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
Ron de Weijze -
||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
unmask post-modern celebrations of power and politics, in all
When Immanuel Kant
preeminently articulated modern philosophy (Rohlf
2016), post-modern philosophy was an accident waiting to
happen, to proclaim that dualism's two sources or 'duality of
1932) are one, in 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'),
to imply that sensibility independently confirms understanding. The knowing subject or 'phe-noumenon'
submits to the sensed object or 'noumenon', to find truth between subjects inter-subjectively referring to it. Hegel
then claimed that the object submits to the subject. In celebrating power and politics, subjects inter-subjectively 're-cognize' and dependently confirm each other as friends, independently rejecting common
enemies. "The subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807). Independently sensing what-is-sensed to independently confirm knowing what-is-known, was
eclipsed by a brutal twist of fate.
Post-modern deconstructionism (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992) claims 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 without an independent object (Hegel 1807).
Proclaiming Kant the 'Copernicus of the Philosophical Revolution', for calling space and time 'basic categories' of the phe-noumenon or subject, masked losing Kant's independent noumenon or sensible object,
to keep the now dominating phe-noumenon or knowing subject. One and a half century
after the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Cultural Revolution
(May 1968) doubled down on the monistic premise. Defending its banished open- and dynamic dualism (Bergson 1932), monism deflects to closed- and static dogmatism of power and politics, group-polarization (Moscovici 1969, Meertens 1980 2006), or dialectics in competition to dominate
others. Knowing subjects in post-modern monism or (phe-)noumenalism within-groups-between-people,
domesticated the independent object from modern dualism or (phe-)noumenology within-people-between-groups.
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
is sensed in space, as understanding relates knowing to what is known in time. What-is-sensed and what-is-known are the object
(or the environment/other/reality), while sensing and knowing are the subject
(or the organism/self/belief). Source space is what-is-sensed (the sensed
fact), reflecting itself in sensing
(the sensing subject), by recollection. Source time is knowing (the knowing subject), reflecting itself in what-is-known
(the known idea), 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. The source spheres co-ordinate with their self-reflections, and repeatedly co-incide with the self-reflection of the opposite source,
between- and within subject and object.
Sensibility and understanding, in Descartes' and
Kant's dualism, have antecedents in spatiotemporality and
consequents in social interaction. In
Chapter 1, "Co-ordinated Co-incidence",
space and time are separated as source space in the object and its
self-reflection in the subject, co-ordinating by recollection, as
well as source time in the subject and its self-reflection in the
object, co-ordinating by construction. Co-ordination regularly turns
into co-incidence at the peripheries and depths of their
spatiotemporal spheres. In
Chapter 2 "Independent Confirmation",
between the co-incided spheres in the object and in the subject,
allows the object's spheres to copy-and-swap the subject's spheres,
in order to extend substances of recollection and construction, from
one sphere to the next, within- as well as between subject and
Chapter 3, "Constructive Recollection", object and
subject are other and self, in
3a "Social Interaction",
3c "Social Identity". Dualism is
described in terms of states, stages, and phases, of two cycles per
interaction, while they are being compared and contrasted with the
effects of monism on post-modern society.
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 Euclidean spheres. However, the periphery's three spatial-, and the radius' one temporal dimension of a sphere, are dualistically irreducible to each other, as their ratio π ("pi") has infinitely many non-repetitive decimal places. Source
space at the periphery resembles Cartesian 'res extensa' ("extended
substance"), whereas source time at the depth resembles 'res cogitans' (Descartes 1644).
Since 'duality of origin' co-incided space and time, spatiotemporal dualism in the environment/other/reality also exists in the organism/self/belief, if subjects
are viewed as objects (De Weijze 2017). From the outside, reflected space or the sensing subject is a part of source space or the sensed object, in recollection, whereas from the inside, source time or the knowing subject "ob-jects" or "throws-off" reflected time or the known object, in construction.
Consequently, sensibility is reflected at the peripheries, and understanding is reflected at the depths.
Our sources are space to objectively recollect,
materially or causally reflected in the subject, "here" at the peripheries of the spheres, and time to subjectively construct,
immaterially or teleologically reflected in the object, "now" at the depths of the spheres. Temporalizing space in recollection ends, when spatializing time in construction starts, at the depths in time/form/consciousness. Spatializing time in construction ends, where temporalizing space in recollection starts, at the peripheries in space/content/behavior. The object manages to co-incide 'empty' source space and spatialized, reflected time, as the subject manages to co-incide 'blind' source time and temporalized, reflected space, or as Kant put it, "thoughts without contents are empty and intuitions without conceptions are blind" (1790). Space/content/behavior from the peripheries of source space or what-is-sensed, which has co-incided with spatialized, reflected time, or what-is-known in the object, is processed through time/form/consciousness at the depths of source time or knowing, which has co-incided with temporalized, reflected space or sensing in the subject, to repeal the emptiness and blindness.
Sources and reflections consist of space/content/behavior at the spheres' peripheries, and time/form/consciousness at their depths.
Ontology, noumenology, or sensing is reflected source space, as
epistemology, phe-noumenology, or what-is-known is reflected source time. Temporalizing source space and its reflection, in recollection, reduces space in time,
to co-incide with source time and its reflection at construction's depths.
Spatializing source time and its reflection, in construction, reduces time in space,
to co-incide with source space and its reflection at recollection's 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.
New content develops, shaping- and being shaped by form, like current behavior, internalizing as-, and being externalized by, consciousness. Finally, current behavior dissolves in consciousness, when the subject reacts in response to the object's action, and current consciousness dissolves in behavior, when the subject acts in response to its own reaction.
Co-inciding as space/content/behavior at the peripheries of the spheres, and as time/form/consciousness at the depths, in the object, are source space and spatialized reflected time, as well as temporalized source space and reflected time, while in the subject, they are source time and temporalized reflected space, as well as spatialized source time and reflected space. At every co-incidence, subject and object reconstitute "here" and "now" in space and time, fact and idea in content and form, as well as behavior and consciousness in
our material basis and immaterial orientation (De Weijze 1982). Construction in one sphere continues as recollection in the next, through co-ordination between-, and co-incidence within subject and object. Thus, content is conveyed from periphery to depth, along temporalizing space in recollection, and from depth to periphery, along spatializing time in construction, across peripheries between subject and object, and across depths within subject and object. This is how spatializing time externalizes conscious form-shaping-content, as behavior, and how temporalizing space internalizes behavioral content-shaping-form, as consciousness.
Source space and reflected time are the sensed- and known object or the environment/other/reality, whereas reflected space and source time are the sensing- and knowing subject or the organism/self/belief. Source space and its reflection co-ordinate "here" at the spheres' peripheries'
space/content/behavior, in recollection, while source time and its reflection co-ordinate (or synchronize) "now" at their depths'
time/form/consciousness, in construction. Co-incidence "here and
now" is managed, by the object, between source space and reflected time-,
and by the subject, between source time and reflected space. To bridge the spatiotemporal divide,
as the spheres will co-incide, space "not here" temporalizes
and time "not now" spatializes. "Not here and now",
behavioral content within-facts-between-ideas at the peripheries extends
space, and conscious form at the depths
extends by spatializing time within-ideas-between-facts, within- as
well as between subject and object. Thus, reflections
co-inciding "here and now" with opposite sources, relate to all
other "theres and thens", which conducted, or do currently conduct,
their own "here and now".
Since Post-Modernism "lost" the object, relations within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups are all that seem left. Group-polarization shifts
group-members' opinions to extremes, straining relations
within-people-between-groups into conflicts of interest, for group
relations naturally translate to the individual. Narratives can treat the same facts as different, and/or different facts as the same, changed and twisted
to fit the ideas and to reduce the cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1962). Changing facts ignores people's innocence or guilt, induces dissociative disorders
like derealization and/or depersonalization (Dell and O'Neill 2009), affects independent individuals
and, once they turn into socioses (Van den Berg 1956),
dependent collectives. To
draw this to a close, co-ordination between source space and its
reflection, in recollection, and between source time and its
reflection, in construction, must co-incide the sources and their
opposites' reflections, both in the object and in the subject. Then,
relations within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts
will remain the same set, without putting strain on the independent
Recollection and construction transform space/content/behavior at the peripheries of their spheres, to- and from time/form/consciousness at the depths, through temporalizing space and spatializing time, content-shaping-form and form-shaping-content, as well as behavior internalizing as consciousness and consciousness externalizing as behavior. Thus, between the peripheries and the depths of the spheres, substances are transforming, or are being transformed, when they encounter the same process in the opposite direction, through the co-incided spheres, or source space plus reflected time in the object, and reflected space plus source time in the subject. Co-incidence allows material facts or space/content/behavior in recollection and immaterial ideas or time/form/consciousness in construction, to be spatiotemporally identical (leaving the material- and immaterial aspects
out of the equation for now). Facts intrapolated by recollection, and ideas extrapolated by construction, transform by re-allocating or altering relations within-facts-between-ideas, in recollection and thus within-ideas-between-facts, in construction, even when the relations are the same set.
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 the spheres to the depths,
or from the past (after-the-fact), through the present, make relations occur within-facts-between-ideas, while those in time/form/consciousness, constructed from the depths of the spheres to the peripheries,
or from the future (before-the-fact) through the present,
imply relations within-ideas-between-facts. Source space and its
self-reflection within-facts-between-ideas, plus source time and its
self-reflection within-ideas-between-facts, celebrate truth and ethics, altering ideas to fit the facts,
through open and dynamic dualism,
in Functional Structuralism (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976)
and the "retrograde movement of the true growth of truth" (Bergson 1922),
as the same within-groups-between-people and within-people-between-groups celebrate power and politics, changing facts to
fit ideas, dogmatically adjusting narratives in closed and static monism,
in Structural Functionalism (Parsons 1975).
2. Independent Confirmation
Inter-subjectivity in Kant's modern philosophical dualism was based on recognition of the same object, between subjects, to which each of them referred, whereas in Hegel's post-modern philosophical monism, inter-subjectivity was to be based on, hopefully reciprocal, 're-cognition' of another subject's cognition, by disregarding the primary significance of the object and objective truth, or only assigning a utilitarian role to it. Independent individual people who were intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, to seek independent confirmation, from the facts
(the sensed object), for their ideas (the known object), to keep
them honest, now are extrinsically motivated by power and politics, to
avoid dependent rejection from the group, by dependent confirmation
of friends, using internalism, favoritism, nepotism and/or cronyism,
and independent rejection of enemies, by using group-polarization and extremism within-groups-between-people, producing bias and straining relations within-people-between-groups,
to keep them loyal. Dissociation from the object's reality is impossible in the former,
while it is widely applicable and accepted in the latter (Lawlor 2011).
Recognition of the same object by different subjects, and 're-cognition' of the same subject's cognition by different
others, are not the same. In the former, nurture and social status, excluding the object, do not play a role. Kant called the object the 'noumenon', literally 'unnamable thing-in-itself', by which he has not implied that the object was dispensable. It establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to it, if and when sensing the object
(what-is-sensed) by the subjects, through independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, proves that knowing what-is-known is true. Hegel was impressed by Kant,
although he opposed him after his oeuvre was published, to slice modern philosophical dualism in
two, only keeping the post-modern philosophical monism half. To Hegel, the object was irrelevant
and objective knowledge was impossible. The 'unnamable thing-in-itself' was not opaque,
since the object was the subject itself, he claimed, totally
opposing Kant. Selective 're-cognition' develops a hierarchy of subjects. If facts do not fit, power and politics
will force them to 're-cognize' the ideas, even when it is “too bad for the facts”.
The concept of inter-subjectivity, in Hegel's
interpretation instead of Kant's, has led to the perception of social- and cultural reality as social constructs (Schütz 1945, Berger and Luckman 1966). Structural Functionalism does not
insist on objective, independent confirmation. Power and politics change individuals' seeking independent confirmation, into group members' avoiding dependent rejection, for fear of excommunication and homelessness,
requiring dependent confirmation of friends (cronyism) and independent rejection of enemies (prejudice).
Facts are changed to make them fit the narrative, instead of
altering ideas. Different facts treated as the same, apparently
confirming each other independently, may still be appreciated, or
when the same facts are treated as different, the lack of this
appearance of independent confirmation may still please the
manipulator. For example, behavioral contagion (Wheeler 1966)
may easily be misinterpreted as independent confirmation between
independent individuals, which is more likely how people would like
to appear to others. Democracy is based on this principle,
while it is practically conspicuous by its absence.
Co-incidence feeds back form or content, to the
opposite source, by the source's self-reflection. Source time feeds
back form to source space, by reflected time, as source space feeds
back content to source time, by reflected space. Thus, knowing feeds
back constructed ideas to what-is-sensed, by what-is-known, as
what-is-sensed feeds back recollected facts to knowing, by sensing.
If and when co-incidence is
independent conformation, copy-and-swap aligns sources as well as
reflections, by co-ordination, to feed forward negatively falsified
form and positively verified content. Trusted, expected, presumed,
predicted, believed and/or intended sensibility before-the-fact or
independently confirmed rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate
feedback is forwarded to- and from time/form/consciousness at the
depths, across space/content/behavior at the peripheries, from
source time to source space and reflected time to reflected space.
Behavior internalizing as consciousness frees what-is-known
before-the-fact into sensing after the fact, whereas consciousness
externalizing as behavior frees knowing before-the-fact into
what-is-sensed after the fact, in social interaction.
Intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, modern
dualism separates subject and object to look for recollection's
externally normative spheres 'sensing' and 'what-is-sensed', which
independently confirm construction's internally normative spheres
'knowing' and 'what-is-known', in the subject between its forms
(knowing and sensing) as well as in the object between its contents
(what-is-known and what-is-sensed). Anticipatingly, for independent
confirmation to be found, time spatializes, form-shapes-content and
consciousness externalizes as behavior, in construction, while space
temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as
consciousness, in recollection. By contrast, extrinsically motivated
by power and politics, post-modern monism favors subjects over
1807), to send roles (Boekestijn
1978) internally normative within-groups-between-people
from the top, and receive them externally normative
within-people-between-groups at the bottom. Dependent confirmation
pays-, and reciprocally earns, its 're-cognition' to- and from
friends in high places (Mulder
1973), as independent rejection disregards the out-group
If sources and the opposites' reflective feedback co-incide, and
sensibility independently confirms understanding, or sensing
what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known, then contents copy-and-swap forms, to process contents (what-is-known and what-is-sensed),
and feed the growing more complex substance forward. New forms reduce
old forms to contents, extending the leading form and the contents
linked to it, within- and between object and subject. Independent confirmation extends recollection, from sensing to knowing-what-is-sensed (realizing), across the subject's depth, to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed (valuing), across the peripheries between subject and object, to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed (reacting), across the object's depth, while separately it extends construction, from knowing to sensing what-is-known (intuiting), across the peripheries between subject and object, to knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known (trying), across the object's depth, to sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known (acting), across the peripheries between object and subject, re-entering the subject.
Facts (what-is-sensed), positively verifying ideas (what-is-known),
like white swans and "white swans", are proexamples of each other (Corcoran 2005). Independent confirmation by positive verification
between objective contents (what-is-known, what-is-sensed) and negative falsification
between subjective forms (knowing, sensing), makes contents copy-and-swap forms, realizing ('knowing what-is-sensed') white swans and intuiting ('sensing what-is-known') "white swans". Realizing
positively falsifies intuiting by counterexamples (black swans). By
proexamples, 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), valuing ('intuiting what-is-realized') and trying ('realizing what-is-intuited'). Valuing
positively falsifies trying by counterexamples. By proexamples, 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 (valuing and trying), reacting ('trying what-is-valued') and acting ('valuing what-is-tried').
Proexamples negatively falsify.
If and when the sensed object positively verifies
the known object for reliability, and sensing negatively falsifies
knowing for validity, then sensing what-is-sensed independently
confirms knowing what-is-known. Contents copying-and-swapping forms
turns knowing what-is-known into 'sensing what-is-known' (intuiting
and sensing what-is-sensed into 'knowing what-is-sensed' (realizing
what-is-realized). If and when what-is-realized positively verifies
what-is-intuited for reliability, and realizing negatively falsifies
intuiting for validity, then realizing what-is-realized
independently confirms intuiting what-is-intuited. Intuiting what-is-intuited
becomes 'realizing what-is-intuited' (trying what-is-tried or 'knowing what-is-sensed'
plus 'sensing what-is-known' as 'knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known'), while realizing what-is-realized
becomes 'intuiting what-is-realized' (valuing what-is-valued or 'sensing what-is-known'
plus 'knowing what-is-sensed' as 'sensing
what-is-known-what-is-sensed'). Similarly, valuing and trying emerge
as 'trying what-is-valued' (reacting what-is-reacted) to guide 'valuing what-is-tried'
In recollection, reacting is 'trying what-is-valued',
of which valuing is 'intuiting what-is-realized', of which realizing is 'knowing what-is-sensed'. In construction, acting is 'valuing what-is-tried',
of which trying is 'realizing what-is-intuited', of which intuiting is 'sensing what-is-known'. Recollection sanctions construction at every stage of independent confirmation, for the subject or the organism/self/belief, from the depths of its source and
the opposite source's self-reflection, to process the object or the environment/other/reality, from the peripheries of its source and
the opposite source's self-reflection, by means 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),
as 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
self and other. The 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,
and 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, which co-incides 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, both
in recollection and construction.
By social interaction between object and subject,
parties reflect their own source in the other, and have the other's
source reflected in themselves. If and when independent confirmation is found,
then contents (what-is-sensed and what-is-known) copy-and-swap forms (sensing and knowing), to convey
source substance (form-plus-contents) from one's depths, through both peripheries, the other's depths, and
back through both peripheries again. Independent confirmation is
repeated on the other side, to continue social interaction. Conveyed
is independently confirmed rational-, emotional-, and/or
compassionate substance, positively verified in
space/content/behavior for reliability, and negatively falsified in
time/form/consciousness for validity. One's recollection, independently confirming 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), to convey contents.
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.
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
the spheres, in subject and object, crossing depths, and in
between, crossing peripheries. Therefore, recollection extends
sensing to 'knowing what-is-sensed-what-is-known-what-is-sensed'
(reacting what-is-reacted), while construction extends knowing
to 'sensing what-is-known-what-is-sensed-what-is-known' (acting
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 series of states, phases, and cycles, unless communication halts. Interaction between subject and object
is a cycle of the subject's view of his recollection in response to the object's construction,
his construction in response to his own recollection, the object's recollection in response to the subject's construction, and the object's construction in response to
his own recollection, plus one cycle of the object's view of its recollection in response to the subject's construction,
his construction in response to his own recollection, the subject's recollection, in response to the object's construction, and the subject's construction, in response to
his own recollection. Each person taking part in an interactive
social cycle recollects and constructs, from his own point of
view, followed by the other's, which then reverses into the
second social cycle, initiated by the other, from his own point
of view, followed by the one's. Thus, the interaction takes up
two cycles or eight phases.
States and stages occur equally often, to extend recollection or construction
across depths and peripheries, and imply that a self-reflection has gone- and come around its source
once again, by co-ordination, to co-incide with the opposite source
and be independently confirmed. As the eight phases of the two social cycles
take place one state and thus one stage apart, they can vary
from one to four states and stages, in duration and extension,
breaking off when independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation
are no longer found. Social interaction synchronizes opinions
and intentions between person 1 and person 2, when the parties experience for themselves, or speculate for the other, which meaningful role every
single state plays in every single phase, as social affordances
1979). Here, organism and environment, self and other, and/or belief and reality meet-
or confront each other, stirring up most- or all of social dynamics, creating a life for man or an eternity for mankind,
which is comparable to the universe being born out of a very minor mismatch in bifurcated matter versus antimatter, as stated by the new physics (Neubert 2009).
3b. Social Reality
Individual- or collective recognition is integral to social reality. Kant's Categorical Imperative, instructing the autonomous individual to “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 1785), is "an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow, despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary” (Johnson & Cureton 2016). 'Sensibility after-the-fact' which independently confirms 'understanding before-the-fact', establishes inter-subjectivity between subjects referring to-, and recognizing the object. This comprises all trusted, expected, presumed, predicted, believed and intended 'sensibility before-the-fact', or the 'synthetic apriori'.
Though, 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)
in recollection, as ideas relate facts (within-ideas-between-facts)
in construction, by the same set of relations. Facts used in one idea,
being reused in another, entangle relations within-facts-between-ideas,
if the same fact is treated as different, or different facts as the
same, corrupting independent confirmation or objective truth for
independent individuals. Groups relate people
(within-groups-between-people) as people relate groups
(within-people-between-groups), by the same set of relations.
Belonging to different groups entangles relations, growing into conflicts of interest
by group-polarization. Thus, power and politics motivate extrinsically to avoid
dependent rejection or the threat of being excommunicated and made homeless,
to be loyal, while truth and ethics motivate intrinsically to seek
independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation
between extant construction within-ideas-between-facts and
recollection within-facts-between-ideas, to be honest.
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.
Consciously or not, power and politics seek loyalty, while truth and ethics seek honesty. Power and politics make us (inter) dependent, if we avoid dependent rejection from the group by excommunication or homelessness. Independent rejection of (the leader's) enemies and/or dependent confirmation of friends, out of loyalty,
trigger off selective reciprocity and possible access to privilege.
Meanwhile, truth and ethics need independence, waiting for reality to independently confirm 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.
Our worlds are cut up and mixed. Post-Modernism
upheld 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,
upheld independent individual dualism or truth and ethics, before those revolutions. If circumscribed as dialectics, monism looks like dualism. However, monism assumes that we are all (inter) dependent subgroups or -individuals, competing for our own dominance and every others' submission (Hegel 1807, Marx 1867, Nietzsche 1901). Monistic (inter) dependency leads to 're-cognition', bypassing truth and provoking group-polarization or extremism, by dependent confirmation of one's own group, and independent rejection of others'. Dualistic independency assumes that there are two sources instead of one, interacting through any two individuals, object and subject, or other and self, who seek independent confirmation, to stay on track of truth. Thus, dualistic (inter) dependency between autonomous individuals seeks independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, both from- and for other and self.
The main differences between the worlds of post-modern monism and modern dualism, is where they collide as well. In the former, normative rationality (Habermas 1982, 1991) is sent down the social hierarchy of monism, internal for leaders and external for followers, through power and politics. Supposedly, there is a system of checks and balances (Montesquieu 1749) which keeps the leaders under control, balancing out their powers. However, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Dalberg-Acton 1887). Therefore, truth and ethics, recognizing the object, should reclaim their position in social reality, from power and politics, 're-cognizing'
only the subject. Relations within-groups-between-people, upset 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.
To avoid dependent rejection from a group of which we are a member, through excommunication or making us homeless, we are
likely 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 these groups and those within-people-between-groups are the same
set, causing group-polarization. Groups manipulate their members when they interpret honesty as "disloyalty" and/or loyalty as "dishonesty",
which is one manner of inducing group-polarization. Hegel's (1807) opposite interpretation of 're-cognition' swept Kant to the side and eliminated the object from philosophical understanding, to turn modern dualism into post-modern monism. The object could establish inter-subjectivity between the subjects referring to it, being recognized by independent confirmation. Hegel replaced the object with the subject, whom should be paid loyal 're-cognition', to earn 're-cognition' in return. Marx turned Hegel's top-down hierarchy bottom-up, calling it 'historical materialism' (1859),
although recognitions kept being mediated by the subject, not the
Power and politics create groups, held together by loyalty, as truth and ethics create independent individuals, held together by honesty. Loyalty violates truth and ethics, when it changes facts to fit the ideas, making innocence defenseless, within-groups-between-people and, by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups. Honesty explained as disloyalty, could no longer enable honest people to avoid dependent rejection. As the common enemy, they increase dependent confirmation
between friends, independently rejected themselves. There exist (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
social reality. However, this type of independent confirmation is not the same as that which is critical to find truth and ethics. To whom this is applied, it amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the angel, who cannot reveal his or her identity, the job is isolating, comparable to elites spoiling their protégés, though without the social status and without the celebration of power. All that is left is hopefully viewing the person thrive.
3c. Social Identity
In one's sphere of recollection, from periphery to depth, what-is-sensed is temporalizing space, content-shaping-form, and behavior internalizing as consciousness, while its substance extends by contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from subliminal sensing what-is-sensed to interactive reacting what-is-reacted. In one's sphere of construction, from depth to periphery, what-is-known is spatializing time, form-shaping-content, and consciousness externalizing as behavior, while its substance extends by contents' copy-and-swap of forms, a stage at a time, from supraliminal knowing what-is-known to interactive acting what-is-acted. While substance extends, alternatingly by sensing and knowing, to be reduced to what-is-sensed and what-is-known at the next stage, it meanders between subject and object, at the depths of their spheres, crossing peripheries. Once a stage reaches social interaction, it can fulfill its purpose, by conveying valid and reliable knowledge. The social cycle continues, held by both the subject's and the object's recollection and construction, synchronized by the same states at a different position in all phases, for both parties.
The kind of social order, post-modern monism or modern dualism, conditions social identity. Avoiding dependent rejection makes one 're-cognize' the subject, whereas seeking independent confirmation makes one recognize the object. Social order created by monism or power and politics, motivates avoiding dependent rejection by dependently confirming friends and independently rejecting enemies. Hierarchy specifies identity, as (inter) dependent upon friends, rejecting-, and rejected by their enemies. Social order created by dualism or truth and ethics, motivates seeking independent confirmation by mutual strengthening of independent individuals' social identities, because the object establishes inter-subjectivity between them. Subjects are inter-subjectively 're-cognized' in monism, extrinsically controlled by power and politics, to condition reflexes of the subjects, classically and/or operantly (Pavlov 1910, Skinner 1930), aiming to avoid dependent rejection, in Structural Functionalism, while subjects inter-subjectively recognize the object in dualism, intrinsically motivated by truth and ethics, seeking independent confirmation, in Functional Structuralism.
Source space, the sensed object or what-is-sensed, reflects itself in the sensing subject or just sensing, whereas source time, the knowing subject or just knowing, reflects itself in the known object or what-is-known. As long as subject and object, or self and other, socially interact, they may become each other's Significant Other, next to-, although apart from, their Selves. If and when that happens, the knowing subject or the knowing Self reflects itself in the known object or the known Significant Other, while the sensed object or the sensed Significant Other reflects itself in the sensing subject or the sensing Self. Therefore, knowing and what-is-known, in construction, as well as sensing and what-is-sensed, in recollection, divide within- and between subject and object, or within- and between themselves. The Significance of the Other eliminates the need to seek independent confirmation, as it engages fully with sensibility before-the-fact, in which construction applies recollection, since they are the same for each of the partners, co-inciding with reality, and co-ordinating with each other or social reality in which both social identities are growing as one.
Between modern dualism or truth and ethics on the one hand, and post-modern monism or power and politics on the other, the relation between Self and Significant Other is critical for the kind of social order that will
develop from it. When there is competition valued at-, or above, the comparison level, relations grow tense (Thibaut and Kelley 1959).
Then, will the Self and Significant Other seek each other's independent confirmation, or will they avoid each other's dependent rejection, dependently confirming each other while independently rejecting their competition? The former relies on truth and ethics of relations within-facts-between-ideas and within-ideas-between-facts, not being entangled, as facts are used in one idea and reused in the other, to establish objective or inter-subjective truth between the subjects, independently referring to them, typical of modern dualism. The latter relies on power and politics of relations within-groups-between-people, as well as within-people-between-groups, by means of group-polarization. All subjective cultural belief-systems protect themselves against a real, objective world, typical of post-modern monism.
Partnerships or relationships, based on loyalty within-groups-between-people, 're-cognizing' the subject, grow problematic within-people-between-groups, if group-polarization calls for facts to be changed, to fit the ideas. Based on honesty within-facts-between-ideas, recognizing the object, they
cannot 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
a subject. When people are independent individuals, seeking independent rational-, emotional-, and/or compassionate confirmation, the object to which
they refer as their environment/other/reality, is recognized,
for truth and honesty. Loyalty and dependency between people are naturally followed by arguments, questioning who depends more on whom, in the process of which
apparently independent leaders eventuate, who depend on their followers as as much as
the favor is reciprocal. Thus, 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 favor
repaid, which it never did intend to be.
In between monism and dualism, or avoiding dependent rejection and seeking independent confirmation, there is a third social order which may not be healthy for those who live in it. Seeking independent confirmation is reversed into providing independent confirmation for those who need it, who are the victims of monism. Without taking any credits or disclosing one's identity, the people who were independently rejected while others were dependently confirmed, to avoid dependent rejection, are provided extra strength by (human) angels independently confirming them. Policies may be comparable, such as positive discrimination, affirmative action, or identity politics which, however, are also power and politics taking care of 'their own', disguised as truth and ethics. This is a real challenge for the individual angels whose motives are pure and true, confirming them independently, who have a hard time proving their innocence when monistic power and politics change the facts to fit their ideas, or their narrative, for nefarious reasons. Although their behavior is very ethical, the focus should remain on truth and ethics, through independent confirmation.
Source space or the sensed object, in recollection, and reflected time or the known object, in construction, copy-and-swap forms, if and when the subject's spheres co-incide, as well as the object's, in space/content/behavior at the peripheries and in time/form/consciousness at the depths, through independent confirmation. Within-facts-between-ideas, 'knowing what-is-sensed', 'intuiting what-is-realized' and 'trying what-is-valued' are recollected facts-relating-ideas or ideas reusing facts as linking-pins. Within-ideas-between-facts, 'sensing what-is-known', 'realizing what-is-intuited' and 'valuing what-is-tried' are constructive ideas-relating-facts. Relations develop meaningful, expanding networks, as facts (or objects) establish inter-subjectivity between ideas (or subjects) referring to them, for independent confirmation. As power and politics motivate to avoid dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and by group-polarization, within-people-between-groups, truth and ethics motivate to seek independent confirmation, instead. Recollection within-facts-between-ideas, to independently confirm construction within-ideas-between-facts, is obstructed.
Modern philosophical, open- and dynamic dualism could prevent post-modern philosophical, closed- and static monism, of which proponents polarize their opinions, through power and politics, to create intolerant majorities. Minority influence is strong, if consistent for a long time, not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974). Relations within-facts-between-ideas or within-people-between-groups
should 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 dissociation.
Underhand inversion of 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection' by the adversary of modern philosophical dualism, post-modern philosophical monism, is a celebration of power, rather than truth. To resume modern dualism, its antecedents were traced to Kant and physics, in the concept of 'spatiotemporality', as temporal understanding is sanctioned by spatial sensibility through the co-ordinated co-incidence of space and time, processed by the subject and/or the object, whereas the consequents of dualism were explored in a model of social interaction, constituting co-ordinated co-incidence, independent rational-, emotional, and/or compassionate confirmation, and constructive recollection within- and between people. Truth and ethics at the level of the independent individual, who changes ideas to fit the facts in open- and dynamic dualism, needs to replace power and politics at the level of the dependent collective, in which group-polarization changes facts to fit the ideas of closed- and static monism, and results in the traumatizing impossibility to prove innocence or guilt, which in turn leads to dissociation and loss of identity.
Berger, P.L.; Luckmann, T. (1966). "The Social Construction of Reality”. New York: Anchor Books.
Bergson, H. (1922). "The Retrograde Movement of the True Growth of Truth". In: "Creative Evolution". New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Bergson, H. (1932). "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion". London: Macmillan and Company Limited.
Boekestijn, C. (1978). "De psychologie van relaties tussen groepen". In: Jaspars, J.M.F.; Vlist, R. v.d. "Sociale Psychologie in Nederland". Meppel: Boom.
Corcoran, J. (2005). "Counterexamples and Proexamples". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11, 460.
Dalberg-Acton, J.E.E. (1887). In Figgis, J.N.; Laurence, R.V. "Historical Essays and Studies". London: Macmillan, 1907.
Dell, P.F.; O’Neil, J.A. (2009). "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond". New York: Routledge: 750.
Derrida, J. (1992). "Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice". New York: Routledge.
Descartes, R. (1644). "The Principles of Philosophy".
Dooyeweerd, H. (1935-36). "The Philosophy of the Law-Idea". Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.
Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). "The
Theory of Affordances". In: J.J. Gieseking, W. Mangold, C. Katz, S.
Low, S. Saegert (Eds.) "The People, Place, and Space Reader". New
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. (2011). "Jacques Derrida". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Lawlor, L.; Moulard, V. (2016). "Henri Bergson". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Marx, K. (1859). "Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie". Wien: Alfred Hölder.
Marx, K. (1867). "Das Kapital". Berlin: Verlag von Otto Meisner.
Meertens, R.W. (1980). "Groepspolarisatie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Meertens, R.W.; Prins, Y.R.A.; Doosje, B. (2006). "In iedereen schuilt een terrorist. Een sociaal-psychologische analyse van terroristische sekten en aanslagen." Schiedam: Scriptum.
Montesquieu, C.L. (1749). "De l'Esprit des Loix". Geneve: Barillot & fils.
Moscovici, S.; Zavalloni, M. (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12 (2): 125–135.
Moscovici, S.; Nemeth, C. (1974). "Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations." Oxford: Rand Mcnally.
Mulder, M.; Veen, P.; Rodenburg, C.; Frenken, J.; Tielens, H. (1973). "The power distance reduction hypothesis on a level of reality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.
Neubert, T.N. (2009). "A Critique of Pure Physics: Concerning the Metaphors of New Physics". Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation.
Nietzsche, F. (1882). "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft". Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsch.
Nietzsche, F. (1901). "Der Wille zur Macht”. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.
Parsons, T. (1975). "The Present Status of 'Structural-Functional' Theory in Sociology", Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory, New York: The Free Press.
Pavlov, I.P. (1910). "The Work of the Digestive Glands". London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd.
Rohlf, M. (2016). "Immanuel Kant". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sanders, C.; Eisenga, L.K.A.; Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1976). "Inleiding in de grondslagen van de Psychologie". Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Sartre, J-P. (1943). "Being and Nothingness". Paris: Gallimard.
Schütz, A. (1945). "On Multiple Realities." In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 5: 533–576. Rhode Island: Brown University.
Skinner, B.F. (1930), "On the conditions of elicitation of certain eating reflexes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 16, 433-38.
Tajfel, H. (1970). "Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination". New York: Oxford University Press.
Thibaut, N.; Kelley, H. (1959). "The social psychology of groups". New York: Wiley.
Thomas, W.I.; Thomas, D.S. (1928). "The child in America: Behavior problems and programs". New York: Knopf.
Weijze, R.C. de (1982). "Het gedrag als de materiele basis voor het bewustzijn en bewustzijn als oriëntatie op het gedrag". Free University Amsterdam.
Weijze, R.C. de (2017). "The Logic of Spatiotemporal Dualism".
Wheeler, L. (1966). "Toward a theory of behavioral contagion". Psychological Review, 73(2), 179-192.
Wit, H.F. de (1991). "Contemplative Psychology". Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Žižek, S. (2012). "Less than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism". London: Verso.