We possess two divine or cosmic gifts that we must handle with care, or they will possess us. The knowing organism or Person that we are, and the sensed environment or Material Body* that we have at the same time, need to work precisely coordinately.

If the sensed environment, including the sensing organism, and the knowing organism, including the known environment, are precisely coordinated, we are whole and together as (two) halves. If they are not, the individual suffers and so does society.

In knowing, the organism reflects the environment. In sensing, the environment reflects the organism. In the organism, sensing should independently confirm knowing. And in the environment, what is known should independently confirm what is sensed.

Coordinated Reflection

There is a now-and-here for the knowing organism to reflect the known environment and coordinate with it. There is also a now-and-here for the sensed environment to reflect the sensing organism and coordinate with it. We trust these two are one.

Trusting that our sensed and our known now-and-here are the same, may not always be justified. If it is not, society may have developed sociosis* with or without the individual, who may suffer indirectly, from depersonalization or derealization*.

The knowing organism reflects the known environment all by itself so bias may cause derealization. The sensed environment reflects the sensing organism all by itself so bias may cause depersonalization. Therefore reflection always needs justification.

When adults reflect children in their behavior, children may or may not sense and know they are treated as children, instead of adults. When they reflect adults, they therefore may or may not be playing along or carry the world on their little shoulders.

The knowing organism can move its now-and-here coordinates, looking for a match with the now-and-here coordinates of the sensed environment. Likewise, the latter can do so, looking for a match with the former. They interact until they synchronize.

The criterion for selecting one direction over another to move the sensed now-and-here into, is the reliability of what we sense: will the outcome be true or false to our senses? We need experience and perceptual training to try and reach for that outcome.

The criterion for selecting one direction over another to move the known now-and-here into, is the validity of what we know: is the observed outcome good or bad to our knowledge? We need a belief and an understanding to value the outcome as such.

The sensed environment coordinating with the (reflected) sensing organism, interacts in a flat surface, all points of which are connected in space and only add resolution the more interaction or movement takes place between the two, in any direction.

The knowing organism coordinating with the (reflected) known environment, interacts perpendicular to the flat surface of sensing-what-is-sensed. From the beginning to now, points of attention differentiate, while from now to the end, they integrate.

Object-orientation allows the sensed environment to "roll" the sensing organism in any direction, as its reflection of the knowing organism. It needs to move it to where the knowing organism itself actually is, or else it becomes dysfunctional.

Multi-perspectivism allows the knowing organism to "roll" the known environment in any direction, as its reflection of the sensed environment. It needs to move it to where the sensed environment itself actually is, or else it becomes dysfunctional.

Independent Confirmation

Coordinated reflection without independent confirmation, eventually will lead to derealization when the known environment does not fit the sensed environment, or to depersonalization when the sensing organism does not fit the knowing organism.

When the known environment independently confirms the sensed environment and the sensing organism independently confirms the knowing organism, then reflection is justified and the now-and-here of both, can be considered one and the same.

When and where sensing-what-is-sensed and knowing-what-is-known meet, the criterion for independent confirmation changes from (rationally) true or false to (emotionally) good or bad. That can be the current-, or any other place and time.

In communication, people are responsible for what they express in what they do, say or even think. Independent emotional confirmation is concerned about what is expressed, and how. Independent rational confirmation is concerned about why.

In justified reflection, sensing and knowing transform into realizing and intuiting, then into valuing and trying, and finally into acting and reacting, or interacting. Each independent confirmation thus transforms content into a new form, at a higher level.

On the side of sensing and justifiably reflected knowing, the sensed environment transforms. When it justifiably knows what is sensed, it realizes; when it justifiably intuits what is realized, it values and when it justifiably tries what is valued, it acts.

On the side of knowing and justifiably reflected sensing, the knowing organism transforms. When it justifiably senses what is known, it intuits; when it justifiably realizes what is intuited, it tries and when it justifiably values what is tried, it reacts.

What is sensed, realized, valued and acted in the environment, cannot access the organism selectively, because we never know what is true or false before the fact. So, forms are to accommodate and assimilate all content rationally, and aselectively.

Aselectiveness to content, requires flexibility of forms instead of nearness. Independent confirmation then, when it happens, must come from the environment's reflection which is the sensing organism, to confirm the knowing organism independently.

What is known, intuited, tried and reacted in the organism, cannot access the environment aselectively, because we always know what is good or bad after the fact. So, forms are to assimilate and accommodate all content emotionally, and selectively.

Selectiveness to content, requires strength of forms instead of power. Independent confirmation then, when it happens, must come from the organism's reflection which is the known environment, to confirm the sensed environment independently.

Constructive Recollection

From the depths of our being to the outmost periphery, we recollect what we (still) sense, and construct what we believe we (already) know, will fit the contents of our world intuitively yet precisely, until we realize our dream or realize our mistake.

Constructive recollection happens both externally and internally. People apply their values and norms when they build their world, recollecting what is valuable and constructing it functionally** into their daily lives. The same happens internally.

As the sensed environment and the knowing organism that we are both, coordinately reflect each other, we reflect the other as well on the outside. We try what the other values and the other values what we try, especially when we are Significant Others.

As Significant Others we independently confirm each other, in Truth. We must be free and independent to recognize and then confirm each other. Independent individuals are intrinsically motivated to love and support one another in their community.

Cultural- and material reality are content that needs form, a form we can recognize and love. Not form that needs content, as cultural pluralism unrealistically idealized. We can then recognize and confirm it, after we lost it in seeking independence.

We may fall back from a higher to a lower level, for other reasons than lack of coordinated reflection. Instead of independent confirmation, dependent rejection or power-distancing** may construct social reality by politically reinforced conditioning.

Vulnerability is submission to dominance or giving anybody access to our principles and questioning the responsibility of our conduct. It can be both but it should be the latter. Truth allows falsification* attempts to stay trustworthy, to ourselves at least.

Fallen back, I can try to independently confirm myself, asking: "do I want to condition this?" and intuiting what becomes real when I do. I cannot power-distance (from) myself, so here conditioning meets independent confirmation. Power meets strength.

Power-distance sets people apart or draws them closer. Those "more equal than others"* can do this. Politics embody it, by submitting groups to political correctness while dominating independent individuals by legally enforced cultural pluralism.

Politics and what counts within groups, between people, should not be confused with ethics and what counts within people, between groups. Mimetic desire* and group-polarization* account for group members' risky shifts in opinions and behaviors.

Children obey their parents overtly, but may develop their own ethics simultaneously covertly, when a full stop has been reached over generations, in sociosis. This is twice as hard and contributes to depersonalization or derealization disorders.

Culturally induced disorders on smaller scales, happen between pupil and teacher, worker and boss or the common man and the elite. Dominance and submission mark these relationships, to prevent covert disagreement to become overt and subversive.

Reinforced conditioning pushes political content into forms matching the power-distance. It has nothing to do with strength by True independent confirmation. Only the rawest of social realities, dependent rejection, have been politically met half way.

On the political Left, power is taken out of power-distance. All dominate equally as one submits to the group. If there is no mimetic likeness, he is independently rejected to create his own group. This social order is groupsism or cultural pluralism.

On the political Right, distance is taken out of power-distance. All submit equally as one leader dominates. The group is not divided but differentiated into a power hierarchy, most concentrated at the top. This social order is favoritism or cronyism.

The problem in society, postmodernists concluded after their "rediscovery" of Bergson in the mid 1990s*, was that it was closed and static, echoing Bergson's critique of Kant (±1775)*, how an idea could categorically demand its own realization*.

Morality needed to be open and religion dynamic, in a duality of origin*. This was readily interpreted as a call for multiplicity or cultural pluralism. Today, Hegel is sought to replace Kant*, as he himself had tried, in an historical philosophical hijack.

The Left has been accusing the Right, since the rise of the postmodern counterrevolution, of social constructionism. Concepts like God, Truth, Self and even Reality were considered constructs or narratives that had to be annihilated and dismissed.

What was deconstructed into nothingness*, the Left replaced by a narrative of its own, that supposedly never would have to be independently confirmed*. All that is required and endorsed, is behavioral contagion across all boundaries and objections.

Summary definition

Constructive Recollection is:

1. bringing functional structure into a set of elements, by the two sides of reality (material and cultural) reflecting each other, 

2. looking for independent rational confirmation between the material side and its reflection by the cultural side and 

3. looking after independent emotional confirmation between the cultural side and its reflection by the material side,

4. at different levels on both sides consecutively, 

5. until and as long as the sides interact.

References

Ben-Haim, Y. (1996). "Robust reliability in the mechanical sciences". New York: Springer.

Berg, J.H. van den (1956). "Metabletica of leer der veranderingen. Beginselen van een historische psychologie" 125. Nijkerk: Callenbach.

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

Bergson, H. (1932). "The Two Sources Of Morality And Religion" 79. London: Macmillan And Company Limited.

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

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

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

Girard, R. (1977). "Violence and the Sacred". Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hofstede, G. (2010). "The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance". Journal of International Business Studies 41 (8): 1339–46.

Jaspers, K. (1949). "Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte". München: Piper Verlag.

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

Mead, G.H. (1934). "Mind, Self, and Society: From the Perspective of a Social Behaviorist". Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

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

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

Piaget, J. (1985). "Equilibration of cognitive structures". Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Popper, K. (1963). "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge". London: Routledge.

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

Sierra, M.; Lopera, F.; Lambert, M.V.; Phillips, M.L.; David, A.S. (2002). "Separating depersonalisation and derealisation: the relevance of the "lesion method"". J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 72 (4): 530–2.

Strawson, P.F. (1959). "Individuals". London: Methuen.

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

Weijze, L. de (1996). "Mensendieck. Een oefenboek voor Het wijze lichaam in theorie en praktijk". Baarn: Tirion Uitgevers.

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

120518