-Saxon philosophical 'sensibility after-the-fact'
and Continental philosophical 'understanding before-the-fact'
were put together as 'sensibility before-the-fact'
or the 'synthetic apriori'. The subject or 'phe-noumenon' extended
the object or 'noumenon',
to establish inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it.
However, in a terrible twist of fate, Hegel proclaimed the
object to extend the subject. As a celebration of power and
politics, one inter-subjectively
're-cognizes' the other to befriend- and dependently confirm him, independently rejecting
common enemies. "The subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807).
Thus, dependent confirmation and independent rejection
independent confirmation, which is still astonishing to us now.
Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek
Derrida 1992) declared that
existence is nothingness (Heidegger
Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche
1882), truth is multiplicit or dialectical (Marx
1867), and reality is only a mental phenomenon
without an independent object (Hegel
1807). Pronouncing Kant the 'Copernicus of the Philosophical
Revolution', since he called space and time 'basic categories' of
the phe-noumenon or subject, pretexted losing the
noumenon or object. One and a half century after the French
Revolution (1789-1799), the Cultural Revolution (May 1968) doubled
down on the monistic premise, as Post-Modernism had come around the world, leaving behind its brand of values
like collectivism, socialism, and communism. Confronted with
missing open- and dynamic dualism (Bergson
1932), monism deflects to the closed- and static
dogmatism of group-polarization (Moscovici
1969, Meertens 1980,
power and politics, or dialectics in groups fighting for
domination and submission. Thus, post-modern
philosophical monism or (phe) nominalism is wholly different
from its ancestor, modern philosophical dualism or (phe)
Kant divided between 'synthetic aposteriori sensibility' in space
'analytic apriori understanding' in time (1781:
75-105). Therefore, dualism of sensibility and
understanding is also dualism of space-time. The sensible
environment/other/reality or object recollects space/content/behavior
from the sphere's periphery or space source, into
time/form/consciousness at its depth, which the sensible
organism/self/belief or subject mirrors in space reflection. The
understanding organism/self/belief or subject constructs
time/form/consciousness from the depth or time source, into
space/content/behavior at its periphery, which the understood
environment/other/reality or object mirrors in time reflection.
The sources and their self-reflections co-ordinate
at their peripheries, whereas the sources and their opposite's
self-reflections co-incide at their depths and their peripheries.
Thus, 'spatiotemporal duality of origin' happens by states
of co-ordinated co-incidence ,
at stages of apriori understanding independently confirmed 
by aposteriori sensibility, during phases of constructive recollection 
in social interaction [a]
between social reality [b]
and social identity [c].
1. Co-ordinated Co-incidence
According to physics, space and time are
near identical in the monistic concept of
'spatiotemporality'. Relativity theory tells us, that speed and
acceleration of objects curve space and slow time, warping
spatiotemporality around them, reminiscent of Euclidean spheres.
In a sphere like that, the three
spatial dimensions of its periphery, and the one temporal
dimension of its radius, are dualistically irreducible to each
other, as their ratio π ("pi") holds infinitely many
non-repetitive decimal places.
'Duality of origin' co-incidentally co-incided space and time. Spatiotemporal dualism in the
environment/other/reality also exists in the
organism/self/belief, if subjects can be objects (De
Weijze 2017). From the outside, the subject is a part
of the sensible object, whereas from the inside, the
understanding subject "ob-jects" or "throws-off" the object,
setting it apart. The subject needs dualism, to find
independent confirmation or truth, processing space separately
through time. Space/content/behavior at the sphere's periphery
is resembling 'res extensa' ("extended substance"), whereas
time/form/consciousness at the sphere's depth is resembling 'res
Sources are space, for objective
recollection, reflecting itself in subjective recollection, and
time, for subjective construction, reflecting itself in objective
construction. Between recollection's spheres, the source
reflects itself "here", materially or causally at the
peripheries. Between construction's spheres, the source reflects
itself "now", immaterially or teleologically at the depths. The
subject manages to co-incide the time source with the
reflection, at the depths, and the object manages to
co-incide the space source with the spatialized time reflection, at the peripheries. Spatialization of time in
construction ends, where temporalization of space in
recollection begins, at the periphery in space/content/behavior,
while temporalization of space in recollection ends, when
spatialization of time in construction begins, at the depth in
time/form/consciousness. "Thoughts without contents are empty
and intuitions without conceptions are blind" (Kant 1790). The
space source and its reflection are 'empty', whereas the time
source and its reflection are 'blind'. Therefore, the subject processes
space in time, contents in forms and behavior in consciousness.
Sources and their self-reflections consist of space/content/behavior at the peripheries, and time/form/consciousness at the depths of their spheres.
reflection is phe-noumenology or epistemology, and time
reflection is noumenology or ontology. Temporalization of space
and its reflection, in recollection, purifies time from space, to enable
co-incidence with the time source and its reflection, at the depths of
their spheres. Spatialization of time and its reflection, in
purifies space from time, to enable co-incidence with the space
its reflection, at the peripheries. Content-shapes-form and
behavior internalizes as consciousness, by temporalization, as form-shapes-content and consciousness
externalizes as behavior, by spatialization. Spatializing time
enables form-shaping-content, which enables consciousness
externalizing as behavior, while temporalizing space enables content-shaping-form,
which enables behavior internalizing as consciousness.
Eventually, all current content dissolves, in consciousness when the subject
reacts in response to the object's action, and in
the subject acts in response to its own reaction.
In the object, the space source and spatialized time reflection potentially co-incide at the
peripheries of both their spheres, as space/content/behavior,
in the subject, the time source and temporalized space
reflection potentially co-incide at the depths of both their spheres,
as time/form/consciousness. By each co-incidence, subject
and object reconstitute "here" and "now" in space and time, fact
and idea in content and form, as well as the material basis and
immaterial orientation of behavior and consciousness (De
Weijze 1982). Construction in the one sphere continues as
recollection in the next, by co-ordination between-, and co-incidence
within subject and object. All content is processed, from depth to
periphery, along spatializing time in construction, and from
periphery to depth, along temporalizing space in recollection,
conveying across peripheries of space/content/behavior, between
subject and object, and across depths of
time/form/consciousness, within subject and object. Spatializing
time externalizes conscious form-shaping-content as
behavior, whereas temporalizing space internalizes behavioral content-shaping-form
The space source causes
facts, while time reflection implies ideas.
Within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts,
different ideas reuse the same facts. In recollection, sensibility springs from relations
within-facts-between-ideas. In construction, understanding
springs from relations within-ideas-between-facts. When group-polarization draws relations
within-groups-between-people closer to one extreme opinion,
likely the leader's, the same relations within-people-between-groups
are strained, and eventually turn
into conflicts of interest. To solve this, the group's narrative treats the same facts as different, and/or different facts
as the same, altering facts to fit the ideas, instead of altering ideas to fit
the facts, twisting
truth into lies, to reduce cognitive dissonance
facts purges people's freedom to
prove their innocence or the guilt of others. Options which are
left, are dissociative disorders such as derealization and/or depersonalization (Dell
and O'Neill 2009), at the level of the independent
individual, possibly widening into socioses (Van
den Berg 1956), at the level of the (inter) dependent
Sensibility after-the-fact or the 'synthetic aposteriori', synthesizes
facts, while understanding before-the-fact or the 'analytic apriori', analyzes ideas
1781). Relations in space/content/behavior, recollected
from the peripheries of spheres to their depths and from the
past (after-the-fact), through the present, cause future
relations to occur, within-facts-between-ideas, while those in
time/form/consciousness, constructed from the depths of spheres
to their peripheries and from the future (before-the-fact),
through the present, teleologically imply past relations,
within-ideas-between-facts. Thus, sensibility and understanding
within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, celebrate truth and ethics, altering
ideas to fit the facts, by open and dynamic dualism, in Functional
Sanders 1976), like the "retrograde movement of the true
growth of truth" (Bergson
1922), while the same within-groups-between-people and
within-people-between-groups, celebrate power and politics, altering facts to
dogmatically fitting their narrative by closed and static monism,
in Structural Functionalism (Parsons
The spatial- and temporal organism/self/belief or subject interacts with the
spatial- and temporal environment/other/reality or object. The
space source and its reflection co-ordinate "here" in
recollection, and co-incide with the time reflection and its source,
co-ordinating (or synchronizing) "now" in construction,
"here and now" in space and time, content and form, as well as behavior and
consciousness. The space source and time reflection, "not here
now", must also be trusted, expected, presumed,
predicted, believed, and intended, for the space reflection and time
source to process it.
Space is temporalized in recollection, and time is
spatialized in construction, to bridge the spatiotemporal
divide. Both spheres of the subject and both of the object
co-incide, "here and now".
All other locations at the peripheries and moments at the radii
(in all directions except one) of the spheres, have behavioral content
and/or conscious form attached
to them, extending either towards- or from the depths of the spheres.
The "here and now" relates to all the other "theres and
thens", all of which have conducted, or do currently conduct, their
own "here and now".
For recollection, "now" in
time is invariable, while "here" in space varies, from "there"
on one side to "there" on the other, and for construction, "here" in
space is invariable, while "now" in time varies, from "then" in
the past to "then" in the future. Co-varying relations between variables and/or
invariables functionally structure recollection
within-facts-between-ideas, from all "theres and thens"
intrapolated to the one "here and now",
and construction within-ideas-between-facts, from
the one "here and now" extrapolated to all "theres and thens"
in cultural history. Relations functionally structure
entities, as the space reflection subliminally co-ordinates the
space source in recollection, and the time source supraliminally
co-ordinates the time reflection in construction. They
are constituting the object, or
the spatial- and temporal environment/other/reality, including the
subject, or the spatial- and temporal organism/self/belief, both
sources of which need to co-incide with their opposite's
self-reflections, to be trusted, expected, presumed, predicted,
believed and intended, like in Kant's 'transcendental idealism',
'sensibility before-the-fact', or the 'synthetic apriori'.
2. Independent Confirmation
We can hardly do without recognition, as it
makes us feel stronger. Recognition is organized by social
interaction into social reality. It can be taken away as a
punishment for not 're-cognizing' power and politics,
encouraging us to avoid dependent rejection, and warning us
against seeking independent confirmation. Puritans do not
're-cognize' or compliment each other, except for the word of
third option is letting truth speak for itself, as 'things-in-themselves',
or 'particular material bodies'
1959), including rationality, emotionality, or compassion, only shared
appear to the one, as they do to the other, as to everybody, by
independent confirmation. Thus, nature precludes abusive nurture,
like subject-mediated 're-cognition', internalism, favoritism,
nepotism, or cronyism. Just a nod should be enough, a smile, or
looks out of one's eyes. The
organism/self/belief should not dissociate from the environment/other/reality,
which should independently confirm one's belief-system and keep
one on track of truth. 'Re-cognition' must be based on objective
independence, as one earns- and pays attention in everyday
life's attention economy.
The object was irrelevant,
Hegel claimed, opposing Kant. The thing-in-itself was
clear to him, and not opaque, as he stated that the object was
really the subject
itself, dismissing Kant's foundational dualistic premise. If facts
would not fit ideas, it was “too bad for the facts”, as
power and politics changed them to 're-cognize' ideas. For Kant, the
object or 'noumenon' was the 'unnamable'
thing-in-itself, establishing intersubjectivity
between subjects referring to it. For Hegel, intersubjectivity
was the way one subject should dependently confirm (or ‘re-cognize’)
another, independently rejecting nonconformists. By literally
‘re-cognizing’ another person, “the subject goes into the world and loses
himself, or [else] he goes into himself and loses the world”.
To nurture one's self-consciousness, Hegel deemed selective reciprocity for 're-cognition'
necessary. Thus, to Kant the subject or 'phe-noumenon'
extended the object or 'noumenon', in modern philosophical dualism,
while to Hegel the object, by intersubjective 're-cognition', extended the subject, in post-modern
philosophical monism. An underhanded change, cutting in half one
of the greatest works in philosophy.
Founded on intersubjectivity, phe-noumenological monism
paints cultural reality
as a set of social constructs (Schütz 1945,
and Luckman 1966). We may wonder, whether such intersubjectivity
leaves room for independent confirmation, as independence needs
dualism, which is difficult to apply in social- and personal
settings, while power and politics invariably turn one's efforts to
seek independent confirmation into anxiousness to avoid dependent rejection,
dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting
enemies. Power and politics
change facts to fit the ideas, when they treat different facts as if they
were the same, or the same facts as if they were different. In social reality, when voters
demonstrate behavioral contagion (Wheeler 1966),
votes cannot be interpreted as independent confirmations. Truth and
ethics' intrinsic motivation to seek independent confirmation should
not be confused with power and politics' extrinsic motivation to
avoid dependent rejection, through gatekeepers' requests to first 're-cognize'
them, thereby polarizing the minds of group-members. Truth
and ethics change ideas to fit facts, not change facts to fit ideas.
In truth and ethics, if and
when sources and their opposite's reflections are positioned to
independently confirm each other, sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known.
As a result, both forms, or sensing and
knowing, can process both contents, or what-is-sensed and
what-is-known, which allows contents to copy-and-swap forms, between
recollection and construction. Emerging from subconsciousness as
different material- and immaterial substances, 'knowing what-is-sensed' or realization, and 'sensing
what-is-known' or intuition, use the new forms to
process the old ones, reduced to contents. Copying-and-swapping
multiple times, forms generate streams of content as well, relative to form,
within- and between object and subject. To- and from peripheries and
depths of spheres, two extending streams spatialize time, shape content, and externalize
as behavior, before- and after they temporalize space, shape form,
and internalize as consciousness. The one stream, in recollection,
keeps adding new forms copied-and-swapped from construction, while
the other stream keeps adding new forms copied-and-swapped from
Intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, to
seek independent confirmation, modern dualism parts subject and
object. Space, subliminally sensing what-is-sensed, or external
normativity in recollection, may co-incide with time,
supraliminally knowing what-is-known, or internal normativity in
construction. As a result, within each sphere, in recollection,
space can temporalize, content shape form, and behavior
internalize as consciousness, while in construction, time can
spatialize, form shape content, and consciousness externalize as
behavior. Co-incidence and independent confirmation may recur at the next stage, 'inter-liminally', in the subject between forms and in the object between contents. By contrast, extrinsically motivated by power and
politics, in post-modern monism, the subject ignores the object (Hegel
1807). Internal normativity is sent from the top-, while
external normativity is received at the bottom of the hierarchy, as
roles (cf. Boekestijn
1978), by dependent confirmation, to gain selective
reciprocity for protégés at the top, independent rejection executed
at the bottom, and class
warfare about sharing power and politics in between.
Co-incidence and independent
confirmation occur again at the higher stages, if and when the reliability of current contents, and the validity of current forms,
are robust enough, between the contents (this time what-is-realized
and what-is-intuited instead of what-is-sensed and what-is-known),
and between the forms (this time realizing and intuiting instead of
sensing and knowing). They emerge as (1) 'valuing
what-is-valued', or 'intuiting what-is-realized' ('sensing
what-is-known' merged with 'knowing what-is-sensed', or 'sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed') in recollection and (2) 'trying
what-is-tried', or 'realizing what-is-intuited' ('knowing
what-is-sensed' merged with 'sensing what-is-known', or 'knowing
what-is-sensed-what-is-known') in construction. If reliability and
validity then are still robust enough to copy-and-swap forms,
extending substances within- and between subject and object, it
reappears, between valuing and trying, to emerge as 'trying what-is-valued', or
'reacting what-is-reacted', and 'valuing what-is-tried', or 'acting
what-is-acted'. Newly copied forms occur, while old forms are reduced to new contents, extending old
(what-is-sensed) and ideas (what-is-known), like white swans and "white
swans", are proexamples of each other (Corcoran
2005). Contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) can then copy-and-swap forms (sense and know),
to emerge as realizing ('know what-is-sensed') white swans, and
intuiting ('sense what-is-known') "white swans". Realizing
counterexamples, like black swans, falsifies intuiting and halts processing.
The proexamples make contents (what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or
what-is-realized, and what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or
what-is-intuited) copy-and-swap forms (realize and intuit), to
emerge as valuing ('intuit what-is-realized') and trying ('realize what-is-intuited').
counterexamples falsifies trying and halts processing. Proexamples make contents
(what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or what-is-valued, and
what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or what-is-tried)
copy-and-swap forms (value and try), to socially interact as
what-is-valued') and acting ('value
what-is-tried'). Therefore, the refining of "white swans" increases, every
time a fact can independently confirm an idea.
If one acts, one values
what-is-tried; if one tries, one realizes what-is-intuited; and
if one intuits, one senses what-is-known. Moreover, if one
reacts, one tries what-is-valued; if one values, one intuits
what-is-realized; and if one realizes, one knows what-is-sensed.
Recollection, represented by the latter
sequence, needs to sanction construction, represented by the former sequence,
for the next stage of independent confirmation to be reached, and
for contents (both what-is-sensed or fact, and what-is-known or idea) to
keep their meaning. The
meaning is kept in time/form/consciousness for construction, and
in space/content/behavior for recollection. The meaning is about trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief and
intent, fought over by truth and ethics on the one side, versus power and politics
on the other. The power of the latter practically always makes
it win. Power
follows from politics, or Marx'/Hegel's dialectics, as
one group of people dominates and submits another. Group
formation is frequently associated with group-polarization, or
avoiding dependent rejection by dependently confirming friends,
and/or by independently rejecting enemies.
At the highest stage of processing current
content, 'trying what-is-valued', or reacting, and 'valuing
what-is-tried', or acting, emerge as social interaction between
subject and object. The subject, or the organism/self/belief,
has built trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief, and
intent for current content, as 'sensibility before-the-fact' or the
'synthetic apriori', and is now exchanging it with other subjects,
in social interaction. Internalized external normativity, or
behavior internalized as consciousness, cannot be responded to
by externalized internal normativity, or consciousness externalized as behavior,
until the subject's internal normativity has been independently
confirmed, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately, by
the object's external normativity, or that of the
environment/other/reality. The subject's action before-the-fact "detonates" in response
its own reaction after-the-fact
(in response to the other's action). Thus, a social cycle appears, as
one reacts in response to the other's action, and acts in
response to one's own reaction, succeeded by the other's reacting
in response to one's action, and finally acting in response to
his own reaction.
Recollection and construction take place in the sensing- and knowing
subject, as well as in the sensed- and known object. Thus, constructive
recollection happens in the subject, between forms, and in
the object, between contents (facts and ideas). The self-reflections
of the sources co-incide with their opposite sources, if and when recollection independently confirms
construction, in the subject by negative falsification for validity, and
in the object by positive verification for reliability. If and when independent confirmation
has happened, contents can copy-and-swap
forms. The new forms in recollection and construction process
old-forms-reduced-to-contents, extending the old- with new contents, at a higher level of functional structure, or stage of
independent confirmation. At the highest stage, recollection and
construction positioned themselves in social reality, where subject and
object publicly interact, being noticeable to each other. Thus, they
externalize as behavior in construction, while they internalize as
consciousness in recollection, between time/form/consciousness at
the depth-, and space/content/behavior at the periphery of each of
subject and object are like self-representations between subjects,
in social interaction. In modern dualism, the object's
source reflects itself in the subject, whereas the
subject's source reflects itself in the object. Truth and ethics
motivate each subject intrinsically, to seek and find
independent confirmation. One truly represents her- or himself in the other,
as the other truly represents him- or herself in the one, by means
rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation.
Independent individuals are still represented, if they do not
presently represent themselves. In post-modern monism,
representations are of an entirely different disposition, as power and politics
motivate extrinsically, to avoid dependent rejection from the group,
're-cognizing' the other as a friend, through dependent confirmation
(cronyism), or as an enemy, through independent rejection (prejudice), both
of which call for reciprocity, since 're-cognition' allegedly leads to
self-consciousness (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867).
Thus, power-distancing grows hierarchy, increasing distance to
those below- and decreasing it to those above oneself (Mulder
3. Constructive Recollection
After religion and philosophy, physical science appears
as spatiotemporality can be either ontologically material or epistemologically immaterial.
Knowing what-is-known before-the-fact ought to be independently
confirmed, in whichever way, rationally, emotionally and/or
compassionately, by sensing what-is-sensed after-the-fact. If and
when that is our goal, truth and ethics are on our side. However,
seeking independent confirmation often is underhandedly replaced by
avoiding dependent rejection. Instead of truth and ethics, power and
politics then control social order. Politics accumulate power, to
'bulldoze' all the facts, to 'prove' or self-fulfill an idea, which
ought to be trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed or
intended, to then be independently confirmed by the facts. At
present, by constructive recollection, social
between the sensing- and knowing subject, as well as between the
sensed- and known object,
may construct social reality [3b]
and recollect social identity [3c],
if modern philosophical dualism is free to develop, not
being dialectically dominated and submitted by agents of post-modern
3a. Social Interaction
Normativity between socially interacting,
independent individuals, is different from normativity between
group-members. By individually seeking
independent confirmation, external normativity in
recollection determines the truth of internal normativity in construction,
and by collectively avoiding dependent rejection external normativity received from superiors,
is separated from internal
normativity sent to inferiors. Individually, truth does not change
from within-facts-between-ideas to within-ideas-between-facts, or
from within-people-between-groups to within-groups-between-people.
Freedom of choice is offered or forwarded to whom deserves it.
Collectively, group-polarization develops untruth from within-groups-between-people
to within-people-between-groups, and from
within-ideas-between-facts to within-facts-between-ideas. In other
words, collectively, facts are turned and twisted, to fit the
narrative, not allowing anyone to prove guilt or (one's own) innocence.
Thus, normative rationality (Habermas 1982, 1991)
for independent individuals and for 'dependently confirming friends'
and/or 'independently rejecting enemies', are not alike.
Social interaction between subject and
object, or forms and contents, causes relations to occur
within-facts-between-ideas, as space temporalizes, content-shapes-form,
and behavior internalizes as consciousness, in recollection, whereas
it implies relations within-ideas-between-facts, as time
spatializes, form-shapes-content, and consciousness externalizes as
behavior, in construction, before independent confirmation has forms
copies-and-swapped. While facts-relate-ideas in recollection, and ideas-relate-facts in construction,
swapped forms continue to process old contents, extending
what-is-sensed (facts) and what-is-known (ideas). Recollection and
construction look for
coordinated co-incidence and independent confirmation at successive
stages, or sensing/realizing/valuing/reacting in recollection, and
knowing/intuiting/trying/acting in construction, at which moments
contents copy-and-swap new forms, to replace old forms, reducing
those to contents. Swapping forms, at all stages of independent
confirmation, alternates states of recollection and construction.
Thus, form-plus-contents emerge into higher-stage substances, in
both the subject and the object.
Contents are conveyed from one source to the other,
by the sources' self-reflections, seeking co-incidence and
independent confirmation, as they go around their source's
peripheries, recollecting facts or constructing ideas, temporalizing
space or spatializing time, shaping- or shaped by form, and
internalizing behavior or externalizing consciousness. What is trusted, expected,
presumed, predicted, believed and intended in action
before-the-fact, is freed in action after-the-fact, if and when
the one's reaction (in response to the other's action),
independently confirms the one's action before-the-fact, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. The
senses/realizes/values/reacts, what the other
knows/intuits/tries/acts, whereas the other
senses/realizes/values/reacts what the one
knows/intuits/tries/acts. Thus, recollected content extends to
'knowing (by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known
(by the self) what-is-sensed (by the self)', or what-is-reacted,
whereas constructed content extends to 'sensing (by the self)
what-is-known (by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other)
what-is-known (by the self)', or what-is-acted, in a social cycle.
and independent confirmation, between sources and
self-reflections of opposite sources, produce the extending
states of substances, refined by sensing/what-is-sensed and
knowing/what-is-known, emerging at consecutive stages, when
contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) copy-and-swap forms
(sensing and knowing). Substances extend and refine when next
stages add new states, in four phases, in two social cycles, per
one interaction. Phases begin one state
apart from each other, overlapping three states, adding a state
at every stage. Subject and object, or self and other, recollect
and construct states, at stages, in phases of two social cycles,
because both subject and object, alternatingly, address the
self, the other, the other's self, and the other's other
(themselves). Between them a single, differently experienced,
extension of form-plus-contents exists, meandering between
depths, as the one's extending substance (sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed etc) is conveyed to the other
(knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known etc), and returned,
finally between reacting what-is-reacted and acting
what-is-acted, in social interaction.
All states of coordinated
co-incidence, which alternate between recollection and construction, at four stages of independent confirmation,
simultaneously play different roles in each of four phases of the social cycle
for the object and for the subject.
The phases overlap, across
at least one-, and at most three states, depending on the stage
they reached, processing current content. What-is-sensed and
what-is-known, by the subject and the object, should be the same, in social interaction.
What-is-sensed is included in what-is-realized, what-is-valued,
and what-is-reacted, like what-is-known is included in what-is-intuited, what-is-tried and what-is-acted,
through social interaction. Even though the states are the same, and happen at the
same time, phases containing the states begin and end one
state apart, while they follow each
other through the social cycle.
Therefore, each state represents four separate phases, at
four separate locations, playing a different role in each of
them. The states of reduced forms, which are now contents, either
are facts (what-is-sensed) or ideas
(what-is-known), identical in
all phases, determining the logic and logistics of social
The four states per phase,
in four phases per
cycle, in two cycles per interaction between subject and
object, address self and other, integrated logically and logistically. Phases repeat themselves and overlap each other,
starting and finishing one state of separation, from (1) the
self in recollection responding to the other's self in
construction, to (2) the self in construction responding to the
self in recollection, to (3) the other's other in recollection
responding to the self in construction, to (4) the other's self
in construction responding to the other's other in recollection.
Independent confirmation takes place, contents copy-and-swap
forms for more refined substances to emerge, whereas each state
plays roles in four separate phases at once. Contents processed
to find independent confirmation, are taken from previous
phases, handed over across states separating phases, to
following ones. The first cycle of four phases applies to states
and stages of recollection and construction per the subject,
addressing self and other, and the second cycle applies to
states and stages of recollection and construction per the
object, addressing the other's self and the other's other, as well.
In social interaction
between object and subject, or other and self, both have
their own source and their own self-reflection, in the
other, as well as the other's reflection from the other's
source, in themselves. If and when independent confirmation
happens, they have their forms (sensing and knowing)
copied-and-swapped by their contents (what-is-sensed and
what-is-known) as well, to convey substance
(form-plus-contents) from the one's depth, through both
peripheries, to the other's. There, independent confirmation
hopefully repeats itself, to continue social interaction.
One's recollection, independently confirming one's
construction, independently confirms the other's
construction likewise, if the one's construction matches the
other's recollection, consciousness externalizing as
behavior in the one, and behavior internalizing as
consciousness in the other (like time spatializing and space
temporalizing, or form-shaping-content and
content-shaping-form). Independent rational-, emotional-,
and/or compassionate confirmation is shared in social
interaction, positively verified for reliability, in the
object, while negatively falsified for validity, in the
3b. Social Reality
Social reality insists on social recognition, personally or collectively.
At the personal level "an objective, rationally necessary and
unconditional principle that we must always follow, despite any
natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary” (Johnson
& Cureton 2016), was Kant's Categorical Imperative,
instructing the autonomous individual to “act only according to that
maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law” (Kant
1785). This is the 'synthetic apriori', 'sensibility
before-the-fact', what is trusted, expected, presumed,
predicted, believed and intended. 'Sensibility
after-the-fact' independently confirms 'understanding
before-the-fact', to establish inter-subjectivity between the subjects
referring to it, recognizing the object. Underhandedly, literally 're-cognizing'
one subject by another took over, dependently confirming friends and
independently rejecting enemies, "to boost one's self-consciousness", "to go into the
world and lose oneself", and not "to go into oneself and
lose the world" (Hegel
1807). Power and politics' only 're-cognizing' the
subject ended truth and ethics' only recognizing the object.
Power and politics change facts (what-is-sensed), to fit the ideas,
while truth and ethics change ideas (what-is-known), to fit the facts.
Facts relate ideas (within-facts-between-ideas), as ideas relate
facts (within-ideas-between-facts). If facts are used in one idea, and reused in another,
relations within-facts-between-ideas may entangle, for instance if a
single fact is treated as multiple, or multiple facts are as single,
abusing independent confirmation. Also,
groups relate people and people relate groups. If people belong to one group,
and to another,
relations may entangle, for instance by conflicts of interest. Power and politics motivate extrinsically to avoid dependent rejection,
by threats of excommunication or homelessness, within-groups-between-people
and, by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups. Truth and ethics motivate intrinsically
by finding independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation,
in recollection or within-facts-between-ideas and in
construction or within-ideas-between-facts. Closed- and static power
and politics replacing open- and dynamic truth and ethics (Bergson 1932),
do entangle people's relations.
Consciously or not, we seek
loyalty in power and politics, or honesty in truth and ethics. Power and politics make
us (inter) dependent, if we avoid dependent rejection from the group
by excommunication or homelessness. Independent rejection of
(the leader's) enemies and/or dependent
confirmation of (his) friends, out of loyalty, trigger selective reciprocity and access to
privilege. Truth and ethics, on the other hand, call for independence,
letting reality independently
confirm our beliefs, rationally, emotionally, and/or
compassionately. The object establishes inter-subjectivity
between subjects referring to it, and independent confirmation,
them as honest and independent individuals, conditioned by reality
alone. Independence cannot do without dualism, which is
difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, as power
and politics invariably turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding
dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change the ideas to fit the
facts, while power and politics change the facts to fit the ideas.
relations entangled within-ideas-between-facts turn up
within-facts-between-ideas like stress and dissociation.
Truth is understanding, 'knowing "now"
what-is-known' or ideas, before-the-fact in construction, proven by
independent confirmation from sensibility, 'sensing "here" what-is-sensed'
after-the-fact in recollection, rationally, emotionally, and/or
compassionately. In the organism/self/belief, sensing negatively
falsifies knowing for validity, unable to disprove, as in the
environment/other/reality, what-is-sensed positively verifies
what-is-known for reliability, able to prove. However, power and
politics invariably turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into
'avoiding dependent rejection', between the sensing- and the knowing
organism/self/belief, and/or between the known- and the sensed
environment/other/reality, however underhandedly and subtly, by giving up
one's identity while giving in to identity politics. This creates monistic dialectics, forcing
people to loyally take sides (or leave the party) and dependently confirm
the unavoidable friends as well as independently reject the
unavoidable enemies, of their own or of their
leader's, to strip away peoples' personal identities and dress them
up in the uniforms of closed- and static systems.
Our world is cut up and mixed. Post-modernism created immanently dialectic monism
from power and politics,
after the Kantian era and the French Revolution, expanding into the European Revolutions
fifty years later. Modernism however, created
independent individual dualism from truth and ethics, before the
revolutions. If interpreted as dialectics, monism looks like
dualism, although monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent subgroups or individuals, competing for
domination and all others' submission (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867, Nietzsche 1901).
Monistic (inter) dependency leads to 're-cognition', by dependently confirming one's own people, and independently rejecting others, bypassing truth,
provoking group-polarization and extremism. Dualistic independence
trusts that there are two sources, not one, which socially interact
through any two independent individuals, object and subject, or other and self,
to stay on track of truth.
Dualistic (inter) dependency of autonomous individuals primarily
needs, and seeks, independent rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate confirmation for their own- and for every other's
To avoid dependent rejection
from a group having us as a member, when they excommunicate us or
make us homeless, we are most likely tempted to dependently confirm (the leader's) friends and/or
independently reject (the
leader's) enemies, to pay our dues, within-groups-between-people. Relations
within-people-between-groups and within-groups-between-people are
the same. Groups can manipulate people or group members by explaining
their honesty as "disloyalty" and/or loyalty as "dishonesty".
Taking the opposite side to explain their behavior, is intimidating.
opposite explanation of 're-cognition', not reading Kant any
further, eliminated the object from modern philosophical
understanding, that it
establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to-,
and recognizing the object, by independent confirmation, and turning
it into post-modern philosophy. Hegel replaced the object with the
social pecking order between subjects, 're-cognizing' each other's
Marx turned Hegel's top-down opinions bottom-up, calling it 'historical materialism' (1859),
although he did not recognize independent material objects'
If post-modern monism and
modern dualism run into each other, either structural
functionalism's collective role-sending and
role-receiving grows more intense, or functional structuralism's
responsibility of independent individuals. In monism, the sender's internal
normativity is the receiver's external normativity, ignoring the sender's external- and the
receiver's internal normativity, as if they play no role. Monism
loomed after Hegel hacked
Kant's and Christianity's dualism, splitting it, to promote the subject and ignore
the object. Since the French Revolution, doubling down
since the Cultural Revolution of May 1968, group-polarization
extremizes monism into closed and static societies, separating
people by alleged superiority and inferiority, following the Will
To Power (Nietzsche
Able to perversely bulldoze their way forward, power and politics
back self-fulfilling prophecies, letting facts it creates 'prove'
their after-the-fact ideas. This is Hegel's "too
bad for the facts". Therefore, power and politics can disguise as truth
and ethics. Power changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence
defenseless, whereas truth instead changes ideas to fit the facts.
Power and politics create
groups, held together by loyalty, as truth and ethics
create independent individuals, held together by honesty. Loyalty violates truth and ethics,
when it changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence defenseless, within-groups-between-people, and
within-people-between-groups, by group-polarization. Honesty
explained as disloyalty, could no longer enable honest people to
avoid dependent rejection. As the common enemy, they increase
dependent confirmation of friends, and are independently
rejected themselves. There exist (human) angels who offer
themselves completely, to save these souls, independently
confirming their talents, so they can at least continue to be
compatible and compete to survive in an unjust world. However,
this type of independent confirmation is not the same, as that
which is critical to find truth and ethics. Although loyalty can
be explained as dishonesty, this makes no difference to whom it
may concern. The world is consumed with desire for global
statism and sociology's Structural Functionalism, not wishing
for psychology's Functional Structuralism, which is more
complicated and not controllable.
3c. Social Identity
In the sphere of
recollection, from periphery to depth, what-is-sensed is
temporalizing space, content-shaping-form, and behavior
internalizing as consciousness, while its substance extends by
contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from
subliminally sensing what-is-sensed to interactive reacting
what-is-reacted. In the sphere of construction, from depth to
periphery, what-is-known is spatializing time,
form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as
behavior, while its substance extends by contents' copy-and-swap
of forms, a stage at a time, from supraliminally knowing
what-is-known to interactive acting what-is-acted. As substance
extends, alternatingly by sensing and knowing, to be reduced to
what-is-sensed and what-is-known at the next stage, it meanders
between subject and object, at the depths of their spheres,
crossing peripheries. Once a stage reaches social interaction,
it can fulfill its purpose, by conveying valid and reliable
knowledge, and the social cycle starts over, carried by the
opposite party (self or other). Each time a sphere is passed,
one state and stage are concurrently added, to all phases of the
interactive social cycle.
The kind of social order
which is recollected and constructed, determines how social identity
Social 're-cognition' reciprocally
avoids dependent rejection, in monism, or it seeks independent confirmation,
in dualism. Monistically created social order, by power and politics, motivates
avoiding dependent rejection, by dependently confirming all
friends, ranking higher or lower, while independently
rejecting all enemies. Hierarchy defines identity, as (inter) dependent
upon friends, rejecting- and rejected by enemies. Dualistically created
social order, by truth and ethics, motivates seeking
independent confirmation, fortifying independent
individuals' social identities,
as the object establishes inter-subjectivity between them. While
object is rejected in monism, it controls the subject in
dualism. Extrinsically- or intrinsically controlled,
reflexes are conditioned responses by conditioning stimuli.
Power and politics discipline the reflexes, through classic- and operant conditioning (Pavlov 1910, Skinner 1930),
're-cognition' of the subject in the social hierarchy. Truth and
ethics recognize all belief-systems, spontaneously, through
The object's source, the sensed object or what-is-sensed, reflects itself in the subject, the
sensing subject or just sensing,
and the subject's source, the knowing subject or just knowing, reflects itself in the object,
the known object or what-is-known. As long as subject and
object, or self and other, socially interact, they may become each
other's Significant Other, next to-, although apart from, their Selves.
If and when that happens, the
one's Self reflects itself as the other's Significant other,
while the other's Self reflects itself as the one's Significant
Other. The knowing subject or knowing
Self reflects itself in the known object or known
Significant Other, while the sensed object or sensed
Significant Other reflects itself in the sensing
subject or sensing Self. Knowing and what-is-known, in
construction, as well as sensing and what-is-sensed, in
recollection, divide within- and between subject and object,
or within- and between themselves. Significance eliminates the
need to seek independent confirmation and it engages fully with
sensibility before-the-fact, in which construction applies
recollection, being the same for the partners, while co-inciding
Between modern dualism or truth
and ethics on the one hand, and post-modern monism or power and
politics on the other, the relation between Self and Significant Other is
critical for the kind of social order, it will be surrounded
with. When there is competition valued at-, or above, the
comparison level, relations grow tense (Thibaut
and Kelley 1959). Will the Self and Significant Other
seek each other's independent confirmation, or will they avoid each other's
dependent rejection, dependently confirming each other while
independently rejecting the competition? The former option
relies on truth and ethics of relations
within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, not
being entangled, as facts are used in one idea and reused in
another, to establish objectivity or inter-subjectivity between
the subjects independently referring to them, like in modern
dualism. The latter option relies on power and politics of
relations, within-groups-between-people, as well as
within-people-between-groups, by group-polarization. That is how
subjective cultural belief-systems protect each other against
the objective world, like in post-modern monism.
Partnerships or relationships are often
based on power and politics, instead of truth and ethics.
Loyalty towards one another requires suppression of truth,
unless reality kicks in, making them fight over who is more
dependent upon the other than vise versa. "You need me more
than I need you" striggers either or both parties to break
up the relationship. This implies economic ties, as one
provides the other with what he or she needs, and vice
versa. It also implies that bonds are created by providing
what is needed, including when this is impossible. It could
be balanced out by the larger economy, providing the income
to restore balance. Thus, a "working" relationship, in power
and politics, depends on the group as a whole, and its
economy. This is completely different in truth and ethics,
where partners, like everybody else, share independent
rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation,
the former more in general, and the latter more in
particular, between the two. Thus, social identities can all
be honest and different, and do not require loyalty and
uniformity. Sharing independent confirmation is recognizing
the object, not the anxious subject.
Somehow we are all related,
either through dependent confirmation (cronyism), receiving- and
returning favors, or through seeking independent rational-,
emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for
the other. If the schemas are mixed, monistic
power and politics extrinsically and opportunistically motivate dependent
reaction-and-action within groups, changing facts to fit ideas or
as dualistic truth and ethics intrinsically
motivate independent action-and-reaction between independent individuals, if and
when after-the-fact recollection independently confirms
before-the-fact construction, by changing ideas to fit facts. If facts are changed to fit the ideas
or the narrative,
then changing ideas to fit the facts is useless. Intrinsically
motivated reactions, in response to extrinsically motivated actions,
are only intended as independent confirmations, claiming to wholly understand
current extrinsic motivation, which is improbable.
Conversely, extrinsically motivated reactions in response to intrinsically
motivated actions, are most likely to interpret the independent confirmation as
a return of favor, which it never signaled to be.
There is a third schema,
in between monism and dualism, which were mentioned above:
independent confirmation applied to the independently rejected,
offering fortitude against those dependently confirmed, paying
forward to whom we believe deserves it, or we consider victims
of power and politics. This may be truth against power, although
it is probably power against power, enlarging the (support)
group of the rejected. Our independence for their confirmation
necessarily ends in our own self-rejection. Therefore it can
only be dependent confirmation, which is identity politics,
positive discrimination, or affirmative action. Even if this
were national policy, it only stirred Marxism or Hegelianism,
letting group-polarization develop wildly, drifting away from
truth and ethics, or believing power and politics were just that
(for one's own group). It is where current racism, sexism, etc.,
stem from. Relations entangle within-people-between-groups,
which keep people in (manageable) collectives, letting personal
opinions shift in risky directions, the only ones allowed by the
narrative, never minding to change facts, if and when needed for
The sensing subject, or recollective self-reflection, and the
knowing subject, or constructive source, copy-and-swap forms if and when
forms in the subject co-incide, and contents in the object, for recollection
to independently confirm construction.
Within-facts-between-ideas, facts-relate-ideas or ideas reuse facts as linking-pins,
what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized', or 'trying
what-is-valued', for recollection, and within-ideas-between-facts, ideas-relate-facts,
in 'sensing what-is-known', 'realizing
what-is-intuited', or 'valuing what-is-tried', for construction.
Relations do generate
meaningful networks, continuously expanding their horizon, since the
facts (or objects) establish inter-subjectivity between the ideas (or subjects) referring to them,
looking for- and finding
independent confirmation. Power and politics, motivating to
avoid dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and, by
group-polarization, within-people-between-groups, disregard truth
and ethics, motivating to seek independent confirmation, preventing recollection within-facts-between-ideas
from finding a match, with construction
Modern philosophical, open- and dynamic dualism
can prevent post-modern philosophical, closed- and static monism, by
group members polarizing their opinions, through power and politics,
creating intolerant majorities. Minority influence is strong,
if consistent for a long time, not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974).
Relations within-facts-between-ideas or
within-people-between-groups should not entangle, which
happens when ideas treat different facts as the same,
to untruthfully find independent confirmation, or treat the same
fact as different, and make finding independent confirmation
impossible. For instance, in a closed and static approach, Bergson was interpreted as if he criticized Kant, asking how ideas categorically demand their own realization,
following the Categorical Imperative (Lawlor and Moulard 2016).
Stating that "by re-establishing the duality, the difficulties vanish", Bergson (1932)
emphasized seeking independent confirmation, between
the two sources, in "duality of origin" (p.79). His post-modern biographers
dubiously called it,
from a single-source monistic view, "but two complementary
manifestations of life".
Notions of rationality, emotion, and compassion,
are recollected facts and constructed ideas, co-inciding and
independently confirming each other, for contents about to
copy-and-swap forms. To achieve our full potential, recollection
within-facts-between-ideas has to independently confirm construction
within-ideas-between-facts, which is impossible
within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, due
to group-polarization, as it shifts personal opinions to a dominant
extreme, of concentrated power and politics. Independent rational-,
emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation creates meaningful
networks of logical-, chronological-, and/or associative relations
within-ideas-between-facts, reusing facts as linking-pin objects,
which expand the network of meaningful relations. Reusing facts to
link ideas should not change the meaning of these networks, calling the same facts different, or different facts the same,
driven by power and politics. Once relations entangle, no truth proves
one's innocence, facts isolate from their meaning, and people
isolate from their identity, stoking up traumatic stress, as well as tormenting dissociation1.
Underhand inversion of 'seeking independent
confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection' by the
adversary of modern philosophical dualism, post-modern
philosophical monism, is a celebration of power, rather than
truth. To resume modern dualism, its antecedents were traced to
Kant and physics, in the concept of 'spatiotemporality', as
temporal understanding is sanctioned by spatial sensibility
through the co-ordinated co-incidence of space and time,
processed by the subject and/or the object, while the
consequents of dualism were explored in a model of social
interaction, constituting co-ordinated co-incidence, independent
rational-, emotional, and/or compassionate confirmation, and
constructive recollection within- and between people. Truth and
ethics at the level of the independent individual, who alters
ideas to fit the facts in open- and dynamic dualism, should
replace power and politics at the level of the dependent
collective, where group-polarization alters facts to fit the
ideas of closed- and static monism, which easily results in the
traumatizing impossibility to prove innocence or guilt, which in
turn leads to dissociation and loss of identity.
Berger, P.L.; Luckmann, T. (1966). "The Social Construction of Reality”. New York: Anchor Books.
Bergson, H. (1922).
"The Retrograde Movement of the True Growth of Truth". In: "Creative
Evolution". New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Bergson, H. (1932). "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion". London: Macmillan and Company Limited.
Boekestijn, C. (1978). "De psychologie van relaties tussen groepen". In: Jaspars, J.M.F.; Vlist, R. v.d. "Sociale Psychologie in Nederland". Meppel: Boom.
Corcoran, J. (2005).
"Counterexamples and Proexamples". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11,
Dell, P.F.; O’Neil, J.A. (2009). "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond". New York: Routledge: 750.
Derrida, J. (1992). "Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice". New York: Routledge.
(1644). "The Principles of Philosophy".
Dooyeweerd, H. (1935-36). "The Philosophy of the Law-Idea". Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.
Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107.
Habermas, J. (1982). "A reply to my critics". In: Thompson, J.B.; Held, D. "Habermas: Critical Debates". London: Macmillan.
Habermas, J. (1991). "A reply". In: Honneth, A.; Joas, H. "Communicative Action". Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1807). "Phänomenologie des Geistes". Bamberg und Würzburg: J.A. Goebhardt.
Heidegger, M. (1959). "Introduction to Metaphysics". New Haven: Yale University Press.
Johnson, R.N; Cureton, A (2016). "Kant’s Moral Philosophy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Kant, I. (1781). "Kritik der reinen Vernunft". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1785). "Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1790). "Kritik der Urteilskraft". Berlin: Bey F. T. Lagarde.
Lawlor, L.; Moulard, V. (2016). "Henri Bergson". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Marx, K. (1859). "Zur
Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie". Wien: Alfred Hölder.
Marx, K. (1867). "Das Kapital". Berlin: Verlag von Otto Meisner.
Meertens, R.W. (1980). "Groepspolarisatie".
Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Meertens, R.W.; Prins, Y.R.A.; Doosje, B. (2006). "In iedereen schuilt een terrorist. Een sociaal-psychologische analyse van terroristische sekten en aanslagen." Schiedam: Scriptum.
Moscovici, S.; Zavalloni, M. (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12 (2): 125–135.
Moscovici, S.; Nemeth, C. (1974). "Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations." Oxford: Rand Mcnally.
Mulder, M.; Veen, P.; Rodenburg, C.; Frenken, J.; Tielens, H. (1973). "The power distance reduction hypothesis on a level of reality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.
Nietzsche, F. (1882). "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.
Nietzsche, F. (1901). "Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.
Parsons, T. (1975). "The Present Status of 'Structural-Functional' Theory in Sociology", Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory, New York: The Free Press.
Pavlov, I.P. (1910). "The Work of the Digestive Glands". London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd.
Rohlf, M. (2010). "Immanuel Kant". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sanders, C.; Eisenga, L.K.A.; Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1976). "Inleiding in de grondslagen van de Psychologie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Sartre, J-P. (1943). "Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.
Schütz, A. (1945). "On Multiple Realities." In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 5: 533–576. Rhode Island: Brown University.
Skinner, B.F. (1930), "On the conditions of elicitation of certain eating reflexes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 16, 433-38.
Strawson, P.F. (1959).
"Individuals". London: Methuen.
Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.
Weijze, R.C. de
(1982). "Het gedrag als de materiele basis voor het bewustzijn
en bewustzijn als oriëntatie op het gedrag". Free University