You can’t be rooted unless you’re free and you can’t be free unless you’re rooted L. Ingalls Wilder

Constructive Recollection Philosophy Application

Finding Truth in Science, Justice, and Journalism


R. de Weijze - March 2018

 philosophical research


  Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned. Truth may strictly be found by looking for the facts, to independently confirm- and prove our ideas. Independence needs dualism, which is difficult to practice in personal and social settings, because invariably, power and politics (or post-modern dialectics) convert 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts, whereas power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. After Kant, this post-modern philosophical monism seized modern philosophical dualism. The present article aims to resume modern dualism, finding antecedents in spatiotemporality and consequents in social interaction, to refute post-modern celebrations of power and politics, in favor of modern truth and ethics.  


When Immanuel Kant preeminently articulated modern philosophy (Rohlf 2016), post-modern philosophy was hastening to announce that his sources of dualism, or 'duality of origin' (Bergson 1932), were only one, conforming to monism. At the arrival of the French Revolution, Kant had put the Anglo-Saxon 'synthetic a posteriori' ('sensibility after-the-fact') and the Continental 'analytic a priori' ('understanding before-the-fact') side by side, into the 'synthetic a priori' ('sensibility before-the-fact'), implying that sensibility can independently confirm understanding. The subject or 'phe-noumenon' extended the object or 'noumenon', to find truth between subjects inter-subjectively referring to it. Then, Hegel's revolution was that the object extended the subject. "The subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807). Celebrating power and politics, one 'inter-subjectively re-cognizes' the other, to befriend- and dependently confirm him, as they independently reject their common enemy. Thus, in a brutal twist of fate, dependent confirmation and independent rejection incapacitated independent confirmation.

Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992) declared existence is nothingness (Heidegger 1959, Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche 1882), truth is multiplicit or dialectical (Marx 1867), and reality is only a mental phenomenon with no independent object (Hegel 1807). Pronouncing Kant their 'Copernicus of the Philosophical Revolution', for calling space and time 'basic categories' of the phe-noumenon or subject, was pretext for losing Kant's independent noumenon or object. One and a half century after the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Cultural Revolution (May 1968) doubled down on this monistic premise, after Post-Modernism went around the world, leaving behind its brands, such as collectivism, socialism, and communism. Faced with missing open- and dynamic dualism (Bergson 1932), monism deflected to the closed- and static dogmatism of group-polarization (Moscovici 1969, Meertens 1980, 2006), power and politics, or dialectics in groups fighting over dominance and submission. Hence, post-modern philosophical monism or (phe-)nominalism diametrically opposes its ancestor, modern philosophical dualism or (phe-)noumenology.

Dividing between 'synthetic a posteriori sensibility' in space, and 'analytic a priori understanding' in time, Kant implied that modern dualism of sensibility and understanding is also dualism of space and time (1781: 78-105). Sensibility relates sensing to what we sense in space, as understanding relates knowing to what we know in time. What-is-sensed and what-is-known are the object, or the environment/other/reality, as sensing and knowing are the subject, or the organism/self/belief. Source space is what-is-sensed, or the sensed object, reflecting itself in sensing, or the sensing subject, by recollection. Source time is knowing, or the knowing subject, reflecting itself in what-is-known, or the known object, by construction. Source space and reflected space, as well as source time and reflected time, are spatiotemporal spheres, recollecting content and behavior from the periphery to the depth, in space, or constructing form and consciousness from the depth to the periphery, of the sphere, in time. Thus, source spheres co-ordinate with their self-reflections, repeatedly co-inciding with the self-reflections of the opposite sources within- and between subject and object.


1. Co-ordinated Co-incidence


According to physics, space and time are near identical in the monistic concept of 'spatiotemporality'. Relativity theory tells us, that speed and acceleration of objects curve space and slow time, warping spatiotemporality around them, reminiscent of Euclidean spheres. The periphery's three spatial dimensions, and the radius' one temporal dimension of a Euclidean sphere, however, are dualistically irreducible to each other, as their ratio π ("pi") has infinitely many non-repetitive decimal places. While space/content/behavior at the sphere's periphery resembles Cartesian 'res extensa' ("extended substance"), time/form/consciousness at the sphere's depth resembles 'res cogitans' (Descartes 1644). Because 'duality of origin' co-incidentally co-incided space and time, spatiotemporal dualism in the environment/other/reality exists in the organism/self/belief as well, if subjects can be objects (De Weijze 2017). From the outside, the subject is part of the sensible object, and from the inside, the understanding subject "ob-jects" or "throws-off" the object, setting it apart. The subject needs dualism between its sensibility and understanding, to find out if co-incidence happened or not.

Sources are space to objectively recollect, reflected in the subject, and time to subjectively construct, reflected in the object. Between recollection's spheres, source space reflects "here", materially or causally at the peripheries. Between construction's spheres, source time reflects "now", immaterially or teleologically at the depths. As the subject manages to co-incide source time and reflected space, the object manages to co-incide source space and reflected time. Spatializing time in construction ends, where temporalizing space in recollection begins, at the peripheries in space/content/behavior. Temporalizing space in recollection ends, when spatializing time in construction begins, at the depths of the spheres in time/form/consciousness. Before processing starts, source space and its reflection are 'empty', as source time and its reflection are 'blind'. "Thoughts without contents are empty and intuitions without conceptions are blind" (Kant 1790). Time, form and consciousness, from the spheres' depths of source time and its reflection, in construction, process space, content, and behavior from the spheres' peripheries of source space and its reflection, in recollection.

Sources and their self-reflections consist of space/content/behavior at the peripheries, and time/form/consciousness at the depths of their spheres. Reflected space is phenomenology or epistemology, and reflected time is noumenology or ontology1. Temporalizing source space and reflected space, in recollection, reduces space in time, enabling co-incidence with source time and reflected time, at the depths of their spheres. Spatializing source time and reflected time, in construction, reduces time in space, enabling co-incidence with source space and reflected space, at the peripheries. Temporalizing space enables content-shaping-form, which enables behavior to internalize as consciousness, whereas spatializing time enables form-shaping-content, which enables consciousness to externalize as behavior. Current content develops, shaping- and being shaped by form, like current behavior, internalizing as-, and being externalized by, consciousness. Finally, current behavior dissolves in consciousness, when the subject reacts in response to the object's action, and current consciousness dissolves in behavior, when the subject acts in response to its own reaction.

Co-inciding as space/content/behavior at the peripheries of the spheres, and as time/form/consciousness at the depths, in the object, are source space and spatialized reflected time, as well as temporalized source space and reflected time, while in the subject, they are source time and temporalized reflected space, as well as spatialized source time and reflected space. At every co-incidence, subject and object reconstitute "here" and "now" in space and time, fact and idea in content and form, as well as behavior and consciousness in our material basis and immaterial orientation (De Weijze 1982). Construction in one sphere continues as recollection in the next, through co-ordination between-, and co-incidence within subject and object. Thus, content is conveyed from periphery to depth, along temporalizing space in recollection, and from depth to periphery, along spatializing time in construction, across peripheries between subject and object, and across depths within subject and object. This is how spatializing time externalizes conscious form-shaping-content, as behavior, whereas temporalizing space internalizes behavioral content-shaping-form, as consciousness.

Since Post-Modernism "lost" the object, relations within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups are all that is left. Group-polarization draws opinions of group-members to extremes, within-groups-between-people, constraining relations within-people-between-groups turning them into conflicts of interest. The group's narrative treats the same facts as different, and/or different facts as the same, changing them to fit the ideas and twisting truth into lies, to reduce cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1962). Changing facts ignores people's innocence or guilt, which can induce dissociative disorders like derealization and/or depersonalization (Dell and O'Neill 2009), affecting independent individuals and dependent collectives, by growing into socioses (Van den Berg 1956). Facts or source space and ideas or source time are reflected by co-ordination in recollection and construction, as co-incidence unifies source space and reflected time in the object, plus source time and reflected space in the subject. Relations within-ideas-between-facts extend construction, for understanding, while relations within-facts-between-ideas extend recollection, for sensibility.

The spatial- and temporal organism/self/belief or subject interacts with the spatial- and temporal environment/other/reality or object. Source space and its reflection co-ordinate "here" in recollection, at the sphere's peripheries, as source time and its reflection co-ordinate (or synchronize) "now" in construction, at the depths. Regularly, source space and reflected time co-incide in the object, as source time and reflected space co-incide in the subject. To process sources' self-reflections "not here and now", not (yet) co-inciding with opposite sources, space temporalizes in recollection, as time spatializes in construction, to bridge the spatiotemporal gap. Spheres of the subject and of the object co-incide "here and now". To all other locations at the peripheries and moments at the radii, behavioral content and/or conscious form is attached, extending towards- or from the depths of the spheres, and beyond, into the other spheres, within-facts-between-ideas or within-ideas-between-facts. Through the self-reflections, the co-incidental "here and now" relates to all the other "theres and thens", all of which have conducted, or do currently conduct, their own "here and now".

Sensibility after-the-fact or the 'synthetic a posteriori', synthesizes facts, like understanding before-the-fact or the 'analytic a priori', analyzes ideas (Kant 1781). Relations in space/content/behavior, recollected from the peripheries of spheres to the depths and from the past (after-the-fact), through the present, cause future relations to occur, within-facts-between-ideas, whereas those in time/form/consciousness, constructed from the depths of spheres to the peripheries and from the future (before-the-fact), through the present, teleologically imply past relations, within-ideas-between-facts. Thus, sensibility and understanding within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, celebrate truth and ethics, altering ideas to fit the facts, by open and dynamic dualism, in Functional Structuralism (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976), like the "retrograde movement of the true growth of truth" (Bergson 1922), while the same within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, celebrate power and politics, changing facts to reconcile ideas, dogmatically fitting the narrative by closed and static monism, in Structural Functionalism (Parsons 1975).

Co-incidence enables material facts in recollection to continue, only in space and time, as immaterial ideas in construction. Recollection transforms space/content/behavior at the periphery of the sphere, into time/form/consciousness at the depth of its spheres, through temporalization of space, content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness, whereas construction reverses the process. Therefore, behavior and consciousness, along content and form, along space and time, are redistributed across the periphery of the sphere. What is extrapolated from each "here and now", is intrapolated at different "theres and thens". Co-ordination continuously replaces the "here and now" with "theres and thens", which then turn into the new "here and now". New cycles of extrapolations and intrapolations relocate content and behavior in spatialized time. Relations from within-facts-between-ideas in space/content/behavior at the periphery, have been recombined from within-ideas-between-facts in time/form/consciousness at the depth of the sphere, conceivably for the better. Thus, "here and now" the subject can "do good" through extrapolation, if it is its turn.

2. Independent Confirmation


We could hardly do without recognition, which is achieved primarily by being a subject and secondarily by what is said and done, including any referral to objects. However, recognition should be based on independent rational-, emotional, and/or compassionate confirmation, through objects. Otherwise, subjective bias is allowed like internalism, favoritism, nepotism, cronyism, group-polarization and dogmatism. Group dependency makes people afraid to look for independent confirmation, and avoid dependent rejection. This bias is a celebration of power and politics instead of truth and ethics. The subject or the organism/self/belief cannot dissociate from the object, or the environment/other/reality, knowing how power and politics, including his own, easily disguise as truth and ethics, or how Hegel's and Marx' 'inter-subjective re-cognition' of the other subject is different from Kant's inter-subjective recognition of the same object. The latter must direct our selective attention economy and not the former. To earn and pay attention must be guided by seeking and finding independent confirmation, not avoiding dependent rejection, and look away from the bias.

Hegel, influenced by-, yet opposing Kant after the latter published his main work, suggested that the object was irrelevant and objective knowledge was impossible. The 'unnamable thing-in-itself' was clear to him instead of opaque, as he claimed that the object was the subject itself, transparent for the other in social interaction, since we are all human beings, identical and 'inter-subjectively re-cognizable' to each other, which disqualified Kant's premise of dualism. However, being identical cannot replace inter-subjectivity through objects. One's selectively reciprocal 're-cognition' of the other only establishes a hierarchy for subjects to feed their cognition to. If facts do not fit the ideas, then power and politics simply force them to 're-cognize' the ideas, be it “too bad for the facts”. Kant called the object the 'noumenon', literally the 'unnamable thing-in-itself', by which he did not imply that the object could be missed. It establishes intersubjectivity between subjects who are referring to it, if and when the sensibility of the subjects, through independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, proves that how the object is understood, is true.

The concept of inter-subjectivity, interpreted in Hegel's terms instead of Kant's, led to the perception of social- and cultural reality as social constructs (Schütz 1945, Berger and Luckman 1966). Structural Functionalism does not require objective, independent confirmation. Power and politics change individuals' seeking independent confirmation, into group members' avoiding dependent rejection, for fear of excommunication and homelessness, calling for dependent confirmation of friends (cronyism) and independent rejection of enemies (prejudice). There is no dualism between facts and ideas, as in Functional Structuralism, when ideas are implemented, changing facts to make them fit. The appearance of independent confirmation still appeals to human instinct, even if different facts are treated as if they were the same, or to annihilate the appeal, same facts are treated as if they were different. Behavioral contagion (Wheeler 1966) is induced within-groups-between-people, which could lead to conflicts of interest within-people-between-groups. If facts are manipulated, innocence or guilt cannot truthfully or ethically be proven for having been compromised.


figure 6


Intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, modern dualism separates subject and object, to find independent confirmation between construction's internally normative spheres of 'knowing what-is-known' and recollection's externally normative spheres of 'sensing what-is-sensed', in the subject between forms (knowing and sensing) and in the object between contents (what-is-known and what-is-sensed). If and when independent confirmation is found, then time spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes as behavior, in construction, whereas space temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as consciousness, in recollection. Extrinsically motivated by power and politics, post-modern monism favors the subject over the object (Hegel 1807), sending roles (Boekestijn 1978) from the top, through internal normativity within-groups-between-people, to be received through external normativity within-people-between-groups, at the bottom. Dependent confirmation pays-, and may reciprocally earn, 're-cognition' for- and from friends in high places (Mulder 1973), as independent rejection disregards the out-group (Tajfel 1970).

If and when sensibility independently confirms understanding, or sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known, then sources and opposite's self-reflections co-incide, contents can copy-and-swap forms, and forms process contents, or sensing and knowing process what-is-sensed and what-is-known. New forms reduce old forms to contents and extend the substance, or the newly leading form and linked contents, within- and between object and subject. Independent confirmation extends recollection, from sensing to knowing-what-is-sensed (realizing), across the subject's depth, to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed (valuing), across the peripheries between subject and object, to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed (reacting), across the object's depth, while separately it extends construction, from knowing to sensing what-is-known (intuiting), across the peripheries between subject and object, to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known (trying), across the object's depth, to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known (acting), across the peripheries between object and subject, re-entering the subject.

Independent confirmation, of knowing what-is-known, by sensing what-is-sensed, is negative falsification of knowing by sensing, for validity, and positive verification of what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for reliability. Knowing what-is-known turns into 'sensing what-is-known' or 'intuiting what-is-intuited', while sensing what-is-sensed turns into 'knowing what-is-sensed' or 'realizing what-is-realized'. If and when 'realizing what-is-realized' independently confirms 'intuiting what-is-intuited', what-is-realized positively verifies what-is-intuited, for reliability, while 'realizing' negatively falsifies 'intuiting', for validity. 'Intuiting what-is-intuited' turns into 'realizing what-is-intuited' or 'trying what-is-tried' (as 'knowing what-is-sensed' and 'sensing what-is-known' are 'knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known'), while 'realizing what-is-realized' turns into 'intuiting what-is-realized' or 'valuing what-is-valued' (as 'sensing what-is-known' and 'knowing what-is-sensed' are 'sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed'). Similarly, valuing and trying emerge as 'trying what-is-valued' or 'reacting what-is-reacted', and 'valuing what-is-tried' or 'acting what-is-acted'.

Facts (what-is-sensed), positively verifying ideas (what-is-known), are each other's proexamples, as white swans and "white swans" (Corcoran 2005). Independent confirmation, by positive verification of contents (what-is-known by what-is-sensed), and negative falsification of forms (knowing by sensing), lets contents copy-and-swap forms, to emerge as realizing ('know what-is-sensed') the white swans, and intuiting ('sense what-is-known') "white swans". Realizing counterexamples falsifies intuiting to halt processing, like black swans. Proexamples let contents (what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or what-is-realized, and what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or what-is-intuited) copy-and-swap forms (realize and intuit), to emerge as valuing ('intuit what-is-realized') and trying ('realize what-is-intuited'). Valuing counterexamples falsifies trying to halt processing. Proexamples let contents (what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or what-is-valued, and what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or what-is-tried) copy-and-swap forms (value and try), finally to emerge as reacting ('try what-is-valued') and acting ('value what-is-tried'), in social interaction. 

In recollection, reacting is 'trying what-is-valued', valuing is 'intuiting what-is-realized', and realizing is 'knowing what-is-sensed'. In construction, acting is 'valuing what-is-tried', trying is 'realizing what-is-intuited', and intuiting is 'sensing what-is-known'. Recollection must sanction construction at every stage of independent confirmation before the current one, for the subject or the organism/self/belief, from the depths of its source and opposite source's self-reflection, to process the object or the environment/other/reality, from the peripheries of its source and opposite source's self-reflection, in terms of sensing and knowing. By negative falsification, space/content/behavior, recollected into time/form/consciousness, at the depths of the spheres in the subject, allows source time/form/consciousness to know (what-is-known), whereas by positive verification, time/form/consciousness, constructed into space/content/behavior, at the peripheries of the spheres in the object, is allowed by source space/content/behavior (to know) what-is-known. One's 'definition of the situation' (Thomas 1928), or what-is-known, is then preserved by truth and ethics.

At the highest stage of independent confirmation, recollection and construction are in direct contact with social reality and might be socially interacting as subject and object. Self-reflections between subject and object in social interaction are self-representations between subjects. In modern dualism, the object's source reflects itself in the subject, from the peripheries of the spheres of recollection in space/content/behavior, as the subject's source reflects itself in the object, from the depths of the spheres of construction in time/form/consciousness. Truth and ethics intrinsically motivate the subjects, to seek and find independent confirmation between their own consciousness externalized as behavior, including form-shaping-content, and spatializing time, in construction, and the other's behavior internalized as consciousness, including content-shaping-form, and temporalizing space, in recollection. One truly represents himself in the other, and the other truly represents himself in the one, by independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation. Independent individuals are represented even if they do not presently represent themselves.


figure 9



3. Constructive Recollection


After religion and philosophy, physical science appears dualistic, as spatiotemporality can be either ontologically material or epistemologically immaterial. Knowing what-is-known before-the-fact ought to be independently confirmed, in whichever way, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, by sensing what-is-sensed after-the-fact. If and when that is the goal, truth and ethics are on our side. However, seeking independent confirmation often is underhandedly replaced by avoiding dependent rejection. Then, instead of truth and ethics, power and politics control social order. Politics cumulate power, to 'bulldoze' all the facts, and 'prove' or self-fulfill an idea, which should be trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed or intended, to be independently confirmed by the facts. Social interaction [3a] between the sensing- and knowing subject on the one hand, and the sensed- and known object on the other hand, constructively recollect social reality [3b] and social identity [3c], if modern philosophical dualism is free to be true and ethical, by seeking independent confirmation, without the fear of power and politics, by avoiding dependent rejection.

3a. Social Interaction

Facts-relate-ideas in recollection, while ideas-relate-facts in construction. If and when recollection independently confirms construction, relations within-facts-between-ideas and relations within-ideas-between-facts are the same, thereby unifying temporalization of space and spatialization of time, content-shaping-form and form-shaping-content, behavior internalizing as consciousness and consciousness externalizing as behavior. Independent confirmation makes contents (facts or what-is-sensed and ideas or what-is-known) copy-and-swap forms, to process old and new contents, extending them before they are dissolved in interaction. Recollection needs to independently confirm construction at successive stages, or sensing/realizing/valuing/reacting in recollection, and knowing/intuiting/trying/acting in construction, as new forms, copied-and-swapped by contents, replace old forms, reduced to contents, and added to preexisting old contents. Swapping forms alternates states of recollection and construction, at all stages of independent confirmation. Thus, form-plus-contents emerge into extending and evolving substances, in both recollection and construction.

Contents are conveyed from one source to the other, by the sources' self-reflections, seeking co-incidence and independent confirmation, as they go around their source's peripheries, recollecting facts or constructing ideas, temporalizing space or spatializing time, shaping- or shaped by form, and internalizing behavior or externalizing consciousness. Trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended action before-the-fact, is freed after-the-fact, if and when one's reaction to the other's action independently confirms it, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. One senses/realizes/values/reacts, what the other knows/intuits/tries/acts, while the other senses/realizes/values/reacts what the one knows/intuits/tries/acts. Content extends to 'knowing (by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known (by the self) what-is-sensed (by the self)', or what-is-reacted, in recollection, and to 'sensing (by the self) what-is-known (by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known (by the self)', or what-is-acted, in construction. Thus, reacting in response to the other's action, plus acting in response to one's own reaction, are a social cycle.

By social interaction between object and subject, parties reflect their own source in the other, and have the other's source reflected in themselves, from their own perspective. If and when independent confirmation is found, contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) copy-and-swap forms (sensing and knowing) to convey substance (form-plus-contents) through one's depths, both peripheries, the other's depths, and both peripheries again. Independent confirmation must repeat itself on the other side, for social interaction to continue. One's recollection, which independently confirms one's construction, extends to the other's construction, when co-ordination between one's construction and the other's recollection exists, and consciousness externalizes as behavior in the one, whereas behavior internalizes as consciousness in the other (along form-shaping-content and content-shaping-form, spatializing time and temporalizing space). Independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, positively verified for reliability in space/content/behavior, and negatively falsified for validity in time/form/consciousness, share by social interaction.

If and when sources and self-reflections of their opposite sources co-incide, what-is-sensed and what-is-known copy-and-swap sensing and knowing, or space/content/behavior at the peripheries exchange time/form/consciousness at the depths of their spheres. Knowing what-is-sensed extends substance processed in recollection, while sensing what-is-known extends substance processed in construction. Copied-and-swapped forms alternate, or sensing and knowing, although the processing direction, in recollection from periphery to depth of the sphere, and in construction from depth to periphery, does never change, and remains recollective or constructive. Substances in recollection and construction consist of forms (sensing and knowing) extending contents (what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is etc), within- and between spheres, in the subject and in the object, crossing their depths, and in between them, crossing their peripheries. Recollection extends from sensing to 'knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed', whereas construction extends from knowing to 'sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known', taking the same route.

The maximum extensions of forms-plus-contents in recollection and in construction are four states, or one phase in a social cycle between subject and object. The next phase starts one state later in the same lasting series of states, phases, and cycles, unless communication halts. Interaction between subject and object takes one cycle of the subject's view of its recollection in response to the object's construction, its construction in response to its own recollection, the object's recollection in response to the subject's construction, and the object's construction in response to its own recollection, plus one cycle of the object's view of its recollection in response to the subject's construction, its construction in response to its own recollection, the subject's recollection in response to the object's construction, and the subject's construction in response to its own recollection. These cycles are exactly the same, except for the person, who is the subject or the object, when the object is a subject as well (from his or her own point of view). Therefore, a single social interaction consists of two social cycles of four phases each, of four states each, following each other one state.

States and stages correspond, as one more of them occurs, to extend recollection or construction and to imply that one more source's self-reflection has gone- and come around its source by co-ordination, to co-incide with the opposite source and to be independently confirmed. Since the phases of the social cycles are taking place one state apart in space as well as in time, the maximum number of stages of independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, or the maximum number of states per phase (four), is reached as often as the minimum number, or any other number of states and stages in between. Social interaction synchronizes, between person 1 and person 2, when both parties experience for themselves, or speculate for the other, which meaningful role every state plays in every phase, for both of them. This is where organism and environment, self and other, and/or belief and reality meet, stirring up most- or all of social dynamics, creating a life for man or an eternity for mankind, comparable to the universe being born out of a very minor mismatch in bifurcated matter versus antimatter, as stated by the new physics (Neubert 2009).

3b. Social Reality

Individual- or collective recognition is integral to social reality. Kant's Categorical Imperative, instructing the autonomous individual to “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 1785), is "an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow, despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary” (Johnson & Cureton 2016). 'Sensibility after-the-fact' which independently confirms 'understanding before-the-fact', establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to-, and recognizing the object. This comprises all trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended 'sensibility before-the-fact', or the 'synthetic apriori'. Yet, underhandedly, literal 're-cognition' of another subject took over, dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting enemies, "to boost one's self-consciousness", "to go into the world and lose oneself", and not "to go into oneself and lose the world" (Hegel 1807). Thus, power and politics' 're-cognizing' through the subject, ended truth and ethics' recognizing through the object.

Power and politics change facts (what-is-sensed), to fit the ideas, while truth and ethics change ideas (what-is-known), to fit the facts. Facts relate ideas (within-facts-between-ideas), as ideas relate facts (within-ideas-between-facts). If facts are used in one idea, and reused in another, relations within-facts-between-ideas may entangle, for example if a single fact is treated as multiple, or multiple facts as single, abusing independent confirmation. Similarly, groups relate people and people relate groups. When people belong to one group, as well as to another, relations may entangle, for example as a conflict of interest. Power and politics motivate extrinsically to avoid dependent rejection, using excommunication and homelessness, within-groups-between-people, and group-polarization, within-people-between-groups. Truth and ethics motivate intrinsically, by finding independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation between recollection within-facts-between-ideas and construction within-ideas-between-facts. Thus, closed and static power and politics preyed on open and dynamic truth and ethics (Bergson 1932), to confound peoples' relations.

Consciously or not, power and politics seek loyalty, while truth and ethics seek honesty. Power and politics make us (inter) dependent, if we avoid dependent rejection from the group by excommunication or homelessness. Independent rejection of (the leader's) enemies and/or dependent confirmation of (his) friends, out of loyalty, trigger selective reciprocity and access to privilege. Truth and ethics, on the contrary, need independence, waiting for reality to independently confirm our beliefs, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. The object establishes both inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it, and independent confirmation strengthening them as honest and independent individuals, conditioned solely by reality. Independence cannot do without dualism, which is difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, as power and politics invariably turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change the ideas to fit the facts, while power and politics change the facts to fit the ideas. Thus, relations entangled within-ideas-between-facts transpire within-facts-between-ideas, as stress and dissociation.

Truth is understanding, 'knowing now what-is-known', or ideas before-the-fact in construction, proven by the independent confirmation from sensibility, 'sensing here what-is-sensed', or facts after-the-fact in recollection, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. In the organism/self/belief, sensing negatively falsifies knowing, for validity, unable to disprove it, and in the environment/other/reality, what-is-sensed positively verifies what-is-known, for reliability, able to prove it. Still, power and politics can effortlessly turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection', between the sensing- and the knowing organism/self/belief, and/or between the known- and the sensed environment/other/reality, even underhandedly and subtly, giving up on one's unique identity while giving in to identity politics. This establishes monistic dialectics, forcing people to 'loyally' take sides (or leave the party) and dependently confirm the unavoidable 'friends' and independently reject the unavoidable 'enemies', of their own or of their leader's, to strip away peoples' personal identities and dress them up, in the uniforms of closed- and static groups.

Our worlds are cut up and mixed. Post-modernism created immanently dialectic monism using power and politics, after the Kantian era and the French Revolution, fifty years later followed by the European Revolutions. Modernism though, created independent individual dualism or truth and ethics, before those revolutions. If circumscribed as dialectics, monism looks like dualism. However, monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent subgroups or -individuals, competing for our own dominance and every others' submission (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867, Nietzsche 1901). Monistic (inter) dependency leads to 're-cognition', bypassing truth and provoking group-polarization or extremism, by dependent confirmation of one's own group, and independent rejection of others'. Dualistic independency assumes that there are two sources instead of one, interacting through any two individuals, object and subject, or other and self, who seek independent confirmation, to stay on track of truth. Thus, dualistic (inter) dependency between autonomous individuals seeks independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for other and self.

To avoid dependent rejection from a group of which we are a member, through excommunication or making us homeless, we likely are tempted to dependently confirm 'friends' and/or independently reject 'enemies', or those of the leader, to pay our dues, within-groups-between-people. Relations within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups are the same, causing group-polarization. Groups manipulate their members when they interpret honesty as "disloyalty" and/or loyalty as "dishonesty", taking the exact opposite side of what was intended. Hegel's (1807) opposite interpretation of 're-cognition' swept Kant to the side and eliminated the object from philosophical understanding, to turn modern dualism into post-modern monism. The object could establish inter-subjectivity between the subjects referring to it, being recognized by independent confirmation. Hegel replaced the object with the subject, whom should be paid loyal 're-cognition', to earn 're-cognition' in return. Marx turned Hegel's top-down hierarchy bottom-up, calling it 'historical materialism' (1859), although he did not restore the hinge point for recognition to the object.

The main differences between the worlds of post-modern monism and modern dualism, is where they collide as well. In the former, normative rationality (Habermas 1982, 1991) is sent down the social hierarchy of monism, internal for leaders and external for followers, through power and politics. Supposedly, there is a system of checks and balances (Montesquieu 1749) which keeps the leaders under control, balancing out their powers. However, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Dalberg-Acton 1887). Therefore, truth and ethics, recognizing the object, should reclaim their position in social reality, from power and politics, 're-cognizing' the subject. Relations within-groups-between-people, disturbed by group-polarization and dogmatism, discharge their tensions on (the same) relations within-people-between-groups, causing dissociation disorders between subject and object, or the organism and the environment, self and other, belief and reality, which cannot be fixed otherwise. Relations within-ideas-between-facts, in construction, independently confirmed by (the same) relations within-facts-between-ideas, can never be inapt.

Power and politics create groups, held together by loyalty, as truth and ethics create independent individuals, held together by honesty. Loyalty violates truth and ethics, when it changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence defenseless, within-groups-between-people and, by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups. Honesty explained as disloyalty, could no longer enable honest people to avoid dependent rejection. As the common enemy, they increase dependent confirmation of friends, and are independently rejected, themselves. There are (human) angels offering themselves to save these souls, independently or unnoticeably confirming their talents, for them to continue to be compatible and compete for survival, in an unjust world. However, this type of independent confirmation is not the same as that which is critical to find truth and ethics. To whom this is applied, it amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the angel, who cannot reveal his or her identity, the job is isolating, comparable to elites spoiling their protégés, though without the social status and without the celebration of power. All that is left is hopefully viewing the person thrive.


3c. Social Identity

In one's sphere of recollection, from periphery to depth, what-is-sensed is temporalizing space, content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness, while its substance extends by contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from subliminal sensing what-is-sensed to interactive reacting what-is-reacted. In one's sphere of construction, from depth to periphery, what-is-known is spatializing time, form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as behavior, while its substance extends by contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from supraliminal knowing what-is-known to interactive acting what-is-acted. While substance extends, alternatingly by sensing and knowing, to be reduced to what-is-sensed and what-is-known at the next stage, it meanders between subject and object, at the depths of their spheres, crossing peripheries. Once a stage reaches social interaction, it can fulfill its purpose, by conveying valid and reliable knowledge. The social cycle continues, held by both the subject's and the object's recollection and construction, synchronized by the same states at a different position in all phases, for both parties.

The kind of social order, post-modern monism or modern dualism, conditions social identity. Avoiding dependent rejection makes one 're-cognize' the subject, whereas seeking independent confirmation makes one recognize the object. Social order created by monism or power and politics, motivates avoiding dependent rejection by dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting enemies. Hierarchy specifies identity, as (inter) dependent upon friends, rejecting-, and rejected by their enemies. Social order created by dualism or truth and ethics, motivates seeking independent confirmation by mutual strengthening of independent individuals' social identities, because the object establishes inter-subjectivity between them. Subjects are inter-subjectively 're-cognized' in monism, extrinsically controlled by power and politics, to condition reflexes of the subjects, classically and/or operantly (Pavlov 1910, Skinner 1930), aiming to avoid dependent rejection, in Structural Functionalism, while subjects inter-subjectively recognize the object in dualism, intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, seeking independent confirmation, in Functional Structuralism.

Source space, the sensed object or what-is-sensed, reflects itself in the sensing subject or just sensing, whereas source time, the knowing subject or just knowing, reflects itself in the known object or what-is-known. As long as subject and object, or self and other, socially interact, they may become each other's Significant Other, next to-, although apart from, their Selves. If and when that happens, the knowing subject or the knowing Self reflects itself in the known object or the known Significant Other, while the sensed object or the sensed Significant Other reflects itself in the sensing subject or the sensing Self. Therefore, knowing and what-is-known, in construction, as well as sensing and what-is-sensed, in recollection, divide within- and between subject and object, or within- and between themselves. The Significance of the Other eliminates the need to seek independent confirmation, as it engages fully with sensibility before-the-fact, in which construction applies recollection, since they are the same for each of the partners, co-inciding with reality, and co-ordinating with each other or social reality in which both social identities are growing as one.

Between modern dualism or truth and ethics on the one hand, and post-modern monism or power and politics on the other, the relation between Self and Significant Other is critical for the kind of social order that will eventually surround it. When there is competition valued at-, or above, the comparison level, relations grow tense (Thibaut and Kelley 1959). Will the Self and Significant Other seek each other's independent confirmation, or will they avoid each other's dependent rejection, dependently confirming each other while independently rejecting their competition? The former relies on truth and ethics of relations within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, not being entangled, as facts are used in one idea and reused in the other, to establish objective or inter-subjective truth between the subjects, independently referring to them, typical of modern dualism. The latter relies on power and politics of relations within-groups-between-people, as well as within-people-between-groups, by means of group-polarization. All subjective cultural belief-systems protect themselves against a real, objective world, typical of post-modern monism.

Partnerships or relationships, based on loyalty within-groups-between-people, 're-cognizing' the subject, grow problematic within-people-between-groups, if group-polarization calls for facts to be changed, to fit the ideas. Based on honesty within-facts-between-ideas, recognizing the object, they never grow problematic within-ideas-between-facts, if ideas are changed to fit the facts. When people depend on each other, they avoid dependent rejection, by dependent confirmation of their 'friends', and independent rejection of their 'enemies', out of 'loyalty', for which they are 're-cognized' as an organism/self/belief. When people try to be independent individuals, they seek independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, recognizing the object to which subjects refer as their environment/other/reality. Loyalty and dependency between people are naturally followed by arguments, questioning who depends more on whom, in the process of which independent leaders appear to be born, who depend on their followers as as much as their followers depend on them. True independence only leads to independent confirmation or truth.


All people are related, by dependent confirmation (cronyism), receiving- and returning favors, or by seeking independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for the other. If the schemas are mixed, monistic power and politics extrinsically and opportunistically motivate dependent reaction-and-action within groups, by changing facts to fit the ideas or the narrative, while dualistic truth and ethics intrinsically motivate independent action-and-reaction between independent individuals, if and when their after-the-fact recollection independently confirms their before-the-fact construction, by changing ideas to fit the facts. If facts are changed to fit the ideas or the narrative, then changing ideas to fit the facts has no use. Intrinsically motivated reactions, in response to extrinsically motivated actions, are only intended as independent confirmations, claiming to wholly understand current extrinsic motivation, which is improbable. Conversely, extrinsically motivated reactions in response to intrinsically motivated actions, are most likely to interpret the independent confirmation as a repaid favor, which it did never intend to be.

In between monism and dualism, or avoiding dependent rejection and seeking independent confirmation, there is a third social order which may not be healthy for those who live in it. Seeking independent confirmation is reversed into providing independent confirmation for those who need it, who are the victims of monism. Without taking any credits or disclosing one's identity, the people who were independently rejected while others were dependently confirmed, to avoid dependent rejection, are provided extra strength by (human) angels independently confirming them. Policies may be comparable, such as positive discrimination, affirmative action, or identity politics which, however, are also power and politics taking care of 'their own', disguised as truth and ethics. This is a real challenge for the individual angels whose motives are pure and true, confirming them independently, who have a hard time proving their innocence when monistic power and politics change the facts to fit their ideas, or their narrative, for nefarious reasons. Although their behavior is very ethical, the focus should remain on truth and ethics, through independent confirmation.

Source space or the sensed object, in recollection, and reflected time or the known object, in construction, copy-and-swap forms, if and when the subject's spheres co-incide, as well as the object's, in space/content/behavior at the peripheries and in time/form/consciousness at the depths, through independent confirmation. Within-facts-between-ideas, 'knowing what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized' and 'trying what-is-valued' are recollected facts-relating-ideas or ideas reusing facts as linking-pins. Within-ideas-between-facts, 'sensing what-is-known', 'realizing what-is-intuited' and 'valuing what-is-tried' are constructive ideas-relating-facts. Relations develop meaningful, expanding networks, as facts (or objects) establish inter-subjectivity between ideas (or subjects) referring to them, for independent confirmation. As power and politics motivate to avoid dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups, truth and ethics motivate to seek independent confirmation, instead. Recollection within-facts-between-ideas, to independently confirm construction within-ideas-between-facts, is obstructed.

Modern philosophical, open- and dynamic dualism could prevent post-modern philosophical, closed- and static monism, of which proponents polarize their opinions, through power and politics, to create intolerant majorities. Minority influence is strong, if consistent for a long time, not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974). Relations within-facts-between-ideas or within-people-between-groups may not entangle, which does happen if ideas treat different facts as the same, untruthfully finding independent confirmation, or treat the same fact as different, untruthfully not finding independent confirmation. For example, asking how ideas categorically demand their own realization, in a closed and static approach following the Categorical Imperative (Lawlor and Moulard 2016), Bergson was interpreted as if he criticized Kant. Stating that "by re-establishing the duality, the difficulties vanish", Bergson (1932) accentuated seeking independent confirmation between the two sources, in "duality of origin" (p.79). His post-modern biographers dubiously called it, from a single-source monistic view, "but two complementary manifestations of life".

Notions of rationality, emotion, and compassion, are recollected facts and constructed ideas, co-inciding and independently confirming each other for space/content/behavior to copy-and-swap time/form/consciousness. Staying truthful, recollection within-facts-between-ideas has to independently confirm construction within-ideas-between-facts, not blocked by group-polarization, within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, shifting personal opinions to a dominant extreme of concentrated power and politics. Independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation creates meaningful networks of logical-, chronological-, and/or associative relations within-ideas-between-facts and, therefore, within-facts-between-ideas, reusing facts as linking-pin objects. Reusing the facts to link the ideas should not change the meaning of these networks, calling the same facts different, or different facts the same, driven by power and politics. Once relations entangle, no truth proves one's innocence, facts isolate from their meaning, and people isolate from their identity, stoking up traumatic stress, as well as tormenting dissociation2.




Philosophy Application


figure 15



Underhand inversion of 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection' by the adversary of modern philosophical dualism, post-modern philosophical monism, is a celebration of power, rather than truth. To resume modern dualism, its antecedents were traced to Kant and physics, in the concept of 'spatiotemporality', as temporal understanding is sanctioned by spatial sensibility through the co-ordinated co-incidence of space and time, processed by the subject and/or the object, whereas the consequents of dualism were explored in a model of social interaction, constituting co-ordinated co-incidence, independent rational-, emotional, and/or compassionate confirmation, and constructive recollection within- and between people. Truth and ethics at the level of the independent individual, who changes ideas to fit the facts in open- and dynamic dualism, needs to replace power and politics at the level of the dependent collective, in which group-polarization changes facts to fit the ideas of closed- and static monism, and results in the traumatizing impossibility to prove innocence or guilt, which in turn leads to dissociation and loss of identity.  




Berger, P.L.; Luckmann, T. (1966). "The Social Construction of Reality”. New York: Anchor Books.

Bergson, H. (1922). "The Retrograde Movement of the True Growth of Truth". In: "Creative Evolution". New York: Henry Holt and Company.

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

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

Corcoran, J. (2005). "Counterexamples and Proexamples". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11, 460.

Dalberg-Acton, J.E.E. (1887). In Figgis, J.N.; Laurence, R.V. "Historical Essays and Studies". London: Macmillan, 1907.

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.

Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107.

Habermas, J. (1982). "A reply to my critics". In: Thompson, J.B.; Held, D. "Habermas: Critical Debates". London: Macmillan.

Habermas, J. (1991). "A reply". In: Honneth, A.; Joas, H. "Communicative Action". Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1807). "Phänomenologie des Geistes". Bamberg und Würzburg: J.A. Goebhardt.

Heidegger, M. (1959). "Introduction to Metaphysics". New Haven: Yale University Press.

Johnson, R.N; Cureton, A (2016). "Kant’s Moral Philosophy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

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

Kant, I. (1785). "Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.

Kant, I. (1790). "Kritik der Urteilskraft". Berlin: Bey F. T. Lagarde.

Lawlor, L.; Moulard, V. (2016). "Henri Bergson". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Marx, K. (1859). "Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie". Wien: Alfred Hölder.

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

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

Meertens, R.W.; Prins, Y.R.A.; Doosje, B. (2006). "In iedereen schuilt een terrorist. Een sociaal-psychologische analyse van terroristische sekten en aanslagen." Schiedam: Scriptum.

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.

Neubert, T.N. (2009). "A Critique of Pure Physics: Concerning the Metaphors of New Physics". Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation.

Nietzsche, F. (1882). "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.

Nietzsche, F. (1901). "Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.

Parsons, T. (1975). "The Present Status of 'Structural-Functional' Theory in Sociology", Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory, New York: The Free Press.

Pavlov, I.P. (1910). "The Work of the Digestive Glands". London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd.

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

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

Sartre, J-P. (1943). "Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.

Schütz, A. (1945). "On Multiple Realities." In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 5: 533–576. Rhode Island: Brown University.

Skinner, B.F. (1930), "On the conditions of elicitation of certain eating reflexes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 16, 433-38.

Tajfel, H. (1970). "Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination". New York: Oxford University Press.

Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.

Thomas, W.I.; Thomas, D.S. (1928). "The child in America: Behavior problems and programs". New York: Knopf.

Weijze, R.C. de (1982). "Het gedrag als de materiele basis voor het bewustzijn en bewustzijn als oriëntatie op het gedrag". Free University Amsterdam.

Weijze, R.C. de (2017). "The Logic of Spatiotemporal Dualism".

Wheeler, L. (1966). "Toward a theory of behavioral contagion". Psychological Review, 73(2), 179-192.

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


1Wikipedia contributors (2018). "Philosophy of space and time". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

2Website TormentedInHiding