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
R. de Weijze - March 2018
||Finding truth is
an art we learned and willingly unlearned. Truth may
strictly be found by looking for the facts, to independently
confirm- and prove our ideas. Independence needs dualism,
which is difficult to practice in personal and social
settings, because invariably, power and politics (or
post-modern dialectics) convert 'seeking independent
confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth and
ethics change ideas to fit the facts, whereas power and
politics change facts to fit the ideas. After Kant, this
post-modern philosophical monism seized modern philosophical
dualism. The present article aims to resume modern dualism,
finding antecedents in spatiotemporality and consequents in
social interaction, to refute post-modern celebrations of
power and politics, in favor of modern truth and ethics.
When Immanuel Kant preeminently articulated
modern philosophy (Rohlf
2016), post-modern philosophy was hastening to announce
that his sources of dualism, or 'duality of origin' (Bergson
1932), were only one, conforming to monism. At the arrival
of the French Revolution, Kant had put the Anglo-Saxon 'synthetic a
posteriori' ('sensibility after-the-fact') and the Continental
'analytic a priori' ('understanding before-the-fact') side by side,
into the 'synthetic a priori' ('sensibility before-the-fact'),
that sensibility can independently confirm understanding. The
subject or 'phe-noumenon' extended the object or 'noumenon', to find
truth between subjects inter-subjectively referring to it. Then, Hegel's
revolution was that the object extended the subject. "The
subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into
himself and loses the world" (Hegel
1807). Celebrating power and politics, one
'inter-subjectively re-cognizes' the other, to befriend- and
dependently confirm him, as they independently reject their common
enemy. Thus, in a brutal twist of fate, dependent confirmation and
independent rejection incapacitated independent confirmation.
Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek
Derrida 1992) declared existence is nothingness (Heidegger
Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche
1882), truth is multiplicit or dialectical (Marx
1867), and reality is only a mental phenomenon with no
independent object (Hegel
1807). Pronouncing Kant their 'Copernicus of the
Philosophical Revolution', for calling space and time 'basic
categories' of the phe-noumenon or subject, was pretext for losing
independent noumenon or object. One and a half century after the French
Revolution (1789-1799), the Cultural Revolution (May 1968) doubled
down on this monistic premise, after Post-Modernism went around the
world, leaving behind its brands, such as collectivism,
socialism, and communism. Faced with missing open- and
dynamic dualism (Bergson
1932), monism deflected to the closed- and static dogmatism of
2006), power and politics, or
dialectics in groups fighting over dominance and submission.
post-modern philosophical monism or (phe-)nominalism diametrically opposes its ancestor, modern philosophical dualism or (phe-)noumenology.
Dividing between 'synthetic a posteriori
sensibility' in space, and 'analytic a priori understanding' in time,
Kant implied that modern dualism of sensibility and understanding is
also dualism of space and time (1781:
78-105). Sensibility relates sensing to what we sense in
space, as understanding relates knowing to what we know in time.
What-is-sensed and what-is-known are the object, or the
environment/other/reality, as sensing and knowing are the subject,
or the organism/self/belief. Source space is what-is-sensed, or the
sensed object, reflecting itself in sensing, or the sensing subject,
by recollection. Source time is knowing, or the knowing subject,
reflecting itself in what-is-known, or the known object, by
construction. Source space and reflected space, as well as source
time and reflected time, are spatiotemporal spheres, recollecting
content and behavior from the periphery to the depth, in space, or
constructing form and consciousness from the depth to the periphery,
of the sphere, in time. Thus, source spheres co-ordinate with their
self-reflections, repeatedly co-inciding with the self-reflections
of the opposite sources within- and between subject and object.
1. Co-ordinated Co-incidence
According to physics, space and time are near
identical in the monistic concept of 'spatiotemporality'. Relativity
theory tells us, that speed and acceleration of objects curve space
and slow time, warping spatiotemporality around them, reminiscent of
Euclidean spheres. The periphery's three spatial dimensions, and the
radius' one temporal dimension of a Euclidean sphere, however, are
dualistically irreducible to each other, as their ratio π ("pi") has
infinitely many non-repetitive decimal places. While
space/content/behavior at the sphere's periphery resembles Cartesian
'res extensa' ("extended substance"), time/form/consciousness at the
sphere's depth resembles 'res cogitans' (Descartes
1644). Because 'duality of origin' co-incidentally
co-incided space and time, spatiotemporal dualism in the
environment/other/reality exists in the organism/self/belief as
well, if subjects can be objects (De
Weijze 2017). From the outside, the subject is part of
the sensible object, and from the inside, the understanding subject
"ob-jects" or "throws-off" the object, setting it apart. The subject
needs dualism between its sensibility and understanding, to find out
if co-incidence happened or not.
Sources are space to objectively recollect,
reflected in the subject, and time to
subjectively construct, reflected in the object. Between recollection's spheres, source
space reflects "here", materially or causally at the peripheries. Between
construction's spheres, source time reflects "now", immaterially or
teleologically at the depths. As the subject manages to co-incide
source time and reflected space, the object manages to co-incide
source space and reflected time. Spatializing time in construction
ends, where temporalizing space in recollection begins, at the
space/content/behavior. Temporalizing space in
recollection ends, when spatializing time in construction
begins, at the depths of the spheres in time/form/consciousness.
Before processing starts, source space and its reflection are 'empty',
as source time and its reflection are 'blind'. "Thoughts without
contents are empty and intuitions without conceptions are blind" (Kant
1790). Time, form and consciousness, from the spheres'
depths of source time and its reflection, in construction, process
space, content, and behavior from the spheres' peripheries of source
space and its reflection, in recollection.
Sources and their self-reflections consist of
space/content/behavior at the peripheries, and
time/form/consciousness at the depths of their spheres. Reflected
space is phenomenology or epistemology, and reflected time is
noumenology or ontology1.
Temporalizing source space and reflected space, in recollection,
reduces space in time, enabling co-incidence with source time
and reflected time, at the depths of their spheres. Spatializing
source time and reflected time, in construction, reduces time in
space, enabling co-incidence with source space and
reflected space, at the peripheries. Temporalizing space enables
content-shaping-form, which enables behavior to internalize as
consciousness, whereas spatializing time enables form-shaping-content,
which enables consciousness to externalize as behavior. Current
content develops, shaping- and being shaped by form, like current behavior, internalizing
as-, and being externalized by,
consciousness. Finally, current behavior dissolves in consciousness, when the
subject reacts in response to the object's action, and current
consciousness dissolves in behavior, when the subject acts in
response to its own reaction.
space/content/behavior at the peripheries of the spheres, and as
time/form/consciousness at the depths, in the object, are source space and spatialized
reflected time, as well as temporalized source space and reflected
time, while in the subject, they are source time and temporalized
reflected space, as well as spatialized source time and reflected
At every co-incidence, subject and object reconstitute
"here" and "now" in space and time, fact and idea in content and
form, as well as behavior and consciousness in our material basis
and immaterial orientation (De
Weijze 1982). Construction in one sphere continues as
recollection in the next, through co-ordination between-, and
co-incidence within subject and object. Thus, content is conveyed
from periphery to depth, along temporalizing space in recollection,
and from depth to periphery, along spatializing time in
construction, across peripheries between subject and object, and
across depths within subject and object. This is how spatializing
time externalizes conscious form-shaping-content, as behavior,
whereas temporalizing space internalizes behavioral
content-shaping-form, as consciousness.
Since Post-Modernism "lost" the object, relations
within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups are
all that is left. Group-polarization draws opinions of group-members to extremes, within-groups-between-people,
within-people-between-groups turning them into conflicts of
interest. The group's narrative treats the same facts as
different, and/or different facts as the same, changing them to fit
the ideas and twisting truth into lies, to reduce cognitive dissonance
1962). Changing facts ignores people's innocence or
guilt, which can induce dissociative disorders like derealization
and/or depersonalization (Dell
and O'Neill 2009), affecting independent individuals and dependent collectives,
by growing into socioses (Van
den Berg 1956). Facts or source space and ideas or source
time are reflected by co-ordination in recollection and
construction, as co-incidence unifies source space and reflected
time in the object, plus source time and reflected space in the
within-ideas-between-facts extend construction, for understanding,
while relations within-facts-between-ideas extend recollection, for
The spatial- and temporal
organism/self/belief or subject interacts with the spatial- and
temporal environment/other/reality or object. Source space and its
reflection co-ordinate "here" in recollection, at the sphere's
peripheries, as source time and its reflection co-ordinate (or
synchronize) "now" in construction, at the depths. Regularly, source
space and reflected time co-incide in the object, as source time and
reflected space co-incide in the subject. To process sources'
self-reflections "not here and now", not (yet) co-inciding with
opposite sources, space temporalizes in recollection, as time
spatializes in construction, to bridge the spatiotemporal gap. Spheres of the
subject and of the object co-incide "here and now". To all other
locations at the peripheries and moments at the radii, behavioral
content and/or conscious form is attached, extending towards- or
from the depths of the spheres, and beyond, into the other spheres,
within-facts-between-ideas or within-ideas-between-facts. Through
the self-reflections, the co-incidental "here and now" relates to all
the other "theres and thens", all of which have conducted, or do
currently conduct, their own "here and now".
Sensibility after-the-fact or the 'synthetic a
posteriori', synthesizes facts, like understanding before-the-fact or
the 'analytic a priori', analyzes ideas (Kant
1781). Relations in space/content/behavior, recollected
from the peripheries of spheres to the depths and from the past
(after-the-fact), through the present, cause future relations to
occur, within-facts-between-ideas, whereas those in
time/form/consciousness, constructed from the depths of spheres to
the peripheries and from the future (before-the-fact), through the
present, teleologically imply past relations,
within-ideas-between-facts. Thus, sensibility and understanding
within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, celebrate
truth and ethics, altering ideas to fit the facts, by open and
dynamic dualism, in Functional Structuralism (Dooyeweerd
Sanders 1976), like the
"retrograde movement of the true growth of truth" (Bergson
1922), while the same within-groups-between-people and
within-people-between-groups, celebrate power and politics, changing
facts to reconcile ideas, dogmatically fitting the narrative by
closed and static monism, in Structural Functionalism (Parsons
Co-incidence enables material facts in
recollection to continue, only in space and time, as immaterial
ideas in construction. Recollection transforms
space/content/behavior at the periphery of the sphere, into
time/form/consciousness at the depth of its spheres, through
temporalization of space, content-shaping-form, and behavior
internalizing as consciousness, whereas construction reverses
the process. Therefore, behavior and consciousness, along
content and form, along space and time, are redistributed across
the periphery of the sphere. What is extrapolated from each
"here and now", is intrapolated at different "theres and thens".
Co-ordination continuously replaces the "here and now" with
"theres and thens", which then turn into the new "here and now".
New cycles of extrapolations and intrapolations relocate content
and behavior in spatialized time. Relations
from within-facts-between-ideas in space/content/behavior at the
periphery, have been recombined from
within-ideas-between-facts in time/form/consciousness at the
depth of the sphere, conceivably for the better. Thus, "here and
now" the subject can "do good" through extrapolation, if it is
2. Independent Confirmation
We could hardly do without recognition, which is
achieved primarily by being a subject and secondarily by what is
said and done, including any referral to objects. However,
recognition should be based on independent
rational-, emotional, and/or compassionate confirmation, through
subjective bias is allowed like internalism, favoritism, nepotism,
cronyism, group-polarization and dogmatism. Group dependency makes people
afraid to look for independent confirmation, and avoid dependent
rejection. This bias is a celebration of power and politics
instead of truth and ethics. The subject or the organism/self/belief
cannot dissociate from the object, or the
environment/other/reality, knowing how power and
politics, including his own, easily disguise as truth and ethics, or how Hegel's and Marx'
'inter-subjective re-cognition' of the other subject is different from Kant's inter-subjective recognition of the same
object. The latter must direct our selective attention economy and not the former.
To earn and pay attention must be guided by
seeking and finding independent confirmation, not avoiding
dependent rejection, and look away from the bias.
Hegel, influenced by-, yet
opposing Kant after the latter published his main work, suggested
that the object was irrelevant and objective knowledge was
impossible. The 'unnamable thing-in-itself' was clear to him instead
of opaque, as he claimed that the object was the subject
itself, transparent for the other in social interaction, since we
are all human beings, identical and 'inter-subjectively
re-cognizable' to each other, which disqualified Kant's premise of dualism.
However, being identical cannot replace inter-subjectivity through
objects. One's selectively reciprocal 're-cognition' of the other
only establishes a hierarchy for subjects to feed their cognition to. If facts do not fit the ideas, then power and
politics simply force them to 're-cognize' the ideas, be it “too bad
for the facts”. Kant called the object the 'noumenon', literally the
'unnamable thing-in-itself', by which he did not imply that the
object could be missed. It establishes intersubjectivity between
subjects who are referring to it, if and when the sensibility of the
subjects, through independent rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate confirmation, proves that how the object is
understood, is true.
The concept of
inter-subjectivity, interpreted in Hegel's terms instead of Kant's,
led to the perception of social- and cultural reality as social
Berger and Luckman 1966).
Structural Functionalism does not require objective, independent confirmation. Power and politics change
individuals' seeking independent confirmation, into group members' avoiding
dependent rejection, for fear of excommunication and homelessness,
calling for dependent confirmation of friends (cronyism) and
independent rejection of enemies (prejudice). There is no dualism
between facts and ideas, as in Functional Structuralism, when ideas are implemented,
changing facts to make them fit. The appearance of independent
confirmation still appeals to human instinct, even if different facts
are treated as if they were the same, or to annihilate the appeal,
same facts are treated as if they were different. Behavioral
1966) is induced within-groups-between-people, which
could lead to
conflicts of interest within-people-between-groups. If facts are
manipulated, innocence or guilt cannot truthfully or ethically be
proven for having been compromised.
Intrinsically motivated by
truth and ethics, modern dualism
separates subject and object, to find independent confirmation
between construction's internally normative spheres of 'knowing
what-is-known' and recollection's externally normative spheres of
'sensing what-is-sensed', in the subject between forms (knowing and
sensing) and in the object between contents (what-is-known and
what-is-sensed). If and when independent confirmation is found, then
time spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes
as behavior, in construction, whereas space temporalizes,
content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as consciousness, in
recollection. Extrinsically motivated by power and politics, post-modern
monism favors the subject over the object (Hegel
1807), sending roles (Boekestijn 1978)
from the top, through internal normativity
within-groups-between-people, to be received through external
normativity within-people-between-groups, at the bottom. Dependent
confirmation pays-, and may reciprocally earn, 're-cognition' for-
friends in high places (Mulder
1973), as independent rejection disregards the out-group
If and when sensibility
independently confirms understanding, or sensing what-is-sensed
independently confirms knowing what-is-known, then sources and opposite's
self-reflections co-incide, contents can copy-and-swap forms, and forms process contents, or sensing and knowing
process what-is-sensed and what-is-known. New forms reduce old forms to contents
and extend the
substance, or the newly leading form and linked contents, within- and
between object and subject. Independent confirmation extends recollection, from sensing to
knowing-what-is-sensed (realizing), across the subject's depth, to sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed (valuing), across the peripheries
between subject and object, to knowing
what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed (reacting), across the
object's depth, while separately it extends construction, from knowing to sensing what-is-known (intuiting),
across the peripheries between subject and object, to
knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known (trying), across the object's
sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known (acting), across
the peripheries between object and subject, re-entering the subject.
Independent confirmation, of knowing
what-is-known, by sensing what-is-sensed, is negative falsification
of knowing by sensing, for validity, and positive verification of
what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for reliability. Knowing
what-is-known turns into 'sensing what-is-known' or 'intuiting
what-is-intuited', while sensing what-is-sensed turns into
'knowing what-is-sensed' or 'realizing what-is-realized'. If and
when 'realizing what-is-realized' independently confirms 'intuiting
what-is-intuited', what-is-realized positively verifies
what-is-intuited, for reliability, while 'realizing' negatively
falsifies 'intuiting', for validity. 'Intuiting what-is-intuited'
turns into 'realizing what-is-intuited' or 'trying what-is-tried'
(as 'knowing what-is-sensed' and 'sensing what-is-known' are 'knowing
what-is-sensed-what-is-known'), while 'realizing what-is-realized'
turns into 'intuiting what-is-realized' or 'valuing what-is-valued'
(as 'sensing what-is-known' and 'knowing what-is-sensed' are 'sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed'). Similarly, valuing and trying emerge as 'trying what-is-valued' or 'reacting
what-is-reacted', and 'valuing what-is-tried' or 'acting
Facts (what-is-sensed), positively verifying
ideas (what-is-known), are each other's proexamples, as white swans
and "white swans" (Corcoran
2005). Independent confirmation, by positive verification
of contents (what-is-known by what-is-sensed), and negative
falsification of forms (knowing by sensing), lets contents
copy-and-swap forms, to emerge as realizing ('know what-is-sensed')
the white swans, and intuiting ('sense what-is-known') "white
swans". Realizing counterexamples falsifies intuiting to halt
processing, like black swans. Proexamples let contents
(what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or what-is-realized, and
what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or what-is-intuited) copy-and-swap
forms (realize and intuit), to emerge as valuing ('intuit
what-is-realized') and trying ('realize what-is-intuited'). Valuing
counterexamples falsifies trying to halt processing. Proexamples let
contents (what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed, or
what-is-valued, and what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known, or
what-is-tried) copy-and-swap forms (value and try), finally to
emerge as reacting ('try what-is-valued') and acting ('value
what-is-tried'), in social interaction.
In recollection, reacting is 'trying
what-is-valued', valuing is 'intuiting what-is-realized', and realizing
is 'knowing what-is-sensed'. In construction, acting is 'valuing
what-is-tried', trying is 'realizing what-is-intuited', and intuiting
is 'sensing what-is-known'. Recollection must sanction
construction at every stage of independent confirmation before the
current one, for the
subject or the organism/self/belief, from the depths of its source
and opposite source's self-reflection, to process the object or
the environment/other/reality, from the peripheries of its source
and opposite source's self-reflection, in terms of sensing and
knowing. By negative falsification, space/content/behavior,
recollected into time/form/consciousness, at the depths of the
spheres in the subject, allows source time/form/consciousness to know
(what-is-known), whereas by positive verification,
time/form/consciousness, constructed into space/content/behavior, at
the peripheries of the spheres in the object, is allowed by
source space/content/behavior (to know) what-is-known. One's 'definition of the situation' (Thomas
1928), or what-is-known, is then preserved by
truth and ethics.
At the highest stage of independent confirmation,
recollection and construction are in direct contact with social
reality and might be socially interacting as subject and object.
Self-reflections between subject and object in
social interaction are self-representations between subjects. In
modern dualism, the object's source reflects itself in the subject,
from the peripheries of the spheres of recollection in
space/content/behavior, as the subject's source reflects itself in
the object, from the depths of the spheres of construction in
time/form/consciousness. Truth and ethics intrinsically motivate
the subjects, to seek and find independent confirmation between their
own consciousness externalized as behavior, including
form-shaping-content, and spatializing time, in construction, and
the other's behavior internalized as consciousness, including
content-shaping-form, and temporalizing space, in recollection. One
truly represents himself in the other, and the other truly
represents himself in the one, by independent rational-, emotional-
and/or compassionate confirmation. Independent individuals are represented even if they do not presently represent themselves.
3. Constructive Recollection
After religion and philosophy, physical science appears dualistic,
as spatiotemporality can be either ontologically material or
epistemologically immaterial. Knowing what-is-known before-the-fact
ought to be independently confirmed, in whichever way, rationally,
emotionally and/or compassionately, by sensing what-is-sensed
after-the-fact. If and when that is the goal, truth and ethics are
on our side. However, seeking independent confirmation often is
underhandedly replaced by avoiding dependent rejection. Then, instead of
truth and ethics, power and politics control social order.
Politics cumulate power, to 'bulldoze' all the facts, and 'prove'
or self-fulfill an idea, which should be trusted, expected,
presumed, predicted, believed or intended, to be independently
confirmed by the facts. Social interaction [3a]
between the sensing- and knowing subject on the one hand, and the
sensed- and known object on the other hand, constructively recollect social reality [3b]
and social identity [3c],
if modern philosophical dualism is free to be true and
ethical, by seeking independent confirmation, without the fear of
power and politics, by avoiding dependent rejection.
Facts-relate-ideas in recollection, while
ideas-relate-facts in construction. If and when recollection
independently confirms construction, relations
within-facts-between-ideas and relations within-ideas-between-facts
are the same, thereby unifying temporalization of space and
spatialization of time, content-shaping-form and
form-shaping-content, behavior internalizing as consciousness and
consciousness externalizing as behavior. Independent confirmation
makes contents (facts or what-is-sensed and ideas or what-is-known)
copy-and-swap forms, to process old and new contents, extending them
before they are dissolved in interaction. Recollection needs to
independently confirm construction at successive stages, or
sensing/realizing/valuing/reacting in recollection, and
knowing/intuiting/trying/acting in construction, as new forms,
copied-and-swapped by contents, replace old forms, reduced to
contents, and added to preexisting old contents. Swapping forms
alternates states of recollection and construction, at all stages of
independent confirmation. Thus, form-plus-contents emerge into
extending and evolving substances, in both recollection and
Contents are conveyed from one
source to the other, by the sources' self-reflections, seeking
co-incidence and independent confirmation, as they go around their
source's peripheries, recollecting facts or constructing ideas,
temporalizing space or spatializing time, shaping- or shaped by
form, and internalizing behavior or externalizing consciousness.
Trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and
intended action before-the-fact, is freed after-the-fact, if and when one's reaction to the
other's action independently confirms it, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately.
One senses/realizes/values/reacts, what the other
knows/intuits/tries/acts, while the other
senses/realizes/values/reacts what the one knows/intuits/tries/acts.
Content extends to 'knowing (by the other)
what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known (by the self)
what-is-sensed (by the self)', or what-is-reacted, in recollection,
and to 'sensing (by the self) what-is-known
(by the other) what-is-sensed (by the other) what-is-known (by the
self)', or what-is-acted, in construction. Thus, reacting in
response to the other's action, plus acting in response to one's own
reaction, are a social cycle.
By social interaction
between object and subject, parties reflect their own
source in the other, and have the other's source reflected in
themselves, from their own perspective. If and when independent confirmation
is found, contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known)
copy-and-swap forms (sensing and knowing) to
convey substance (form-plus-contents) through one's depths, both peripheries, the other's depths, and
both peripheries again.
Independent confirmation must repeat itself on the other side,
for social interaction to continue. One's recollection, which independently confirms one's
construction, extends to the other's construction, when
co-ordination between one's construction and the other's recollection
exists, and consciousness externalizes as behavior in the
one, whereas behavior internalizes as consciousness in the other
(along form-shaping-content and content-shaping-form,
spatializing time and temporalizing space). Independent
rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation,
positively verified for reliability in space/content/behavior,
and negatively falsified for
validity in time/form/consciousness, share by social
If and when sources and self-reflections of
their opposite sources co-incide, what-is-sensed and what-is-known
copy-and-swap sensing and knowing, or space/content/behavior at the
peripheries exchange time/form/consciousness at the depths of their
spheres. Knowing what-is-sensed extends substance processed in
recollection, while sensing what-is-known extends substance
processed in construction. Copied-and-swapped forms alternate, or
sensing and knowing, although the processing direction, in
recollection from periphery to depth of the sphere, and in
construction from depth to periphery, does never change, and remains
recollective or constructive. Substances in recollection and
construction consist of forms (sensing and knowing) extending
contents (what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is etc), within- and
between spheres, in the subject and in the object, crossing their
depths, and in between them, crossing their peripheries.
Recollection extends from sensing to 'knowing
what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed', whereas construction
extends from knowing to 'sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known', taking the same route.
The maximum extensions of
forms-plus-contents in recollection and in construction are four
states, or one phase in a social cycle between subject and
object. The next phase starts one state later in the same
lasting series of states, phases, and cycles, unless
communication halts. Interaction between subject and object
takes one cycle of the subject's view of its recollection in
response to the object's construction, its construction in
response to its own recollection, the object's recollection in
response to the subject's construction, and the object's
construction in response to its own recollection, plus one cycle
of the object's view of its recollection in response to the
subject's construction, its construction in response to its own
recollection, the subject's recollection in response to the
object's construction, and the subject's construction in
response to its own recollection. These cycles are exactly the
same, except for the person, who is the subject or the object,
when the object is a subject as well (from his or her own point
of view). Therefore, a single social interaction consists of two
social cycles of four phases each, of four states each,
following each other one state.
States and stages correspond, as one more of
them occurs, to extend recollection or construction and to imply
that one more source's self-reflection has gone- and come around
its source by co-ordination, to co-incide with the opposite
source and to be independently confirmed. Since the phases of
the social cycles are taking place one state apart in space as
well as in time, the maximum number of stages of independent
rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, or the
maximum number of states per phase (four), is reached as often
as the minimum number, or any other number of states and stages
in between. Social interaction synchronizes, between person 1
and person 2, when both parties experience for themselves, or
speculate for the other, which meaningful role every state plays
in every phase, for both of them. This is where organism and
environment, self and other, and/or belief and reality meet,
stirring up most- or all of social dynamics, creating a life for
man or an eternity for mankind, comparable to the universe being
born out of a very minor mismatch in bifurcated matter versus
antimatter, as stated by the new physics (Neubert
3b. Social Reality
Individual- or collective
recognition is integral to social reality. Kant's Categorical
Imperative, instructing the autonomous individual to “act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law” (Kant
1785), is "an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional
principle that we must always follow, despite any natural desires or
inclinations we may have to the contrary” (Johnson
& Cureton 2016). 'Sensibility after-the-fact' which
independently confirms 'understanding before-the-fact', establishes
inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to-, and recognizing
the object. This comprises all trusted,
expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended 'sensibility
before-the-fact', or the 'synthetic apriori'. Yet, underhandedly, literal 're-cognition' of another subject took over,
dependently confirming friends and independently
rejecting enemies, "to boost one's self-consciousness", "to go into
the world and lose oneself", and not "to go into oneself and lose
the world" (Hegel
1807). Thus, power and politics' 're-cognizing' through the
subject, ended truth and ethics' recognizing through the object.
Power and politics change
facts (what-is-sensed), to fit the ideas, while truth and ethics
change ideas (what-is-known), to fit the facts. Facts relate ideas
(within-facts-between-ideas), as ideas relate facts
(within-ideas-between-facts). If facts are used in one idea, and
reused in another, relations within-facts-between-ideas may
entangle, for example if a single fact is treated as multiple, or
multiple facts as single, abusing independent confirmation.
Similarly, groups relate people and people relate groups. When people
belong to one group, as well as to another, relations may entangle, for
example as a conflict of interest. Power and politics motivate
extrinsically to avoid dependent rejection, using excommunication
and homelessness, within-groups-between-people, and group-polarization, within-people-between-groups. Truth and
ethics motivate intrinsically, by finding independent rational-,
emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation between recollection within-facts-between-ideas and construction within-ideas-between-facts.
Thus, closed and static power and politics
preyed on open and dynamic truth and ethics (Bergson
1932), to confound peoples' relations.
Consciously or not, power and
loyalty, while truth and ethics seek honesty. Power
and politics make us (inter) dependent, if we avoid dependent
rejection from the group by excommunication or homelessness.
Independent rejection of (the leader's) enemies and/or dependent
confirmation of (his) friends, out of loyalty, trigger selective
reciprocity and access to privilege. Truth and ethics, on the
contrary, need independence, waiting for reality to independently confirm
our beliefs, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. The
object establishes both inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to
it, and independent confirmation strengthening them as honest and
independent individuals, conditioned solely by reality. Independence
cannot do without dualism, which is difficult to apply in personal-
and social settings, as power and politics invariably turn 'seeking
independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. Truth
and ethics change the ideas to fit the facts, while power and
politics change the facts to fit the ideas. Thus, relations
entangled within-ideas-between-facts transpire within-facts-between-ideas,
as stress and dissociation.
Truth is understanding,
'knowing now what-is-known', or ideas before-the-fact in
construction, proven by the independent confirmation from sensibility,
'sensing here what-is-sensed', or facts after-the-fact in
recollection, rationally, emotionally, and/or compassionately. In
the organism/self/belief, sensing negatively falsifies knowing, for
validity, unable to disprove it, and in the environment/other/reality,
what-is-sensed positively verifies what-is-known, for reliability,
able to prove it. Still, power and politics can effortlessly turn 'seeking
independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection',
between the sensing- and the knowing organism/self/belief, and/or
between the known- and the sensed environment/other/reality, even
underhandedly and subtly, giving up on one's unique identity while giving
in to identity politics. This establishes monistic dialectics, forcing
people to 'loyally' take sides (or leave the party) and dependently
confirm the unavoidable 'friends' and independently reject the
unavoidable 'enemies', of their own or of their leader's, to strip
away peoples' personal identities and dress them up, in the uniforms
of closed- and static groups.
Our worlds are cut up and mixed. Post-modernism
created immanently dialectic monism using power and politics, after
the Kantian era and the French Revolution, fifty years later
followed by the European Revolutions. Modernism though, created
independent individual dualism or truth and ethics, before those
revolutions. If circumscribed as dialectics, monism looks like
dualism. However, monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent
subgroups or -individuals, competing for our own dominance and every
others' submission (Hegel
Nietzsche 1901). Monistic (inter)
dependency leads to 're-cognition', bypassing truth and provoking
group-polarization or extremism, by dependent confirmation of
one's own group, and independent rejection of others'. Dualistic
independency assumes that there are two sources instead of one,
interacting through any two individuals, object and subject, or
other and self, who seek independent confirmation, to stay on
track of truth. Thus, dualistic (inter) dependency between autonomous
individuals seeks independent rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate confirmation, both from- and for other and self.
To avoid dependent rejection
from a group of which we are a member, through excommunication or
making us homeless, we likely are tempted to dependently confirm 'friends' and/or independently reject
'enemies', or those of the leader, to pay our dues, within-groups-between-people. Relations
within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups are
the same, causing group-polarization.
Groups manipulate their members when they interpret honesty as "disloyalty" and/or loyalty as
"dishonesty", taking the exact opposite side of what was intended. Hegel's (1807)
opposite interpretation of 're-cognition' swept Kant to the side and eliminated the object from philosophical
understanding, to turn modern dualism into post-modern monism. The
object could establish inter-subjectivity between the subjects
referring to it, being recognized by independent
replaced the object with the subject, whom should be paid loyal
're-cognition', to earn 're-cognition' in return. Marx turned Hegel's
top-down hierarchy bottom-up, calling it 'historical materialism' (1859),
although he did not restore the hinge point for recognition to the
The main differences between the worlds of
post-modern monism and modern dualism, is where they collide as well.
In the former, normative rationality (Habermas
1991) is sent down the social
hierarchy of monism, internal for leaders and external for
followers, through power and politics. Supposedly, there is a system
of checks and balances (Montesquieu
1749) which keeps the leaders under control, balancing
out their powers. However, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely" (Dalberg-Acton
1887). Therefore, truth and ethics, recognizing the
object, should reclaim their position in social reality, from power
and politics, 're-cognizing' the subject. Relations
within-groups-between-people, disturbed by group-polarization and
dogmatism, discharge their tensions on (the same) relations
within-people-between-groups, causing dissociation disorders between
subject and object, or the organism and the environment, self and
other, belief and reality, which cannot be fixed otherwise.
Relations within-ideas-between-facts, in construction, independently
confirmed by (the same) relations within-facts-between-ideas, can
never be inapt.
Power and politics create
groups, held together by loyalty, as truth and ethics create
independent individuals, held together by honesty. Loyalty violates
truth and ethics, when it changes facts to fit the ideas, making
innocence defenseless, within-groups-between-people and, by
within-people-between-groups. Honesty explained as disloyalty, could
no longer enable honest people to avoid dependent rejection. As the
common enemy, they increase dependent confirmation of friends, and
are independently rejected, themselves. There are (human) angels
offering themselves to save these souls, independently or
unnoticeably confirming their talents, for them to continue to be
compatible and compete for survival, in an unjust world. However,
this type of independent confirmation is not the same as that which
is critical to find truth and ethics. To whom this is applied, it
amounts to a self-fulfilling
prophecy. To the angel, who cannot reveal his or her identity,
the job is isolating, comparable to elites spoiling their
protégés, though without the social status and without the celebration
of power. All that is left is hopefully viewing the person thrive.
3c. Social Identity
In one's sphere of
recollection, from periphery to depth, what-is-sensed is
temporalizing space, content-shaping-form, and behavior
internalizing as consciousness, while its substance extends
by contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from
subliminal sensing what-is-sensed to interactive reacting
what-is-reacted. In one's sphere of construction, from depth
to periphery, what-is-known is spatializing time,
form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as
behavior, while its substance extends by contents'
copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from supraliminal knowing what-is-known to interactive acting
what-is-acted. While substance extends, alternatingly by
sensing and knowing, to be reduced to what-is-sensed and
what-is-known at the next stage, it meanders between subject
and object, at the depths of their spheres, crossing
peripheries. Once a stage reaches social interaction, it can
fulfill its purpose, by conveying valid and reliable
knowledge. The social cycle continues, held by both the
subject's and the object's recollection and construction,
synchronized by the same states at a different position in
all phases, for both parties.
The kind of social
order, post-modern monism or modern dualism, conditions social identity.
Avoiding dependent rejection makes one 're-cognize' the
subject, whereas seeking independent confirmation makes one
recognize the object. Social order created by monism or power and politics, motivates avoiding
dependent rejection by dependently confirming friends
and independently rejecting enemies. Hierarchy specifies identity, as (inter) dependent
upon friends, rejecting-, and rejected by their enemies.
Social order created by dualism or truth and ethics,
motivates seeking independent confirmation by mutual
independent individuals' social identities, because the object
establishes inter-subjectivity between them. Subjects are
inter-subjectively 're-cognized' in monism, extrinsically
controlled by power and politics, to condition reflexes of
the subjects, classically and/or operantly (Pavlov
Skinner 1930), aiming to
avoid dependent rejection, in Structural Functionalism,
while subjects inter-subjectively recognize the object in
dualism, intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics,
seeking independent confirmation, in Functional
the sensed object or what-is-sensed, reflects itself in the sensing subject or just sensing,
whereas source time, the knowing subject or just knowing,
reflects itself in the known object or
what-is-known. As long as subject and object, or self and
other, socially interact, they may become each other's
Significant Other, next to-, although apart from, their
Selves. If and when that happens, the
knowing subject or the knowing Self reflects itself in the known
object or the known Significant Other, while the sensed object
or the sensed Significant Other reflects itself in the sensing
subject or the sensing Self. Therefore, knowing and what-is-known, in
construction, as well as sensing and what-is-sensed, in
recollection, divide within- and between subject and object,
or within- and between themselves. The Significance of the
the need to seek independent confirmation, as it engages
fully with sensibility before-the-fact, in which
construction applies recollection, since they are the same for
each of the
partners, co-inciding with reality, and co-ordinating with
each other or social reality in which both social identities
are growing as one.
Between modern dualism or truth and
ethics on the one hand, and post-modern monism or power and
politics on the other, the relation between Self and
Significant Other is critical for the kind of social order
that will eventually surround it. When there is competition
valued at-, or above, the comparison level, relations grow
and Kelley 1959). Will the Self and Significant
Other seek each other's independent confirmation, or will
they avoid each other's dependent rejection, dependently
confirming each other while independently rejecting their
competition? The former relies on truth and ethics of
relations within-facts-between-ideas and
within-ideas-between-facts, not being entangled, as facts
are used in one idea and reused in the other, to establish
objective or inter-subjective truth between the subjects,
independently referring to them, typical of modern dualism. The
latter relies on power and politics of relations
within-groups-between-people, as well as
within-people-between-groups, by means of group-polarization.
All subjective cultural belief-systems protect themselves against
a real, objective world, typical of post-modern
Partnerships or relationships, based on
loyalty within-groups-between-people, 're-cognizing' the
subject, grow problematic within-people-between-groups, if
group-polarization calls for
facts to be changed, to fit the ideas.
Based on honesty within-facts-between-ideas, recognizing the
object, they never grow problematic
within-ideas-between-facts, if ideas are changed to fit the
facts. When people depend on each other, they avoid
dependent rejection, by dependent confirmation of their
'friends', and independent rejection of their 'enemies', out
of 'loyalty', for which they are 're-cognized' as
an organism/self/belief. When people try to be independent
individuals, they seek independent rational-, emotional-,
and/or compassionate confirmation, recognizing the object to
which subjects refer as their environment/other/reality.
Loyalty and dependency between people are naturally followed
by arguments, questioning who depends more on whom, in
the process of which independent leaders appear to be born, who depend on their followers as
as much as their
followers depend on them. True independence only leads to independent confirmation or truth.
All people are related, by dependent confirmation (cronyism), receiving- and
returning favors, or by seeking independent rational-,
emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for
the other. If the schemas are mixed, monistic power and politics
extrinsically and opportunistically motivate dependent
reaction-and-action within groups, by changing facts to fit the ideas or
the narrative, while dualistic truth and ethics intrinsically motivate
independent action-and-reaction between independent individuals, if
and when their after-the-fact recollection independently confirms
their before-the-fact construction, by changing ideas to fit the facts. If
facts are changed to fit the ideas or the narrative, then changing
ideas to fit the facts has no use. Intrinsically motivated
reactions, in response to extrinsically motivated actions, are only
intended as independent confirmations, claiming to wholly understand
current extrinsic motivation, which is improbable. Conversely,
extrinsically motivated reactions in response to intrinsically
motivated actions, are most likely to interpret the independent
confirmation as a repaid favor, which it did never intend to be.
In between monism and dualism, or avoiding
dependent rejection and seeking independent confirmation, there is a
third social order which may not be healthy for those who live in
it. Seeking independent confirmation is reversed into providing
independent confirmation for those who need it, who are the victims
of monism. Without taking any credits or disclosing one's identity,
the people who were independently rejected while others were
dependently confirmed, to avoid dependent rejection, are provided
extra strength by (human) angels independently confirming them.
Policies may be comparable, such as positive discrimination,
affirmative action, or identity politics which, however, are also
power and politics taking care of 'their own', disguised as truth
and ethics. This is a real challenge for the individual angels whose
motives are pure and true, confirming them independently, who have a
hard time proving their innocence when monistic power and politics
change the facts to fit their ideas, or their narrative, for
nefarious reasons. Although their behavior is very ethical, the
focus should remain on truth and ethics, through independent
Source space or the sensed object, in
recollection, and reflected time or the known object, in construction, copy-and-swap forms, if and when
the subject's spheres co-incide, as well as the object's, in
space/content/behavior at the peripheries and in time/form/consciousness
at the depths, through independent confirmation. Within-facts-between-ideas,
'knowing what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized' and 'trying
what-is-valued' are recollected facts-relating-ideas or ideas reusing
facts as linking-pins. Within-ideas-between-facts, 'sensing
what-is-known', 'realizing what-is-intuited' and 'valuing
what-is-tried' are constructive ideas-relating-facts.
Relations develop meaningful, expanding networks, as facts (or objects) establish
inter-subjectivity between ideas (or subjects) referring to
them, for independent confirmation. As power and
politics motivate to avoid dependent rejection
within-groups-between-people and by group-polarization,
within-people-between-groups, truth and ethics motivate
to seek independent confirmation, instead. Recollection
within-facts-between-ideas, to independently confirm construction
within-ideas-between-facts, is obstructed.
Modern philosophical, open-
and dynamic dualism could prevent post-modern philosophical, closed-
and static monism, of which proponents polarize their opinions,
through power and politics, to create intolerant majorities. Minority
influence is strong, if consistent for a long time, not dividing the
majority’s attention (Moscovici
1974). Relations within-facts-between-ideas or
within-people-between-groups may not entangle, which does happen if
ideas treat different facts as the same, untruthfully finding
independent confirmation, or treat the same fact as different,
untruthfully not finding independent confirmation. For example,
asking how ideas categorically demand their own realization, in a
closed and static approach following the Categorical Imperative (Lawlor
and Moulard 2016), Bergson was interpreted as if he
criticized Kant. Stating that "by re-establishing the
duality, the difficulties vanish", Bergson (1932)
accentuated seeking independent confirmation between the two
sources, in "duality of origin" (p.79). His post-modern biographers
dubiously called it, from a single-source monistic view, "but two
complementary manifestations of life".
Notions of rationality,
emotion, and compassion, are recollected facts and constructed
ideas, co-inciding and independently confirming each other for
space/content/behavior to copy-and-swap time/form/consciousness.
Staying truthful, recollection within-facts-between-ideas has to independently confirm construction within-ideas-between-facts,
not blocked by group-polarization, within-groups-between-people and
within-people-between-groups, shifting personal opinions to a dominant extreme of concentrated
power and politics. Independent rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate confirmation creates meaningful networks of logical-,
chronological-, and/or associative relations
within-ideas-between-facts and, therefore,
within-facts-between-ideas, reusing facts as linking-pin objects. Reusing
the facts to
link the ideas should not change the meaning of these networks, calling
the same facts different, or different facts the same, driven by
power and politics. Once relations entangle, no truth proves one's
innocence, facts isolate from their meaning, and people isolate from
their identity, stoking up traumatic stress, as well as tormenting
Underhand inversion of 'seeking independent confirmation' into
'avoiding dependent rejection' by the adversary of modern
philosophical dualism, post-modern philosophical monism, is a
celebration of power, rather than truth. To resume modern dualism,
its antecedents were traced to Kant and physics, in the concept of
'spatiotemporality', as temporal understanding is sanctioned by
spatial sensibility through the co-ordinated co-incidence of space
and time, processed by the subject and/or the object, whereas the
consequents of dualism were explored in a model of social
interaction, constituting co-ordinated co-incidence, independent
rational-, emotional, and/or compassionate confirmation, and
constructive recollection within- and between people. Truth and
ethics at the level of the independent individual, who changes ideas
to fit the facts in open- and dynamic dualism, needs to replace power
and politics at the level of the dependent collective, in which
group-polarization changes facts to fit the ideas of closed- and
static monism, and results in the traumatizing
impossibility to prove innocence or guilt, which in turn leads to
dissociation and loss of identity.
Berger, P.L.; Luckmann,
T. (1966). "The Social Construction of Reality”. New York: Anchor
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
(1978). "De psychologie van relaties tussen groepen". In: Jaspars,
J.M.F.; Vlist, R. v.d. "Sociale Psychologie in Nederland". Meppel:
Corcoran, J. (2005).
"Counterexamples and Proexamples". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11,
J.E.E. (1887). In Figgis, J.N.; Laurence, R.V. "Historical Essays
and Studies". London: Macmillan, 1907.
Dell, P.F.; O’Neil, J.A.
(2009). "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and
Beyond". New York: Routledge: 750.
Derrida, J. (1992).
"Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson
"Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice". New York:
Descartes, R. (1644).
"The Principles of Philosophy".
(1935-36). "The Philosophy of the Law-Idea". Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.
Festinger, L. (1962).
"Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107.
Habermas, J. (1982). "A
reply to my critics". In: Thompson, J.B.; Held, D. "Habermas:
Critical Debates". London: Macmillan.
Habermas, J. (1991). "A
reply". In: Honneth, A.; Joas, H. "Communicative Action". Cambridge:
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
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.
(1749). "De l'Esprit des Loix". Geneve: Barillot & fils.
Zavalloni, M. (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12 (2): 125–135.
Moscovici, S.; Nemeth,
C. (1974). "Social psychology: Classic and contemporary
integrations." Oxford: Rand Mcnally.
Mulder, M.; Veen, P.;
Rodenburg, C.; Frenken, J.; Tielens, H. (1973). "The power distance
reduction hypothesis on a level of reality". Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.
Neubert, T.N. (2009). "A
Critique of Pure Physics: Concerning the Metaphors of New Physics".
Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation.
Nietzsche, F. (1882).
"Die fröhliche Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.
Nietzsche, F. (1901).
"Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.
Parsons, T. (1975). "The
Present Status of 'Structural-Functional' Theory in Sociology",
Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory, New York: The
Pavlov, I.P. (1910). "The
Work of the Digestive Glands". London: Charles Griffin & Company
Rohlf, M. (2010).
"Immanuel Kant". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sanders, C.; Eisenga,
L.K.A.; Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1976). "Inleiding in de grondslagen van
de Psychologie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Sartre, J-P. (1943).
"Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.
Schütz, A. (1945). "On
Multiple Realities." In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 5:
533–576. Rhode Island: Brown University.
Skinner, B.F. (1930),
"On the conditions of elicitation of certain eating reflexes."
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 16, 433-38.
Tajfel, H. (1970).
"Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination". New York: Oxford
Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H.
(1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.
Thomas, W.I.; Thomas,
D.S. (1928). "The child in America: Behavior problems and programs".
New York: Knopf.
Weijze, R.C. de (1982).
"Het gedrag als de materiele basis voor het bewustzijn en bewustzijn
als oriëntatie op het gedrag". Free University Amsterdam.
Weijze, R.C. de (2017).
"The Logic of Spatiotemporal Dualism".
Wheeler, L. (1966).
"Toward a theory of behavioral contagion". Psychological Review,
Žižek, S. (2012). "Less
than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism".
of space and time". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.