You can’t be rooted unless you’re free and you can’t be free unless you’re rooted.
Little House On The Prairie

Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application

Finding Truth In Science, Justice And Journalism



Constructive recollection is a systematic retake of philosophical Modernism, which is mainly characterized by "duality of origin" (Bergs - See more at:
Constructive recollection is a new take on philosophical Modernism, as opposed to philosophical Post-Modernism. The main characteristic, following Bergson, is "duality of origin" which it shares with Christianity. Rather than separating heaven from earth, Modernism separates what-is-sensed from what-is-known. They have to coordinately reflect each other, independently confirm each other and develop content for their forms to process, the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief. This will show how bad Post-Modernism is and how good Modernism is, for us.


1. Coordinated Reflection

We are our own organism/self/belief, interacting with our environment/other/reality. Both forms are sides of a divide, which philosophical Modernism calls "duality of origin", and each contains a source on its own side and a reflection on the other side. So on each side there is one source for itself and one reflection for the other side. From the past, sensing what-is-sensed is source on the one the side and reflection on the other, while towards the future, knowing what-is-known is source on the one side and reflection on the other. What-is-sensed and what-is-known is content processed by form.

Past "theres and thens" have prepared an explosive package for the "here and now", of means and ends, to detonate, for future "theres and thens". We can only know or sense those causes and ends when "there and then" is "here and now" using our best memory for the past or best conjecture for the future. Content from "there and then" has its own qualities and we do or do not truly represent those qualities. We can quarrel over them, however being factually what they are, they should sanction anything we think, say or do, referring to them.


figure 1

Sensing what-is-sensed, although this is how we impress ourselves, cannot be known ("noumenon") without knowing it, while knowing what-is-known, although this is how we express ourselves, cannot be sensed ("phenoumenon") without sensing it. Therefore, knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known should be possible. Duality of origin enables this. The organism/self/belief and the environment/other/reality are forms consisting of their own source, either what-is-sensed or what-is-known, and the other source's reflection. Forms must be functionally structured to process content (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1972), knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known. To achieve functional structure, they need to reflect themselves "in the image" of the other.


figure 2

Opposite sources and their opposite reflections on the other side of our duality of origin, need to coordinately reflect themselves and each other, for living with a "here and now" that is not one and the same is very hard if not impossible. Reflections can be moved by their sources, however only indirectly. Sources can only move their own reflection on the opposite source's side; they cannot move the opposite source's reflection on their own side. What-is-sensed can move its reflection by calling for object-orientation. What-is-known can move its reflection by multi-perspectivism. Coordinated reflection between sources, if and when their "here and now" is one and the same, extends to the whole of their convex spheres. Sources must detect and confirm independently, if and when this extension has taken place. Their interdependence depends upon their independence. Although what-is-sensed is material and what-is-known is immaterial, their space and time are the same, so that precise coordination is possible for all content processed by the forms.

figure 3




2. Independent Confirmation

Coordinated reflection should lead to independent confirmation between sources and their opposite source's reflection. Both sources and reflections each have form to process and content to be processed. Before that stage is reached, content shapes form in recollection and form shapes content in construction. If and when contents on both sides, that is in recollection and in construction, happen to independently confirm each other, rationally, emotionally or compassionately, their forms may switch contents or expand the noumenon of sensing what-is-sensed to knowing what-is sensed in recollection and the phenoumenon of knowing what-is-known to sensing what-is-known in construction. Independent confirmation of recollection by construction and construction by recollection, happens simultaneously, if and when it does. If what-is-known is true, then it should be verified and validated by what-is-sensed; if what-is-known is false, then it should be falsified and not be relied upon by what-is-sensed. Independent confirmation therefore happens if and when verification is possible and falsification is impossible. Otherwise, the noumenon remains unknown because it is no more than sensing what-is-sensed without knowing it, while the phenoumenon remains unsensed because it is no more than knowing what-is-known without sensing it (cf Kant 1781).

Knowing what-is-sensed and sensing what-is-known occurred simultaneously when independent confirmation happened, as form switching content. Let us call them realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what is intuited. This is the first level of functional structure that noumenon and phenoumenon can reach. The second level is reached, when contents in recollection and construction, which are now what-is-realized and what-is-intuited, independently confirm each other again, by possible verification and impossible falsification. Knowing what-is-sensed or realizing what-is-realized now expands to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed or valuing what-is-valued, while sensing what-is-known or intuiting what-is-intuited now expands to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known or trying what is tried. And under the same conditions, in the exact same manner, trying what-is-valued and valuing what-is-tried, or reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted, can be reached as the final level of functional structure. This is where internal processing may be externalized in social reality between the entities, or the externally normative environment/other/reality and the internally normative organism/self/belief, and the one reacts in response to the other's actions and acts in response to his own reactions.


figure 4


From what-is-sensed to what-is-reacted, every new bit of externally normative content from the environment/other/reality expands in stages of independent confirmation, based on the impossibility to falsify what-is-known in reflection and the possibility to verify what-is-known as source of what-is-sensed. Likewise, from what-is-known to what-is-acted, every new bit of internally normative content from the organism/self/belief expands in the same stages of independent confirmation, based on reliance upon one's self as attempts to falsify could be warded off by what-is-known as its own source, and in reflection could be validated by verification. In continuous streams of consciousness and behavior, all new bits of externally- and internally normative content thus internalize and externalize, as independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation is found and treasured. The streams' waves stem from the depths of one form to those of the other as sources and back again as reflections.

figure 5


Social interaction between the environment/other/reality and the organism/self/belief can only be one side reacting in response to the other side acting, followed by acting in response to its own reaction. Reaction and action both are expansions of content streaming subliminally as consciousness and behavior. Behavior also becomes consciousness when it is internalized, while consciousness also becomes behavior when it is externalized. Therefore both must imply all developmental stages every bit of content must reach before getting there, finding and holding on to independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation at every stage, except when mimicry is applied.

The sensing organism/self/belief senses the sensed environment/other/reality, or what-is-sensed. Independently confirmed at all four stages, sensing expands to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed, which is reacting, because knowing what-is-sensed is realizing, intuiting what-is-realized is valuing and trying what-is-valued is reacting, all by definition. What-is-sensed is a continuous stream of content shaping form as it expands by independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation, since normativity is external on this side of our duality of origin. When externalized, reacting what-is-reacted may be the reacting organism/self/belief, in response to the acting environment/other/reality.

  figure 6


The knowing organism/self/belief knows the known environment/other/reality, or what-is-known. Independently confirmed at all four stages, knowing expands to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known, which is acting, because sensing what-is-known is intuiting, realizing what-is-intuited is trying and valuing what-is-tried is acting, all by definition. What-is-known is a continuous stream of content shaped by form as it expands by independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation, since normativity is internal on this side of our duality of origin. When externalized, acting what-is-acted may be the acting organism/self/belief, in response to the reacting organism/self/belief.

figure 7


3. Constructive Recollection

The expansion of sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted and of knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, are recollection and construction, or constructive recollection. Expansion may be continued externally, in social reality, where reaction in response to the other's action and action in response to one's own reaction, amount to social interaction. Truth, or what can only be detected by independent confirmation, has then been externalized, although it still motivates intrinsically. Extrinsic motivation would turn independent confirmation into dependent rejection, whipping people into group-polarization (Moscovici & Zavalloni 1969, Meertens 1980), dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting enemies, as cronyism and prejudice. Intrinsic motivation attracts independent individuals towards each other's independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation or Truth. Independence is kept alive or is strengthened, if and when one individual can confirm another, so that strength is passed on from one independent individual to the next and never should die.


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

figure 8


In social interaction, when the other acts and in response one reacts, form shapes content and content shapes form, unless processing no longer requires either of them. Still, action implies trying, trying implies intuition and intuition implies knowledge, while reaction occurs out of valuing, valuing occurs out of realizing and realizing occurs out of sensing. Each of these entities of content is connected to its opposite's reflection, hopefully by independent rational-, emotional- or compassionate confirmation or else by mimetics, in spontaneous gestures and living expressions (cf Gendlin 1997, Shotter 2011).

figure 9


The stream of content in social interaction between the organism/self/belief (A) and the environment/other/reality (B) is one and the same, as the four phases of social interaction are: (1) A responds to B, (2) A responds to A, (3) B responds to A and (4) B responds to B. Each response begins with what-is-sensed when the previous one has been what-is-known or what-is-known when the previous one has been what-is-sensed. Alternating and overlapping each other, what-is-sensed expands to what-is-realized, what-is-valued and what-is-reacted, as what-is-known expands to what-is-intuited, what-is-tried and what-is-acted, continuously for every bit of content.

figure 10


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

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

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

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

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



  figure 11


Independent confirmation can easily be replaced by dependent rejection, which requires the presence and ownership of power. Power is in high demand, because it is associated with the expected fulfillment of practically all human desires. Money is power and money buys almost anything. Social reality is ordered or structured through the mechanism of power-distancing and the effort to reduce the distance to the next higher- and to increase the distance to the next lower social echelons (Mulder 1973). The threat to inflict physical or mental harm would neither be possible without power. To stay away from dependent rejection, people organize themselves in groups, with or without leadership, dependently confirming each other as friends and independently rejecting others as enemies, thus maintaining cronyism and prejudice. These social dynamics are taken from the officious to the official realm by politics. Post-Modernism as conceived by Hegel shortly after Kant published his authentic views, abides by this minimal understanding of social reality as so-called dialectics. Unfortunately, the environment/other/reality thus can be a cesspool of corruption, fraud, scam, backbiting, quackery, cheating and espionage.

Does the economy have to be ruled by power & politics, or could it also be ruled by truth & ethics? The Protestants emigrating to North America over two hundred years ago, had clear ideas about this. Pay it forward as you would provide freedom to significant others, ethically, in order to stay on track (to the West) of Truth, which can only be detected by independent confirmation, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately. Today, of course, our whole lives are in the grips of absolutely corrupt power & politics, only reinforcing selfishness of a whole group or individuals who can afford it. Even the way many view genetics has been tarnished by it (Weber 1905, cf Dawkins 1976).



figure 12


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

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

There are limits to extrinsic motivation where normativity is either external or internal. Once the narrative is no longer supported by the facts and looking away no longer helps because groups can only suffer a limited amount of derealization in prejudice or independence bias, while those held in dependent rejection can only suffer a limited amount of depersonalization in cronyism or confirmation bias, Historic Materialism will shift powers and politics from one generation to the next. In 1968 the Cultural Revolution (in the West) shifted normativity from parents, leaders and conquerors to children, followers and conquered and the Hippie was born. He delved into sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, using and abusing his newfound power to the extreme. Intrinsic motivation could no longer confirm independence to independently confirm what was personally known to be good and true, as turning on, tuning in and dropping out seemed to have the same positive effect (cf Leary 1966).


figure 13


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

The mind moves synthetically and analytically, Kant discovered or assumed and proved. Synthetically, we explore all things new, like babies putting things in their mouths. Analytically, we consolidate our knowledge. This continues all our lives, although synthesis and analysis alternate in a changing way, for each of us differently and depending on our social, that is cultural-historical, conditions of living. The older we get and the more we synthetically explored, the more synthesis or integration is necessary for the mind to stay healthy. The younger we were and the sooner analysis began, the higher the chance wrong precepts entered and caused damage. Therefore we need to synthesize our minds later in life, from the best precepts we found. They can be "seen with the brain" (Sacks 2012) because we feel the difference, before and after, when they order our thoughts. I have been using software to record these entities and relations for quite some time now, for this purpose: to sense what I know and still believe is true. It protects me from falling down, mentally speaking, and it helps me get up again more effortlessly, when I did.

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

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




CRPA software application


figure 14





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

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

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

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

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

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

Boekestijn, C. (1982). “Wetenschapstheorie en sociale psychologie”. In: Sanders, C.; Rappard, J.F.H. van (1982). "Tussen Ontwerp En Werkelijkheid". Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.

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.

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.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1821). "Grundlinien Der Philosophie Des Rechts". Berlin: In der Nicola'ischen Buchhandlung.

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.

Leary, T. (1966). "Turn on, tune in, drop out”. Spoken word album. Chicago: Mercury Record Corporation.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






M2m Matter to Man
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)20 - 618.1632