Using Dooyeweerd's Thinking

"It is a matter of life and death for this young philosophy that Christian scholars in all fields of science seek to put it to work in their own specialty." Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol I, p.vii.

This page is a collection of pieces about the usefulness of Dooyeweerdian thinking. And not just Christian scholars; I find that others are more attracted to his ideas than Christians are. And not just scientists; Dooyeweerd makes it plain that his ideas are for 'everyday living', not just science.

** New 20 October 2001 **: I have started a collection of pages on using Dooyeweerdian philosophy. The pages in this collection give examples of how Dooyeweerd has been used or might be used. Some of the content of this page will be moved into that collection, but for now it can act as a summary.

Please send comments and especially suggestions for new uses. These uses can be seen as a practical justification of the Dooyeweerdian approach, but if you are looking for a more theoretical justification, see elsewhere. The uses discussed briefly on this page are (See Collection for examples and much more depth.):

and we also discuss some places Dooyeweerd should NOT be used, or at least where care should be employed in making use of Dooyeweerd's ideas:

I have recently started a drawer that links Dooyeweerdian thought to external thinking. The pages there also furnish examples of how Dooyeweerdian philosophy might be used, to affirm, critique and refine other thinking, as well as to link.

To Create Methodology

Critical Systems Thinking (Flood and Jackson) is based on the philosophy of Habermas; it became a methodology by taking the principles of Habermas and forming them into a methodology. Strijbos of the Free University of Amsterdam is doing the same with Dooyeweerd's ideas, to create what he is calling New Critical Systems Thinking.

To Avoid Dead-ends in Thinking

In the book of his lectures entitled 'A Christian Social Theory', Dooyeweerd several times demonstrated that the problems that thinkings in social science have got themselves into can be explained by conflation of distinct aspects. Therefore, a good understanding of the aspects and a careful application of them to guide the direction of our thinking, might help us avoid such dead-ends.

Chris Argyris also refers to the problems in 'rigorous' research in the social sciences. Rigor in research inhibits us from obtaining valid knowledge. Partly because of the reactions of subjects, but also because we tend to leave out whole sets of variables that are important without realising it. How to choose which variables to ignore is an issue that he discusses in his book The Applicability of Organizational Sociology, (C.U.P. 1972). It seems that much of the problem is due to the researcher being unaware of other aspects in which those ignored variables reside. Thus a knowledge of the aspects, together with a view of science as higher abstraction can help us overcome this problem.

Inter Aspect Support

How can juridical institutions best help and support the family? Many well-meaning attempts have ended in failure. Many others that could be tried are avoided. Veronica de Raadt made the suggestion at the 1998 CTS Swehol Working Conference that identifying the strong links between the relevant aspects (in this case juridical and ethical) can throw some light on this. She likened these links to ligaments, called them analogy, and differentiated them from weaker forms of analogy which we make up ourselves.

To Clarify Tangled Issues

Dooyeweerd's aspects can help us clarify tangled issues, without having to resort to compromise or delving into detail. It is a principled way, and thus possesses some degree of vision that can motivate changes in thinking, perspective and even lifestyle. Here I discuss one issue, but other examples are found in The Collection. (A good example can be found in Danie Strauss' discussion of Category Mistake in Opposing Individual to Society.)

Over the last year or so I was struggling with whether communities (villages in Cheshire, for instance) should be 'self-sustainable' or 'interdependent'.

Interdependency sounds good and was the planning norm during the 1960s to 1980s, but has led to major problems. It has meant that each community relies on others for its needs, and thus has no motivation to provide them itself. So villages lose their shops, schools, employment, leisure, etc. which become 'supplied' elsewhere, in major towns in 1970s and in out-of-town complexes in the 1980s. So everyone now has to drive a distance to obtain what they think of as their needs. Likewise, each community relies on others to dispose of its waste and effluence, and takes no responsibility itself. Always 'they' will supply my needs and wants, and 'they' will clean up after me. (A version of what some have called 'dependency culture' yet, ironically, brought about by the capitalism ideal of free trade rather than by socialism with which it is normally associated.)

So, during the 1980s, the idea of self-sustainability arose as an ideal, where each community takes responsibility for its own needs and waste, thus minimizing both the inputs and outputs. Makes a lot of sense.

But, we don't want our communities to become cut off, isolated. We don't want communities to become ghettos. Therefore interdependency seems a good thing on this account - yet it leads to enormous problems. How do we sort this out? One way was compromise: try to move to a lesser degree of interdependency and more self-sustainability. Problems with this approach are that we cannot say where the right compromise is, we cannot gain agreement by a democratic process of the average, because the voters vote selflishly, and, more fundamentally, the approach has no clear compelling principle to inspire people to change their desires, habits and lifestyles. Another way was to delve into detail, looking for minor pieces of interdependency that could be discarded and self-sustainability that could be sought. This is better than nothing, but in practice achieved, and achieves, little in the long run.

However, recently I saw it in aspectual terms. Interdependency is, at root, social, though it has analogical form in other aspects. Self-sustainability is, at root, economic, to do with skilled frugal use of limited resources. That this is likely to be so can be seen from noting that the problems we were talking about were to do with resources while the problems of isolation are essentially social in nature. Thus each concept, from different aspects, delivers its own benefit.

A tenet of aspectuality is that each aspect must be respected, and in its own terms. That is, we must ensure the social benefits of interdependency yet at the same time ensure the resource-economic benefits of self-sustainability. Problems come when we ignore one or the other, different problems in each case.

Therefore, I now had a principled way of untangling the problem: maintain both social interconnectedness and also resource-economic self-sustainability and responsibility. I could see more clearly what was going wrong: interconnectedness was being applied to the wrong aspectual issue; in effect the resource-economic aspect was being reduced to the social - with enormous unintended harm resulting. I could also now discuss with all comers, whether from the status quo or the new thinkers, without seeing one or other an 'the opponent', and acknowledge the pieces of truth in what each was saying.

To Overcome Reductionism

Linked with much else on this page, Dooyeweerd's aspects in particular can help us overcome reductionism. Reductionism is seen, in this perspective, as elevating one or some aspects and ignoring or suppressing others. Russ Reeves puts it quite nicely in the following:

"I haven't yet studied Dooyeweerd in the depth I would like, but I have found him (and the Reformational tradition) helpful in some theoretical issues relating to the study of history, specifically in combating the reductionistic tendency of some historians to make economics, etc. the sole causative factor in human action. The inescapability of religion is also important - in religious studies, there is surprisingly little clarity regarding what 'religion' actually is, and it is defined in a variety of odd ways (and often left undefined), something some people have but others don't. Dooyeweerd's perspective not only makes more sense, but makes religion a universal (and useful) analytical category."

His concern is that economics is seen as the 'sole causative factor' (an elevation of economics) and that the importance of religious commitment is overlooked (suppressing the pistic aspect).

To Aid Discussion and Inter-Perspective Understanding

Integrating Different Perspectives

Discussion of strategic issues often founders because people hold different perspectives, often tacitly, and descends into either 'groupthink' or polarizations. The different perspectives that people hold are often centred on one aspect, usually elevating that aspect and maybe ignoring others. When two such aspect-elevating perspectives meet, the friction thus generated gives the discussion more heat than light.

It is possible, therefore, that Dooyeweerd's aspects can help avoid such problems, if they are used as a framework to guide discussion. The aspects give us a framework for understanding the other's perspective. Because each aspect has a different epistemology (way of knowing), therefore we do not expect the same epistemology from the other, nor the same basic assumptions of what is 'rational' or 'acceptable'. Instead, we first acknowledge the difference and then seek to discern which aspect the other has centred upon, and then to understand what the other is saying in the light of that aspect. Finally, we can, together, amongst all participants, seek to integrate all relevant aspects and also see which aspects are still being collectively ignored.

At a recent CPTS conference (22-24 April 2001), Albert Vlug was reflecting on what a Dooyeweerdian framework offers, in his practical analysis, that others do not. A Habermasian framework helped participants in a debate to recognise their underlying assumptions and be honest and open about different opinions, which a Dooyeweerdian framework also does. But the Dooyeweerdian framework goes further, in helping us

Differences founded on different aspects are likely to be irreducible, especially if the participants exercise some pistic commitment to their 'favourite' aspects.

Research is needed to develop these ideas.

To Discern Relevance

"What about X?" "It's not relevant to this discussion!" "Yes it is!" "No it's not!" and so on.

Dooyeweerdian aspects can help us decide what topics are relevant to a discussion. Often a discussion focuses on one aspect. When someone brings in a topic from a different aspect then those involved often react with "But that's not relevant." For example, in a discussion about, say, art, the cost of something might be deemed irrelevant - but in fact it often highly relevant, but just not thus far considered. So it should be treated as relevant unless it has explicitly been stated that cost is not to be considered.

What makes a topic irrelevant to a discussion is not that is from a different aspect, but only that it is either at the wrong level or detail, or outside the already-agreed scope of the objectives set for the discussion.

Chairing Discussion

Albert Vlug also found Dooyeweerdian aspects useful in his role as discussion chair. At any one time, discussion tends to focus on one aspect - and often gets more and more detailed and heated within that one aspect! By identifying around which aspect (or aspects) the discussion is currently centring, the chair can shift the discussion when appropriate, by saying, for example, "We seem to be talking around economic factors; what about the psychological factors?"

In this way, knowledge of the Dooyeweerdian aspects can help first in identifying gaps in the discussion, and second in filling those gaps.

Better Evaluations of Events

Often I am given a questionnaire at the end of the event, but all it asks me is about 'hygenic' issues, like "Was the food OK?", "Was the venue clean and tidy?". What I want to comment on is that which is more meaningful in terms of the core of the event. Even "Did you think the discussion was fair?" is not enough. At a rail strategy event, for example, I want to comment on rail strategy and its links with other policy.

Dooyeweerd's notion of the qualifying aspect of an entity could help here. The evaluation questions should relate to this aspect in meaningful ways. (Of course, one can also add hygenic issues at the end, but they are often less important; the hygenic issues are from aspects different from the qualifying one.)

Evaluating New Technologies

Today I was asked by one of my students in virtual environments how one can evaluate a new technical possibility that nobody has any experience of. We can draw a line on paper with a pencil, and the line is there on the surface. But what if we could draw a line in three dimensions, in the air as it were.

Such things are now possible using a special virtual reality device, called a Cave, which is an enclosed space all of whose walls are lit by computer monitor output. We stand in the middle of this and don special spectacles so that we can see everything in three dimensions rather than as on the walls of the Cave. A similar effect can be obtained by holography. The new experience is that we can interact with this 3D environment and seem to be part of it, though it has no physical existence. So I could draw my line in the air in front of me, and it would remain there, at least to my vision. The thing is that though the lines, shapes etc. that I create in the air in front of me have no physical existence, I can interact with them. For example, if the software were written to do this, I could have a virtual bat and play virtual tennis with them.

A more complex example is that a sculptor could have a virtual block of marble, and virtually chip away to make a virtual statue. And if s/he made a mistake, chipping off too much, s/he could go back to the state before he made the mistake. As a result, s/he could try out various different versions of the statue to see which one seemed best.


Now, how can we evaluate such possibilities? How can we tell where and in what ways such possibilities might be useful? The Task-Artifact-Cycle makes it impossible to say with any precision, since insertion of technology into a situation does more than merely help the existing tasks; it actually changes the tasks in ways that cannot be foretold. It is a bit like a technological Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

But even if we could predict how tasks would change, there is another difficulty. My student told me that when he asked his colleagues whether this might of use to them, they could not answer. This was because they had not real concept of what was possible, beyond what has just been said. While they might make wild guesses about how it might be useful, no serious evaluation is possible, because it is outside the normal range of experience.

People with well developed imaginative capabilities might be able to come up with suggestions, but most of these tend to be leaps of imagination rather than serious evaluations. We are no closer to saying in what ways the new, never-yet-tried technology is and is not likely to be useful.

A Possible Way Forward.

However, I believe Dooyeweerd's aspects might offer some help. First, the aspects have potential that remains to be opened up. Second, they transcend human beings, so they also transcend whether or not humans have opened them up in certain ways. The potential is still there, even if we cannot say exactly what it is. This might help us bypass some of the problem of lack of imagination.

Let us make a proposal that a person, with role X, might find the new technology useful if it were suitably developed. We can test this by making two small analyses:

  1. a) Determine the aspects, the functioning of which the technology might aid.
  2. b) Determine the qualifying aspect of the role X.
  3. c) Then compare them. If the aspect of X matches the aspects of the technology then benefit is likely. If not, little benefit is likely on its own.
  4. d) However, if we can suggest ways in which the technology could be modified to take into account the needs of aspect X, in such a way that its own aspects are usefully put in the service of X, then benefit is likely.

For example:

  1. a) The Cave system described above helps us with the spatial and formative aspects. Spatial because it is inherently spatial, formative because it aids the process of forming things, but allowing formation, trial and error, and what-iffing.
  2. b) The aspect of the sculptor is the aesthetic aspect, whose kernel is harmony.
  3. c) These do not match. So it is likely that little benefit would accrue on its own.
  4. d) However, if we were to write into the Cave software some facilities geared to harmony etc., and employed the spatial forming facilities in their service, then the software might indeed help the sculptor.

However, does the sculptor not need physicality? Maybe. But maybe not, intrinsically, so that a new type of sculpture could emerge.

The benefit of this approach over simple free imagination is that it offers some guidance.

To Aid Self-Reflection

A knowledge of the aspects, combined with a recognition that all aspects are relative, none absolute, might help us in seeing our own limitations, and also in deciding in which circumstances it is appropriate to admit our limitations.

Often my expertise lies within one aspect, and in that aspect I will have few limitations. Likely as not, I will tend to see this aspect as all that matters. So when people try to criticise me for limitations, I will react defensively. But if I am aware that there are other aspects in which I have less expertise, then I can accept their criticism more generously. But even if nobody criticizes me, I can discern my own limitations by acknowledging that my expertise lies in one aspect and not others. And that helps me decide when I need further input from others.

In addition, if I am expert in aspect X and inexpert in aspect Y, then I can determine whether or not to be open about my limitations. In a discussion that involves aspect Y it would be beneficial - indeed my duty - to be open about my limitations. But if not, then being too open about them might confuse the issues. If it is not clear whether Y is relevant, then be partially open and willing to be totally open.

To Guide Research

Dooyeweerd's aspects can be a stimulus to thinking and a possible aid to research. I believe there are four degrees to which his thinking about aspects might be applicable to research:

  1. Degree 1. Not applicable. This would be, for instance, when the research is confined to one aspect. Single-aspect research is often of this degree since it seeks to isolate that one aspect, as discussed by Clouser. Technical research (e.g. into antivirus test beds) might fit into this category. Some research topics can be either single- or multi-aspect, and sometimes shift from one to the other during the research project. e.g. research only on the technology of teleworking, for instance, would be of this degree, but if an element of human roles and tasks is, or becomes, important, then that would move his work to degree 3 because it would then become multi-aspectual.

  2. Degree 2. To act as private stimulus to the researcher. This would occur when the aspects were used simply to inform the researcher either of some missing topics they should study or to focus their mind on one aspect in order to delineate approximately its boundaries. In such cases the use of Dooyeweerd's aspects could be private and need no explicit reference in the thesis, because it would be used only as a common-sense guide to the researcher's functioning in doing their research. The aspects could be used by the researcher to:

    As a practical illustration of this, Arthur Jones told me that during his PhD research he found Dooyeweerd's notion of retrocipation and, especially, anticipation helpful in suggesting lines of research - and they always proved fruitful. His research was in biology, and, using Dooyeweerd's concept, he thought about how biotic things seemed to anticipate post-biotic things, and researched those areas. Such lines of research always proved fruitful.

  3. Degree 3. To help structure and arrange the various pieces of work in the research. This would occur when the topic of the research is expressly multi-aspectual, such as the concept of being human, or research to do with benefits and impact of using technical features. In this case, Dooyeweerd's aspects would be used as a major structuring tool for the research and thesis, and therefore the researcher should make explicit reference to Dooyeweerd's aspects. S/he should also justify why this structuring was adopted, in preference to others that could have been adopted. However, this does not go as far as degree 4, since it merely uses Dooyeweerd's ideas and does not refine them.

  4. Degree 4. Dooyeweerd's aspects (and/or other ideas) become part of the object of study of the research. Such research would, in part, further Dooyeweerd's ideas, even though the core of the research might be elsewhere. Using the aspects as a mechanism for measuring things (such as risks, losses, degrees of vulnerability, degrees of sustainability) requires research and would contribute to Dooyeweerdian research itself, even if the focus were elsewhere. Research into the nature of knowledge might also be of this degree.


Much of the stimulus for those degrees came from the students of Pertti Jarvinen, Dept of Computer Science, University of Tampere, Finland. Also Arthur Jones 9 July 2002.

To Integrate Assessment Methods

Albert Vlug reported, at CPTS 2001, that a Dooyeweerdian framework has helped him integrate disparate methods of measurement. The problem is not just about quantitative versus qualitative assessments, but because different methods make different assumptions and are carried out by different people in different contexts. The problem is especially acute in medical domains, where "Our measurements show us clearly that ...." is a common claim, yet one to be questioned carefully. It is made worse when different people make opposing claims because of different measurement methods.

Vlug proposed that a Dooyeweerdian analysis could open up the assumptions made by the methods, and also link the methods to particular aspects. By doing this, we can start to see in what ways each method might be limited, in that, however precise and accurate it may be, it is likely to omit factors from other aspects that might be important. This is because each aspect has a distinct epistemology (i.e. way of knowing things).

To Plan Training

Training, and education in using a tool or performing a task, is inherently multi-aspectual because it is part of everyday life. (Except of course when it is training in how to carry out some technical operation.)

It is proposed that a knowledge of the aspects that are relevant to the task might help us plan the training schedule, because of two issues:

To Understand Sustainability and Success

There is growing interest in Dooyeweerd's aspects as a framework for understanding sustainability of a community, success of application of information technology, etc. Lombardi and Basden published a paper ("Urban sustainability and information technology: the similarities", Systems Practice, 1997) which showed that both of these could be understood in the same way. According to their hypothesis, sustainability of a community and environment is harmed when the aspects are not kept in balance, for instance when one is ignored or treated as unimportant. For sustainability, all must be recognised and kept in balance - the biological, the psychic, the social, the economic, the morale of the community, etc. The same seems to be true when applying information technology in a working situation. The tendency is to focus on the technical matters, or the social ones, etc. But successful application only comes if all aspects are recognised and balanced.

Dooyeweerd's aspects are fundamentally inter-disciplinary in nature. One major reason why Dooyeweerd's aspects can be useful in handling success and sustainability is that his aspects have some normativity integrated with determinative laws.

Actually, it requires more than balance for success; it requires also that we go with the grain of each aspect, not against its norms. See the explanation of shalom and harm, or the page where success, prosperity and shalom are discussed in more depth.

Guiding Interdisciplinary Research and Working

If Dooyeweerd's aspects are fundamentally interdisciplinary in nature, then they could be a useful guide to fostering interdisciplinary working and especially in research. Interdisciplinarity is more than just pushing several disciplines together; it involves mutual understanding. To achieve this first requires that each participant recognises that there are other viewpoints that are not only different in detail from his/her own, but of a very different nature and epistemology. That is, of a different aspect.

The recognition of the aspects, and an understanding of Dooyeweerd's proposal for what those aspects are, can aid this mutual understanding by first helping the participants to see where each is placed (i.e. in what aspect) and thus which aspects they need to take special note of and perhaps learn about.

More of this below in guiding strategy.

Inter-Cultural Knowledge

Q: What knowledge can be understood across cultures? What knowledge, if any, could be understood in approx. the same way across all cultures?

Proposal: Knowledge of laws of those aspects that are earlier than the formative aspect, the aspect relating to culture. That is, mathematical, spatial, kinematic, physical, biotic and sensory and psychological knowledge.

Focus on Normativity

Traditional philosophy sees normativity and existence ('ought' and 'is) as distinct and without any point of contact. Another example is the dualism between fact and value. This comes from the dualistic ground motive of Nature-Freedom which underlies most modern assumptions. But Dooyeweerd rejects such dualism and thereby is able to offer a point of contact between normativity and existence, between value and fact. Each aspect has a certain amount of normativity, increasing from (almost) zero in the quantitative to (almost) full in the pistic.

Therefore, if we employ the aspects as a framework for our thinking, then we are invited by their very nature to focus on normativity, not as an adjunct to the determinative side but as integrated with it. This is useful in applying information technology, for instance. Conventionally the normative side is seen as a mere curb on the excesses of technocentrism. Under Dooyeweerd's thinking, the two are integrated. This is why it can be useful when considering the success and failure of information systems.

Intrinsic Normativity

'Intrinsic normativity' is a phrase used by followers of Disclosive Systems Thinking (Strijbos, 2000), which tries to 'disclose' the 'intrinsic normativity' of any system or sub-system they analyse. It is based on the notion of the qualifying aspect of an entity: each system is considered an entity in the Dooyeweerdian sense and to have a qualifying aspect. The norms of the system's qualifying aspect is then its 'intrinsic normativity'.

In Assigning Roles, Responsibilities and Freedoms

(From Albert Vlug's findings reported at CPTS Working Conference 2001, when he asked himself in what ways, in practice, did a Dooyeweerdian framework help him where others could not.)

A (sub-)division of a company may possess a different normativity from another, and both a different normativity from the whole company. This can be clarified by identifying the qualifying aspects of each part and of the whole. For example, in a drugs company there are two divisions: Medical and Marketing. These are qualified by (let's say) the biotic and the lingual aspects respectively, while the whole company is, perhaps, qualified by the economic.

How this works out is that it means that to force a mission on each part that is solely financial is often inappropriate and detrimental to the overall running of the organization, however convenient for the main board and its accountants. We have often seen this when a Main Board stipulates "There must a 5% efficiency gain across all divisions." This gives the appearance of fairness, but might ultimately damage something that is vital.

Main Board members of companies should first recognise the intrinsic normativity of each of their divisions by discerning their qualifying aspects, and, being guided by that, should then analyse more precisely how each division can be enabled to fulfil its intrinsic normativity better. Such an analysis can also provide the managers of those divisions with the appropriate arguments as to why an across-the-board solution is likely to be damaging. Such an analysis does not, of course, solve the problem, but it does help the parties discuss the issues in a more constructive way.

Where Dooyeweerd should not be used

I've started compiling a list of ways in which Dooyeweerd's ideas are misused. Please send your comments and suggestions.

Communicating result of Dooyeweerdian clarification

Because most people will either not know or not accept Dooyeweerdian ideas, and especially his aspects, without question, the aspects should never be presented as a fait accompli. In particular, if clarification has come from the aspects, present the clarification, but not grounded on the aspects themselves. Or be careful how you do so.

Justifying our Actions or Beliefs by Reference to an Aspect

As with any system of thought, portions of Dooyeweerd's are frequently called upon to justify our actions or beliefs. e.g. "Dooyeweerd's formative aspect says that progress is a valid thing for humans to do. So we must not stand in the way of progress." This is a wrong use of Dooyeweerd's thinking.

This particular example is wrong because it ignores Dooyeweerd's contention that all aspects must be taken into account in harmony, and many of those who say "We must not stand in the way of progress" have already abandoned this inter-aspectual harmony in furtherance of their own interests that happen to be aligned with an idea of progress.

It is perhaps made worse, compared with other streams of thought, because of the implied ontological claim of Dooyeweerd's framework.

The root of the problem, however, lies in our tendency to tacitly seek ways of furthering our ends without regard to the wider picture, and a tacit unwillingness in most of us to allow that wider picture to dilute the furthering of our cherished ends. (This of course is largely a pistic matter.)

To Guide Strategy: Disparate Disciplines

Dooyeweerd's notion of aspects can help in bringing coherence to a collection of disparate disciplines. The Faculty of Business and Informatics at the University of Salford, UK, was one such and the new Dean was concerned about how to bring coherence. Briefly,

These have implications for both faculty strategy (including team-building) and direction of research. For more details please see the email correspondence about this (.txt file).

To warn us even when there is no reason

UK farm feed industry fed animal remains to cows. Result: BSE. A Dooyeweerdian view would have warned us this is wrong, in that we are not treating and respecting herbivores as herbivores. The juridical aspect tells us we should give all their due. Even for non-humans.
This is part of The Dooyeweerd Pages, which explain, explore and discuss Dooyeweerd's interesting philosophy. Questions or comments would be welcome.

Compiled by Andrew Basden. You may use this material subject to conditions.

Number of visitors to these pages: Counter. Written on the Amiga and Protext.

Last updated: 24 September 1998 added sections on clarifying tangled issues and aiding inter-perspective discussion. 25 September 1998 added to guide research. 9 October 1998 added re Dead-ends in Thinking and To Plan Training, and added a contents list. 25 January 1999 added re. Argyris. Added section on interdisciplinarity. 31 January 1999. 2 November 2000 added re. reductionism. 7 February 2001 Inter-Cultural knowledge and not using Dooyeweerd to justify ourselves; copyright, email. 27 April 2001 several things added that were identified by Albert Vlug as what he found useful in Dooyeweerd. 4 May 2001 ending. 20 May 2001 link to ext drawer. 10 July 2001 added Warn. 5 October 2001 Added evaluating new technologies. 20 October 2001 Set up link to collection on using. 4 January 2002 links to misusing.html. 16 January 2002 Section on guiding strategy. 15 April 2002 wee correction, and link to m.a.light. 1 May 2002 wee correction. 9 July 2002 Arthur Jones' use of anticipation to suggest lines of research. 21 November 2005 unets. 23 June 2010 removed m.a.light link, and rewrote intro a bit. 23 June 2010 link to issues/indiv.doc.