You can’t be rooted unless you’re free and you can’t be free unless you’re rooted L. Ingalls Wilder
Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application
Finding Truth in Science, Justice and Journalism
Ron de Weijze -
Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned.
Truth can only be found by looking for reality, independently
confirming our beliefs. Independence needs dualism, which is
difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, because
power and politics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into
'avoiding dependent rejection'. The one changes its ideas and
does not change the facts, while the other changes the facts and
does not change its ideas, to the detriment of social reality
We experience our world both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, it is material and we sense what-is-sensed. Subjectively, it is immaterial and we know what-is-known. Philosophical Modernism, highlighted by Kant in the late 1700s, unites the object with the subject, as the sensed- and known environment/other/reality with the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief. Kant had noticed, that (European) philosophy had grown in two directions, exploring "sensibility after-the-fact" in the Anglo-Saxon world, and "understanding before-the-fact" at the Continent. What is
allegedly known before-the-fact, can be sensed after-the-fact, to find out
if understanding was true, methodologically or how it is
sensibly experienced. He was famous for his use of dualism and his
discovery of "sensibility before-the-fact" (synthetic a priori),
which is "understanding before-the-fact", independently confirmed by
"sensibility after-the-fact", which is what we trust, expect,
presume, predict, believe and intend.
When philosophical Modernism
developed most articulately in Kant's magnum opus, Post-Modernism was
an accident waiting to happen, to
turn pre-existing belief in two sources, or duality of origin (Bergson 1932),
into one source, or monism. At the
beginning of the French Revolution (1789), Kant was finishing the greatest work on dualistic, modern philosophy (Rohlf 2016).
Body and mind or material- and immaterial substances,
"before-the-fact" and "after-the-fact", were
considered independent. Hegel changed that idea. For him, the object
was an extension of the subject. The one was to inter-subjectively
"re-cognize" the other, literally, dependently confirming him and
hopefully be selectively reciprocated for it. "The subject
goes into the world and loses himself or he goes into himself and
loses the world" (Hegel 1807). Selective reciprocity implies
independently rejecting third parties. Post-Modernism launched
cronyism and prejudice.
About one and a half century after the French
Revolution, the Cultural Revolution of May 1968 doubled down on the monistic premise, when Post-Modernism had gone- and come around the world, leaving behind its brand of social order: collectivism, socialism,
or communism. We fail to associate the transition from dualism to monism
to this, since it happened along the way, in many post-modern trends
and varieties, for example in Roman-Catholicism, architecture, art
Therefore, even without noticing the change, it had a profound impact
on our daily lives. According to Post-Modernism, deconstructing our world (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992), the self does not exist (Heidegger 1959, Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche 1882), truth is multiplicit or dialectical (Marx 1867) and reality is just a mental phenomenon (Hegel 1807), without an independent object. Although post-modern philosophers include Kant as their "Copernicus" of the Philosophical Revolution, he never dismissed the noumenon or object.
Our two sources, according to Kantian dualism,
are sensibility after-the-fact and understanding before-the-fact, in
the original terms the "synthetic a posteriori" and the "analytic a priori" (Kant 1770).
If these may be called "sensing what-is-sensed" and "knowing what-is-known", then the following three concepts describe and explain modern dualism, directly opposed to post-modern monism,
as will be sorted out in the following. The sources coordinately reflect  themselves, as what-is-sensed,
reflecting itself in sensing, and as knowing, reflecting itself in
what-is-known. Truth is found, if sources and their opposite's reflections
coincide, while sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known. Through states of coordinated reflection, at stages of independent confirmation and in phases of constructive recollection , a cycle appears, maintaining itself through social interaction [a], in social reality [b], as social identity [c] of the
autonomous and independent individual.
1. Coordinated Reflection
From the outside, the subject
is part of the object, whereas from the inside, the object is
"ob-jected" or "off-thrown" (Sanders and Van Rappard 1982)
from the subject. Our sources are the sensed object, reflecting
itself in the sensing
subject, and the knowing subject, reflecting itself in the known object.
Sensing and what-is-sensed plus knowing and what-is- known experience
the other and themselves as spheres, one being the source and the
other being the reflection. Spheres have
peripheries of space/content/behavior and depths of
time/form/consciousness. Across the peripheries, networks of
spatially related contents unfold, as material facts or immaterial
ideas. From the periphery to the depth, space
temporalizes, content shapes form and behavior internalizes as
consciousness, while from the depth to the periphery, time
spatializes, form shapes content and consciousness externalizes as
behavior. Sensing and what-is-sensed spring from the tangent point
between the spheres, at the peripheries, while knowing and
what-is-known spring from the depths.
The sensed environment/other/reality and the sensing organism/self/belief are separate spheres, each with three spatial dimensions of a convex periphery,
relating facts or what-is-sensed between "here" and "there". The known environment/
/other/reality and the knowing organism/self/belief are spheres, each with one temporal dimension or radius,
relating ideas or what-is-known, in all directions at once, between
"now" and "then". The ratio between the spatial circumference and
the temporal radius, combined or coincided, is π ("pi"), a number carrying infinite decimal places, indicating
irreducibility or independence, between space and time or temporalizing space and spatializing time (Bergson 1922). Temporalized space is not
exactly time and spatialized time is not exactly space, although, as reflections of the sources, they are compatible. Time at the depth of the sphere or being is either the source of time itself, or the self-reflection of temporalized space,
while space at the periphery of the sphere or being is either the source of space itself, or the self-reflection of spatialized time.
In recollection, sensing is
the spatialized self-reflection of what-is-sensed after-the-fact. In
construction, what-is-known is the temporalized self-reflection of
knowing before-the-fact. Sources create their own self-reflections,
co-ordinated spatially or temporally, relative to the co-extensive
tangent point between them. These points extend the sphere spatially
or temporally, as it develops. The spatial point stays at the
periphery, where content-shapes-form, causally and materially. The
temporal point stays at the depth, where form-shapes-content,
teleologically and immaterially. The sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief grows into the sensed- and known
environment/other/reality, which it is objectively part of, although
not subjectively, necessarily. The periphery of material sensing's
spatialized sphere consists of all "theres" and one "here", as the
periphery of immaterial knowing's temporalized sphere consists of
all "thens" and one "now". To compare material- and immaterial
substances, at intervals, (temporalized) space and (spatialized)
time must coincide.
spatiality, content and behavior of facts temporalize, shape-form
and internalize as consciousness, while in construction,
temporality, form and consciousness of ideas spatialize, shape-content and externalize as behavior. The spheres of the sources and
their self-reflections expand, as their spatial periphery and/or the
temporal radius do. Facts and ideas or
what-is-sensed and what-is-known process-, or are processed,
differently, especially when they coincide in space-time, the one
causally or materially 'pushed' from the periphery and the other
teleologically or immaterially 'pulled' from the depth. This
develops facts from sensing what-is-sensed to knowing what-is-sensed,
or realizing what-is-realized, and ideas from knowing what-is-known
to sensing what-is-known, or intuiting what-is-intuited. Thus,
recollective space/content/behavior and constructive
time/form/consciousness bring facts and ideas to ever higher
levels of functional structure (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976).
Coordinated sensing "here"
what-is-sensed, after-the-fact, and knowing "now" what-is-known,
before-the-fact, coincide in truth, around π. Processing united space-and-time (or space-time), separates them by their contents or substances.
Facts or what-is-sensed, produced in space by the environment/other/reality,
are dualistically separated from ideas or what-is-known, produced in time by the organism/self/belief.
Dualism simultaneously needs material- and immaterial substances, objectivity and subjectivity, or recollection and construction. Space from the one source, the sensed environment/other/reality, is temporalized by its self-reflection, the sensing organism/self/belief, while time from the other source, the knowing organism/self/belief, is spatialized by its self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality. After processing, temporalized space is left behind supra-liminally at the depth, in time/form/consciousness,
whereas spatialized time is left behind sub-liminally at the periphery, in space/content/behavior.
Spheres' peripheries are
spatial, while their depths are temporal. Therefore, "here" is less
clear temporally than spatially, as "now" is less clear spatially
than temporally. The spatiality of the
spheres' peripheries enables them to coordinate locations or
tangential points shared between them. The temporality of the
spheres' depths enables their durations to synchronize. From the peripheries of
environment/other/reality and the sensing organism/self/belief,
space temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as
consciousness, as from the depths of the knowing organism/self/belief
and the known environment/other/reality, time spatializes,
form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes as behavior. The
self-reflections wander around their sources, sharing
tangential points, across the tangent line or horizon between the
spheres, at π, which are widening along the three spatial dimensions
(periphery) and deepening along the one temporal dimension (radius)
of their spheres.
Between one source and self-reflection in
material recollection, what-is-sensed and sensing, space/content/behavior
occurs causally. Between the other source and self-reflection in
immaterial construction, knowing and what-is-known,
time/form/consciousness is implied teleologically. Both
originate from their tangent point π. The spheres widen in the
three spatial dimensions of the periphery-, while they deepen in the
one temporal dimension of the radius. Space temporalizes, content-shapes-form
and behavior internalizes as consciousness, while independently,
time spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes
as behavior, in social belief and likely in social reality as well.
This happens after the reflections wandered and the spheres of
sensing what-is-sensed in material recollection, plus the spheres of
knowing what-is-known in immaterial construction, spatiotemporally
coincide and unite, both as forms within the organism/self/belief
and as contents within the environment/other/reality.
In a Euclidean sphere,
spatiotemporality unites space and time in the three spatial
dimensions of its periphery, reaching for depth, and the one
temporal dimension of its depth, reaching for the periphery. The
sensing organism/self/belief recollects the sensed
environment/other/reality, "here", processing it by temporalizing
space, shaping form and internalizing behavior, to posit it "there",
for the source's self-reflection (sensing) to bring it from the
object to the subject. Independently, the knowing
organism/self/belief constructs the known environment/other/reality,
"now", processing it by spatializing time, shaping content and
externalizing consciousness, to posit it "then", for the source's
self-reflection (what-is-known) to bring it from the subject to the
object. The subject's forms, material sensing and immaterial
knowing, process the object's contents or what-is-sensed and
what-is-known, seeking coincidence between material- and immaterial
forms and contents, which are place- and time holders for
subsequent, more substantial processing.
In recollection, the
source or the sensed environment/other/reality and its
self-reflection, the sensing organism/self/belief, have
space/content/behavior at the peripheries of their spheres. In
construction, the source or the knowing organism/self/belief and its
self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality, have
time/form/consciousness at the depth of their spheres. Not until
coincidence is reached between forms (sensing and knowing) in
the organism/self/belief, and between contents (what-is-sensed and
what-is-known) in the environment/other/reality, can space
temporalize, content-shape-form and behavior internalize as
consciousness in recollection, and can time spatialize,
form-shape-content and consciousness externalize as behavior in
construction. Thus, coincidence adds spatialized time,
content-shaped-by-form and consciousness externalized as behavior to
space/content/behavior, at the peripheries, just as temporalized
space, form-shaped-by-content and behavior internalized as
consciousness to time/form/consciousness, at the depths of spheres.
The spatial dimensions at
the periphery of what-is-sensed and the temporal dimension at the
depth of knowing must coincide in the subject or the sensing- and
knowing organism/self/belief, while the temporal dimension at the
depth of the what-is-known and the spatial dimensions at the
periphery of what-is-sensed must coincide in the object or the
sensed- and known environment/other/reality. If they do coincide in
the Euclidean spheres, space at the peripheries can temporalize
towards the depths, as time at the depths can spatialize towards the
peripheries. What-is-sensed coordinately reflects itself in sensing,
"here" or "there" in material space, while knowing coordinately
reflects itself in what-is-known, "now" or "then" in immaterial
time. Recollection and construction of current content basically
happen outside our zone of awareness, or subliminally in
space/content/behavior and supraliminally in
time/form/consciousness, because sensing what-is-sensed is not (yet)
knowing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known is not (yet)
themselves "here" or "there" in recollection and "now" or "then" in
construction, as the self-reflections wander around their sources,
seeking to coincide with the opposite source. To reflect themselves
only in space/content/behavior or only in time/form/consciousness,
the "here" and "now" do not need to be united. However, if they are
united, then space can also temporalize and time can also
spatialize. This requires a coordinated effort between the subject
or the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief, and the object or
the sensed- and known environment/other/reality, to coincide forms
and to coincide contents. Sources will then be able to convey
content to their opposite sources, which is either
content-shaping-form, causally from the periphery to the depth in
sensing, or content-shaped-by-form, teleologically from the depth to
the periphery in what-is-known. They become consciousness
externalizing as behavior, on the one side-, and behavior
internalizing as consciousness, on the other side of social
In recollection, the sensed object reflects
itself in the sensing subject, like in construction, the knowing
subject reflects itself in the known object. The sources'
self-reflections process content, or what-is-sensed and
what-is-known, while traveling, separately, around their sources. In
recollection, the sensing subject responds to the sensed object, by
letting it reflect itself "here" or "there" in material space, while
in construction, the known object responds to the knowing subject,
by letting it reflect itself "now" or "then" in immaterial time.
Wandering takes place from one spatiotemporal coincidence, between a
source's self-reflection and the opposite source, to the next, until
current content is processed and externalized in social
interaction. Then, the following phase in social interaction will
bring new current content for processing (at that level). Phases are
the sensing subject's responding to the sensed object, the knowing
subject to the sensing subject, the known object's to the knowing
subject, and the sensed object to the known object.
environment/other/reality is the self-reflection of its source, the
knowing organism/self/belief. They are the spheres of construction,
with depths of their
own, for time, form and consciousness. Pulled from the depth, time
spatializes, form shapes content and consciousness externalizes as
behavior, towards the periphery. As time passes, the "now" of the
tangent point in construction, at the periphery, where time
spatialized, wanders from "then" in the past, to
"now" in the present, to "then in the future". The starting point at
the depth of the sphere changes too, so that multiple perspectives
conjecture as object-orientations of
the ideas or what-is-known, deposited at the periphery.
Subject and object, or the
knowing organism/self/belief and the sensed
environment/other/reality, share a tangent point, "here and now",
where the object subjectifies its objective
self-reflection in sensing and the subject objectifies its
subjective self-reflection in what-is-known. Each turns a second
periphery inside-out and makes it wander, as-if they were the
opposite source. Subjectivation temporalizes space, shapes form by
content and internalizes behavior as consciousness, while
objectivation spatializes time, shapes content by form and
externalizes consciousness as behavior. Self-reflections,
coinciding with the opposite source, share space-time as their lowest common denominator.
At the peripheries of the
spheres, behavior is spatial content, what-is-sensed or facts,
related to other facts, while consciousness is temporal content,
what-is-known or ideas, related to other ideas. "Here and now",
facts relate ideas through temporalizing space, content-shaping-form
and behavior internalizing as consciousness, while ideas relate
facts through spatializing time, form-shaping-content and
consciousness externalizing as behavior. These contexts originate
from two sources and thus are not the same, although they can be
very much alike and seek co-incidence. Processing separated space
from time to have co-incidence, as we find it, keep us on track of
Like sources coordinately reflect themselves, so do space/content/behavior at the periphery and time/form/consciousness at the depth of their spheres or beings. As long as wandering in recollection and construction does not coincide the sources' self-reflections with the opposite source at their peripheries and their depths,
no justification of one side by the other in duality of origin is found or perhaps even sought.
Indefinite 'non-incidence' between sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known could drive communities to traumatizing sociosis (Van den Berg 1956) and drive individuals to tormenting dissociation disorder (Dell and O'Neill 2009).
The tangent line, -plane or -field in space/content/behavior and time/form/consciousness,
of all "heres and nows" or "theres and thens", between
the spheres of sources and
reflections, show levels of functional structure in contents and forms processing each other. Both recollection and construction build these structures by
wandering spheres, processing current content, as content that is
"here and now", comes down to content that is "there and then", and
vice versa, causally in recollection, pushed into the depths, and
teleologically in construction, pulled from the depths. These
contents are trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and/or
intended. As the sphere or being grows, to accommodate and
assimilate them (Piaget
1936), depth and periphery move apart, until the next level of functional structure is reached
for current content, among all currents.
Continuously, recollection brings all "theres"
"here", while construction sends "now" to all "thens". Free targets
are content and behavior "there" and "then", independent from
deterministic end-goals, where and when they end up as the "here and
now". That is where and when what-is-tonated, is detonated
again, or the emotion is turned into motivation, moving from
space/content/behavior at the periphery of the sphere to
time/form/consciousness at the depth of the sphere. This happens
both in the sources, or what-is-sensed plus knowing, and in the
reflections, or sensing plus what-is-known. The organism/self/belief
reunites recollecting and constructing, while the
environment/other/reality reunites what-is-recollected and
what-is-constructed. Even more basically, space and time are
reunited, both objectively and subjectively, after they were parted
for separate processing, in recollection and construction.
Facts are recollected from the sensed
environment/other/reality, to be processed by the sensing
organism/self/belief. Ideas are constructed by the knowing
organism/self/belief, to be processed by the known environment/other/reality. The
sources' self-reflections process the facts they picked up, or
deposited, while wandering their sources, by comparing them to the
opposite sources, to see whether or not there is coincidence. If
and when it is there, facts can be related to other facts within
ideas, as ideas can be related to other ideas within facts.
Relations within-ideas-between-facts automatically
translate to relations within-facts-between-ideas, as
consciousness externalizes as behavior, form shapes content or time
spatializes, in construction. The reverse also happens, although
hardly as precise, since one's reaction in response to the other's
action hardly matches the precision of one's action in response to
one's own reaction.
2. Independent Confirmation
tells us that we need two sources, sensibility or sensing what-is-sensed and understanding or knowing what-is-known, to live our lives
truthfully and ethically, while monism states that we only need one source
for power and politics. As a consequence, we not only have different world-views, we have two different worlds,
which unfortunately are mixed and not separated. Dualism is related to theological- and philosophical Modernism,
as monism is related to "God is dead" anti-theist- or atheist philosophical Post-Modernism. From the start of our era, Judeo-Christianity was dualistic, having separated heaven from earth. Around the mid-17th century, dualism entered philosophy (Descartes 1644), by separating what
was doubted from what could not be doubted, as in "I think,
therefore I am". Post-Modernism took over from Modernism at the end
of the 18th century, when Hegel reinterpreted Kant's magnum opus on
dualistic Modernism monistically, and the French Revolution started.
The object of our sensibilities, Kant's noumenon, Hegel dismissed, claiming there was only the subject, phe-noumenon or understanding,
only re-cognizing other subjects
inter-subjectively. Without the critical object, monistic top-down dominance and submission, through immanent dialectics, could
and did replace the old regime, which had just been guillotined. The dualistic view
had been totally different. One source should confirm the other independently or without bias,
if it could, to bring truth to light and follow it. If and when possible, one source independently confirms the other, as what-is-sensed (source1) positively verifies what-is-known (reflection2), and sensing (reflection1) negatively falsifies knowing (source2). Independent confirmation
thus seeks reliability and validity, while dependent rejection makes
people avoid the negative verification of unreliability and the positive falsification
of invalidity. One upholds truth and ethics, the other power and politics (dialectics).
Hegel cut modern philosophy in half by removing the object and keeping the subject. Kant had described so well how the subject related to the object, that it seemed almost natural that Hegel
was able to reduce dualism to monism, by calling the object the "intersubject" in dialectics. Since Kant's position was that the subject itself created the categories of space and time,
objective space-time seemed redundant and dismissible. Only
recognizing subjective space-time became known as "the Copernican Revolution in philosophy". Monists claim that there is no God, truth, self or reality, and that Kant was one of theirs. Hegel told a reporter that it was "too bad for the facts" (1804). This post-modern position is still widespread and almost insurmountable due to inherent power and politics. Modern dualism is opposed to
post-modern ideas as it was before the revolutionary hack/hijack
(Kant's analytic a priori) must be in place before sensibility
after-the-fact (the synthetic a posteriori), so the latter can
independently confirm the former, if and when material and
immaterial space-time co-incide, as space temporalizes and time
spatializes. If and when this happens, sensibility
before-the-fact (the synthetic a priori) stems from it, which is any
sort of trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief or
intent. In other words, knowing what-is-known needs to be in place
before sensing what-is-sensed, so that the latter can independently
confirm the former. If and when this happens, knowing what-is-sensed
stems from it, as well as sensing what-is-known, which are realizing
what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited, by the
environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, at the
second stage of their interaction in social reality.
It is claimed, that we are not a
mirror-image of nature, since we cannot know the thing-in-itself and
there is no way to tell different interpretations apart (Rorty
1979). This cannot be true. An interpretation is an
understanding before-the-fact, which may or may not be independently
confirmed by a sensibility after-the-fact. If so, then it is a
sensibility before-the-fact, or "synthetic apriori" (Kant 1770). If
not, then different interpretations can be told apart by their not
being syn- thetic apriori's. We use the same space-time framework
for our material- and immaterial world, which may therefore be
compared and coincide. If space, "here" or "there", coincides with
time, "now" or "then", time can spatialize and space can
temporalize, "here and now" or "there and then", as what-is-sensed
can be known and what-is-known can be sensed.
To make sure that knowing what-is-known is true, construction must be
in place before recollection, to independently detect confirmation
from sensing what-is-sensed (if any), which consists of both negative falsification of knowing by sensing, for validity, and positive verification of what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for reliability. If and when sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known, sources and opposite reflections coincide or coordinate in space and time. It is
now possible for contents in recollection (facts or what-is-sensed) and construction (ideas or what-is-known) to swap forms
(sensing and knowing). Sensing what-is-sensed turns into knowing
what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known into sensing what-is-known,
which means that content can now
stream from construction in one source to recollection
in the other, at this stage. The same may happen at following
Form at the depth of the sphere, shapes content towards the periphery, while content at the periphery of the sphere, shapes form towards the depth. The sphere may be the source of recollection or construction, or it may be the self-reflection of that source.
When contents swap forms, one source, knowing, swaps positions with its opposite's self-reflection, sensing. This
stream, in knowing what-is-sensed from the depth of the one source (knowing), through
its periphery and that of the other source (what-is-sensed), towards its depth. Simultaneously, a
stream occurs in sensing what-is-known, from the depth of the one self-reflection (what-is-known), through the peripheries of that one sphere and that of the other self-reflection (sensing), towards its depth. When sources unite with their opposites' self-reflections by independent confirmation, the two
streams appear to be one wave, in duality of origin.
Truth and ethics motivate intrinsically in modern dualism, while power and politics motivate extrinsically in post-modern monism. Intrinsic motivation is the product of independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation between external normativity in recollection and internal normativity in construction. Extrinsic motivation is the division of internal normativity in one, sending, "more equal than others" (Orwell 1945), part of the population (one or many), and external normativity in the other, receiving, part of the population (many or one). Roles and role-positions are sent and received, including inter- and intra- sender and -receiver conflicts (Boekestijn 1978), to establish a power-distancing (Mulder 1973) hierarchy or pyramid-scheme for all people to adapt to, as in "the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807).
The sensed- and known environment/other/reality plus the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief, positioned opposite each other, which include the wandering self-reflections bringing content to the other side, are all spheres. If and when independent confirmation happens between forms and between contents, forms can and do swap their positions or roles, to
extend current content with new form, leading the wave, reducing the latest form to content itself, for processing. This happens to and from the "here" and "now" in π, extending both recollection and construction with the latest form that was swapped. For the "other", in the environment/other/reality, is an organism/self/belief as well, having content shape form in recollection and form shape content in construction, extending the meandering content between them with his or her (reflected) form, not content which he or she is for the one organism/self/belief.
By stages of independent confirmation, for
greater sensibility in recollection and greater understanding
in construction, facts develop from sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted, if and when the facts positively verify the ideas for reliability, while simultaneously ideas develop from knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, if and when the facts negatively falsify the ideas for validity. Independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation should reliably coincide constructed ideas with facts, in space/content/behavior at the periphery-, and validly coincide recollected facts with ideas, in time/form/consciousness, at the depth of the sphere or being. Facts in recollection and ideas in construction remain apart, when forms are swapped, because contents (facts or what-is-sensed and ideas or what-is-known) alternate, each time temporalized space and spatialized time coincide.
From one stage to the next, more,
or more refined, recollection and construction is involved. Much sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known goes into realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited. Even more realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited goes into valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried. And most valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried goes into reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted. That is why reacting and acting may take relatively much time. Reflections will need to continue wandering around their sources, as long as there can be no independent confirmation from their source's opposite, let alone a swapping of forms, at which time the forms and contents enter their next stage, both in recollection and in construction. Once consciousness has been externalized into behavior, the same goes on in social interaction.
While facts are picked
up in recollection, ideas are deposited in construction, by the
sources' self-reflections, at the peripheries of the spheres, as
space/content/behavior. If and when the reflections coincide with
the opposite sources, the depths of the spheres are included,
as time/form/consciousness. Contents can be swapped at
the current level of independent rational-, emotional- and/or
compassionate confirmation, to start processing for the next
level. As the self-reflections wander their sources in
recollection, space temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior
internalizes as consciousness, while in construction, time
spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes as
behavior. New form processes-, or is processed by, old form, turned
into new content, as content-shapes-form (e.g. realizing or knowing
what-is-sensed) or form-shapes-content (e.g. intuiting or sensing
can independently confirm understanding before-the-fact, by positive
verification for reliability of content (the idea, what-is-known),
or negative falsification for validity of form (knowing). In social belief,
recollection is basic to construction, by temporalizing space, content-shaping-form and behavior internalizing as cognition.
Sensing is basic to knowing, knowing what-is-sensed (realization) is basic
sensing what-is-known (intuition), intuiting what-is-realized
(valuing) is basic to realizing what-is-intuited (trying) and
trying what-is-valued (reacting) is basic to valuing what-is-tried
(acting). Once in social reality, construction is basic to
recollection, by spatializing time, form-shaping-content and consciousness externalizing as behavior.
what-is-reacted is basic to reacting what-is-acted, as reacting in
response to the other's acting precedes acting in response to one's
What-is-sensed, or the sensed environment/other/reality,
is one source, recollecting from the periphery to the depth of the sphere or being,
as space temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as consciousness. Knowing,
or the knowing organism/self/belief, is the other source, constructing from the depth to the periphery of the sphere or being,
as time spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes as behavior. Both sources reflect themselves on the other side of the shared tangent-line or -plane, as the sensing organism/self/belief and the known environment/other/reality. If and when independent confirmation or truth is found between the sources and their opposites' self-reflections, space/content/behavior at the peripheries and time/form/consciousness at the depths, are
shared between the four spheres or beings (two sources and two self-reflections).
From sensing and knowing to reacting and acting, each stage of independent confirmation adds an alternate form to the pre-existing content,
while the old or previous form is now being treated as content. Sensing thus turns into realizing, valuing and reacting, on the recollective side, while knowing turns into intuiting, trying and acting, on the constructive side. The organism/self/belief then first reacts
in response to the action from the environment/other/reality and
then acts in response to its own reaction. At this stage, the environment/other/reality may be another organism/self/belief, recollecting and constructing on its own, so that social interaction may have started, in social reality. The one's recollection is then the other's construction and the one's construction the other's recollection. This swap takes place externally
in their shared social reality and no longer internally in one's or
the other's social belief.
Independent confirmation takes place between forms (sensing and knowing) in time/form/consciousness, and between contents (what-is-sensed or facts and what-is-known or ideas) in space/content/behavior,
if and when it happens. As form and content
wander along with a source's self-reflection, going- and coming around
to the opposite source to hopefully coincide with it, while the same
happens on the opposite side, then at the final stage of independent confirmation for current content, action calls for reaction
between sides or between construction and recollection, through space/content/behavior, while reaction calls for action
within sides or between recollection and construction, through time/form/consciousness. This is external communication between sources, or social interaction, continuing as long as there is some degree of independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation.
The tangent points move away
from each other, once coincidence or independent confirmation has
taken place, in recollection, between what-is-sensed as the source
and sensing as the source's self-reflection, and, in construction,
between knowing as the source and what-is-known as its self-reflection. That is when volume for the sphere is created and
the "here" remains at the periphery, in space/content/behavior,
while the "now" remains at the depth, in time/form/consciousness.
Time/form/consciousness serves as a means to
develop for space/content/behavior. If and when construction is
independently confirmed (rationally, emotionally and/or
compassionately) by recollection, old forms are turned into content
and new forms are swapped. Construction serves to develop
recollection, within sides, before the stage of reaction and action, and between sides, when the other is actually met,
3. Constructive Recollection
Recollection and construction should be as
as the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief. Their forms can process-, or be processed by, each other's
contents, if and when independent confirmation happens. Thus they also
help each other transform, from one substance into
the next, between stages of independent confirmation. What-is-sensed
can now be known, as construction serves recollection, and
what-is-known can now be sensed, as recollection serves
construction. When this happens, transformation of the substances of
recollection and construction, have already taken place. However,
the process is more complicated and it is called constructive
By coordinated reflection , our two sources seek independent confirmation  for- and from each other, to stay on track of truth, in constructive recollection . This is the purpose of dualism in modern philosophy, as opposed to its monistic, post-modern descendent hack, which denies the existence of God, truth, self and reality. Both foundations for (completely different) social order(s) apply to social interaction [a], social reality [b] and social identity [c]. Although they are mutually exclusive, each creating and maintaining its own world, we are often caught in the middle of these two worlds, stressed, confused and harmed, both physically and mentally. How do we get out of this predicament?
3a. Social Interaction
In terms of coordinated reflection , social interaction is construction between the one as source and the other as self-reflection of that one source, plus recollection between the other as source and the one as self-reflection of that other source. Who is the one and who is the other, is a matter of role-division. The one may be more talented to be the source of recollection and the other that of construction, to make social interaction happen. Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known interact by
wandering self-reflections, around their sources, until they independently confirm , rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, the other source, which in social interaction is the other person. Therefore, in social interaction, if and when the other independently confirms the one, what-is-sensed by the other is self-reflected as sensing by the one, while knowing by the one is self-reflected as what-is-known by the other.
Groups are formed and society is ordered, either dualistically by the intrinsic motivation of truth and ethics, or monistically by the extrinsic motivation of power and politics. Finding independent confirmation for our beliefs,
from reality, motivates intrinsically, to externalize consciousness as behavior. Offering the (Significant) Other freedom of choice, rationally-, emotionally- or compassionately earned and (forwardly) paid for, intrinsically motivates by independent confirmation as well. If and when independent confirmation happens and is shared in social interaction, the one's independence confirms and strengthens the other's independence. This is one's reaction in response to the other's action and one's action in response to his or her own re-action, made noticeable by externalizing consciousness as behavior. It is the final stage of independent confirmation for current content, "reacting what-is-acted" and "acting what-is-reacted".
As long as truth is maintained by independent confirmation from one side for the other, in social interaction, recollection happens in response to construction, through space/content/behavior between the spheres, at their peripheries, while on each side, construction happens in response to recollection, through time/form/consciousness within the spheres, at their depths. The environment/other/reality is then the other organism/self/belief, with whom the one interacts. Two cycles are needed for both sides to respond to the other's construction, in their own recollection, and then to their own recollection, in their own construction, as they take the other's response into account. There are four phases in a cycle, two for each side, one for the other and one for oneself. Independent confirmation, at four stages, corresponds to these phases, because each phase commences from a degree of independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, for otherwise, social interaction would have to stop in its tracks.
independent individual's point of view, in social interaction, content from the sensed environment/other/reality, is recollected and
wanders by its coordinated self-reflection, the sensing organism/self/belief, to the other source, the knowing organism/self/belief, where the two forms (sensing and knowing), shaped by-,
or shaping, content (what-is-sensed and what-is-known), may coincide at the depth
of the sphere or being in time/form/consciousness. More than coinciding, they may find truth by independent confirmation
as negative falsification. Simultaneously, content from the knowing organism/self/belief, is constructed and
wanders by its coordinated self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality, to the other source, the sensed environment/other/reality, where the two contents (what-is-known and what-is-sensed), shaped by-,
or shaping, form (knowing and sensing), may coincide at the periphery
of the sphere or being in space/content/behavior. More than coinciding, they may find truth by independent confirmation
as positive verification.
People adapt to the other person, to accommodate him, and make him adapt in return, to assimilate to them. In post-modern monism, accommodation and assimilation are one group or group member dominating and submitting another, extrinsically motivating them or him to avoid fear of dependent rejection by using power and politics, dependently confirming friends (cronyism) and/or independently rejecting enemies (prejudice) of the group. This process does not take into account staying on track of truth, which looking for-, finding-, and looking after independent confirmation, in modern dualism, does instead. Independent confirmation consists of negative falsification, of knowing by sensing, for validity, at the depth of the one sphere or being, in time/form/consciousness, and of positive verification, of what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for reliability, at the periphery of the other sphere or being, in space/content/behavior. Thus, knowing assimilates sensing, as what-is-known accommodates what-is-sensed, if and when independent confirmation happens.
If and when independent confirmation does happen on both sides of social interaction, then recollection and construction swap forms (not contents) between the one's source and
the other's self-reflection, to transform into the next stage's substances of recollection and construction. The new substances are more extended than the old, as they include the old, putting newly swapped forms in the leads which are the opposite of the old and which turn the old forms into new contents. This continues until new substances are no longer formed, either because independent confirmation is no longer happening, or because the highest stage has been reached, for the current content, which is reacting what-is-acted by the other and acting what-is-reacted by
the self, externally in social interaction and no longer only internally, in social belief.
Thus recollection and construction are waves between the sources by coordinated reflection, for every bit of current content, overlapping each other, making it seem as if there is only one meandering stream, due to independent confirmation, while there are actually four, or two for each side.
As space temporalizes,
content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as consciousness, in
recollection. As time spatializes, form-shapes-content and
consciousness externalizes as behavior, simultaneously in
construction, the wave of phases in the social cycle continues
sequentially. One's recollection in response to the other's
construction is followed by one's construction in response to one's
own recollection. The same sequence of events then reciprocally
follows on the other side of social interaction, until independent
confirmation no longer takes place. This is possible, because
before-the-fact, of independent confirmation, trust, expectation,
presumption, prediction, belief or intent pre-exists, to continue
the cycle after-the-fact, if and when independent confirmation
happens. The sources' self-reflections then continue to pick up
content (facts) in recollection and deposit content (ideas) in
construction, until they coincide with the opposite sources.
Time/form/consciousness at their depths then must produce negative
falsification for the organism/self/belief, while
space/content/behavior at their peripheries must produce positive
verification for the environment/other/reality.
Interaction, internally in social belief and not yet externally in social reality, involves sources as independent individuals, a priori or before independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation has happened between- or (rather) within them. Both sources and their (opposite's) self-reflections have form and content, in recollection as content-shaping-form and in construction as form-shaping-content. From one side to the other, content
streams, expanding the sphere causally in recollection by what-is-sensed, and teleologically in construction by what-is-known. Separately yet simultaneously, both sides recollect in response to the other's construction and construct in response to their own recollection. These are four phases in a social cycle, at maximally four stages of independent confirmation. Phases begin one state apart, as a response to the previous phase, and then overlap. A social cycle therefore consists of the one's recollection and construction, followed by the other's recollection and construction, in response, internally in the one's social belief and then externally in social reality. Then the same happens in the other's social belief and -reality. In total, recollection and construction are one state apart and alternate through eight states, over two cycles, one for each participant.
Content streams out of one form into another, for active or reactive processing. It actively processes (shapes) each form in recollection or it is being processed (shaped) passively by each form in construction. The two types of forms, as well as the two types of contents, remain dualistically independent, as long as they process or are being processed, between the subliminal (sensing what-is-sensed) and the supraliminal (knowing what-is-known). Beyond these limits they are one, as they were before- and should be after processing. The beating heart of processing, is looking for-, finding- and looking after truth or what independent confirmation detects, between recollection after-the-fact and construction before-the-fact, which is also between outcome and prediction or Kant's sensibility and understanding. Every state of sensing extends until it has developed into reacting, and every state of knowing extends until it has developed into acting, if and when truth is found at every stage. Thereafter, contents are cast as dice, in social interaction, where one's reacting what-is-acted by the other, is followed by one's acting what-is-reacted by the self, after processing. Meanwhile, new content has come to fruition from later states, and is ready to follow and enter the arena of social reality in its turn.
The one's recollection
should be the other's construction and vice versa. What looks like one interactive wave, is actually the overlap of four separate waves into one stream:
two waves for the one side, or one source plus opposite
self-reflection (the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief),
in addition to two waves for the other side or other source plus
opposite self-reflection (the sensed- and known
environment/other/reality). For each side, that is one wave of
recollection plus one wave of construction, either one of which
is the self-reflection of the opposite source. The
self-reflections are wandering spheres, by coordinated reflection, to recollect behavior on the one hand and construct consciousness on the other, having their content and form independently confirmed, by the opposite source, as often as possible, to stay on track of truth. Independent confirmation and the consequential swap of forms (sensing and knowing), lines them up with contents (facts or what-is-sensed and ideas or what-is-known), enabling a
stream in one direction only. This continues as long as sources and their self-reflections simultaneously produce new forms and contents.
Interaction is stage-specific for the interacting sources and reflections. The
type of interaction changes, when the next stage is reached, after reflections have wandered
their sources long and -specifically enough to find coincidence
or independent confirmation, for swapping forms. Thus the
process continues in social belief, until construction is made
noticeable, to actually interact with the environment/other/reality.
Later stages include earlier stages, therefore they must take relatively
more time. Every (alternatingly) added leading form, which is
either sensing or knowing, from the swap, takes a more refined processing,
to prepare for sensible and understandable social interaction, verbally or non-verbally.
Later stages may be a long time in the making or even never be reached, for current content. Meanwhile, interaction may continue as small-talk,
as the one's reactions in response to the others' actions and
one's actions in response to his or her own reactions remain
mere evaluations in response to others' tries and tries in
response to own evaluations, and so on, back to the sub- and
supraliminal stage of just sensing and knowing.
Content is brought
from one source to the other, by the source's self-reflection,
wandering the periphery of its source and picking up (recollecting)
facts or depositing (constructing) ideas, shaping-, or shaped by,
form. The stream always extends, meandering between the sources and
being the same for both. The one reacts in response to the other's
action and acts in response to his own reaction, implicitly telling
himself "if the other does not say that, I will". The responses are
to the content in reacting, or trying what-is-valued, and
acting, or valuing what-is-tried, in valuing, or intuiting
what-is-realized, and trying, or realizing what-is-intuited, and
finally in realizing, or knowing what-is-sensed, and intuiting, or
sensing what-is-known. Independent rational-, emotional- and/or
compassionate confirmation from one source for the other, if, when
and as long as it happens, keeps content on track of truth. Once
verification is negative and/or falsification is positive, content
is no longer reliable and/or valid, so that other facts and ideas,
or what-is-sensed and what-is-known, that have risen through the
stages and have been externalized into social reality between the
sources, must take over if they can.
construction alternate in social interaction, at the highest
possible stage of independent confirmation between sides.
Consciousness is externalized as behavior, for the other side to
notice the content, or what-is-known (idea), that was
independently confirmed by what-is-sensed (fact). This only
applies to the latest state, depending on which stage was
reached. When reaction and action are not the current stage,
lower stages can also socially interact, since all stages
ultimately consist of the same states of (subliminally) sensing
what-is-sensed, alternating with (supraliminally) knowing
what-is-known, within- and between sides. The one guesses
what-is-sensed or what-is-known by the other, or the other's
response to the one and his response to himself, if any,
depending on whether or not there is enough independent rational-,
emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation for him to be
willing to respond. Guessing rests
on trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief and/or
intent, as they were conditioned in the past. Conflict may also
arise, when the aim is to avoid dependent rejection in power and
politics and not to look for independent confirmation in truth
Put in a nutshell, a
state is one of four stages of independent rational-,
emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, in both
recollection and construction, between a source and the opposite
source's self-reflection, in each of four phases of a social
cycle, of which there are at least two in social exchange. A
stage is the product of any of four types of independent
confirmation between recollection and construction, transforming
content on each side, from the previous stage into the next. A
phase is one of four quarters of a social cycle, which
are one state apart and overlap each other when they consist of
more than one state, meandering between sources, coinciding
with- or independently confirming their opposite's
self-reflection, if and when they do. A social cycle is
one side's recollection in response to the other side's
construction, followed by its own construction in response to
its own recollection, before the other side does the same.
Responding to one another between sides may repeat indefinitely.
Sides are the recollecting- and constructing
environment/other/reality plus the recollecting- and
constructing organism/self/belief, in constructive recollection.
Our dual sources and
their self-reflections or spheres, each have two points
of particular interest: their tangent-points at the
peripheries, where they interact with the opposite side, and
their depths. In social interaction, as the cycle
turns into a continuous wave of phases and states at differing
stages of recollection and construction, these two locations or
are those of independent confirmation: the one is positive
verification for reliability of space/content/behavior
within-groups-between-people at the periphery, while the other
is negative falsification for validity of
within-people-between-groups at the depth of the sphere. From
one phase to the next, one state apart, the social cycle
alternatingly attends each, within the one, between the one and
the other, within the other and between the other and the one
again. At the depth of the sphere, within-people-between-groups,
one's survival as an understanding, rational human being is at stake by not
being falsified, while at the periphery,
within-groups-between-people, the survival of the group hangs in
the balance as the group's sensibility is verified, rationally,
emotionally and/or compassionately.
The social cycle
consists of four phases of four states each, two for each side
involved in social interaction. Every next phase always begins
one state ahead of the current one, irrespective of the stage at
which independent confirmation takes place, which determines the
number of states that phase is comprised of. Since each phase
repeats itself indefinitely, in the same wave or cycle allegedly
shared by all phases, final states of the latest repeats of
previous phases and initial states of the first repeats of
following phases, are included in the current phase, if
the stage is higher than the first and therefore the phase
consists of at least two states. From the second to the fourth
stage, in terms of the number of states that are involved in
every repeated phase, content from the opposite side of the
social interaction, between the organism/self/belief and the
environment/other/reality, is included. Each side trusts,
expects, presumes, predicts, believes or intends what
space/content/behavior the opposite side will recollect as
what-is-sensed, -realized, -valued or -reacted, and what
time/form/consciousness it will construct as what-is-known,
-intuited, -tried or -acted. Thus, consistency of the shared
social cycle or wave is continuously monitored.
3b. Social Reality
rejection and not seeking independent confirmation, is seeking
dependent confirmation, dependently confirming the other by
adapting one's content and form to the other's content and form,
after-the-fact and not before-the-fact. External normativity is
internalized, as internal normativity does not exist or is not
externalized. It is also avoiding independent rejection,
independently rejecting the other by not adapting one's content
and form to the other's content and form, before-the-fact and not
after-the-fact, while normativity remains each to his own. The (non)
reciprocity only happens within-groups-between-people and builds
hierarchy, because dependent rejection, even the slightest,
increases the distance to the next lower person or decreases the
distance to the next higher person, depending on the re-cognition
for the other. Recognition in this sense is positive verification of
what-is-known and negative falsification of knowing, by the other.
However, since there is no independence between the two parties,
these are not reliability and validity, since they are biased.
Therefore, the hierarchy is built through power-distancing. To stop
the bias induced by object-subject dependency, the legislative-,
judicial- and executive powers are separated by law (Montesquieu
1749). A better solution would be to seek independent
confirmation within-people-between-groups, who replaced power and
politics with truth and ethics, while avoiding dependent rejection
pretends power and politics are truth and ethics.
We are likely to live in
multiple groups and not just one, now that we can all communicate
instantly through Internet. Therefore, values and norms from different groups may be conflicting in one person. The classical way to make sure that people
are not bothered by such conflicts, is for politics to make sure that relations
within-groups-between-people will be and will stay unchallenged.
Behavior in those relations, at the peripheries of spheres
(space/content/behavior), will sanctify the group's living
expressions and spontaneous gestures (Shotter 2011)
by identity politics. Mimetic desire widens to avoid dependent rejection,
possibly by excommunication and
homelessness, using or abusing power and politics. The only options people
are left with, are independently rejecting enemies (prejudice) and
dependently confirming friends (cronyism). Relating to other groups,
or even being a member of those as well, calls for stress within-people-between-groups, who cannot rely on
unique meanings of expressions
and gestures any more. Same words may have different meanings and
same meanings may have different words (Duijker
1980). Conflict must be prevented more profoundly, in
time/form/consciousness, at the depths of the spheres. This is
before-, or separate from, people realizing they could seek
independent confirmation as well, instead of avoiding dependent
rejection. Relations within-people-between-groups cannot be
constrained, when lack of independent confirmation prevents them to
be formed and keeps them untangled.
Natural reinforcement by the truth and ethics of
independent confirmation in modern dualism, intrinsically motivates people to strengthen each other as independent individuals. Offering or (forward) paying freedom of choice, which the other,
in our estimation, noticeably earned, may serve the whole community, going around
and coming around as a force of inspiration. Relations within-people-between-groupsare never corrupted, and within-facts-between-ideas they never entangle, since normativity is dualistic: external in recollection of facts, and internal in construction of ideas. Both types of normativity are needed for comparison to find truth by independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, if and when facts positively verify ideas for reliability, and facts negatively falsify ideas for validity. People can adapt to groups without losing themselves, be independent without being isolated, or create groups of their own, of independent individuals, who need strength (not power), which they all send and receive, if and when truth is found, by keeping morality open and religion dynamic, to welcome critique. It was not true, what Hegel stated in 1807, that "the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world". That was simply intended to turn the psychological- into a sociological realm and start a new hierarchical social order for a new elite, after the old elite had been decapitated, at the beginning of the French Revolution
People who are threatened
to be left behind in the survival race for economic prosperity, have
everything to gain from a social order and -reality which is based
on the reciprocity of knowing- and letting know the other, the truth
of pain and hurting, if and when it is found by independent
rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation. In other
words, what the have-nots can offer the haves, is truth of
compassion, or anything and anyone implied. Reciprocity is
widened, as truth by independent confirmation will include
journalism, justice and science, as it always has or should have.
Social reality is quite different for the haves who play the game of
power and politics, threatening to have the power-distance to them
increased, reversed from a decreased distance to those with more
power. The critical line to cross here is the decline to the status
of a have-not, homeless and excommunicated person. Dependent
rejection is avoided at all costs, as long as people can still offer
what they do have, by prejudice, independently rejecting those lower
in the hyrarchy, and by cronyism, dependently confirming the haves
higher up. Money, recognition and attention will all flow in one
direction, upwards, as long as the hierarchy has ways to handle it,
for the discontent will only grow. Social institutions may keep
people alive, although they cannot reverse the power-distance or the
status from have-not to have, from within the system based on
avoidance of dependent rejection, holding people trapped in fear.
While coordinated reflection  appears in both worlds, the one created by post-modern, immanent dialectic monism or power and politics, and the other created by modern, independent individual dualism or truth and ethics, independent confirmation  matters
only to the latter. Monism may look like dualism, since it is dialectic, yet its basic assumption is that we are all one group
in which subgroups or individuals compete for dominance while submitting others who will eventually all fall into place and assume their assigned role if they want to survive (Hegel 1807, Marx 1859, Nietzsche 1901). Dualism, on the contrary, assumes there are two sources, instead of one, which interact between any two individuals, to stay on track of truth and
not to gain dominance over-, and submit, "less equal" others. Living in the one world or the other, is the outcome of our upbringing and the vices of monism (prejudice, cronyism). As we all live on the same planet, we are challenged, all the time, by a social order that is completely different from our own and that we must accept, even if it runs us into the ground like a tectonic plate.
Elites impose their values and norms upon
others, as globalized political correctness. Who does not suffice is
independently rejected through prejudice. They impose their values and norms upon others, who
dependently confirm them through cronyism. Dependent confirmation of
friends and independent rejection of enemies require power and
politics, plus loyalty (to the group) rather than honesty.
seek independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate
confirmation from- and for each other, as trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief or
intent, when content (facts or ideas) is shared in social
reality. Whether or not one's
action is independently confirmed by his
reaction in response to to the other, requires honesty rather than
may take more social cycles to find independent confirmation. A negative response
would mean that there was no independent confirmation and there is no
time to wait and see if it might still happen. As long as either
source can accommodate content from the other in recollection, before assimilating
it in construction, no harm is done.
Central to a group is either
the elite, 'hearing' the people and prescribing (their) political
correctness, or a dictator, telling people what to do. The people, on the other hand, either accommodate each
other, to be assimilated into the 'greater good' of all, under elite
governance, or they accommodate the dictator who then has a greater
chance of assimilating them in his reign. In both cases, the people
eventually are all the same and loyalty becomes more important than
honesty. Independent individuals do accommodate each other as well,
to eventually assimilate the other into their own unique selves, if
and when viewpoints were independently confirmed as truth and not to
accommodate the other for assimilation indirectly by the elite or
directly by the dictator. To independent individuals, honesty is
more important than loyalty. This is a different base for creating
friendships and and it may cause enmity across the line in between
these realms. Who and what earns or deserves our attention?
This question is answered in very
different ways on each side of the divide.
Where and when post-modern monism and modern dualism run into each other, role-sending and role-receiving by the former may grow intense, or it may diminish under the influence of the latter. Internal normativity is sent from the one to the other who is to receive it as external normativity. The sender's external normativity and the receiver's internal normativity are ignored, when monism takes over from dualism, which happened at a large scale since the French Revolution and, revitalized, since the Cultural Revolution. Group-polarization
(Moscovici 1969, Meertens 2007) at crucial episodes in history, such as the Second World War, has extremized monism into absolute dictatorship. This stimulates the will to power (Nietzsche 1901) and a propensity for action through politics, media and marketing. Power can simply bulldoze its way forward and let the facts it created "prove" its predictions. This is what Hegel meant by "too bad for the facts". Thus, power and politics can disguise as truth and ethics. Power changes the facts to fit
the predictions, making innocence defenseless, while truth changes
the predictions to fit the facts.
3c. Social Identity
The kind of social
order that is given or chosen, determines how social identity
develops. When the social order is to avoid dependent rejection,
dependent confirmation is sought, dependently confirming the
other, while independent rejection is avoided, independently
rejecting the other,awaiting the same in return.
This is co-dependency or inter-dependency. When, on the
contrary, the social order is to seek independent confirmation,
power and politics are not involved. It may take a while before
recognition or independent confirmation happens without the
yielding of those not abusing power and politics to those who
do. There is no collusion between subjects, since the object
matter is what relates them, as one and the same truth, which
does independently confirm. People know when they are fake and
when they are not. The facts speak for themselves unless they
were put there by power and politics. This is handling the truth
by pure, classical- or operand conditioning (Pavlov
1910 or Skinner 1930). Truth we cannot
handle does not necessarily require losing the object, although
not receiving independent confirmation for our beliefs may take
Independent confirmation between sources, the knowing organism/self/belief and the sensed environment/other/reality, by their self-reflections (the known environment/other/reality and the sensing organism/self/belief), can be very consistent. That is
a most beautiful experience, when one source may become part of the other, by social identity and not only by independent confirmation. The other will then be the Significant Other. Construction under those circumstances, will lead recollection, and not the other way around, as it is believed to be true. It will no longer be subjected to verification and falsification, before it can move forward or else processing current content would be halted. When each is a source him- or herself and the other's self-reflection, the one's construction self-reflects in the other, while the other's recollection self-reflects in the one,
as part of the other independent individual and not only for one's
own processing. The two are as one, interacting by spontaneous
gestures and living expressions, and without a doubt about the fortitude of their continuing togetherness under any circumstance.
It is between, on the one hand, modern dualism or intrinsic, ethical motivation to seek independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation or truth, and on the other hand, post-modern monism or extrinsic, political motivation to avoid dependent rejection or power, where and when the relationship between Self and Significant Other is mostcritical for the kind of social order, that will surround- and support it. For the latter, independent rejection of enemies, or prejudice against those above the comparison level, who are bringing jealous tensions into the relationship (Thibaut and Kelley 1959), and dependent confirmation of friends with whom cronyism is group-polarized and exploited, taking away from others, are the only possible ways to avoid dependent rejection. However, relationships are also built on giving and taking, or offering and paying forward, independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation between sources (Significant Others), if and when they can, by positive verification for reliability, and simultaneously, negative falsification for validity, when that is even still required.
To have what-is-known or
ideas independently confirmed by what-is-sensed or facts, the
organism/self/belief conjectures them by spatializing time,
form-shaping-content and consciousness externalizing as behavior.
Ideas can easily match facts when they are picked up from concrete
experience, or they cannot, when they stem from our deepest
feelings and most abstract, religious or metaphysical beliefs. Under
those circumstances, independent confirmation will not come easy and
we may develop a craving for it. The Significant Other can fulfill
this craving by independent compassionate, emotional or even
rational confirmation and that can make us feel like having
fulfilled our life's purpose. The pursuit of this purpose may have
been institutionalized as a religion or any kind of movement,
although this personal resolve is stronger and more fulfilling than
the surrogate. It is the strongest antidote against moral
relativity, stumbled upon in post-modern monism: the denial of
Truth, God, Self and Reality. These concepts mean everything to us
under the most challenging of circumstances, so that (group)
polarization or dialectics will not be needed to compensate for
While power and politics of the group are central to post-modern monism, truth and ethics of the individual are central to modern dualism. The one avoids dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and within-ideas-between-facts, creating problems of dissociation for people and of existence for facts, while the other seeks independent confirmation within-people-between-groups and within-facts-between-ideas, solving those same problems. Closed morality and static religion do not allow people to defect to other groups and facts to be understood in other contexts, as opposed to open morality and dynamic religion. The latter are dualistic interactions and not immanent dialectics, because fighting over dominance and submission presupposes all sub-groups to belong to one global group, that will eventually dominate and submit all others and have its own uncriticizable ideas or dogmas. People belonging to different groups will want to avoid cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1962) and return to this one group and one set of ideas, unable to bear the undogmatic 'lightness of being' (Kundera 1984).
Relations within-groups-between-people naturally translate into relations within-people-between-groups, since
these relations are the same, although their contexts are different:
dealing with more than one group does not exclude dissonance. This is also true for relations within-ideas-between-facts,
translating into relations within-facts-between-ideas. Dissonant relations cannot logically, chronologically or associatively maintain themselves and
dogmatically force people to dissociate from their groups or facts from
their ideas. They can do so unilaterally, to guarantee
an appearance of trust and safety. Truth and ethics would soon be replaced by power and politics, if they would accept this "solution". Relations entangle when the same facts are reused in different ideas, relating them differently and creating meaningful contexts for them which are incompatible. To cope with entanglements, constraints or conflicts of interest, socioses are invoked in communities, calling for collective dissociation disorders, like derealization and depersonalization, in the independent individuals living in these communities (Dell and O'Neill 2009).
should follow understanding before-the-fact and be independent from
it, since facts can simply be planted or bulldozed to "prove" any
prediction and fulfill any prophecy. This way, entanglement and
conflict of interest can be "managed" by power and politics.
While half of the people mentally suffers from the abyss of
dissociation and a false, manipulated reality, the other half makes its fortune from it. Facts are put into place
which are to support a narrative or policy. Masks are worn to
simulate independent confirmation suggesting truth and ethics, while
in fact confirmation is dependent on self-interested, self-centered
manipulation. Access to such unlawful and corrupt cultures or
sub-cultures is gate-kept, to shield the one half's interest and
hide the other half's being abused. Conflicts of interest are
normalized by co-dependency or interdependency, not independency,
seeking confirmation. Ethics thus turn into an enlightened
self-interest. What people have in common is the consequence of the
power play, which may even be common law, that they supposedly have
what they wanted and therefore, are expected to be happy.
Ideas relate facts through spatializing time, form-shaping-content and consciousness externalizing as behavior, by the logic, chronology or association of these multi-perspective ideas, allowing access from all sides of their contexts. Facts relate ideas
through temporalizing space, content-shaping-form and behavior internalizing as consciousness, by the (social) identity, identicality or object-orientation towards these facts. Relations within-ideas-between-facts, naturally translating into relations within-facts-between-ideas, get entangled by shifting orientations,
in power and politics, towards the environ- ment/other/reality. Untangling may still be possible, holding on to truth and
ethics or innocence, by seeking indepen- dent confirmation where it has always been critical
to the highest standards in science, justice and journalism. Modern dualism can beat post-modern monism, since minority influence is strong when consistent over long periods of time and not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974). Otherwise, facts dissociate from ideas, or the person from his or her own identity, by traumatizing socioses and tormenting identity disorders2.
Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly
unlearned. Truth can only be found by looking for independent
confirmation for our beliefs, from reality. Independence requires
dualism which is difficult to apply in personal- and social
settings, because power and politics turn 'seeking independent
confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. A completely
different social order is implied and the one keeps running the
other into the ground like a tectonic plate. Philosophical Modernism
may show us how dualism found truth, before Post-Modernism hijacked
it, regretfully, regressing us all back into the vices of
Berg, J.H. van den (1956). "Metabletica of leer der veranderingen. Beginselen van een historische psychologie". Nijkerk: Callenbach.
Bergson, H. (1922). "Durée et Simultanéité". Paris: Félix Alcan.
Bergson, H. (1932). "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion". London: Macmillan and Company Limited.
Boekestijn, C. (1978). "De psychologie van relaties tussen groepen". In: Jaspars, J.M.F.; Vlist, R. v.d. "Sociale Psychologie in Nederland". Meppel: Boom.
Dell, P.F.; O’Neil, J.A. (2009). "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond". New York: Routledge: 750.
Descartes, R. (1644). "The Principles of Philosophy".
Derrida, J. (1992). "Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice". New York: Routledge.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1935-36). "The Philosophy of the Law-Idea". Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.
Duijker, H.C.J. (1980). "Psychopolis".
Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107.
Hanna, R.; Chapman, A. (2016). "Kant, Agnosticism, and Anarchism: A Theological-Political Treatise". Academia.edu
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.
Kant, I. (1770). "De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis". Regiomonti: Impensis Io. Iac. Kanteri.
Kant, I. (1781). "Kritik der reinen Vernunft". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1783). "Prolegomena". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1785). "Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1788). "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Kant, I. (1793). "Kritik der Urteilskraft". Berlin: Bey F. T. Lagarde.
Kundera, M. (1984). "The Unbearable Lightness of Being". Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Marx, K. (1867). "Das Kapital". Berlin: Verlag von Otto Meisner.
Meertens, R.W. (2007). "The Hofstadgroep". transnationalterrorism.eu.
Montesquieu, C.L. (1749). "De
l'Esprit des Loix". Geneve: Barillot & fils.
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. (1883). "Also sprach Zarathustra". Chemnitz: Verlag von Ernst Schmeitzner.
Nietzsche, F. (1901). "Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.
Orwell, G. (1945). "Animal Farm". London: Martin Secker & Warburg.
Pavlov, I.P. (1910). "The Work of the
Digestive Glands". London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd.
Peursen, C.A. van (1974). "The strategy
of culture: a view of the changes taking place in our ways of
thinking and living today". Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Reichenbach, H. (1891-1953).
"Unpublished notes". In: The Reichenbach Collection. University of
Pittsburgh Library System.
Rohlf, M. (2010). "Immanuel Kant". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Rorty, R. (1979). "Philosophy and the
Mirror Image of Nature." Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sanders, C.; Eisenga, L.K.A.; Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1976). "Inleiding in de grondslagen van de Psychologie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Sanders, C.; Rappard, J.F.H. van (1982). "Tussen Ontwerp En Werkelijkheid". Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.
Sartre, J-P. (1943). "Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.
Shotter, J. (2011). "Draft: ‘Spontaneous Responsiveness, Chiasmic Relations, And Consciousness – Inside the Realm of Living Expression’", johnshotter.com.
Skinner, B.F. (1930), "On the
conditions of elicitation of certain eating reflexes." Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 16, 433-38.
Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.
Žižek, S. (2012). "Less than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism". London: Verso.