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.C. de Weijze - Nov. 2017
Finding truth is an art we learned and
willingly unlearned. Truth can only be found by looking for the
facts, independently confirming our ideas, to prove them.
Independence needs dualism, which is difficult to apply in
personal- and social settings, as invariably, power and
politics, or post-modern dialectics, turn 'seeking independent
confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and
ethics change ideas to fit facts, whereas power and politics
change facts to fit ideas. Thus, after Kant, post-modern
philosophical monism took over modern philosophical dualism. The
latter did leave its methodology, applicable to science, justice
and journalism, here called 'constructive recollection'. This
paper describes and explains its aptness for logically
processing spatiotemporal dualism, using a resolute
When modern philosophy developed most articulately in Immanuel Kant's work (Rohlf 2016), post-modern philosophy was an accident waiting to happen, declaring our two sources of life, in dualism or
'duality of origin' (Bergson 1932), to be one, in monism. At the beginning of the French Revolution (1789), Kant published his great work (1790), in which Anglo-Saxon philosophical
'sensibility after-the-fact' independently confirms Continental philosophical
'understanding before-the-fact', turning it into 'sensibility before-the-fact',
the 'synthetic apriori'. The subject or 'phe-noumenon' extends the object or
the 'noumenon', establishing inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it. Hegel turned the tables,
implying the object to be an extension of the subject. A person or subject inter-subjectively
're-cognizes' another, dependently confirming him for selective reciprocation, while independently rejecting
others. "The subject goes into the world and loses himself, or [else] he goes into himself, and loses the world" (Hegel 1807).
Dependent confirmation and independent rejection replaced
independent confirmation, as if they could be interchangeable.
Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992)
declared that 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 (Hegel 1807),
without an independent object. Thus, post-modern philosophical monism or
phe-noumenalism is absolutely different from modern philosophical
dualism or noumenalism. Proclaiming Kant to be the 'Copernicus of the
philosophical revolution', because he called space and time
of the phe-noumenon or subject, was a pretext for losing the
noumenon or object. One and a half century after the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Cultural Revolution of May 1968 doubled down on this monistic
premise, when Post-Modernism had gone- and come around the world, leaving
behind its brand of social values in collectivism, socialism, and communism. Confronted with
its missing open- and dynamic dualism, monism diverts to power, politics and dialectics, or groups competing to dominate and submit
others, until one is left on top of the vertically power-distancing
hierarchy (cf. Mulder 1973).
If our sources are sensibility for the object or
what-is-sensed, and understanding or knowing of the subject, then
the subject must be the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief,
whereas the object must be what-is-sensed and what-is-known or the
sensed- and known environment/other/reality. The sensed object
reflects itself in the sensing subject, and the knowing subject
reflects itself in the known object. Thus, what-is-sensed reflects
itself "here" in sensing, where material space in the objective
object acts on the objective subject, and knowing reflects itself
"now" in what-is-known, when immaterial time in the subjective
subject acts on the subjective object. Truth can be found, if and
when sources and their opposite source's self-reflections
coordinately coincide ,
sensing what-is-sensed proves knowing what-is-known to be true by
independently confirming it ,
while the alternating states of coordinated coincidence, at
different stages of independent confirmation, in phases of two
social cycles, constructively recollect 
the independent individual's world, by social interaction [a],
as social reality is constructed [b]
while social identity is recollected [c].
1. Coordinated Coincidence
Observed from the outside, the subject is a
part of the object, while experienced from the inside, the
object is "ob-jected" or "off-thrown" from the subject. Sources
are the sensed object (what-is-sensed), reflecting itself in the
sensing subject, and the knowing subject, reflecting itself in
the known object (what-is-known). Sources and self-reflections
are spheres, expanding from the periphery towards the depth, in
recollected space/content/behavior, and from the depth towards
the periphery, in constructed time/form/consciousness. In
recollecting spheres, from the periphery to the depth, space
temporalizes, content-shapes-form, and behavior internalizes as
consciousness, as in constructing spheres, from the depth to the
periphery, time spatializes, form-shapes-content, and
consciousness externalizes as behavior. Sensing and
what-is-sensed expand facts, used and reused by different ideas,
in three spatial dimensions at the periphery, from where the
spheres make contact, whereas knowing and what-is-known expand
the ideas, as they use and reuse the facts, synchronously in
every direction, radiating from the single temporal dimension,
at the depth of the sphere.
In today's physics, space and time
are near identical in the monistic 'spatiotemporality' concept.
Still, in a Euclidean sphere, the three spatial dimensions of its periphery, and the one temporal dimension of its radius,
remain dualistically irreducible to each other, because their ratio π ("pi"),
holds infinitely many non-repetitive decimal places. Interaction
between sources and the self-reflections of their opposites, in
subject (organism/self/belief) and object
(environment/other/reality), needs the object source's space and
the subject source's time. Sensing "here" what-is-sensed at these
and knowing "now" what-is-known at their depths, the subject co-incides
(reflected) space and time, between contents in the object, and
between forms in itself. In
recollection, as space is about to temporalize,
within-facts-between-ideas, contents are what-is-sensed or facts, used and reused by
ideas. In construction, as time has
spatialized, within-ideas-between-facts, contents are what-is-known
or ideas, when they use and reuse facts. Therefore, facts-relate-ideas,
while ideas-relate-facts, constructing time/form/consciousness.
Object and subject, or the sensed- and known
environment/other/reality, as well as the sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief, have their own sources, which are space in
the objective object, or the sensed environment/other/reality,
and time in the subjective subject, or the knowing
organism/self/belief. The sources reflect themselves between the
subject and the object, temporarily in each other, when they are
managed to co-incide with the reflections of their opposite
sources, by the subject, as well as separately, in recollection
as the objective subject or the sensing organism/self/belief,
and in construction as the subjective object, or the known
environment/other/reality. Time, or knowing, being coordinated
"now" with what-is-known, at the depths of both spheres of
construction, does process space, or sensing, being coordinated
"here" with what-is-sensed, at the peripheries of both spheres
of recollection, as long as it can establish co-incidence.
co-ordination, at the peripheries of the spheres, leads to temporal
co-incidence, at the depths of the spheres, whereas the
self-reflections recollect or construct content, around their
Relativity theory taught us
that speed and acceleration of an object curves
space and slows time, shaping around the object as a sphere. If these spheres
are human subjects, speeding along through
space-time (with their planet), it appears that in recollection, from periphery to
depth, space temporalizes, content-shapes-form, and behavior
internalizes as consciousness, whereas in construction, from
depth to periphery, time spatializes, form-shapes-content, and
consciousness externalizes as behavior. Thus, at the depth,
recollection ends- and construction begins in
time/form/consciousness, while at the periphery, construction
ends- and recollection begins in space/content/behavior. It is
like looking through the rear window of a car, as what-is-sensed
disappears into the depth, merely known and no longer
sensed, or through the front window, as knowing appears
towards the periphery, merely sensed and no longer known.
Whereas it is difficult enough to find a match between subject
(organism/self/belief) and object (environment/other/reality),
it is even harder to find contingency between subject and
object, both in the self, and in the other, to exert relativity.
Peripheries of spheres are material and spatial, as
their depths are immaterial and temporal. The spatiality of the
peripheries of the spheres enables them to co-ordinate their
locations, while the temporality of their depths enables them to
co-incide and synchronize their durations. Co-incidence does
imply coordination, while coordination does not imply
co-incidence. Sources make their self-reflections go- and come
around themselves, by spatiotemporally coordinating their
locations at the tangent-line, where local "heres" have met,
meet "now", or will meet. Sources' self-reflections also attempt
to co-incide with their opposite sources, to synchronize in the
subject, as sensing and knowing, as well as in the object, as
what-is-sensed and what-is-known. If and when possible, knowing
and sensing, or time which is about to spatialize in the source
of the subject, and space which has temporalized in the
self-reflection of the object, both in the subject, plus
what-is-known and what-is-sensed, or time about to spatialize in
the self-reflection of the subject, and space which has
temporalized in the source of the object, both in the object,
co-incide as two spatiotemporalities.
Materially sensing what-is-sensed
only occurs (cf. Gendlin 1997) "here" in space/content/behavior, at the
peripheries of the spheres in recollection, between
the source, the sensed object, as it coordinates with its self-reflection, the sensing subject.
Immaterially knowing what-is-known is implied (idem) "now" in time/form/consciousness,
depths of the spheres in construction, between the opposite source, the knowing subject, and its coordinated self-reflection, the known object.
Self-reflections go around- and come around their sources,
coordinately reflecting them at the three spatial dimensions of
their peripheries. They recollect or sense what-is-sensed (facts),
subliminally, as sensing what-is-sensed is not yet knowing
what-is-sensed, and construct or know what-is-known (ideas),
supraliminally, as knowing what-is-known is not yet sensing
what-is-known. The self-reflections have to co-incide with their
opposite sources, at the one temporal dimension of their radii,
requiring commensurability between the two spheres, between their
temporalities. The three spatial dimensions, of all "heres", follow the temporal
dimension of all shared "nows".
The four spheres, of the two
sources and their two self-reflections, are all four-dimensional,
with three dimensions at their peripheries, and one dimension from
the depths. Coordination between sources and their
self-reflections, takes place "here", at their tangent points.
Peripheral coordination enables subject and object, or the
organism/self/belief, interacting with the environment/other/reality,
to co-incide or synchronize the spheres of their source and the
opposite source's self-reflection, "now". Once co-incidence has
taken place, in recollection, space begins temporalizing,
content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness,
whereas in construction, time begins spatializing,
form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as behavior.
Space/content/behavior transforms through recollection, from
periphery to depth, into time/form/consciousness. Simultaneously,
time/form/consciousness transforms through construction, from depth
to periphery, into space/content/behavior. Therefore, if coordination
and co-incidence happen again, and two spheres momentarily become
one, commensurability was present, at its periphery and depth.
"Thoughts without content are
empty and intuitions without conceptions are blind" (Kant 1790).
One source and its self-reflection, the sensed
environment/other/reality and the sensing
organism/self/belief, have 'empty' space/content/behavior,
subliminally at the peripheries of their spheres, in recollection. The
other source and its self-reflection, the
knowing organism/self/belief and the known environment/other/reality, have 'blind' time/form/consciousness,
supraliminally at the depths of their spheres, in construction. In order to fill the emptiness in
recollection, and heal the blindness in construction, the subject or
sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief, manages its forms to co-incide
at the depths of the spheres, as the object or sensed- and known environment/other/reality
manages its contents to co-incide at the peripheries of the spheres.
Managed effectively, space can temporalize, content-shape-form, and behavior
internalize as consciousness, in recollection, while time can
spatialize, form-shape-content, and consciousness externalize as
behavior, in construction. Sensing, what-is-sensed, knowing, and
what-is-known, then become noticeable.
The self-reflection of
recollection's source, sensing, conveys space/content/behavior
from the object to the subject, to find validity, and the
self-reflection of construction's source, what-is-known,
conveys time/form/consciousness from the subject to the object, to
find reliability, if and when self-reflections and opposite sources
co-incide. The objective subject recollects the objective object,
going- and coming around it, to bring facts of
space/content/behavior to the subjective subject, as the subjective
subject constructs the subjective object, going- and coming around
it, to bring ideas of time/form/consciousness to the objective
object. The self-reflections
go- and come around their sources, spatially co-ordinated at their
peripheries, to temporally co-incide with their opposite sources,
and determine if reflected, temporalized space,
form-shaped-by-content, and behavior internalized as consciousness,
are commensurable with the source of time/form/consciousness in the
subject, and if reflected, spatialized time, content-shaped-by-form,
and consciousness externalized as behavior, are commensurable with
the source of space/content/behavior in the object as well.
Content and behavior occur causally
in one source and self-reflection, what-is-sensed and sensing,
from spheres' peripheries in recollection, once they can temporalize towards the depths,
shape form, and internalize as consciousness, while form and
consciousness are implied teleologically in the other source and self-reflection, knowing and
what-is-known, from spheres' depths in construction, once they can spatialize towards the
peripheries, shape content, and externalize as behavior. Sensing
does go- and come around what-is-sensed, whereas what-is-known
does go- and
come around knowing, to coincide with the opposite source, as they
are the subject's forms and the object's contents. If co-incidence
in subject and object has taken place, their inner directions,
from peripheries to depths in recollection, and from depths to
peripheries in construction, continue between spheres. In one
direction, what-is-known continues in sensing, while in the
opposite direction, knowing continues in what-is-sensed, creating
possibilities to interact, indeed socially, for subject and
object. Thus, construction by the one can be recollection by the
other, which goes two ways.
For sources and the opposite sources' self-reflections to co-incide, they must
first produce their self-reflections, subliminally in
recollection and supraliminally in construction. By coordinated
reflection, the objective object, source in recollection, or sensed
environment/other/reality, creates its self-reflection in the
objective subject or sensing organism/self/belief, as the
subjective subject, source in construction, or
knowing organism/self/belief, creates its self-reflection in the
subjective object or known environment/other/reality. Self-reflections recollect or
construct content, going around their sources, to bring it to the
opposite source for processing. Space/content/behavior temporalizes, shapes form, and
internalizes as consciousness, by causal occurrence in material
recollection, from the peripheries to the depths of the source and
its self-reflection, at the spatial tangent-points "here" or
"there", whereas time/form/consciousness spatializes, shapes
content, and externalizes as behavior, by teleological implication
in immaterial construction, from the depths to the peripheries of
the source and its self-reflection, at the temporal tangent-points,
"now" or "then".
Sources reflect themselves in
space/content/behavior, "here" at the periphery's three spatial
dimensions, or "there" on the source's other side, by
recollection, as well as in time/form/consciousness, "now" at the one temporal dimension
of depth, or "then" at some other time, by
construction, as the self-reflections go around their sources, to
"there" and "then", managed to co-incide with the opposite source,
by the interacting subject and object. As spheres co-incide, from
depths to peripheries, time can spatialize, form shape content
and consciousness externalize as behavior, whereas from peripheries
to depths, space can temporalize, content shape form and
behavior internalize as consciousness. The objective- and subjective subject, or the sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief, does interact with the objective- and
subjective object, or the sensed- and
known environment/other/reality, to continue knowing to
what-is-sensed, streaming in one direction, and what-is-known to sensing, streaming in the other direction.
Dynamic dualistic social interaction, between organism
and environment, self and other, or belief and reality, can be a
Co-inciding space, "here" or
"there" at the peripheries of the object's spheres, and time, "now"
or "then" at the depths of the subject's spheres, continues
spatializing time, form-shaping-content, and consciousness
externalizing as behavior, in construction, to temporalizing space,
content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness,
in recollection, from the subjective subject (knowing) to the
objective object (what-is-sensed), and from the objective subject
(sensing) to the subjective object (what-is-known). Sources and
self-reflections interact "here and now". The objective- and
subjective object are commensurable in space and time, so that
what-is-sensed "here and now" may be critical for what-is-known.
When they are commensurable, then what-is-known may be positively
verified and therefore proven reliable by what-is-sensed, to be
trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended. Also,
sensing "here and now" may be critical for knowing, as
soon as the
objective- and subjective subject are commensurable in space and
time. Thus, sensing may negatively (unsuccessfully) falsify knowing
to show its validity.
The source of space,
objective object, or what-is-sensed, resides in the object, next
to the subjective object, self-reflection of time, or
what-is-known, as contents, while the source of time, subjective
subject, or knowing, resides in the subject, next to the
objective subject, the self-reflection of space, or sensing, as
forms. Therefore, space is dominant in the object, as time is
dominant in the subject, and co-incidence between contents in
the object, synchronized with co-incidence between forms in the
subject, is the subject's management, or that of the
organism/self/belief, to hold space and time together, for
itself and for the object or the environment/other/reality,
"here and now". Thus, space and time before the subject's
processing them separately, are re-joined, bringing along
content and form, as well as behavior and consciousness, first
through coordination in space/content/behavior at the
peripheries-, and then through co-incidence in
time/form/consciousness at the depths of the spheres. Once the
spheres of space and time, conveying content and form, as well
as behavior and consciousness, are commensurable, the latter
must emerge into higher substances.
What-is-sensed are facts
and what-is-known are ideas. Just as ideas relate facts, facts
relate ideas, as they are reused between ideas, in separate
meaningful networks. Thus, interpretations are relations
within-facts-between-ideas, in recollection, and
within-ideas-between-facts, in construction. Also, when relations
within-groups-between-people draw closer, as a result of
1969, Meertens 1980,
those within-people-between-groups become stressed, and turn
into conflicts of interest. To cope with this, the narrative of the
group may treat the same facts as different, and/or different facts
as the same, by changing the facts to fit the ideas, instead of changing
the ideas to fit the facts, only to reduce cognitive dissonance
1962), which changes the meaning of ideas, and twists the
truth into lies. Changing the facts takes away the ability to
prove innocence or guilt. The remaining options, at the level of the
independent individual, are to create dissociative disorders as
derealization and/or depersonalization (Dell
and O'Neill 2009), possibly spreading to socioses (Van
den Berg 1956), at the level of the (inter) dependent
Sensibility after-the-fact, or
the 'synthetic aposteriori', synthesizes facts, as understanding
before-the-fact, or the 'analytic apriori', analyzes ideas
1781). Relations in
space/content/behavior, recollected from the peripheries of the
spheres to their depths and from
the past (after-the-fact), through the present, cause future
occur, within-facts-between-ideas, while those in
time/form/consciousness, constructed from the depths of the spheres to
their peripheries and
from the future (before-the-fact), through the present,
teleologically imply those in the past, within-ideas-between-facts,
resembling the "retrograde movement of the true
growth of truth" (Bergson
1922). Thus, contextualized interpretations in functional structuralism (Dooyeweerd
Sanders 1976), within-facts-between-ideas and
within-ideas-between-facts, seek truth and ethics, changing
ideas to fit the facts, in open and dynamic dualism, as those in structural
1975), within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups,
seek power and politics, changing facts to fit the ideas,
dogmatically, fitting the narrative, in closed and static monism.
In recollection, "here" can be
invariable, while "now" continuously varies, from "then" in the past
to "then" in the future. In construction, "now" can be
while "here" continuously varies, from "there" on
to "there" on the other. Thus, relations in space between
"theres" and in time between "thens" functionally structure, in recollection,
within-facts-between-ideas, intrapolated from all "theres and thens"
to "here and now", and in construction,
within-ideas-between-facts, extrapolated from "here and now" to
"theres and thens", sharing social reality and cultural history.
Beyond subliminal sensing what-is-sensed, yet to be known, and supraliminal knowing what-is-known,
yet to be sensed,
people realize and intuit all these entities and how they are related.
They are the object, or the sensed- and known
environment/other/reality, including the subject, or the sensing- and
knowing organism/self/belief, both sources of which need to co-incide
with their opposite's self-reflections, to be trusted, expected,
presumed, predicted, believed and intended, like in Kant's
'transcendental idealism', 'sensibility before-the-fact', or the
The sensing- and knowing
organism/self/belief or subject, interacts with the sensed- and
known environment/other/reality or object. "Here and now", sensing "here" what-is-sensed in
recollection, has to coordinately co-incide with knowing "now"
what-is-known in construction, in space and time, content and form, or behavior and
consciousness. What-is-sensed and what-is-known, "not here and not
now", also need to be trusted, expected, presumed,
predicted, believed, and intended, by the sensing- and knowing
subject. Thus, space is temporalized in recollection, whereas time is
spatialized in construction, to bridge the spatiotemporal
divide. Exclusively in what is "here and now", both spheres of
material recollection and both spheres of immaterial construction
make contact, being spatiotemporally identical.
All other locations at the peripheries and moments at the radii
(in all directions except one) of the spheres, have behavioral content or conscious form attached
to them, extending towards- or from the depths.
The "here and now" relates to all other "theres and
thens", all of which have conducted, or do currently conduct, their
own "here and now".
2. Independent Confirmation
We can hardly do without recognition, as it makes
us feel strong. Recognition has been institutionalized, to direct us,
and is only taken away as a punishment for not 're-cognizing'
superiors. Unfortunately, this punishment includes our own seeking independent
confirmation. Puritans and Protestants punish themselves, by
never complimenting others, nor expecting it to ever happen to them. A
third option is to let truth speak for itself, or the 'things-in-themselves',
which includes rationality, emotionality or compassion of 'particular things'
1959) or living beings, only shared when they
appear to the one, as they appear to the other, as to everybody, by
independent confirmation, without any nurture which is not in
nature, as upbringing, perceptual training, subculture or
general culture. A nod is enough, a smile, or just the way one
looks out of his or her eyes. This will never dissociate the
organism/self/belief from the environment/other/reality, which
keeps him or her on track of truth, unbiased judgment and
non-extremist self-expression. Institutionalized 're-cognition',
dividing the world into power and politics versus truth and
ethics, must be halted.
Opposing Kant, Hegel claimed
that the object was irrelevant. To him, the thing-in-itself was
clear, not opaque, as he alleged that the object was actually the subject
itself. If facts did not fit ideas, it was “too bad for the facts”,
since for 're-cognized' ideas, facts were changed to fit them, by
power and politics.
The object for Kant was the 'noumenon', or the 'unnamable'
thing-in-itself, establishing intersubjectivity
between people or subjects referring to it. Hegel interpreted intersubjectivity
as the one subject dependently confirming (or ‘re-cognizing’)
the other, while they independently rejected nonconformists. By literally
‘re-cognizing’ another person, “the subject goes into the world and loses
himself, or [else] he goes into himself and loses the world”.
Selective reciprocity for 're-cognition' was deemed necessary to
for Kant the subject or 'phe-noumenon'
extended the object or 'noumenon', in modern philosophical dualism,
while for Hegel the object, by 'intersubjective re-cognition', extended the subject, in post-modern
philosophical monism. A dramatic change indeed, cutting one
of the greatest works in philosophy in half.
Phe-noumenological monism depicts cultural reality
as social constructs, which are based on intersubjectivity (Schütz 1945, Berger
and Luckman 1966). We can wonder, whether such intersubjectivity
leaves any room for independent confirmation, because independence needs
dualism, which is difficult to apply in social- and personal
settings, as eventually, power and politics turn the effort to
seek independent confirmation into anxiety which avoids dependent rejection,
by dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting
enemies. Power and politics
change facts to fit the ideas, when they treat different facts as if they
were the same, or the same facts as if they were different.
E.g., in social reality, when voters show behavioral contagion (Wheeler 1966),
votes cannot be interpreted as independent confirmations. Truth and
ethics' intrinsic motivation to seek independent confirmation should
not be confused with power and politics' extrinsic motivation to
avoid dependent rejection, by requests of gatekeepers to 're-cognize'
them first, polarizing the minds of group-members. Truth
and ethics change ideas to fit facts, not change facts to fit ideas.
If and when sensing
what-is-sensed does independently confirm knowing what-is-known, then both forms, or sensing and
knowing, can process both contents, or what-is-sensed and
what-is-known, which allows contents to copy-and-swap forms, between
recollection and construction.
'Knowing what-is-sensed' (or realization) and 'sensing
what-is-known' (or intuition) can then emerge from subconsciousness, as
different material- and immaterial substances, using new forms to
process the old ones, reduced to contents. The forms also generate
streams of content, relative to form, between object and subject.
One stream spatializes time, shapes content, and externalizes as
behavior, from the depth of the first source's sphere, or knowing,
to its periphery, and it temporalizes space, shapes form, and
internalizes as consciousness, from the periphery of the second
source's sphere, or what-is-sensed, into its depth. The other stream
moves exactly in the opposite direction, from the depth of the
sphere of the first source's self-reflection, or what-is-known, to
its periphery and on from the periphery of the sphere of the second
source's self-reflection, or sensing, into its depth.
Intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, to
seek and find independent confirmation, modern
dualism parts subject and object. Space in recollection, subliminal
sensing what-is-sensed, or external normativity, hopefully
co-incides with time in construction, supraliminal knowing what-is-known, or
internal normativity. Within spheres, in recollection,
space can now temporalize, content shape form, and behavior
internalize as consciousness, while in construction, time can now
spatialize, form shape content, and consciousness externalize as
behavior. Co-incidence and independent
confirmation are possible, at the next stage, 'interliminally', in the subject between forms and in the object between contents. By contrast, extrinsically motivated by power and
politics, in post-modern monism, the subject ignores the object (Hegel
1807). Internal normativity is sent from the top-, while
external normativity is received at the bottom of the hierarchy as
roles (cf. Boekestijn
1978), by dependent confirmation to gain selective
reciprocity for protégés at the top, independent rejection executed
at the bottom, and class
warfare about sharing power and politics in between.
Co-incidence and independent
confirmation occur again at the higher stages, if and when the reliability of current contents, and the validity of current forms,
are robust enough, between the contents (this time what-is-realized
and what-is-intuited instead of what-is-sensed and what-is-known),
and between the forms (this time realizing and intuiting instead of
sensing and knowing). They emerge as (1) 'valuing
what-is-valued', or 'intuiting what-is-realized' ('sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed', or 'sensing what-is-known' merged
with 'knowing what-is-sensed') in recollection and (2) 'trying
what-is-tried', or 'realizing what-is-intuited' ('knowing
what-is-sensed-what-is-known', or 'knowing what-is-sensed' merged
with 'sensing what-is-known') in construction. If reliability and
validity then are still robust enough to copy-and-swap forms,
extending substances in- and between subject and object, it happens
between valuing and trying, to emerge as 'trying what-is-valued', or
'reacting what-is-reacted', and 'valuing what-is-tried', or 'acting
what-is-acted'. Thus, newly copied forms occur,
whereas old forms are reduced to new contents, extending old
(what-is-sensed) and ideas (what-is-known), e.g. white swans and "white
swans", are proexamples of each other (Corcoran
2005). Contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) can then copy-and-swap forms (sense and know),
to emerge as realizing ('know what-is-sensed') white swans, and
intuiting ('sense what-is-known') "white swans". Realizing
counterexamples, like black swans, falsifies intuiting and halts processing.
The proexamples make 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').
counterexamples falsifies trying and halts processing. Proexamples make 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), to socially interact as
what-is-valued') and acting ('value
what-is-tried'). Therefore, the nuance of "white swans" increases, every
time a fact can independently confirm an idea.
At the highest stage of processing current content, 'trying
what-is-valued', or reacting, and 'valuing what-is-tried', or
acting, emerge as social interaction between subjects, other and
self in particular. The self has built trust, expectation,
presumption, prediction, belief, and intention, regarding the current
content, exchanged with the other subject(s), sharing social
reality. This consciousness or internal normativity, is not
externalized as behavior, before one's reaction in response to the
other's action, or external normativity, independently confirmed it,
rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately, internalizing it as
consciousness. One's action before-the-fact is "detonated" in response to one's own reaction after-the-fact (in
response to the other's action). A social cycle appears, in which one reacts in response to the other's action, and acts in response to
one's own reaction, followed by the other reacting in response to one's action, and acting in response to
his own reaction. These four forms or phases are comprised in social
interaction between object and subject, or environment/other/reality and organism/self/belief,
by which route all contents are conveyed.
Recollection and construction take place in the sensing- and knowing
subject, as well as in the sensed- and known object. Thus, constructive
recollection happens in the subject, between forms, and in
the object, between contents (facts and ideas). The self-reflections
of the sources co-incide with their opposite sources, if and when recollection independently confirms
construction, in the subject by negative falsification for validity, and
in the object by positive verification for reliability. If and when independent confirmation
has happened, contents can copy-and-swap
forms. The new forms in recollection and construction process
old-forms-reduced-to-contents, extending the old- with new contents, at a higher level of functional structure, or stage of
independent confirmation. At the highest stage, recollection and
construction positioned themselves in social reality, where subject and
object publicly interact, being noticeable to each other. Thus, they
externalize as behavior in construction, while they internalize as
consciousness in recollection, between time/form/consciousness at
the depth-, and space/content/behavior at the periphery of each of
In recollection, the object's
source reflects itself in the subject, while in construction, the
subject's source reflects itself in the object. Representation for
monism and dualism is different. In modern dualism, truth and ethics
motivate intrinsically, to seek and find
independent confirmation. When the subjects socially interact, the one reflects her- or himself in the other,
and the other reflects him- or herself in the one, by independent
rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation.
Independent individuals are still able to relate to each other, without the other
representing himself or even being actually present. Representation
in post-modern monism is of a totally different order, as power and politics
motivate extrinsically, to avoid dependent rejection from the group,
're-cognizing' the other as a friend, by dependent confirmation
(cronyism), or as an enemy, by independent rejection (prejudice), both
of which might call for reciprocity, as they allegedly lead to
self-consciousness (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867).
Thus, hierarchies develop through power-distancing, increasing distance to
those below- and decreasing it to those above oneself (Mulder
3. Constructive Recollection
After religion and philosophy, physical science appears
as spatiotemporality can be either ontologically material or epistemologically immaterial.
Space/content/behavior in material recollection is commensurable
with-, although irreducible to time/form/consciousness in immaterial
construction. Within the four dimensions of a Euclidean sphere, in
recollection, from periphery to depth, space temporalizes,
content-shapes-form, and behavior internalizes as consciousness,
whereas in reverse, from depth to periphery, in construction, time
spatializes, form-shapes-content, and consciousness externalizes as
behavior. Empirical sensibility after-the-fact, in recollection, can independently
confirm rational understanding before-the-fact, in construction, to
produce Kant's famous 'sensibility before-the-fact',
or 'synthetic apriori'. Coordinated
and reflections seeking independent confirmation
with opposite sources , in constructive recollection ,
should lead social interaction [3a]
to social reality [3b],
and social identity [3c],
as long as subject and object, as well as recollection and
construction, remain spatiotemporally reducible (Turner
3a. Social Interaction
Normativity between socially interacting,
independent individuals, is different from normativity between
group-members. At the individual level, seeking
independent confirmation, the external normativity of
recollection sanctifies the internal normativity of construction. At
the collective level, avoiding dependent rejection separates
external normativity received from superiors, from internal
normativity sent to inferiors. Individually, truth does not change
from within-facts-between-ideas to within-ideas-between-facts, or
from within-people-between-groups to within-groups-between-people.
Freedom of choice is offered or forwarded to whom deserves it.
Collectively, group-polarization develops untruth from within-groups-between-people
to within-people-between-groups, and from
within-ideas-between-facts to within-facts-between-ideas. In other
words, collectively, facts are turned and twisted, to fit one's
narrative, not allowing anyone to prove guilt or (his own) innocence.
Thus, normative rationality (Habermas 1982, 1991)
for independent individuals and for 'dependently confirming friends'
and/or 'independently rejecting enemies', are not alike.
Recollection and construction continuously seek
coordinated co-incidence and/or independent confirmation, at
consecutive levels, or sensing/realizing/valuing/reacting, and
knowing/intuiting/trying/acting. Contents copy-and-swap forms,
replacing older ones and reducing them to content down the chain. Swapping forms alternates states of recollection
and construction, at all levels or stages of independent
confirmation, every time moving up one
level. Form-plus-contents expands into higher order substances, in
both subject and object. Swapped forms process alternating facts (or what-is-sensed), and ideas (or
what-is-known) as content. While subject and object are continuously
processing facts and ideas,
facts-relate-ideas, until behavior internalizes as consciousness, in
recollection, while ideas-relate-facts, until consciousness
externalizes as behavior, in construction. Thus, while subject and
interact, relations occur
causally within-facts-between-ideas, as content-shapes-form in
recollection, and relations are implied teleologically
within-ideas-between-facts, as form-shapes-content in construction,
before forms are copied-and-swapped.
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, while they
are shaping-, or being shaped by form. What is trusted, expected,
presumed, predicted, believed and intended in action
before-the-fact, is freed in reaction after-the-fact, if and when
the subject's reaction, in response to the object's action,
independently confirms its own action before-the-fact, be it
rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. The self
senses/realizes/values/reacts, in social interaction, what the other
knows/intuits/tries/acts, whereas the other
senses/realizes/values/reacts what the self
knows/intuits/tries/acts. Recollected 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, while at
the same time, constructed content extends 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, to follow the
implied states, stages and phases altogether.
Coordinated co-incidence and independent confirmation between
sources and self-reflections of opposite sources, produce
the states of forms-with-contents, materially in
recollection and immaterially in construction, which emerge at
consecutive stages, as the result of contents
copying-and-swapping (and therefore alternating) forms.
Substances are nuanced when new states are added and new stages
are reached, to a maximum of four, which is one of four phases
in a social cycle, one of two in an interaction. Phases are
located one state
apart from each other, overlapping maximally three states. Recollection and construction constitute two of the four phases
in the subject, and the
remaining two in the object, bound together in one social cycle. Two social
cycles comprise a single social interaction between subject and
object, since both subject and object, alternatingly, address
the (other's) self and the (other's) other. Only one meandering
"wave" between subject and object is interpreted
differently by the other and the self, which depends on the number of states and stages
completed per phase, changing
the current substance or contents processed by forms.
Every state of coordinated
co-incidence, alternating between recollection and construction, at four stages of independent confirmation,
simultaneously plays different roles in each of the
four phases of the social cycle between object and subject.
The phases overlap, across
at least one-, and at most three states, depending on the stage
they reached, processing current content. What-is-sensed and
what-is-known, by the subject and the object, should be the same, in social interaction.
What-is-sensed is included by what-is-realized, what-is-valued,
and what-is-reacted, like what-is-known is included by what-is-intuited, what-is-tried and what-is-acted,
through social interaction. Although the states are the same, and happen at the
same time, the phases containing the states begin and end one
state apart, while they follow each
other through the social cycle.
Therefore, each state is represented by four separate phases, at
four separate locations, playing a different role in each of
them. The states of reduced forms, or contents, are either facts (what-is-sensed) or ideas
(what-is-known), identical to
all phases, determining the logic and logistics of social
Four states per phase, four phases per
cycle, and two cycles per interaction between subject and
object, addressing self and other, integrate logistically and
logically. Phases repeat themselves and overlap each other,
starting and finishing one state of separation, from (1) the
self in recollection responding to the other's self in
construction, to (2) the self in construction responding to the
self in recollection, to (3) the other's other in recollection
responding to the self in construction, to (4) the other's self
in construction responding to the other's other in recollection.
Independent confirmation takes place, contents copy-and-swap
forms for more nuanced substances to emerge, while each state
plays roles in four separate phases at once. Contents processed
to find independent confirmation, are taken from previous
phases, handed over across states separating phases, to
following ones. The first cycle of four phases applies to states
and stages of recollection and construction in the subject,
addressing self and other, while the second cycle applies to
states and stages of recollection and construction in the
object, addressing the other's self and the other's other, as well.
In social interaction, between the
spheres of recollection and construction, of which those
containing content, in the object, swapped those containing
form, in the subject, the one's construction is his own
independently confirming recollection, and the other's
recollection, which may, as well, independently confirm the
other's construction. In construction's spheres, time
spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness
externalizes as behavior. In recollection's spheres, space
temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes
as consciousness. Thus, what-is-known or
ideas-relating-facts in time/form/consciousness, by the one,
equals what-is-sensed or facts-relating-ideas in
space/content/behavior, by the other. People are their own
subject or organism/self/belief, whereas they are each
other's object or environment/other/reality. Object and
subject, responding to each other, do so responsibly,
sharing independent confirmation, with the other as with
Facts or what-is-sensed need(s) to positively verify ideas or
what-is-known, as sensing needs to negatively falsify
for independent confirmation to let social interaction
Apart from independent
confirmation within the subject and within the object, in
social interaction between recollection and construction,
there is a transfer of content between subject and object,
from construction in the subject or the object, to
recollection in the object or the subject, in response.
Thus, if the subject or the object constructs, by
spatializing time, form-shaping-content and consciousness
externalizing as behavior, then the object or the subject
recollects, by temporalizing space, content-shaping-form and
behavior internalizing as consciousness. This is what
ideally happens, although much can go wrong during these
transfers of content, and interaction in many ways is
dedicated to righting these wrongs. While at lower stages of
independent confirmation, including action- and
reaction-formation, contents copy-and-swap forms, this does
no longer happen at the level of social interaction, because
the object is a subject itself, for itself, while the self
is the object for the object. Therefore, swapping is
integral to social interaction, as the object, who is
another subject, takes over the initiative from the one
subject, who is the self to start with.
3b. Social Reality
Social reality requires social recognition, personally or collectively.
At the personal level, "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), was 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). This is the 'synthetic apriori', 'sensibility
before-the-fact', or what is trusted, expected, presumed, predicted,
believed and intended. It is the object or 'sensibility
after-the-fact', independently confirming 'understanding
before-the-fact', establishing inter-subjectivity between subjects
referring to it. Revolutionarily, literal 're-cognition' of one
subject by the other then took over, dependently confirming friends and
independently rejecting enemies, to "boost one's self-consciousness", "go into the
world and lose oneself", and prevent to "go into oneself and
lose the world" (Hegel
1807). Power and politics motivate to avoid
dependent rejection, not seek independent confirmation.
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, and ideas relate
facts, within-ideas-between-facts. If facts are used in one idea, and reused in another,
then relations within-facts-between-ideas may be logically
entangled, e.g. if one fact was treated as
if it was multiple, or multiple facts as if they were one. Similarly,
groups relate people and people relate groups. If people belong to one group,
and also to another,
relations may be entangled, e.g. by conflicts of interest. Power and politics motivate extrinsically to avoid dependent rejection,
by the threat to be excommunicated or made homeless, within-groups-between-people
and, by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups. Truth and ethics motivate intrinsically to
seek independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation,
both in recollection or within-facts-between-ideas and in
construction or within-ideas-between-facts. Closed- and static power
and politics replacing open- and dynamic truth and ethics (Bergson 1932),
do entangle relations within-people.
Consciously or not, we seek
power and politics, or truth and ethics. Power and politics make
(inter) dependent, if we avoid dependent rejection from the group,
fearing excommunication or homelessness. Independent rejection of
(the leader's) enemies out of "honesty" and/or dependent
confirmation of (his) friends out of "loyalty", could trigger selective reciprocity and access to
privilege. Truth and ethics, on the contrary, make independent,
when we look for reality, to independently
confirm our beliefs, rationally, emotionally, and/or
compassionately. Inter-subjectivity is established by the object,
between subjects referring to it, and independent confirmation,
them as independent rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate individuals. Independence needs dualism, which is
difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, because power
and politics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding
dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit the
facts, as power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. Thus, entangled relations within-ideas-between-facts show
up within-facts-between-ideas, as stress and dissociation.
Truth is 'sensing "here" what-is-sensed' (facts)
after-the-fact in recollection, independently confirming 'knowing "now" what-is-known'
(ideas) before-the-fact in construction, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately.
the organism/self/belief, sensing
(the objective subject) negatively falsifies knowing (the subjective
subject) for validity, whereas in the environment/other/reality, what-is-sensed
(the objective object) positively verifies what-is-known (the subjective object)
for reliability. However, power and politics invariably turn 'seeking independent confirmation' between the
sensing- and the knowing organism/self/belief (the objective- and
the subjective subject), and between the known- and the sensed
environment/other/reality (the subjective- and the objective object),
however subtly, into 'avoiding dependent rejection', by giving up
one's identity, giving in to identity politics. It creates monistic dialectics, forcing
people to take sides (or leave), to dependently confirm
friends and independently reject enemies, of their own or their
leader's. It is writing on the revolutionary collectivist-, socialist-,
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 the
revolutions. When interpreted as dialectics, monism looks like
dualism, although monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent subgroups or individuals, competing for
domination and all others' submission (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867, Nietzsche 1901).
Monistic (inter) dependency leads to 're-cognition', by dependent confirmation of
one's own people, and independent rejection of others, bypassing truth,
provoking group-polarization and extremism. Dualistic independency assumes that there are two sources
instead of one, interacting
through any two individuals, object and subject, or other and self, in social belief and/or social reality, to stay on track of truth.
Dualistic (inter) dependency of autonomous individuals, only seeks
after independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate
confirmation, for the other, and from the other.
to avoid being
dependently rejected from the group by excommunication or homelessness,
(the leader's) friends are dependently confirmed and/or (the
leader's) enemies are independently rejected. Relations within-groups-between-people naturally
translate into relations within-people-between-groups. Therefore, it
is easy to manipulate individual group members, by explaining honesty as
"disloyalty", or loyalty as "dishonesty".
Taking the other side to explain, dominates and submits the other.
Similarly, Hegel's (1807)
explanation of 're-cognition' ignores the object in favor of the
subject, completely opposing Kant's explanation of the object
establishing inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it,
and recognizing it, through independent rational-, emotional-,
and/or compassionate confirmation. Hegel un-democratized the object
and replaced it with the social status and -hierarchy of subjects.
Later, Marx has turned the top-down hierarchy on its head, and
called it 'historical materialism' (1859),
replacing subjects at the top-, with those at lower positions in the
hierarchy. However, the independent object was not restituted.
If post-modern monism and
modern dualism run into each other, either structural
functionalism's collective role-sending and
role-receiving grows more intense, or functional structuralism's
responsible, independent individualism. In monism, the sender's internal
normativity is the receiver's external normativity, ignoring the sender's external- and the
receiver's internal normativity, as if they do not exist. Monism is
there since Hegel hijacked
Kant's dualism, cutting it in half, keeping the subject and ignoring
the object. Around since the French Revolution and doubled down since the Cultural Revolution of May 1968, group-polarization extremizes monism into dictatorship, or the subject dominating and submitting the object. This stimulated the will
to power (Nietzsche
1901) and activism through politics, media and marketing.
Power and politics can simply bulldoze their way forward and let
facts it created 'prove' any idea after-the-fact. This is Hegel's "too
bad for the facts". Therefore, power and politics can disguise as truth
and ethics. Power changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence
defenseless, whereas truth changes ideas to fit the facts instead.
3c. Social Identity
Subjective spheres process
objective spheres. In recollection, sensed from the periphery to
the depth of the sphere, what-is-sensed is space temporalizing,
content-shaping-form and behavior internalizing as
consciousness, whereas in construction, known from the depth to
the periphery, if and when it is independently confirmed by
recollection, what-is-known is time spatializing,
form-shaping-content and consciousness externalizing as
behavior. The two directions interweave by copying-and-swapping
forms (sensing and knowing) as a consequence of independent
rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, as two
waves, meandering between subject and object, using the same
forms and contents in different ways. This happens "here and
now" between spheres in recollection, and within spheres in
construction. Contents, or facts (what-is-sensed) and ideas
(what-is-known), are processed by forms, from the subliminal
level in recollection and the supraliminal level in
construction, stage by stage, into social interaction, as they
are conveyed between subject and object, through social reality
dominated by power and politics or by truth and ethics.
The kind of social order
which is recollected and constructed, determines how social identity
Social 're-cognition' reciprocally
avoids dependent rejection, in monism, or it seeks independent confirmation,
in dualism. Monistically created social order, by power and politics, motivates
avoiding dependent rejection, by dependently confirming the
other, hoping for selective reciprocity, while independently
rejecting the competition. It defines one's identity, as (inter) dependent
upon friends, being surrounded by enemies. Dualistically created
social order, by truth and ethics, motivates seeking
independent confirmation, bolstering independent
individuals' social identities,
as the object establishes inter-subjectivity between them. The
object is ignored in monism, while it controls the subject in dualism.
Extrinsically- or intrinsically controlled, reflexes are conditioned responses, to conditioning stimuli.
By classic- and operant conditioning (Pavlov 1910, Skinner 1930),
power and politics discipline the reflexes, to secure
're-cognition' of a dominant other's opinions. Truth and
ethics condition the subjective subject's social identity,
by constructive recollection.
The object's source, the 'objective
object' or what-is-sensed, reflects itself in the subject, the 'objective subject' or sensing,
while the subject's source, the 'subjective subject' or knowing, reflects itself in the object,
the 'subjective object' or what-is-known. As long as subject and
object are socially interacting, there is a chance they become each
other's Significant Others, apart from their Selves. When and if
that happens, the
one's Self reflects itself as the other's Significant other,
whereas the other's Self reflects itself as the one's Significant
Other. In other words, the subjective subject or knowing
Self, reflects itself in the subjective object or known
Significant Other, and the objective object or sensed
Significant Other, reflects itself in the objective
subject or sensing Self. 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 more
Significant the Other is to the Self, the less independent the confirmation
is required to be purely rational, to the Self, and the more it
is allowed to be emotional- or
compassionate social interaction.
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, it will be surrounded
with. 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 the competition? The former option
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
another, to establish objectivity or inter-subjectivity between
the subjects independently referring to them, like in modern
dualism. The latter option relies on power and politics of
relations, within-groups-between-people, as well as
within-people-between-groups, by group-polarization. That is how
subjective cultural belief-systems protect each other against
the objective world, like in post-modern monism.
Somehow we are all related,
either through dependent confirmation (cronyism), receiving- and
returning favors, or through seeking independent rational-,
emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for
the other. What happens if these two schemas are mixed? Monistic
power and politics extrinsically motivate dependent
reaction-and-action within groups, by changing facts to fit ideas or
as dualistic truth and ethics intrinsically
motivate independent action-and-reaction between independent individuals, if and
when after-the-fact recollection independently confirms
before-the-fact construction, by changing ideas to fit facts. If facts are changed to fit the ideas
or the narrative,
then changing ideas to fit the facts is useless. Intrinsically
motivated reactions, in response to extrinsically motivated actions,
are only intended as independent confirmations, claiming to wholly understand
current extrinsic motivation, which is unlikely.
Conversely, extrinsically motivated reactions in response to intrinsically
motivated actions, are most likely to interpret the independent confirmation as
a return of favor, which it never implied to be.
There is a third schema,
in between monism and dualism, which were mentioned above:
independent confirmation applied to the independently rejected,
offering fortitude against those dependently confirmed, paying
forward to whom we believe deserves it, or we consider victims
of power and politics. This may be truth against power, although
it is probably power against power, enlarging the (support)
group of the rejected. Our independence for their confirmation
necessarily ends in our own self-rejection. Therefore it can
only be dependent confirmation, which is identity politics,
positive discrimination, or affirmative action. Even if this
were national policy, it only stirred Marxism or Hegelianism,
letting group-polarization develop wildly, drifting away from
truth and ethics, or believing power and politics were just that
(for one's own group). It is where current racism, sexism, etc.,
stem from. Relations entangle within-people-between-groups,
which keep people in (manageable) collectives, letting personal
opinions shift in risky directions, the only ones allowed by the
narrative, never minding to change facts, if and when needed for
The objective subject, or recollected object's self-reflection in the subject, and the
subjective subject, or constructive source, are able to
copy-and-swap forms if and when they
co-incide, and recollection indeed independently confirms construction.
Within-facts-between-ideas, facts-relate-ideas or ideas reuse facts as linking-pins, as 'knowing
what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized', or 'trying
what-is-valued', in recollection, like within-ideas-between-facts, ideas-relate-facts, as 'sensing what-is-known', 'realizing
what-is-intuited', or 'valuing what-is-tried', in construction.
Thus, relations generate
meaningful networks, continuously expanding their horizon, since the
facts (or objects) establish inter-subjectivity between the ideas (or subjects) referring to them, seeking- and finding
independent confirmation. Power and politics, motivating to
avoid dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and, by
group-polarization, within-people-between-groups, disregard truth
and ethics, motivating to seek independent confirmation, thus
keeping them from
recollection within-facts-between-ideas, for construction
within-ideas-between-facts, to obstruct.
Modern philosophical, open- and dynamic dualism
is able to prevent post-modern philosophical, closed- and static monism, from polarizing group members' opinions
by using power and politics. Minority influence is strong,
if it is consistent over long periods of time, and it does not divide the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974).
Relations within-facts-between-ideas or
within-people-between-groups crucially should not entangle, which
could happen if and when ideas treat different facts as the same,
to untruthfully find independent confirmation, or treat the same
fact as different, to make finding independent confirmation
impossible. E.g., in a closed and static approach, Bergson was interpreted as if he criticized Kant, asking how ideas categorically demand their own realization,
following the Categorical Imperative (Lawlor and Moulard 2016).
Stating that by "re-establish[ing] the duality, the difficulties vanish", Bergson (1932)
highlighted seeking independent confirmation, between
the two sources, in "duality of origin" (p.79). His post-modern biographers called it,
from a single-source monistic view, untruly, "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, as contents about to
copy-and-swap forms. To achieve our full potential, recollection
within-facts-between-ideas has to independently confirm construction
within-ideas-between-facts, which is impossible
within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, due
to group-polarization, as it shifts 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, reusing facts as linking-pin objects,
which expands the network of meaningful relations. Reusing facts to
link ideas should not change the meaning of these networks, by
calling the same facts different, or different facts the same,
abusing 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 dissociation1.
Constructive recollection is a specification of Kant's modern
philosophical dualism, according to which the analytic apriori,
or understanding before-the-fact, is to be independently
confirmed by the synthetic aposteriori, or sensibility
after-the-fact. In order to achieve this, we separately and
synchronously process space and time, or sensing what-is-sensed
and knowing what-is-known, to have them coordinate with their
self-reflections, and co-incide with those from the opposite
sources. Independent confirmation happens, if and when
co-incidence is commensurable, and enables contents to
copy-and-swap forms, for new content to emerge on both sides.
Thus, spatiotemporalities before- and after processing are the
same and the subject remains on track of truth, as relativity
does apply itself. The outcomes of modern dualism are contrasted
with those of post-modern monism, at the individual- and
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,
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.
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.
Gendlin, E.T. (1997). "A Process Model". New York: The Focusing Institute.
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.
Moscovici, S.; Zavalloni, M. (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12 (2): 125–135.
Moscovici, S.; Nemeth, C. (1974). "Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations." Oxford: Rand Mcnally.
Mulder, M.; Veen, P.; Rodenburg, C.; Frenken, J.; Tielens, H. (1973). "The power distance reduction hypothesis on a level of reality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.
Nietzsche, F. (1882). "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.
Nietzsche, F. (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.
Strawson, P.F. (1959).
"Individuals". London: Methuen.
Turner, M.B. (1968). "Psychology and the
Philosophy of Science". New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.
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.