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 - Oct. 2017

independent researcher

 

  Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned. Truth can only be found by looking for the facts, which independently confirm our ideas. Independence needs dualism, which is difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, as invariably, power and politics or dialectics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts, while power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. Thus, post-modern philosophical monism took over modern philosophical dualism.   

 

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 his famous 'sensibility before-the-fact', or 'synthetic apriori'. The subject or 'phe-noumenon' extended the object or 'noumenon', establishing inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it. Hegel turned this upside down, calling the object 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). Thus, the tendency was born to regress, and replace truth and ethics with power and politics, as if they were interchangeable.

Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992) points out 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. Therefore, post-modern philosophical monism or phe-noumenalism is totally different from modern philosophical dualism or noumenalism. Proclaiming Kant to be the 'Copernicus of the philosophical revolution', because he called space and time 'basic categories' 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 is found, if and when sources and their opposite source's self-reflections coordinately coincide [1], sensing what-is-sensed proves knowing what-is-known to be true by independently confirming it [2], and the consecutive states of coordinated coincidence, at different stages of independent confirmation, in phases of two social cycles, constructively recollect [3] 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 every sphere, from the periphery to the depth, space temporalizes, content-shapes-form, and behavior internalizes as consciousness. In the reverse direction, from the depth to the periphery, time spatializes, form-shapes-content, and consciousness externalizes as behavior. Sensing and what-is-sensed expand facts, being used and reused by different ideas, in three spatial dimensions at the periphery, from the contact point between the spheres, while knowing and what-is-known expand the ideas, as they use and reuse the facts, synchronously in every direction, from the one temporal dimension, at the radii or depths of their spheres.

In today's physics, space and time nearly united into one monistic 'spatiotemporality'. However, 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, since their ratio π ("pi"), carries infinitely many, non-repetitive, decimal places. When the organism/self/belief, or subject, does interact with the environment/other/reality, or object, it uses space and time, each reflecting itself. Sensing "here" what-is-sensed at the peripheries of the source's and its self-reflection's spheres, dualistically separated from knowing "now" what-is-known at the depths of the other source's and its self-reflection's spheres, the subject attempts to co-incide space and time, into their original state, as before processing. In recollection, as space is about to temporalize, contents are the facts, used and reused by the ideas, within-facts-between-ideas. In construction, as time has spatialized, contents are the ideas, using and reusing the facts, within-ideas-between-facts. Facts-relate-ideas, to recollect space/content/behavior, while amply ideas-relate-facts, to construct time/form/consciousness.

Object and subject, or the sensed and known environment/other/reality, and the sensing and knowing organism/self/belief, represent our sources, space and time, combined into the concept of 'spatiotemporality' . The subject processes the object, or space, where it senses what-is-sensed, apart from itself, or time, when it knows what-is-known. We experience the spheres separately, one primarily for space at its periphery, 'ob-jected' or 'off-thrown', and the other primarily for time at its depth. Divided again for processing, each source co-ordinates exclusively with its self-reflection, at their peripheries. One source and self-reflection recollect, or sense "here" what-is-sensed, while the other source and its self-reflection construct, or know "now" what-is-known. The co-ordinated self-reflections (sensing and what-is-known) of the sources and their opposites (what-is-sensed and knowing) are now set up to potentially co-incide, if and when they are commensurable. Thus, spatial co-ordination, at the peripheries of the spheres, leads to temporal co-incidence, at the depths of the spheres, while the self-reflections, going around their sources, recollect and construct.

Relativity theory taught us that speed and acceleration of an object curves space and slows time, shaping around the object as a sphere. When these spheres are human subjects, speeding along with their planet through space-time, 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. Because both self and other have their subjective- and objective self (subject) and -other (object) in mind, it should not come as a surprise, if these do not fit, as in relativity, since belief and reality are various, and necessitate social interaction.

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 around and come around them, 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, and in the object, as what-is-sensed and what-is-known. If and when possible, knowing and sensing, or time 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, at the depths of the spheres in construction, between the opposite source, the knowing subject, and its coordinated self-reflection, the known object. The 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, which requires commensurability between the two spheres, to stay on track of truth. 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 at their 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). Initially, for new content, in recollection the one source or sensed environment/other/reality and its self-reflection, the sensing organism/self/belief, subliminally at the peripheries of their spheres, have 'empty' space/content/behavior, and in construction the other source or knowing organism/self/belief and its self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality, supraliminally at the depths of their spheres, have 'blind' time/form/consciousness. 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. Then, 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 the source in recollection, or sensing, brings space/content/behavior from the object to the subject, to find validity, and the self-reflection of the source in construction, or what-is-known, brings time/form/consciousness from the subject to the object, to find reliability, if and when self-reflections and opposite sources co-incide. The sensing subject recollects the sensed object, going- and coming around it, to bring facts of space/content/behavior to the knowing subject, as the knowing subject constructs the known object, going- and coming around it, to bring ideas of time/form/consciousness to the sensed 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.

Space/content/behavior occurs causally between the one source and its self-reflection, what-is-sensed and sensing, at the spheres' peripheries in recollection, if it can temporalize towards the depths, shape form, and internalize as consciousness, while time/form/consciousness is implied teleologically between the other source and its self-reflection, knowing and what-is-known, at the spheres' depths in construction, if it can spatialize towards the peripheries, shape content, and externalize as behavior. Sensing goes- and comes around what-is-sensed, whereas what-is-known goes- and comes around knowing, to coincide with the opposite source, being forms in the subject, and contents in the object. Once 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, go on between spheres. In one direction, what-is-known continues in sensing, and in the opposite direction, knowing continues in what-is-sensed, creating possibilities to interact, even socially, for subject and object. Construction by the one can be recollection by the other, which goes two ways.

For sources to co-incide with self-reflections of the opposite source, they must produce their self-reflections, subliminally in recollection and supraliminally in construction. By way of coordinated reflection, the source in recollection, or the sensed environment/other/reality, creates its self-reflection in the sensing organism/self/belief, while the source in construction, or the knowing organism/self/belief, creates its self-reflection in the known environment/other/reality. The self-reflections recollect or construct content, by going around their sources, to bring it to the opposite source for processing, if the spheres are spatiotemporally commensurable. 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 other side of the source, by recollection, and in time/form/consciousness, "now" at the depth's one temporal dimension, 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. In co-incided spheres, from depths to peripheries, time can spatialize, form can shape content and consciousness can externalize as behavior, and from peripheries to depths, space can temporalize, content can shape form and behavior can internalize as consciousness, all in the co-incided spheres. Then, the subject, or the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief, interacts with the object, or the sensed- and known environment/other/reality, to continue knowing into what-is-sensed, streaming in one direction, as well as what-is-known into sensing, streaming in the other direction. Between the organism and environment, self and other, or belief and reality, dynamic social interaction might then continuously take place.

If space, "here" or "there" at the object's spheres' peripheries-, and time, "now" or "then" at the subject's spheres' depths co-incide, then spatializing time, form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as behavior, in construction, continue in both directions between subject and object, to temporalizing space, content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness, in recollection. Thus, the objective source reflecting itself in the subject, and the subjective source reflecting itself in the object, can interact "here and now". The sensed- and known object are commensurable in space and time, and what-is-sensed "here and now" can be critical for what-is-known, irrespective of their material- or immaterial states. When they are commensurable, then what-is-known can 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" can be critical for knowing, when the sensing- and knowing subject are commensurable in space and time. Then knowing can be negatively falsified, by warding off falsification from sensing, thereby validating itself.

figure 5

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 group-polarization (Moscovici 1969, Meertens 1980, 2006), 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 (Festinger 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 collective.

Facts are synthesized in the 'synthetic aposteriori' or sensibility after-the-fact, and ideas are analyzed in the 'analytic apriori' or understanding before-the-fact (Kant 1781). In recollection, relations in space/content/behavior, from spheres' peripheries to depths and from the past (after-the-fact), through the present, cause future ones to occur, within-facts-between-ideas. In construction, relations in time/form/consciousness, from spheres' depths to peripheries and from the future (before-the-fact), through the present, teleologically imply those in the past, within-ideas-between-facts. The implications resemble the "retrograde movement of the true growth of truth" (Bergson 1922). Functional structuralism (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976) contextualizes interpretations within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, to find truth and ethics, changing ideas to fit the facts, in open and dynamic dualism, unlike structural functionalism (Parsons 1975) contextualizing interpretations within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups, to find power and politics, by changing facts to fit the ideas, dogmatically, 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 invariable, while "here" continuously varies, from "there" on one side 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 all "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 'synthetic apriori'.

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, needs 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. 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' (Strawson 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. It can replace all institutionalized recognition and it should, to support (mental) health and happiness, to survive.

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 establish self-consciousness. Thus, 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 contents.

Co-inciding facts (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 of 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'). Valuing 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 reacting ('try 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 "unleashed" 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 the spheres.

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 1973).

    

    

figure 9

    

   

3. Constructive Recollection

    

After religion and philosophy, physical science appears dualistic, 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 co-incidence [1] and reflections seeking independent confirmation with opposite sources [2], in constructive recollection [3], 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 1968).

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 object socially 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', following the implied states, stages and phases all out.

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 interaction.

Four states per phase, four phases per cycle, and two cycles per interaction between subject and object, addressing self and other, integrate logically and logistically. Phases repeat themselves and overlap each other, starting and finishing one state after each other, 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 the 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 other's other as well.

When two people communicate or socially interact, the one's construction is the other's recollection, and vice versa. The one's knowing, or his consciousness externalized as behavior, is what-is-sensed by the other, or behavior internalized as consciousness. Also, the one's spatialized time is the other's temporalized space, and the one's form-shaping-content is the other's content-shaping form. If and when the one's and the other's recollection after-the-fact, independently confirms his or her construction before-the-fact, rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, interaction continues. Therefore, what-is-known or ideas-relating-facts in space/content/behavior by the one, is what-is-sensed or facts-relating-ideas in time/form/consciousness by the other, which goes both ways. The people are each other's objects, while they are their own subjects. What happens between object and subject, in terms of recollection and construction, happens to both, be it in reversed order. Facts or what-is-sensed must positively verify ideas or what-is-known, and sensing must negatively falsify sensing, for independent confirmation to make social interaction go on.


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, or 'understanding before-the-fact', independently confirmed by 'sensibility after-the-fact'. Inter-subjectivity is established, by the object, between subjects referring to it. Instead of object-recognition, literal 're-cognition' was then revolutionary, by dependent confirmation of friends and independent rejection of enemies, to boost self-consciousness and make one "go into the world and lose oneself", not "go into oneself and lose the world" (Hegel 1807). Thus, power and politics motivate to avoid dependent rejection, not seek independent confirmation.

Power and politics change facts (what-is-sensed) to fit the ideas (what-is-known), while truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts. Ideas relate facts, within-ideas-between-facts, while facts relate ideas, within-facts-between-ideas. 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, people relate groups and groups relate people. If people belong to one group, and to another, their 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-ideas-between-facts. Instead, truth and ethics motivate intrinsically to seek independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, within-facts-between-ideas and within-people-between-groups. Power and politics, in need of closed- and static monism, replaced truth and ethics, in need of open- and dynamic dualism (Bergson 1932), causing relations to entangle.

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", may trigger selective reciprocity and access to privilege as well. Truth and ethics, on the contrary, make independent, if 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, strengthening both 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'. As truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts, power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. Thus, all entangled relations within-ideas-between-facts show up within-facts-between-ideas, as stress and dissociation.

Truth is 'knowing "now" what-is-known', or ideas, independently confirmed by 'sensing "here" what-is-sensed', or facts, in a rational, emotional, and/or compassionate manner. Between the forms in the organism/self/belief, sensing (objectively the subject - cf. De Wit 1991) then negatively falsifies knowing (the subjective subject) for validity, as between the contents in the environment/other/reality, what-is-sensed or facts (the objective object) positively verify what-is-known or ideas (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 collectivist-, socialist-, or communist walls by Hegel and Marx.

 

Our world is divided and mixed. The main part was created by post-modern, immanently dialectic monism or power and politics, after the Kantian era and the French Revolution, while the remaining part was created by modern, independent individual dualism or truth and ethics, which preceded it. Monism can look like dualism, interpreted as dialectics, although monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent and that subgroups or individuals will compete for their own domination and all others' submission (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867, Nietzsche 1901). Monistic (inter) dependency leads to 're-cognition', by dependent confirmation of the dominator, and independent rejection of the dominated, bypassing truth, provoking group-polarization and extremism. Dualism, on the other hand, assumes that there are two sources and not just one, interacting through any two individuals, other and self, or object and subject, in social belief and/or social reality, to stay on track of truth. Dualistic (inter) dependency of independent, autonomous individuals seeks independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, for- and from each other, instead.

Within-groups-between-people, independent rejection of (the dominator's) enemies, and/or dependent confirmation of (the dominator's) friends, help one to avoid dependent rejection from the group, and being excommunicated or made homeless. Relations within-groups-between-people naturally translate into relations within-people-between-groups, which facilitates manipulating individual group members. To explain individuals' honesty as disloyalty, or their loyalty as dishonesty, deeply confuses the them, if they are also members of other groups. Therefore, choosing the opposite explanation dominates and submits another. The difference between, on the one hand, Hegel's (1807) literal interpretation of 're-cognizing' the other, or dependent confirmation of friends and independent rejection of enemies, and on the other, Kant's independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation of another, might well be monism's overall takeover of dualism. We do not know what we do not know, unless the group takes away our individual responsibility and independence, telling us what it expects us to know, the way revolutions redefine the situation.

If post-modern monism and modern dualism run into each other in daily life, role-sending and role-receiving by the former may either grow more intense, or it may be weakened by the latter. In monism, the dominator's internal normativity, being sent, equals the external normativity of the submitted, being received. This ignores the sender's external- and the receiver's internal normativity. Monism exists since Hegel hijacked Kant's dualism, cutting it in half, keeping the subject and ignoring the object, since the French Revolution. It doubled down since the Cultural Revolution of May 1968. At crucial episodes in history, group-polarization extremizes monism into dictatorship, or the subject dominating and submitting the object. This has 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' the ideas. This is what Hegel meant by "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

The kind of social order which is recollected or constructed, determines how social identity develops. Monistically created social order, by power and politics, motivates avoiding dependent rejection, by dependent confirmation of the other, hoping for selective reciprocity, and independent rejection of the competition, to make up one's identity, as (inter) dependent upon friends, and surrounded by enemies. Dualistically created social order, by truth and ethics, motivates seeking independent confirmation, strengthening the other's and one's own identity, as the object establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects. Thus, social 're-cognition' either (reciprocally) avoids dependent rejection, in monism, or seeks independent confirmation, in dualism. The object is neglected in monism, while it controls the subject in dualism, by the use of classical and operant conditioning (Pavlov 1910, Skinner 1930). Reflexes are conditioned responses to conditioning stimuli, controlled by either the subject or the object. Power and politics condition reflexes by demanding 're-cognition' of a dominant other's cognition, threatening one to be excommunicated and be made homeless.

The source of the object, the 'objective object' or what-is-sensed, does reflect itself in the subject, the 'objective subject' or sensing. The source of the subject, the 'subjective subject' or knowing, does reflect itself in the object, the 'subjective object' or what-is-known. While they are socially interacting, the subject and the object could change into each other's Significant Others, apart from their Selves. Then, the one's Self turns into the other's Significant other, as its own self-reflection, while the other's Self turns into the one's Significant Other, as the other source's self-reflection. The subjective subject or knowing Self, reflects itself in the subjective object or known Significant Other, whereas the objective object, or sensed Significant Other, reflects itself in the objective subject or sensing Self. Therefore, knowing and what-is-known, in construction, plus sensing and what-is-sensed, in recollection, divide within- and between subject and object, within themselves and between themselves. The more Significant the Other is to the Self, the less independent confirmation must be only rational, and the more it may be emotional- or compassionate social interaction.

Between modern philosophical dualism or truth and ethics, and post-modern philosophical monism or power and politics, the relation between Self and Significant Other is critical for the kind of social order, compatible with it. A partnership or relationship grows tense, when there is competition which is valued at-, or above, the comparison level (Thibaut and Kelley 1959). Are Self and Significant Other (inter) dependent and therefore, will they avoid each other's dependent rejection, by dependently confirming each other and independently rejecting all the competition, or instead, will they seek each other's independent confirmation? The former relies on the power and politics of the relations within-groups-between-people and within-ideas-between-facts, as in subjective cultural belief-systems, neglecting the objective world, protecting each other against it, and the latter relies on the truth and ethics of relations within-facts-between-ideas and within-people-between-groups not getting entangled, where the facts are used in one idea, and reused in another, to establish objectivity or inter-subjectivity between subjects independently referring to them.

Somehow we are all related, either by receiving- and returning favors through cronyism and dependent confirmation, or by 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, as friends receive- and return favors, changing facts to fit the ideas. Dualistic truth and ethics intrinsically motivate independent action-and-reaction between independent individuals, if and when after-the-fact sensing what-is-sensed does independently confirm before-the-fact knowing what-is-known, changing ideas to fit the facts. When facts are changed to fit the ideas in monism, it is no use to change ideas to fit the facts in dualism. Intrinsically motivated reactions, in response to extrinsically motivated actions, could only be intended as independent confirmations, which truly understand extrinsic motivation. Extrinsically motivated reactions in response to intrinsically motivated actions, likely interpret the independent confirmation as the return of favor which it never meant to be.

The objective subject, or the recollected object's self-reflection in the subject, and the subjective subject, or the constructive source, if and when they co-incide, and recollection independently confirms construction, are able to copy-and-swap forms. In recollection, within-facts-between-ideas, ideas reuse facts as linking-pins, relating them as 'knowing what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized', or 'trying what-is-valued', while in construction, within-ideas-between-facts, ideas relate facts as 'sensing what-is-known', 'realizing what-is-intuited', or 'valuing what-is-tried'. Relations generate meaningful networks, continuously expanding their horizon, since the facts (or objects), establish inter-subjectivity between the ideas (or subjects) referring to them, by seeking- and finding independent confirmation. However, power and politics, motivating to avoid dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and, by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups, may ignore truth and ethics, motivating to seek independent confirmation, and keep 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-people-between-groups and within-groups-between-people, 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.

 

   

  

  

Philosophy Application

     

figure 15

   

Conclusion

Finding truth is an art we learned and willingly unlearned. Truth can only be found by looking for the facts, which independently confirm our ideas. Independence needs dualism, which is difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, as invariably, power and politics or dialectics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and ethics change ideas to fit the facts, while power and politics change facts to fit the ideas. Thus post-modern philosophical monism took over modern philosophical dualism.   

    

References

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.

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. (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.

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

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.  

 

1Website TormentedInHiding

 

 

  

       

 
 
 
 
feedback:
email ron.de.weijze@crpa.co