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




Our two sources of morality and religion (Bergson 1932) coordinately reflect themselves, "here" in recollection and "now" in construction. The one, the environment/other/reality, consists of material space and immaterial time. The other interacts with it, the organism/self/belief, as what-is-sensed reflects itself in sensing, while knowing reflects itself in what-is-known.

Interaction between our sources is motivated by either power or truth. Power motivates politically within groups, as truth motivates ethically between groups. Truth is what matters here. It is found by looking for independent confirmation. The contents of space, or what-is-sensed (facts), and time, or what-is-known (ideas), thus reunite "here and now", in space-time.

If and when space and time reunite, so do temporalized space and spatialized time, or content-shaping-form in recollection and form-shaping-content in construction, called constructive recollection. Coordinated reflection between sources and independent confirmation within sources, maintain truth within-facts-between-ideas and within-people-between-groups.


1. Coordinated Reflection


The environment/other/reality reflects itself in the organism/self/belief as sensibility (Kant 1781) or what-is-sensed, in sensing. By sensing what-is-sensed, the source and its reflection in recollection, express themselves inwardly, from the periphery- to the depth of being, in space. Facts move in from "there" to "here" and move out from "here" to "there", where content shapes form by temporalizing space, between environment and organism, other and self, or reality and belief.

The organism/self/belief reflects itself in the environment/other/reality as understanding (Kant 1781) or knowing, in what-is-known. By knowing what-is-known, the source and its reflection in construction, express themselves outwardly, from the depth- to the periphery of being, in time. Ideas move in from "then" to "now" and move out from "now" to "then", when form shapes content by spatializing time, between environment and organism, other and self, or reality and belief.

Space and time, or, more precisely, "here" and "now", are separately recollected and constructed, and are being reunited into one "here and now" again. The one's source must fuse with the other's reflection. The source of recollection, facts, or what-is-sensed, fuses with the reflection of construction, ideas or what-is-known, in the environment/other/reality, while the source of construction, or knowing, fuses with the reflection of recollection, or sensing, in the organism/self/belief.

figure 1


The precise "here" or "now" between each of the two sources and their self-reflections, is where or when content (what-is-sensed or what-is-known) is picked up by form (sensing or knowing) for processing. Therefore what-is-sensed is processed by temporalizing space "here" and what-is-known is processed by spatializing time "now". Temporalized space is not time and spatialized time is not space, however they do approach it, at the next stages of temporalizing and spatializing.

The organism/self/belief processes content (facts or ideas) from the environment/other/reality, "here" by sensing what-is-sensed and "now" by knowing what-is-known. Space is temporalized by facts shaping form, from the periphery- to the depth of being, as time is spatialized by form shaping ideas, from the depth- to the periphery of being. Fusion in space-time, if any, happens between contents "here and now", if and when the reflection of one source is acceptable to the other source.

figure 2


"Here" and "now" expand between the sources and their reflections: "now, from here to there", in all directions, and "here, from now to then", in the past and future. "Here and now", spatialized time from the environment/other/reality interacts with temporalized space from the organism/self/belief, in "duality of origin". Content shapes form in recollection and form shapes content in construction, as functional structures or cultural history (Bergson 1922, Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976).

Recollecting what-is-sensed happens "after the fact" by temporalizing space, while constructing what-is-known happens "before the fact" by spatializing time, as an idea. From the periphery to the depth-, and from the depth to the periphery of being, our form recollects and constructs content, we believe will fit our world intuitively yet precisely, until we realize our dream or we realize our mistake. This is how form is shaped to process content, at different levels of functional structure.

Material facts from "then" in the past, reflect themselves towards "then" in the future, while immaterial ideas from "then" in the future reflect themselves towards "then" in the past. Material and immaterial structures have their own compelling physical or metaphysical logic in their own sources, the sensed environment/other/reality and the knowing organism/self/belief. Their other-reflections on the same side of time do or do not (yet) fit in, which presents a challenge or a solution.

As bread and water may turn into tea and cakes, space and time may turn into culture and history, by the organism/self/belief, interacting with the environment/other/reality. Patterns are material in space or culture and immaterial in time or history. Space reflects itself as cultural recollection, while history reflects itself as temporal construction. The pattern of cultural history is ordered by power in a power-distanced hierarchy (Mulder 1973) or truth in a constructive recollection.


figure 3


In recollection, space temporalizes from "here" at the peripheries of what-is-sensed (source) and sensing (reflection), to their depths, while in construction, time spatializes from the depths of knowing (source) and what-is-known (reflection), to "now" at their peripheries. Temporalized space fuses with original time at the depths of being, while spatialized time fuses with original space at the peripheries of being, if and when fusing conditions for a source and its other-reflection are right.

Content shapes form by temporalizing space, or recollecting what-is-sensed into sensing, from "here" at the periphery to the depths of being, in cognition. Form shapes content by spatializing time, or constructing what-is-known out of knowing, from the depths of being to "now" at the periphery, in behavior. Every new "here" and "now", adds to recollection and construction, for potential processing of content by form, or constructive recollection, when conditions for fusing are right.

Facts recollected from space outside and ideas constructed from time inside, differentiate multiple facets and aspects, shaped at multiple "heres" and "nows", which belong to the same content (fact or idea) in spite of their differentiation. Content shapes form differentiatedly in recollection, while form shapes content differentiatedly in construction, along all facets and aspects of the entity. Form and content of facts and ideas must be consistent under all circumstances to prevent dissociation.

figure 4


2. Independent Confirmation


Content shapes form in recollection, while form shapes content in construction. Pure form is found at the depths of the internal source, while pure content is found at the periphery of the external source. Shaped form may falsify pure form, while shaped content may be verified by pure content. Negative or unsuccessful falsification and positive or successful verification, are different kinds of independent confirmation. Negative falsification indicates that content is valid, while positive verification indicates that content is reliable. These are also the right conditions, for the internal source to fuse with the external other source's self-reflection by internalizing its content (what-is-sensed), and for the external source to fuse with the internal other source's self-reflection by externalizing its content (what-is-known). Internalization of content shaping form is acceptance into consciousness, while externalization of content shaped by form is acceptance into behavior.

Independent confirmation requires dualism, duality of origin or two sources and not one. Judeo-Christianity was dualistic from 0 AD. Philosophy followed from 1644, with Descartes' methodology. The one source, the environment/other/reality, independently confirms the other source, the organism/self/belief, if and when it can. Independent confirmation indicates truth, in everyday life as it does in science, justice and journalism. Philosophical Modernism is dualistic, as opposed to Post-Modernism. It was highlighted by Kant, just before it was hijacked by Hegel, around 1800. Hegel turned dualism back to monism. He discredited the object or the facts, which Kant had called the "noumenon" (literally "that which cannot be known") and kept the other source, the subject or the ideas, called the "phenoumenon" which is now phenomenology. Truth detected by independent confirmation did no longer matter for Post-Modern collectivism, socialism and communism.

The "noumenon" is subliminal and cannot be known when it can only be sensed, as the "phenoumenon" is supraliminal and cannot be sensed when it can only be known. Independent confirmation between sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known can lift the "noumenon" from subliminal awareness and pull the "phenoumenon" from supraliminal awareness. If and when sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known independently confirm each other, then knowing what-is-sensed (or, by definition, realize what-is-realized) and sensing what-is-known (or, by definition, intuit what-is-intuited) emerge. Forms (sensing and knowing) or contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) could swap. Similarly, intuiting what-is-realized (value what-is-valued) and realizing what-is-intuited (try what-is-tried) make us more aware, and trying what-is-valued (react what-is-reacted) and valuing what-is-tried (act what-is-acted) make us fully aware.

Externalized internal normativity fuses with external normativity, if and when the source of recollection independently confirms the reflection of construction, inside- as well as outside of cognition. The environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief then become one in external behavior. This is social interaction where the other source and own reflection are external because they are independent - not independent because they are external. It is not when "the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807). It would only be a true problem, if there were certain benefits to internalism, which would not be found in the outside world. Truth and facts could be denied existence, however this would eventually be problematic, because the reappearance of the same fact in different ideas, entangles relations to other facts, across these ideas, and leaves it to the facts themselves to untangle these.

In processing, space temporalizes or content shapes form as what-is-sensed shapes sensing from the periphery to the depth of being (recollection), while time spatializes or form shapes content as knowing shapes what-is-known from the depth to the periphery (construction). New form and content are created by fusion, when temporalized space and spatialized time or recollection and construction reunite, in the other sources and reflections, which continue processing and creating new form and content from, and including, the form and content in previously visited sources and reflections. When four stages of independent confirmation thus have been reached in each of the two sources plus two reflections, for the current type of contents, which are both the fact and the idea, all four of them are to be externalized in social reality as reaction (react what is acted or react in response to the other) and as action (act what is reacted in response to the self) in their own sequence.

figure 5


Content in recollection is a fact or what-is-sensed, while content in construction is an idea or what-is-known. Contents may independently confirm each other, so that their forms, sensing and knowing, can now also process the other content. Thus, contents fuse into knowing what-is-sensed or realization, in recollection, and sensing what-is-known or intuition, in construction. This is the first stage of independent confirmation, which lifts the slumbering "noumenon" out of subliminal awareness, while pulling the slumbering "phenoumenon" from supraliminal awareness. What-is-known and what-is-sensed have swapped to create new form and contents which still includes the old. These may fuse and swap, creating new form and content again, in their turn. Realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited could in their turn create valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried, which in their turn could create reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted.

From the periphery of being to the depths, each stage of independent confirmation adds more content to be processed. The organism/self/belief or form, then grows more aware of the environment/other/reality, or content. At every stage, contents from recollection and construction renew under a new name, however the old content is encompassed and therefore still present. Thus content shapes form in recollection, while form shapes content in construction. Shaping form and content being shaped turn into form continuously processing current content, when the final stage of independent confirmation between contents has been reached. Reaction independently confirms action, if and when it does, through social belief or, when externalized, in social reality, which makes it noticeable to the environment/other/reality "itself". Independent confirmation at all stages, include both sources when they add up to four stages, which consist of two stages for each source.

figure 6


Both sources (and their self- and other-reflections) have peripheries and depths. Sources and other-reflections do fuse, if and when their contents independently confirm each other, however sources themselves and reflections themselves, do not fuse. Contents therefore travels from one source/reflection to the other, and back. Towards the periphery, what-is-known travels and deposits content into what-is-sensed, towards the depths of the other source or reflection. What-is-sensed and what-is-known therefore alternate while they travel with the same contents. In a cycle of four phases and four stages, content expands as it fuses with contents from the other side. The other contents is included and new content always includes old content. Thus what-is-reacted includes what-is-valued, which includes what-is-realized, which includes what-is-sensed, and what-is-acted includes what-is-tried, which includes what-is-intuited, which includes what-is-known.

figure 7


When content travels, from one source and other-reflection to the next, action calls for reaction between them and reaction calls for action within them. Current content is prepared for traveling, within each source and other-reflection, before it travels between them. Preparation takes place in four stages of independent confirmation to make sure that belief is real by positive verification and negative falsification. At the final stage, reaction independently confirms action, and action is externalized in behavior to be noticeable for the other. The other then reacts in response, implicating his own preparations of similar kind, if and when he detects truth by independent confirmation between them. The other then feels confirmed in his independence. Content shapes form in recollection and is shaped by form in construction, within the one and the other simultaneously. Form shapes action in construction, while reaction shapes form in the other's recollection, as content.


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

figure 8




3. Constructive Recollection


Coordinated reflection enabled sources to fuse with the other's reflection, if and when their contents confirmed each other independently. Fusion led from sensing to reacting in recollection and from knowing to acting in construction. Both within- and between sources and other-reflections, constructive recollection happens when content shapes form in recollection of facts, while form shapes content in construction of ideas, and truth deals with power by singling out one particular functional structure from all other possible- and real functional structures. Relations within-facts-between-ideas must be true and become dissonant by reinforcement, when they are carelessly created within-ideas-between-facts or within-groups-between-people. Sociosis (Van den Berg 1956), group-polarization, extremism, terrorism (Moscovici and Zavalloni 1969, Meertens 2004) and implicit dissociation disorder (Dell and O'Neill 2009), may thus be healed or prevented.

Apart from coordinated reflection and independent confirmation between our sources or the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief, they may functionally structure social interaction (3a) and constitute social reality (3b). Instead of having the other source internally reflected for seeking independent confirmation, it may (seem) still external, while the self is engaged with the other, externally in social interaction. Then reflection is still present, however in addition to independent internal confirmation within the one and the other, there is now also independent external confirmation between them. Instead of seeking truth by independent confirmation, their social belief may be of a Post-Modern nature which rejects truth, putting power in its stead, to enable the one to subject the other to direct reinforced conditioning, or by media and marketing, to ensure that the values of some animals more equal than others (Orwell 1945), will be maintained.


3a. Social Interaction

Finding truth within us, may be as important as finding truth between us. Within us, recollection independently confirms construction, normally unnoticeable to others. Between us, the other's recollection independently confirms the one's construction, normally noticeable to others. Within us, what-is-known is proved true or false by what-is-sensed, whereas between us, the one's independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation for the other indicates truth. The one's independence confirms the independence of the other, preferably when it needs a boost. This is social interaction, or one's reaction in response to the other's action and his action in response to his own reaction. Action and reaction at the final stage of independent confirmation that is unnoticeable to the other, then becomes noticeable. Facts tell us if ideas are true, however ideas tell us which are the facts in the first place, if and when they independently confirm each other indeed.

Within people, recollection goes before construction, while between people, construction goes before recollection. It is a small cycle of social interaction which grows larger for current content, while new currents emerge. At face value, it seems only an interaction between two independent individuals reacting in response to the other and then acting in response to their own reaction. However, these reactions are content shaping form and actions are form shaping content, in stages of independent confirmation, if and when it happens, within- and between them. Reaction starts from sensing and action starts from knowing. Then, sensing is known, within them, while knowing is sensed, between them. This is the first stage of realizing and intuiting. The next is realizing what-is-intuited (valuing) within them, and intuiting what-is-realized (trying) between them. Finally, trying what-is-valued is reacting within them, while valuing what-is-tried is acting between them.


figure 9


Sources internalize external content or facts and externalize internal content or ideas. Social interaction, or one's reaction in response to the other's action and action in response to one's own reaction, may happen only in social belief and not yet in social reality, even when internalization and externalization did happen. Social belief then still masks true intentions, out of uncertainty or for manipulative reasons. Uncertainty is lifted when more recollection does happen, for proper construction.

Sources feed content to form, thus making content shape form and form shape content, to and from the highest possible stage of independent confirmation, being social interaction, unless social interaction itself, reliably finds independent confirmation between Self and Significant Other. If and when the other's reflected content-shaped-form cannot falsify one's original form, it is validated and may be adopted by the Self. Self and reflected Other then never need to separate anymore.

Independent rational-, emotional- and/or passionate confirmation between Self and Significant Other, means sameness in spite of independence and difference in spite of confirmation. When the environment/other/reality is the Significant Other and the organism/self/belief is the Self, then independent confirmation is no longer necessary, since truth has already been found. Being someone's Significant Other in itself is the greatest independent confirmation or Truth the Self may aspire to.

Pair-bonding between Self and Significant Other is coordinated reflection by content shaping form in recollection and form shaping content in construction, plus independent confirmation which internalized the other's reflection of form validly by negative falsification in cognition at the depth of being, and externalized one's reflection of content reliably by positive verification in behavior at the periphery, for all possible interaction between Self and Other in the past, present and future.



  figure 10


The environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief coordinately reflect themselves, to independently confirm each other's self-reflection, for constructive recollection of facts, internalized after recollection, in cognition at the depths of being, and ideas, externalized after construction, in behavior at the periphery of being. Sources interact in four phases of a social cycle, continuously reacting in response to the other's acting (1+3) and acting in response to their own reacting (2+4).

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

Forms in both sources process content "here and now", at the highest possible stage, which is ultimately social interaction in four phases. Every phase consists of four states and every next phase moves one state forward. Each state participates in all four phases, whether it has just started, just finished or in between. Four states cycle through one phase and four phases cycle through one interaction. Higher stages necessarily include the lower ones yet lower stages not necessarily higher ones.

Content shaping form in recollection, internalized in cognition after negative falsification, is a recollected idea, adding to-, yet never replacing, authentic or unshaped form of the person-in-itself, who we know and do not sense (phenoumenon). Form shaping content in construction, externalized in behavior after positive verification, is a constructed fact, adding to-, yet never replacing, authentic or unshaped content of the thing-in-itself, which we sense and do not know (noumenon). 

Social interaction is a back- and forth between sources. Every action and reaction may be seen as an alternating sequence of sensing and knowing what-is-sensed and what-is-known, realizing and intuiting what-is-realized and what-is-intuited or valuing and trying what-is-valued and what-is-tried. Each of these layers or stages adds reliability to behavior and validity to cognition, for more sensibility towards-, and better understanding of, organism/self/belief and environment/other/reality.

When 4 states in each of four phases of the social interactive cycle overlap 3 states with the next phase, 2 states with the next and 1 state with the last, it takes two cycles to return to the first of 8 states in total, including the noumenon (sensing-what-is-sensed) and the phenoumenon (knowing-what-is-known). States of social belief are: the subliminal noumenon, trust, expectation, presumption, prediction, belief, intention and the supraliminal phenoumenon, prepared for social reality.

In social interaction, the other's fact, whether it is created by power or by truth, is the one's idea, if he wants his belief to represent reality. Then the one's idea, in response, leads to the one's fact, or social belief externalized into social reality, again, created by power or by truth. Next the reverse in interaction makes the one's fact the other's idea, if he wants to be just as realistic. Finally his response is to turn his idea into his fact. That is how the phases of social interaction keep cycling.

Facts involve both people who are socially interacting. Ideas do not necessarily involve them both. What the organism/self/belief knows-intuits-tries-acts as an idea, is what he senses-realizes-values-reacts about the environment/other/reality as a fact, if and when it has been independently confirmed. Social interaction is to provide independent confirmation rationally, emotionally or compassionately. Ideas may achieve the status of facts and involve both people socially interacting as well.

figure 11


3b. Social Reality

Contrary to claims often made, morality and religion are not closed and static in philosophical Modernism, nor are they open and dynamic in Post-Modernism (Bergson 1932). Within-ideas-between-facts, relations may all be trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended as they are. Still, when they cannot be translated, as they automatically are anyway, into relations within-facts-between-ideas, then Post-Modern imminent dialectics is closed and static, all by itself.

Independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation indicates factual truth of ideas. Dependent rejection by the threat of excommunication or homelessness indicates the need for solidarity, safety and security, not necessarily minding factual truth. Intrinsic motivation within-people-between-groups promotes liberty of open morality and dynamic religion, while extrinsic motivation within-groups-between-people promotes dogma of closed morality and static religion.

Both power and truth predict what happens, therefore both politics and ethics are accountable. Yet, power and politics are only self-interested, while truth and ethics are not selective. Truth is detected by independent confirmation, while power is strengthened by reinforced conditioning in politics, media and marketing. When power is not comforted by truth, it changes facts instead of ideas. Power and politics may look like truth and ethics, even when their worlds are incompatible.

Open morality and dynamic religion make sure that relations within-groups-between-people and within-ideas-between-facts, do not get entangled when they (automatically) translate into relations within-people-between-groups and within-facts-between-ideas. These entanglements and complexities call for socioses (Van den Berg 1956) at the sociological level and for dissociation disorders such as derealization and depersonalization, at the psychological level (Dell and O'Neill 2009).

Truth and ethics may be replaced easily by power and politics, if that is what the spivs want, which became clear when Post-Modernism took over from Modernism in early 1800s philosophy and especially in the 1960s, apparently to deflect a new World War. Even science, justice and journalism were affected and the abuse of trust and safety particularly in these secluded realms shocked people to the core, when it shifted from truth to power, in the way the ideas determined the facts.

figure 12


Philosophical Modernism is dualistic, acknowledging the external- and the internal source (noumenon and phenoumenon), while Post-Modernism only recognizes pheno(u)menology, ignoring the noumenon. Social interaction is therefore believed to be either dualistically interactive between two sources, or monistically and imminently dialectic within a single source. In time, social reality should independently confirm either Post-Modernism or Modernism, as philosophy or social belief.

Power and politics motivate extrinsically, within-groups-between-people, as truth and ethics motivate intrinsically, within-people-between-groups. Extrinsic motivation is either externally normative or internally normative, as one dominates and the other submits. Intrinsic motivation is both externally normative and internally normative, for the one to independently confirm the other and untangle the more complex relations within-people-between-groups and within-facts-between-ideas.

Groups are formed and society is ordered by truth and ethics or power and politics. Intrinsic motivation to independently confirm (significant) others, by (forward) paying and earning, or offering and accepting, freedom of choice, can be against one's own interests. Extrinsic motivation to escape dependent rejection by dependently confirming friends (cronyism) and independently rejecting enemies (prejudice), creates a power-distanced hierarchy and is always in one's own group interest.

Normativity is external or internal in a hierarchical, power-distanced society, making people dialectically dominate and submit others. Extrinsic motivation by power and politics, within-groups-between-people, causes dissociation between organism and environment, self and other or belief and reality. All conservatively submit by confirmation bias or cronyism, as one dominates top-down, while all progressively dominate by independence bias or prejudice, as one submits bottom-up.


figure 13


Intrinsic motivation within-people-between-groups could beat extrinsic motivation within-groups-between-people in the end, since minority influence may be strong when consistent over long periods of time and not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974). If relations are entangled by closed and static ideas reusing the same facts without opening up about their central assumptions to each other, then facts may still be strong enough to untangle themselves, if consistent.

Ideas stem from beliefs and facts stem from from reality. Within beliefs, facts are related simply by logic, chronology or association, as in reality, ideas are related by either truth or power. To disentangle relations within-facts-between-ideas they may be reduced, from actions and reactions to what-is-sensed and what-is-known or their building-block facts and ideas, to grasp the linking-pin function between ideas, forced to be con-fused or be loyal to one idea, not the other or both.

Facts and ideas may increase, however they remain facts and ideas, no matter how big or small. Relations within-ideas-between-facts are constructed by the organism/self/belief, while relations within-facts-between-ideas are recollected by the environment/other/reality. What-is-sensed, what-is-realized, what-is-valued and what-is-reacted are facts, and are relations between ideas. What-is-known, what-is-intuited, what-is-tried and what-is-acted are ideas, and are relations between facts.

When ideas are incoherent, uncoordinated or aim for separate targets, within-facts-between-ideas, then input- and output-conditions for these facts may wreak havoc or halt in deadlock. The same is true for relations within-people-between-groups, when groups are incoherent, uncoordinated or aim for separate targets. People may call for "strong leaders" or unified rules to resolve this, however all facts or people should independently confirm every new idea or group beforehand.

Relations within-ideas-between-facts are constructed within-groups-between-people, in social belief and maybe in social reality. These relations are logical, chronological or associative. When groups are closed and static, no criticism and only a priori "truth" is allowed, remaining dogmatically untouched. When groups are open and dynamic, within-people-between-groups, social reality and social belief untangle within-facts-between-ideas, by the application of constructive recollection.





Philosophy Application


figure 14



Summary and Conclusion

Social reality confronts social belief, and independent confirmation may or may not happen. If and when it does happen, content-shaping-form in recollection independently confirms form-shaped-content in construction. It happens by positive verification in behavior at the periphery of being, as they fuse into new content shaping form, and by negative falsification in cognition at the depth of being, as they fuse into new form shaping content. Reaction and action tonate in recollection and detonate in construction. Action by one source, in response to its own reaction, is responded to by the other's reaction. As long as independent confirmation does not happen, more tonation is needed. It does not imply dependent rejection. Independent individuals keep each other independent and confirmed, in constructive recollection, by their common values.

Social reality within-groups-between-people, based on either internal normativity or external normativity, is extrinsically motivated by power and politics, while social reality within-people-between-groups, based on both internal- and external normativity, is intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics. Power and politics motivate people to avoid dependent rejection by closed morality and static religion, in Post-Modern philosophical monism and imminent dialectics, while truth and ethics motivate people to look for- and find independent confirmation by open morality and dynamic religion, in Modern philosophical dualism and social interaction, or duality of origin. Power and politics look like truth and ethics, although the one entangles- and the other untangles relations within-people-between-groups, and therefore within-facts-between-ideas.

Truth and ethics create facts, if and when independent confirmation happens between ideas in social interaction. Power and politics create facts, if and when one idea categorically demands its own realization, dominating and submitting another, by imminent dialectics. Social interaction repeatedly cycles four phases between self and other in cognition and behavior. The one's idea is picked up as the other's fact and the one's fact is picked up as the other's idea. Power and politics ignore the facts by allowing them to get entangled, when they belong to different groups, relating incompatible ideas, while truth and ethics do not allow this to happen, since truth is determined by independent confirmation between facts in recollection and ideas in construction. Facts created with power and politics cannot independently confirm their own ideas.



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

Bergson, H. (1903). "Matière et Mémoire". Paris: Félix Alcan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Niebuhr, R. (1937). "Serenity Prayer”. London: YWCA.

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

Ouweneel, W.J. (1984). "Psychologie”. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn.

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

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

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

Rorty, R. (1979). "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". Princeton: Princeton University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wittgenstein, L.J.J. (1922). "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus." Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14

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

Other u2_1991 gyroscopegimbal1 gyroscopegimbal2





Send Feedback