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 - Sept. 2016

independent researcher

 

   

 Finding truth is an art we learned and deliberately unlearned. It can only be found by looking for independent confirmation for our beliefs, from reality. Independence requires dualism which is difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, because power and politics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. A completely different social order is implied and the one keeps running the other into the ground like a tectonic plate. Philosophical Modernism may show us how dualism found truth, before Post-Modernism hijacked it, regretfully, regressing us all back into monism and its vices. 

 

We experience our world both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, it is material and we sense what-is-sensed. Subjectively, it is immaterial and we know what-is-known. Philosophical Modernism, highlighted by Kant in the late 1700s, unites the object with the subject, as the sensed- and known environment/other/reality with the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief. Kant had noticed, that (European) philosophy had grown in two directions, the one exploring "sensibility after-the-fact" in the Anglo-Saxon world, and the other "understanding before-the-fact" at the Continent. What is known before-the-fact, can be sensed after-the-fact, to find out if understanding was true, methodologically or the way it is sensibly experienced in everyday life. He was famous for his use of dualism, to which must be added his discovery of "sensibility before-the-fact" (the synthetic a priori), which is believed to be the source of art, ethics, exact science and the basic framework of space and time, or space-time, as we use it, apart from what is real.

When philosophical Modernism had developed most articulately, Post-Modernism was just around the corner, changing our modern belief in two sources, or duality of origin (Bergson 1932), back into one source, or monism, for a more manageable social order. At the beginning of the French Revolution (1789), Kant was finishing the greatest work on dualistic, modern philosophy (Rohlf 2010). Mind and body were believed to be independent. What followed was monistic Post-Modernism. The body or object from then on was considered "intersubjective" at best, extending subjectivity, instead of the reverse (Kant's phe-noumenon extending the noumenon). There was no longer a really independent object which the subject had to take into account. The individual was no longer free, independent, and critical, to seek truth and ethics by himself. Instead, he was dependent and obliged to submit to the dominance of power and politics, avoiding potential abuse by the powerful, who can threaten to excommunicate him or make him homeless.

One and a half century after the French Revolution, the Cultural Revolution (1968) doubled down on the monistic premise, when Post-Modernism had gone around- and came around the world, leaving behind its brand of social order: collectivism, socialism or communism. We fail to associate the transition from dualism to monism, since it happened along the way, in so many varieties, as in Roman-Catholicism, architecture, art or philosophy1. It had a deep impact upon our everyday lives. According to Post-Modernism, deconstructing our world (Žižek 2012, Derrida 1992), the self does not exist (Heidegger 1959, Sartre 1943), God is dead (Nietzsche 1882), truth is multiplicit or dialectical (Marx 1867) and reality is just a mental phenomenon (Hegel 1807), without an independent object. Although post-modern philosophers include Kant as their "Copernicus" of the Philosophical Revolution, he never dismissed the noumenon or object.

Our two sources are after-the-fact sensibility and before-the-fact understanding, or the "synthetic a posteriori" and the "analytic a priori" (Kant 1770). Taking the liberty of calling sensibility "sensing what-is-sensed" and understanding "knowing what-is-known", then the following three concepts assumingly describe and explain modern dualism, directly opposed to post-modern monism. The sources coordinately reflect [1] themselves, as what-is-sensed, naturally reflected in sensing, and as knowing, culturally reflected in what-is-known. Truth may be found, only if and when sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms [2] knowing what-is-known. Through states of coordinated reflection, at stages of independent confirmation and in phases of constructive recollection [3], a cycle appears, maintaining itself through social interaction [a], in social reality [b], as social identity [c] of the independent individual.

 

1. Coordinated Reflection

    

In recollection, sensing is the spatialized self-reflection of what-is-sensed after-the-fact. In construction, what-is-known is the temporalized self-reflection of knowing before-the-fact (as an idea of the fact, possibly wrong). Sources create their own self-reflections, co-ordinated spatially or temporally, relative to the co-extensive tangent point between them. These points create extension, as the sphere comes into being. The spatial point stays at the periphery-, as the temporal point stays at the depth, of the spatial- and temporal spheres or beings, which are both our sources and both their self-reflections, practically connected by their tangent points. The spatial point at the periphery and the temporal point at the center move away from each other to expand their spheres. Thus the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief grows into the sensed- and known environment/other/reality. The periphery of the spatial sphere consists of all "theres" and one "here", while the periphery of the temporal sphere consists of all "thens" and one "now".

The sensed environment/other/reality and the sensing organism/self/belief are separate spheres, each with three spatial dimensions of a convex periphery. The known environment/other/reality and the knowing organism/self/belief are spheres, each with one temporal dimension or radius. The ratio between the circumference and radius of both a spatial and a temporal sphere, combined or coincided, is π ("pi"), a number carrying infinite decimal places, indicating irreducibility or independence, between space and time or temporalized space and spatialized time (Bergson 1922). Temporalized space is not original time and spatialized time is not original space, although, as reflections of the sources, they are compatible. Time at the depth of the sphere or being is either the source of time itself, or the self-reflection of temporalized space. Space at the periphery of the sphere or being is either the source of space itself, or the self-reflection of spatialized time.

Processing united space-and-time (or space-time), separates them by their contents or substances: facts or what-is-sensed, produced in space by the environment/other/reality, dualistically separated from ideas or what-is-known, produced in time by the organism/self/belief. Substance dualism simultaneously requires objectivity and subjectivity, or recollection and construction. Space from the one source, the sensed environment/other/reality, is temporalized by its self-reflection, the sensing organism/self/belief, while time from the other source, the knowing organism/self/belief, is spatialized by its self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality. After processing, temporalized space is left behind supra-liminally at the depth, in time/form/consciousness, while spatialized time is left behind sub-liminally at the periphery, in space/content/behavior, hopefully having co-incided or co-ordinated, around π, in truth.

Spheres' peripheries are spatial, while their depths are temporal. The spatiality of the spheres' peripheries enables them to coordinate locations or tangential points shared in between them. From the peripheries of the one source and its self-reflection in recollection (the sensed environment/other/reality and the sensing organism/self/belief), space temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as consciousness. From the depths of the other source and its self-reflection in construction (the knowing organism/self/belief and the known environment/other/reality), time spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes as behavior. The self-reflections wander around their sources, sharing tangential points, across the tangent line or horizon between the spheres, which are both expanding along the spatial dimensions (periphery) and deepening along the temporal dimension (radius).

The sensed environment/other/reality reflects itself in the sensing organism/self/belief, while the knowing organism/self/belief reflects itself in the known environment/other/reality. Self-reflections wander around their sources, both being spheres, coordinated by their tangent point, "here" in temporalizing space or "now" in spatializing time. In recollection, sensing wanders around what-is-sensed from "here" to "there" while independently, in construction, what-is-known wanders around knowing from "now" to "then". The source's self-reflection is a separate sphere or being and not a mirror image of the source itself. Wandering in (spatializing) time or knowing what-is-known is necessary, whereas wandering in (temporalizing) space or sensing what-is-sensed is optional.

Before- and after processing in the organism/self/belief, the separated "here" and "now" naturally reconnect into one "here and now" again. All tangent points across the environment/other/reality add up to a tangent line, horizon or (bigger) sphere. Processing had taken them apart, separating recollection or sensing what-is-sensed by temporalizing space, content shaping form and behavior internalizing as consciousness, from construction or knowing what-is-known by spatializing time, form shaping content and consciousness externalizing as behavior, to compare them and find (or stay on track of) truth. Seeking co-incidence, between forms (sensing, knowing) and contents (facts or what-is-sensed, ideas or what-is-known), is necessary to keep a healthy mental- and physical condition.

If recollection or sensing what-is-sensed, and construction or knowing what-is-known, were not dualistically independent processes, there would be no need for the sources' self-reflections to coincide with the opposite source. Sensing would not need to coincide with knowing, nor would what-is-known need to coincide with what-is-sensed. Interaction would then depend entirely on power and politics or dominance and submission, by reinforced cultural conditioning, dialectically between people, within one (monistic) group. Everybody would (eventually) have the same, uniform, group identity, and the independent individual would no longer exist. The only other way out of this monistic, post-modern sociological realm would be agnosticism and anarchism (Hanna and Chapman 2016).

Sources and the self-reflections of their opposites, are like outcomes and predictions, or "sensibility after-the-fact" in Anglo-Saxon philosophy and "understanding before-the-fact" in Continental philosophy, which Kant had discovered (Sanders 1976), in science, justice and journalism. They need to coincide for truth to become apparent. Each outcome or source, has its own self-reflection that depends on it, in space and time, content and form, behavior and consciousness, although it is dualistically independent from its prediction or opposite's reflection, even when it has the same aspects. The difference lies in their being either a prediction or an outcome. If and when the they do coincide, the purpose of their separation is fulfilled, to assess identicality, and therefore the truth of the prediction as determined by the outcome.

If and when the one source's self-reflection coincides with the opposite source (one sphere temporalizing space and the other spatializing time), it would seem as if the sources interacted directly upon each other, as if there were only one source (monism), which would be an illusion. Instead, their interaction is conducted indirectly, through their self-reflections, seeking positive verification and negative falsification, or truth, in coincidence. Space/content/behavior is at the periphery of the one sphere or being, recollecting towards the depth, while time/form/consciousness is at the depth of the other sphere or being, constructing towards the periphery. Coincidence of temporalized space and spatialized time reunites temporalized space with time at the depths-, and spatialized time with space at the peripheries, of the spheres.

What can only be sensed in sensing, cannot be known, and what can only be known in knowing, cannot be sensed, since these sources and their self-reflections are always dualistically separate and independent from each other. Therefore, initially, we are only subliminally "aware" of facts, and supraliminally "aware" of ideas. The organism/self/belief is not able to sense or know the environment/other/reality, in itself (Kant's "noumen-non"), of which it is a part, itself. These are precisely the points where subliminally, spatialized time coincides with space at the peripheries, and supraliminally, temporalized space coincides with time at the depths of the spheres, if and when they do.

What-is-sensed must be known and what-is-known must be sensed, so that space/content/behavior at the periphery-, and time/form/consciousness at the depth of the sphere or being, may have impact beyond subliminal sensing and supraliminal knowing. The sensed environment/other/reality has the sensing organism/self/belief wander around it, while the knowing organism/self/belief has the known environment/other/reality wander around it. The reflections in recollection (sensing) and construction (what-is-known) therefore wander around their sources, bringing their spheres for possible coinciding and reuniting with the other source, hopefully more than coincidentally, indicating truth.

figure 5

As sources coordinately reflect themselves, so do space/content/behavior at the periphery and time/form/consciousness at the depth of their spheres or beings. As long as wandering in recollection and construction does not coincide the sources' self-reflections with the opposite source at their peripheries and their depths, no justification of one side by the other in duality of origin is found or perhaps even sought. This 'non-incidence' between sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known could drive communities to traumatizing sociosis (Van den Berg 1956) and drive individuals to tormenting dissociation disorder (Dell and O'Neill 2009).

The tangent line or -plane of all "heres" and "nows" or "theres" and "thens", in space/content/behavior and time/form/consciousness, between sources and reflections, show co-inciding contents and forms by levels of functional structure (Dooyeweerd 1935, Sanders 1976). Both recollection and construction build these structures by processing current content. Recollection does so causally, away from the plane, while construction does so teleologically, towards the plane. As the sphere or being grows, depth and periphery move apart, until the next level of functional structure is reached of current content, among all currents.

2. Independent Confirmation

    

Dualism suggests that we need two sources, sensibility or sensing what-is-sensed and understanding or knowing what-is-known, to live our lives, while monism states that we only need one source. As a consequence, we not only have different world-views, we have two different worlds, unhappily mixed! Dualism is related to theological- and philosophical Modernism, while monism is related to "God is dead" anti-theist- or atheist philosophical Post-Modernism. From the start of our era, Judeo-Christianity was dualistic, having separated heaven from earth. Around the mid-17th century, dualism entered philosophy (Descartes 1644), by separating what he doubted from what he could not doubt, as in "I think, therefore I am". Post-Modernism took over from Modernism at the end of the 18th century, when Hegel monistically reinterpreted Kant's dualistic magnum opus on Modernism and the French Revolution started.

The object of our sensibilities, or Kant's noumenon, Hegel dismissed, claiming there was only the subject, phe-noumenon or understanding, inter-subjectively recognizing other subjects. Without a critical object, monistic top-down dominance and submission through immanent dialectics, could replace the old regime, which had just been guillotined indeed. The dualistic view was different. One source may confirm the other independently or without bias, to bring truth to light and follow it. If and when possible, one source independently confirms the other, as what-is-sensed (source1) positively verifies what-is-known (reflection2), and sensing (reflection1) negatively falsifies knowing (source2). Independent confirmation seeks positive verification and negative falsification, while dependent rejection seeks negative verification and positive falsification. One upholds truth and ethics, the other power and politics (dialectics).

Hegel cut modern philosophy in half by removing the object and keeping the subject. Kant had described so well how the subject related to the object, that it seemed almost natural that Hegel reduced dualism to monism, by calling the object the "intersubject" in dialectics. Since Kant's position was that the subject itself created the categories of space and time, objective spatiotemporality seemed redundant and dismissible. This became known as "the Copernican Revolution in philosophy". Monists claim that there is no God, truth, self or reality, and that Kant was one of theirs. Hegel told a reporter that it was "too bad for the facts" (1804). This post-modern position is still widespread and almost insurmountable due to inherent power and politics, which can always deny truth and ethics. Modern dualism is opposed to post-modern ideas. Kant was a dualist and not a monist, therefore he is modern, not post-modern.

To make sure that knowing what-is-known is true, construction must be prior-, or a priori (before-the-fact), to a posteriori (after-the-fact) recollection, to detect independent confirmation by sensing what-is-sensed. Independent confirmation consists of both negative falsification of knowing by sensing, for validity, and positive verification of what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for reliability. If and when sensing what-is-sensed independently confirms knowing what-is-known, sources and opposite reflections coincide or coordinate in space and time.  It is then possible for contents in recollection (facts or what-is-sensed) and construction (ideas or what-is-known) to swap forms (sensing, knowing). Sensing what-is-sensed turns into knowing what-is-sensed, which is no longer subliminal, and knowing what-is-known into sensing what-is-known, which is no longer supraliminal. We can now be aware of current content.

Form at the depth of the sphere, shapes content towards the periphery, while content at the periphery of the sphere, shapes form towards the depth. The sphere may be the source of recollection or construction, or it may be the self-reflection of that source. Therefore, when contents swap forms, one source, knowing, swaps positions with its opposite's self-reflection, sensing. This enables a flow to occur, in knowing what-is-sensed from the depth of the one source (knowing), through the peripheries of that one sphere and that of the other source (what-is-sensed), towards its depth. Simultaneously, a flow occurs in sensing what-is-known, from the depth of the one self-reflection (what-is-known), through the peripheries of that one sphere and that of the other self-reflection (sensing), towards its depth. When sources unite with their opposites' self-reflections by independent confirmation, the two flows appear to be one wave, in duality of origin.

Truth and ethics motivate intrinsically in modern dualism, while power and politics motivate extrinsically in post-modern monism. Intrinsic motivation is the product of independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation between external normativity in recollection and internal normativity in construction. Extrinsic motivation is the division of internal normativity in one, sending, "more equal than others" (Orwell 1945), part of the population (one or many), and external normativity in the other, receiving, part of the population (many or one). Roles and role-positions are sent and received, including inter- and intra- sender and -receiver conflicts (Boekestijn 1978), to establish a power-distancing (Mulder 1973) hierarchy or pyramid-scheme for all people to adapt to, as in "the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world" (Hegel 1807).

The sensed- and known environment/other/reality plus the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief, positioned opposite each other, which include the wandering self-reflections bringing content to the other side, are all spheres. If and when independent confirmation happens between forms and between contents, forms can and do swap their positions or roles, to extend current content with new form, leading the wave, reducing the last form to content itself, for processing. This happens to and from the "here" and "now" in π, extending both recollection and construction with the latest form that was swapped. For the "other", in the environment/other/reality, is an organism/self/belief as well, having content shape form in recollection and form shape content in construction, extending the meandering content between them with his or her (reflected) form, not content which he or she is for the one organism/self/belief.

By stages of independent confirmation, for greater sensibility in recollection and greater understanding in construction, facts develop from sensing what-is-sensed to reacting what-is-reacted, if and when the facts positively verify the ideas for reliability, while simultaneously ideas develop from knowing what-is-known to acting what-is-acted, if and when the facts negatively falsify the ideas for validity. Independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation should reliably coincide constructed ideas with facts, in space/content/behavior at the periphery-, and validly coincide recollected facts with ideas, in time/form/consciousness, at the depth of the sphere or being. Facts in recollection and ideas in construction remain apart, when forms are swapped, because contents (facts or what-is-sensed and ideas or what-is-known) alternate, each time temporalized space and spatialized time coincide.

From one stage to the next, more (refined) recollection and construction is involved. Much sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known goes into realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited. Even more realizing what-is-realized and intuiting what-is-intuited goes into valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried. And most valuing what-is-valued and trying what-is-tried goes into reacting what-is-reacted and acting what-is-acted. That is why reacting and acting may take relatively much time. Reflections will need to continue wandering around their sources, as long as there can be no independent confirmation from their source's opposite, let alone a swapping of forms, at which time the forms and contents enter their next stage, both in recollection and in construction. Once consciousness has been externalized into behavior, the same goes on in social interaction.

What-is-sensed is one source, the sensed environment/other/reality, recollecting from the periphery to the depth of the sphere or being, where space temporalizes, content-shapes-form and behavior internalizes as consciousness. Knowing is the other source, the knowing organism/self/belief, constructing from the depth to the periphery of the sphere or being, when time spatializes, form-shapes-content and consciousness externalizes as behavior. Both sources reflect themselves on the other side of the shared tangent-line or -plane, as the sensing organism/self/belief and the known environment/other/reality. If and when independent confirmation or truth is found between the sources and their opposites' self-reflections, space/content/behavior at the peripheries and time/form/consciousness at the depths, are shared between the four spheres or beings (two sources and two self-reflections).

From sensing and knowing to reacting and acting, each stage of independent confirmation adds an alternate form to the pre-existing content, to which the old or previous form was added, now treated as content. Sensing thus turns into realizing, valuing and reacting, on the recollective side, while knowing turns into intuiting, trying and acting, on the constructive side. The organism/self/belief then first reacts to the environment/other/reality and second acts to its own reaction. However, at this stage, the environment/other/reality may be another organism/self/belief, recollecting and constructing on its own, so that social interaction may have started, in social reality. The one's recollection is then the other's construction and the one's construction the other's recollection. The one reacts what-is-acted by the other and acts what-is-reacted by himself. This swap takes place externally and no longer internally.

Independent confirmation takes place between forms (sensing and knowing) in time/form/consciousness, and between contents (what-is-sensed or facts and what-is-known or ideas) in space/content/behavior. When form and content surf by wandering self-reflection, going around from-, and coming around to, one source it hopefully coincides with, and so does the other side around its source, then at the final stage of coincidence or independent confirmation for the current content, action calls for reaction between the sides (between the one's construction and the other's recollection), through space/content/behavior, while reaction calls for action within the sides (between recollection and construction), through time/form/consciousness. This is external communication between sources or social interaction, which continues as long as there is some degree of independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation.

    

    

figure 9

    

   

3. Constructive Recollection

    

By coordinated reflection [1], our two sources seek independent confirmation [2] for- and from each other, to stay on track of truth, in constructive recollection [3]. This is the purpose of dualism in modern philosophy, as opposed to its monistic, post-modern descendent hack, which denies the existence of God, truth, self and reality. Both foundations for (completely different) social order(s) apply to social interaction [a], social reality [b] and social identity [c]. Although they are mutually exclusive, each creating and maintaining its own world, we are often caught in the middle of these two worlds, stressed, confused and harmed, both physically and mentally. How do we get out of this predicament?


3a. Social Interaction

In terms of coordinated reflection [1], social interaction is construction between the one as source and the other as self-reflection of that one source, plus recollection between the other as source and the one as self-reflection of that other source. Who is the one and who is the other, is a matter of role-division. The one may be more talented to be the source of recollection and the other that of construction, to make social interaction happen. Sensing what-is-sensed and knowing what-is-known interact by surfing self-reflections, around their sources, until they independently confirm [2], rationally, emotionally and/or compassionately, the other source, which in social interaction is the other person. Therefore, in social interaction, if and when the other independently confirms the one, what-is-sensed by the other is self-reflected as sensing by the one, while knowing by the one is self-reflected as what-is-known by the other.

Groups are formed and society is ordered, either dualistically by the intrinsic motivation of truth and ethics, or monistically by the extrinsic motivation of power and politics. Finding independent confirmation for our beliefs about reality motivates intrinsically, to externalize consciousness as behavior. Offering the (Significant) Other freedom of choice, rationally-, emotionally- or compassionately earned and (forwardly) paid for, intrinsically motivates by independent confirmation as well. If and when independent confirmation happens and is shared in social interaction, the one's independence confirms and strengthens the other's independence. This is one's reaction in response to the other's action and one's action in response to his or her own re-action, made noticeable by externalizing consciousness as behavior. It is the final stage of independent confirmation for current content, "reacting what-is-acted" and "acting what-is-reacted".

As long as truth is maintained by independent confirmation from one side for the other, in social interaction, recollection happens in response to construction, through space/content/behavior between the spheres, at their peripheries, while on each side, construction happens in response to recollection, through time/form/consciousness within the spheres, at their depths. The environment/other/reality is then the other organism/self/belief, with whom the one interacts. Two cycles are needed for both sides to respond to the other's construction, in their own recollection, and then to their own recollection, in their own construction, as they take the other's response into account. There are four phases in a cycle, two for each side, one for the other and one for oneself. Independent confirmation, at four stages, corresponds to these phases, because each phase commences from a degree of independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, for otherwise, social interaction would have to stop in its tracks.

From one person's point of view, in social interaction, content from the sensed environment/other/reality, is recollected and surfs by its coordinated self-reflection, the sensing organism/self/belief, to the other source, the knowing organism/self/belief, where the two forms (sensing and knowing), being shaped by-, and shaping, content (what-is-sensed and what-is-known), may coincide in time/form/consciousness at the depth of the sphere or being. More than coinciding, they may find truth by independent confirmation in negative falsification. Simultaneously, content from the knowing organism/self/belief, is constructed and surfs by its coordinated self-reflection, the known environment/other/reality, to the other source, the sensed environment/other/reality, where the two contents (what-is-known and what-is-sensed), being shaped by-, and shaping, form (knowing and sensing), may coincide in space/content/behavior at the periphery of the sphere or being. More than coinciding, they may find truth by independent confirmation in positive verification.

People adapt to the other person, to accommodate him, and make him adapt in return, to assimilate to them (Piaget 1936). In post-modern monism, accommodation and assimilation are one group or group member dominating and submitting another, extrinsically motivating them or him to avoid fear of dependent rejection by using power and politics, dependently confirming friends (cronyism) and/or independently rejecting enemies (prejudice) of the group. This process does not take into account staying on track of truth, which looking for-, finding-, and looking after independent confirmation, in modern dualism, does instead. Independent confirmation consists of negative falsification, of knowing by sensing, for validity, at the depth of the one sphere or being, in time/form/consciousness, and of positive verification, of what-is-known by what-is-sensed, for reliability, at the periphery of the other sphere or being, in space/content/behavior. Thus, knowing assimilates sensing, as what-is-known accommodates what-is-sensed, if and when independent confirmation happens.

If and when independent confirmation does happen on both sides of social interaction, then recollection and construction swap forms (not contents) between the one's source and the other's self-reflection, to transform into the next stage's substances of recollection and construction, dualistically or separately yet simultaneously, because now they can. The new substances are more extended than the old, as they include the old, putting newly swapped forms in the leads which are the opposite of the old and which turn the old forms into new contents, now to be processed as well and (therefore) no longer processing content themselves. This continues until new substances are no longer formed, either because independent confirmation is no longer happening, or because the highest stage has been reached, for the current content, which is reacting what-is-acted by the other and acting what-is-reacted by oneself, externally in social interaction and no longer only internally, in social belief. Recollection and construction thus are waves between the sources by coordinated reflection, for every bit of current content, overlapping each other, making it seem as if there is only one meandering stream, due to independent confirmation, while there are actually four, or two for each side.

Interaction, internally in social belief and not yet externally in social reality, involves sources as independent individuals, a priori or before independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation has happened between- or (rather) within them. Both sources and their (opposite's) self-reflections have form and content, in recollection as content-shaping-form and in construction as form-shaping-content. From one side to the other, content streams, expanding the sphere causally in recollection by what-is-sensed, and teleologically in construction by what-is-known. Separately yet simultaneously, both sides recollect in response to the other's construction and construct in response to their own recollection. These are four phases in a social cycle, at maximally four stages of independent confirmation. Phases begin one state apart, as a response to the previous phase, and then overlap. A social cycle therefore consists of the one's recollection and construction, followed by the other's recollection and construction, in response, internally in the one's social belief and then externally in social reality. Then the same happens in the other's social belief and -reality. In total, recollection and construction are one state apart and alternate through eight states, over two cycles, one for each participant.

Content streams out of one form into another, for active or reactive processing. It actively processes (shapes) each form in recollection or it is being processed (shaped) passively by each form in construction. The two types of forms, as well as the two types of contents, remain dualistically independent, as long as they process or are being processed, between the subliminal (sensing what-is-sensed) and the supraliminal (knowing what-is-known). Beyond these limits they are one, as they were before- and should be after processing. The beating heart of processing, is looking for-, finding- and looking after truth or what independent confirmation detects, between recollection after-the-fact and construction before-the-fact, which is also between outcome and prediction or Kant's sensibility and understanding. Every state of sensing extends until it has developed into reacting, and every state of knowing extends until it has developed into acting, if and when truth is found at every stage. Thereafter, contents are cast as dice, in social interaction, where one's reacting what-is-acted by the other, is followed by one's acting what-is-reacted by the self, after processing. Meanwhile, new content has come to fruition from later states, and is ready to follow and enter the arena of social reality in its turn.

The one's recollection is the other's construction and vice versa. What looks like one interactive wave, is actually the overlap of four separate waves into one stream or flow: two waves for the one side, or one source plus opposite self-reflection (the sensing- and knowing organism/self/belief), in addition to two waves for the other side or other source plus opposite self-reflection (the sensed- and known environment/other/reality). For each side, that is one wave of recollection plus one wave of construction, either one of which is the self-reflection of the opposite source. The self-reflections are wandering or traveling spheres, by coordinated reflection, to recollect behavior on the one hand and construct consciousness on the other, having their content and form independently confirmed, by the opposite source, as often as possible, to stay on track of truth. Independent confirmation and the consequential swap of forms (sensing and knowing), lines them up with contents (facts or what-is-sensed and ideas or what-is-known), enabling a stream in one direction only. This continues as long as sources and their self-reflections simultaneously produce new forms and contents.

Interaction is stage-specific for the interacting sources and reflections. The type of interaction changes, when the next stage is reached, after reflections have wandered around their sources relatively long and -specific enough to find coincidence or independent confirmation, and swap forms. Thus the process continues, including at the final stage, where consciousness is externalized into behavior, to interact with the environment/other/reality in social reality. Following stages include previous stages, therefore they take relatively longer. Every (alternatingly) added sensing or knowing as leading form, from the swap, takes a more refined processing, in preparation of the moment that consciousness is externalized into behavior, verbally or non-verbally, awaiting a response. Therefore, later stages may be a long time in the making or even never be reached for current content. Meanwhile, interaction may continue as small-talk, where reactions in response to others' actions and actions in response to own reactions remain mere evaluations in response to others' tries and tries in response to own evaluations, and so on, back to the sub- and supraliminal stage.


3b. Social Reality

Cultural reinforcement by the power and politics of post-modern monism, extrinsically motivates people, to avoid fear of dependent rejection by excommunication and homelessness, to satisfy the need to belong to a group, not necessarily to be "stronger together" but to feel safety and trust among one's own people. Externally induced self-fulfilling prophecy, through media and marketing, favors or dooms people. "One adapts and loses oneself, or one does not adapt and loses the world", in Hegel's words, loosely translated. Therefore, people must civilly, uncritically and politically correct, be conditioned to independently reject enemies (prejudice), and/or be cronyistic to dependently confirm friends (cronyism). The distance between themselves and those lower in the pecking order is increased, while the distance to those of higher rank is decreased, so that "some animals [become] more equal". Normativity is either internal, for some, in command, or external for the others, receiving the orders (ever so subtly). Therefore, mimetic desire (Girard 1977) and group-polarization (Moscovici 1969, Meertens 2007) turn relations within-groups-between-people into hierarchies of dominance and submission, by immanent dialectics, closed morality and static religion (Bergson 1932).

Natural reinforcement by the truth and ethics of modern dualism, intrinsically motivates people, to look for-, find-, and look after independent confirmation, to strengthen each other as independent individuals. Offering or (forward) paying freedom of choice, which the other noticeably earned, in our estimation, may serve the whole community, going around and coming around. Relations within-people-between-groups are never corrupted, and within-facts-between-ideas they never entangle, since normativity is dualistic: external in recollection of facts, and internal in construction of ideas. Both types of normativity are needed for comparison to find truth by independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation, if and when facts positively verify ideas for reliability, and facts negatively falsify ideas for validity. People can adapt to groups without losing themselves, be independent without being isolated, or create groups of their own, of independent individuals, who need strength (not power), which they all send and receive, if and when truth is found, by keeping morality open and religion dynamic, to welcome critique. It was not true, what Hegel stated in 1807, that "the subject goes into the world and loses himself, or he goes into himself and loses the world". That was simply intended to turn the psychological- into a sociological realm and start a new hierarchical social order for a new elite, after the old elite had been decapitated, at the beginning of the French Revolution.

While coordinated reflection [1] appears in both worlds, the one created by post-modern, immanent dialectic monism or power and politics, and the other created by modern, independent individual dualism or truth and ethics, independent confirmation [2] matters to the latter only. Monism may look like dualism, since it is dialectic, yet its basic assumption is that we are all one group within which subgroups or individuals compete for dominance while submitting others who will eventually all fall into place and assume their assigned role if they want to survive (Hegel 1807, Marx 1859, Nietzsche 1901). Dualism, on the contrary, assumes there are two sources, instead of one, which interact between any two individuals, to stay on track of truth and not to gain dominance over-, and submit, "less equal" others. Living in the one world or the other, is the outcome of our upbringing and the vices of monism (prejudice, cronyism). As we all live on the same planet, we are challenged, all the time, by a social order that is completely different from our own and that we must accept, even if it runs us into the ground like a tectonic plate.

Where and when post-modern monism and modern dualism run into each other, role-sending and role-receiving by the former may grow intense, or it may diminish under the influence of the latter. Internal normativity is sent from the one to the other who is to receive it as external normativity. The sender's external normativity and the receiver's internal normativity are ignored, when monism takes over from dualism, which happened at a large scale since the French Revolution and, revitalized, since the Cultural Revolution. Group-polarization at crucial episodes in history, such as the Second World War, has extremized monism into absolute dictatorship. This stimulates the will to power (Nietzsche 1901) and a propensity for action through politics, media and marketing. Power can simply bulldoze its way forward and let the facts it created "prove" its predictions. This is what Hegel meant by "too bad for the facts". Thus, power and politics can disguise as truth and ethics. Power changes the facts to fit the predictions, making innocence defenseless, while truth changes the predictions to fit the facts.

 

3c. Social Identity

Independent confirmation between sources, the knowing organism/self/belief and the sensed environment/other/reality, by their self-reflections (the known environment/other/reality and the sensing organism/self/belief), can be very consistent. That is when one source may become part of the other, by social identity and not only by independent confirmation. The other will then be the Significant Other. Construction under those circumstances, will lead recollection, and not the other way around, as it is believed to be true. It will no longer be subjected to verification and falsification, before it can move forward or else processing current content would be halted. When each is a source him- or herself and the other's self-reflection, the one's construction self-reflects in the other, while the other's recollection self-reflects in the one, as part of the other independent individual and not only for one's own processing. The two are as one, interacting by spontaneous gestures and living expressions (Shotter 2011), and without a doubt about the fortitude of their continuing togetherness under any circumstance.

It is between, on the one hand, modern dualism or intrinsic, ethical motivation to seek independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation or truth, and on the other hand, post-modern monism or extrinsic, political motivation to avoid dependent rejection or power, where and when the relationship between Self and Significant Other is most critical for the kind of social order, that will surround- and support it. For the latter, independent rejection of enemies, or prejudice against those above the comparison level, who are bringing jealous tensions into the relationship (Thibaut and Kelley 1959), and dependent confirmation of friends with whom cronyism is group-polarized and exploited, taking away from others, are the only possible ways to avoid dependent rejection. However, relationships are also built on giving and taking, or offering and paying forward, independent rational-, emotional- and/or compassionate confirmation between sources (Significant Others), if and when they can, by positive verification for reliability, and simultaneously, negative falsification for validity, when that is even still required.

While power and politics of the group are central to post-modern monism, truth and ethics of the individual are central to modern dualism. The one avoids dependent rejection within-groups-between-people and within-ideas-between-facts, creating problems of dissociation for people and of existence for facts, while the other seeks independent confirmation within-people-between-groups and within-facts-between-ideas, solving those same problems. Closed morality and static religion do not allow people to defect to other groups and facts to be understood in other contexts, as opposed to open morality and dynamic religion. The latter are dualistic interactions and not immanent dialectics, because fighting over dominance and submission presupposes all sub-groups to belong to one global group, that will eventually dominate and submit all others and have its own uncriticizable ideas or dogmas. People belonging to different groups will want to avoid cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1962) and return to this one group and one set of ideas, unable to bear the undogmatic 'lightness of being' (Kundera 1984).

Relations within-groups-between-people naturally translate into relations within-people-between-groups, since they are basically the same. This is also true for relations within-ideas-between-facts and relations within-facts-between-ideas. Dissonant relations cannot logically, chronologically or associatively maintain themselves and force people to dissociate from their groups or facts from their ideas. They can do so unilaterally as monism requires, to guarantee trust and safety. However, truth and ethics would soon be replaced by power and politics, if they would wholly accept this "solution". Relations entangle when the same facts are reused in different ideas, relating them differently and creating meaningful contexts for them which are incompatible. To cope with entanglements, constraints or conflicts of interest, socioses are invoked in communities, calling for collective dissociation disorders, like derealization and depersonalization, in the independent individuals living in these communities (Dell and O'Neill 2009).

Ideas relate facts in spatializing time, form-shaping-content and consciousness externalizing as behavior, by the logic, chronology or association of these multi-perspective ideas, allowing access from all sides of their contexts. Facts relate ideas in temporalizing space, content-shaping-form and behavior internalizing as consciousness, by the (social) identity, identicality or object-orientation towards these facts. Relations within-ideas-between-facts, naturally translating into relations within-facts-between-ideas, get entangled by shifting orientations, in power and politics, towards the environment/other/reality. Untangling may still be possible, holding on to truth and ethics or innocence, by seeking independent confirmation where it has (at least nominally) always been critical for the highest standards in science, justice and journalism. Modern dualism can beat post-modern monism, since minority influence is strong when consistent over long periods of time and not dividing the majority’s attention (Moscovici 1974). Otherwise, facts dissociate from ideas, or the person from his or her own identity, by traumatizing socioses and tormenting identity disorders2.

 

  

   

  

Philosophy Application

     

figure 15

   

Conclusion

Finding truth is an art we learned and deliberately unlearned. Truth can only be found by looking for independent confirmation for our beliefs, from reality. This methodology requires dualism which is difficult to apply in personal- and social settings, because power and politics turn 'seeking independent confirmation' into 'avoiding dependent rejection'. A completely different social order is implied and the one keeps running the other into the ground like a tectonic plate. Philosophical Modernism may show us how dualism found truth, before Post-Modernism hijacked it, regretfully, regressing us all back into monism and its vices.  

    

References

Berg, J.H. van den (1956). "Metabletica of leer der veranderingen. Beginselen van een historische psychologie". Nijkerk: Callenbach.

Bergson, H. (1922). "Durée et Simultanéité". Paris: Félix Alcan.

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.

Dell, P.F.; O’Neil, J.A. (2009). "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond". New York: Routledge: 750.

Descartes, R. (1644). "The Principles of Philosophy".

Derrida, J. (1992). "Force of Law”. In: D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice".  New York: Routledge.

Dooyeweerd, H. (1935-36). "The Philosophy of the Law-Idea". Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.

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

Girard, R. (1977). "Violence and the Sacred". Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hanna, R.; Chapman, A. (2016). "Kant, Agnosticism, and Anarchism: A Theological-Political Treatise". Academia.edu

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.

Kant, I. (1770). "De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis". Regiomonti: Impensis Io. Iac. Kanteri.

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

Kant, I. (1783). "Prolegomena". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.

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

Kant, I. (1788). "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft". Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.

Kant, I. (1793). "Kritik der Urteilskraft". Berlin: Bey F. T. Lagarde.

Kundera, M. (1984). "The Unbearable Lightness of Being". Paris: Éditions Gallimard.

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

Meertens, R.W. (2007). "The Hofstadgroep". transnationalterrorism.eu.

Moscovici, S.; Zavalloni, M. (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12 (2): 125–135.

Mulder, M.; Veen, P.; Rodenburg, C.; Frenken, J.; Tielens, H. (1973). "The power distance reduction hypothesis on a level of reality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (2): 87–96.

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

Nietzsche, F. (1883). "Also sprach Zarathustra". Chemnitz: Verlag von Ernst Schmeitzner.

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

Orwell, G. (1945). "Animal Farm". London: Martin Secker & Warburg.

Piaget, J. (1936). "La naissance de l'intelligence chez l'enfant". Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.

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.

Sanders, C.; Rappard, J.F.H. van (1982). "Tussen Ontwerp En Werkelijkheid". Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.

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

Shotter, J. (2011). "Draft: ‘Spontaneous Responsiveness, Chiasmic Relations, And Consciousness – Inside the Realm of Living Expression’", johnshotter.com.

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

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

 

1encyclopedia Britannica

2website TormentedInHiding

 

  

       

 
 
 
 
Send Feedback
E-mail: ron.de.weijze@crpa.co