Four Sub-Philosophies of Reciprocism: The Structure and Mutual Criticism of Inductive Reciprocism, Suicidal Reciprocism, Karmic Reciprocism, and Cyclical Reciprocism
Abstract
This study systematically analyzes the structures and mutual critical relationships among four sub-philosophies differentiated within Reciprocism: Inductive Reciprocism, Suicidal Reciprocism, Karmic Reciprocism, and Cyclical Reciprocism. All four philosophies share a common philosophical foundation in that they presuppose a feedback structure in which human cognition and action enter into relations with the world, and the consequences of those relations subsequently influence human cognition and action. However, this commonality does not imply a substantive integration of the four philosophies. Each philosophy forms an independent theoretical structure centered on different problem areas and units of analysis.
Inductive Reciprocism addresses epistemological and ontological problems by focusing on the reciprocal relationship between objective reality and human judgment. Suicidal Reciprocism analyzes the relationship between ultimate existential orientation and present life, beginning with the possibility that there is no absolutely given purpose of life. Karmic Reciprocism explains freedom, responsibility, and temporal continuity by focusing on the continuous causal relationship between actions and their consequences. Cyclical Reciprocism analyzes the circulation of subjectivity and social meaning by focusing on meaning as a mode of aligning desires, as well as the interpretation, externalization, and reconstruction of that meaning.
This study emphasizes that the four philosophies do not converge by integrating one another into a single philosophy, but instead form relationships of mutual criticism while maintaining different philosophical criteria. Each philosophy raises distinctive criticisms of the core premises of the other philosophies, while simultaneously becoming an object of criticism by the other three. Within this structure, contradictions and tensions between theories do not function as defects to be eliminated, but rather as driving forces of development that compel each sub-philosophy to reconsider its own premises and concepts. Accordingly, the internal structure of Reciprocism should be understood not as a static integrated whole, but as a metaphilosophical developmental structure in which mutual checks and self-corrections among differentiated sub-philosophies are repeatedly carried out.
Keywords: Reciprocism, Inductive Reciprocism, Suicidal Reciprocism, Karmic Reciprocism, Cyclical Reciprocism, mutual criticism, self-correction, philosophical differentiation, metaphilosophy
I. Introduction
Reciprocism does not understand the relationship between human beings and reality as a one-directional relationship. Human beings experience, interpret, judge, and act upon reality, but the consequences of these actions in turn affect reality, and the changed reality responds to subsequent human judgments and actions. Therefore, human existence is understood not as a fixed state but within a continuous feedback structure.
However, not all philosophical problems can be explained in the same manner solely through the common principle of feedback. The problems of reality and judgment, ultimate existential direction, action and consequence, and meaning and subjectivity each require distinct philosophical analyses. The four sub-philosophies within Reciprocism construct these different problems as independent theoretical systems.
Accordingly, the relationship among the four philosophies should not be defined as integration into a single theory. The four philosophies share a common higher-level ideological foundation, but they do not possess identical conclusions or identical analytical criteria. Rather, each philosophy can be criticized according to the criteria of the other three philosophies, and through such criticism it modifies and refines its own concepts.
Therefore, the internal structure of Reciprocism can be defined through the following cycle:
Common principle of feedback → philosophical differentiation → formation of independent theories → mutual criticism → self-correction → development of each sub-philosophy → new mutual criticism
Within this structure, mutual contradictions do not signify the failure of a theoretical system. Rather, because different philosophical criteria expose one another's limitations, each theory can avoid becoming fixed as a self-contained dogma.
II. The Relationship Between the Higher-Level Thought of Reciprocism and Its Sub-Philosophies
Reciprocism can be understood not as a single system of propositions, but as a field of philosophical inquiry possessing a common structural principle. Its common principle lies in the fact that human beings enter into relationships with reality, and that the consequences arising from those relationships subsequently respond to human beings.
However, this commonality does not yield a single integrated philosophical conclusion.
Inductive Reciprocism primarily analyzes the relationship between reality and judgment.
Suicidal Reciprocism primarily analyzes the relationship between ultimate existential orientation and present life.
Karmic Reciprocism primarily analyzes the continuity of action and consequence.
Cyclical Reciprocism primarily analyzes the reconstruction of meaning and interpretation.
Accordingly, the four philosophies can be defined as follows.
| Sub-Philosophy | Central Unit of Analysis | Primary Philosophical Problems |
|---|---|---|
| Inductive Reciprocism | Reality and judgment | Reality, truth, error, absurdity, nihilism |
| Suicidal Reciprocism | Ultimate orientation and present life | Existential direction, self-determination, coherence |
| Karmic Reciprocism | Action and consequence | Causality, responsibility, freedom, temporal continuity |
| Cyclical Reciprocism | Meaning and interpretation | Subjectivity, meaning, externalization, reconstruction |
These differences do not constitute merely a classification of research topics, but indicate that each sub-philosophy possesses different criteria of judgment and core concepts.
III. Inductive Reciprocism
1. Basic Structure
Inductive Reciprocism distinguishes objective reality from human judgment.
Not being able to know the essence completely ≠ the essence does not exist.
Although human beings cannot completely apprehend reality, reality exists independently of human cognition and continuously responds to human judgments.
The basic structure is as follows:
Reality → Observation → Judgment → Prediction → Choice → Consequence → Re-observation → Revision of judgment
2. Core Concepts
The core of Inductive Reciprocism lies in distinguishing error from arrogance.
Error is an error in judgment, whereas arrogance is the state of absolutizing one's error and placing one's own judgment above reality.
Therefore, the conflict between reality and human systems of meaning can develop not merely into a lack of information, but into a structural conflict between meaning and reality, while the collapse of an absolutized system of meaning can lead to nihilism.
3. Philosophical Function
Among the four sub-philosophies, Inductive Reciprocism provides the strongest criterion for verification against objective reality.
Accordingly, it can examine the self-claims of the other sub-philosophies from the perspective of consistency with reality.
IV. Suicidal Reciprocism
1. Basic Structure
Suicidal Reciprocism does not necessarily presuppose the existence of an absolutely given purpose of life, and analyzes the possibility that human beings construct an ultimate existential orientation.
The core structure is as follows:
Ultimate orientation → Present life → Choice → Construction of life → Examination of coherence between orientation and present life
Within this system, death is analyzed as the ultimate boundary of existence, and the manner in which an individual's existential orientation toward that boundary organizes present life is examined philosophically.
2. Self-Determination and Responsibility
Ultimate self-determination does not mean unlimited exemption from responsibility for consequences. An individual's existential choice must also take into consideration the independent existence of others and the issue of real-world consequences.
Therefore, Suicidal Reciprocism possesses a structure that combines self-determination and self-responsibility.
3. Philosophical Function
Among the four sub-philosophies, Suicidal Reciprocism raises most strongly the problem of ultimate existential direction and self-determination.
As a result, it can criticize the possibility that other philosophies, while placing excessive emphasis on adaptation to reality or responsibility, may fail to sufficiently explain the ultimate existential problems of human beings.
V. Karmic Reciprocism
1. Basic Structure
Karmic Reciprocism centers on the proposition that human actions leave consequences and causal residues.
Choice → Action → Consequence → New conditions → New choice
Its core proposition is as follows:
What one chooses is free, but one cannot choose the consequences produced by that choice.
2. Responsibility and Consequences
Human interpretation does not erase consequences that have already occurred. Repentance means recognition of wrongdoing and a change in attitude, but it does not mean the removal of actual damage and consequences that have occurred.
Therefore, the following must be distinguished:
Repentance ≠ disappearance of damage
Change in meaning ≠ deletion of past consequences
3. Philosophical Function
Among the four sub-philosophies, Karmic Reciprocism most strongly analyzes the persistence of real-world consequences and responsibility for actions.
Accordingly, it can criticize the tendency of self-determination and reconstruction of meaning in other philosophies to weaken responsibility for consequences.
VI. Cyclical Reciprocism
1. Basic Structure
Cyclical Reciprocism defines the meaning of life as a structure through which personal desires are aligned in a particular manner.
The meaning of life = the manner in which personal desires are aligned
The purpose of life is the concrete direction in which desires so aligned are organized.
2. Meaning and Interpretation
Meaning and interpretation are distinguished.
Meaning determines how desires are to be aligned.
Interpretation determines whether such a mode of alignment is appropriate for reality and the individual.
Therefore, accepting an external system of meaning and losing subjectivity are not identical.
Externalization of meaning ≠ loss of subjectivity
However, continuously delegating the authority to interpret itself to external sources is defined as a loss of subjectivity.
3. Nihilism and Recovery
Nihilism is a state in which the collapse of a system of meaning and the collapse of the capacity for interpretation occur simultaneously.
At this point, accepting an external system of meaning can serve as a foundation for recovery. Once the capacity for interpretation is restored, the individual can examine and modify external meanings and construct a new system of meaning.
4. Philosophical Function
Among the four sub-philosophies, Cyclical Reciprocism most strongly analyzes the problems of subjectivity, meaning, and social reconstruction.
VII. The Non-Integrative Structure of the Four Sub-Philosophies
The four philosophies cannot be reduced to an identical conclusion.
The objective realism of Inductive Reciprocism is not identical to the existentialism of Suicidal Reciprocism, and the self-determination theory of Suicidal Reciprocism is not identical to the consequentialism of Karmic Reciprocism. Likewise, the causal theory of Karmic Reciprocism is not identical to the semantics of Cyclical Reciprocism, and the theory of subjectivity in Cyclical Reciprocism cannot be reduced to the objective realism of Inductive Reciprocism.
Each sub-philosophy maintains its own distinctive problems and criteria of judgment.
Therefore, reducing Reciprocism as a whole to a single synthetic proposition or a single integrated formula is inappropriate insofar as it eliminates the theoretical differences among the four philosophies.
Their commonality lies not in identity of content, but in sharing feedback as a methodological and structural principle.
VIII. Twelve Mutual Critical Relationships
Because each of the four sub-philosophies criticizes the other three, a total of 12 directional mutual critical relationships are formed.
1. Inductive Reciprocism → Suicidal Reciprocism
Inductive Reciprocism criticizes the proposition that an ultimate existential orientation justified by self-determination can be objectively justified merely because it is self-determined.
An ultimate orientation must also be examined for its coherence with reality, and no particular existential orientation can be exempted from the response of reality.
The core proposition is as follows:
Self-determination ≠ objective validity
Furthermore, when an ultimate orientation is established as an absolute criterion, it may produce a structural similarity with Inductive Reciprocism's concept of arrogance as the absolutization of one's own judgment.
2. Inductive Reciprocism → Karmic Reciprocism
Inductive Reciprocism questions whether empirically confirmed action–consequence relationships and a transcendent karmic order can be treated at the same epistemological level.
The empirical proposition that actions produce consequences and the metaphysical proposition that divine judgment, reincarnation, or a posthumous causal order exists require separate arguments.
Empirical causality ≠ transcendent karmic order
It also raises the criticism that the occurrence of a consequence cannot be identified with moral justice.
Existence of a consequence ≠ moral justification of the consequence
3. Inductive Reciprocism → Cyclical Reciprocism
Inductive Reciprocism can criticize the proposition that a meaning system that persists socially and historically is thereby guaranteed to be true in reality.
Even if a tradition, religion, culture, ideology, or community has maintained a particular mode of aligning desires for an extended period, its persistence is not evidence of its validity in reality.
Social persistence ≠ truth
Likewise, the fact that an individual can interpret meaning for themselves does not guarantee that the interpretation corresponds to reality.
Authority of interpretation ≠ objective truth
4. Suicidal Reciprocism → Inductive Reciprocism
Suicidal Reciprocism criticizes the proposition that a factual judgment about reality automatically yields an ultimate purpose of life.
The question of what reality is and the question of what should be regarded as an ultimate value are distinct philosophical problems.
Factual judgment ≠ ultimate value judgment
Therefore, if Inductive Reciprocism uses coherence with reality as sufficient grounds for a particular direction of life, a gap arises between fact and value.
5. Suicidal Reciprocism → Karmic Reciprocism
Suicidal Reciprocism distinguishes the fact that consequences of past actions constrain present conditions from the proposition that those consequences necessarily determine an individual's ultimate existential orientation.
If the causal continuity of karma is interpreted too strongly, the possibility of ultimate human self-determination may be excessively restricted by the consequences of the past.
Causal constraint ≠ necessity of ultimate existential direction
6. Suicidal Reciprocism → Cyclical Reciprocism
Suicidal Reciprocism questions the possibility that Cyclical Reciprocism, by establishing the reconstruction and recovery of meaning as a central structure, may impose the reconstruction of meaning as a de facto necessary norm upon human beings.
The fact that constructing a new meaning after the collapse of meaning may constitute one path of recovery is not identical to the normative proposition that every human being must construct a new meaning.
Therefore, the following question is raised:
Is the reconstruction of meaning an existential necessity?
7. Karmic Reciprocism → Inductive Reciprocism
Karmic Reciprocism emphasizes that epistemological revision of judgment cannot remove the real-world consequences of past actions.
Acknowledging that one has judged incorrectly and revising one's judgment to conform to reality does not automatically cause past losses or consequences inflicted upon others to disappear.
Epistemological correction ≠ resolution of ethical responsibility
Therefore, the correction of cognition and responsibility for consequences must be distinguished as different levels.
8. Karmic Reciprocism → Suicidal Reciprocism
Karmic Reciprocism criticizes the proposition that self-determination removes responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
The fact that an individual has established their ultimate existential orientation for themselves does not invalidate the consequences that actions undertaken according to that orientation leave in reality.
Right to self-determination ≠ exemption from consequences
This criticism requires simultaneous examination of the scope of self-determination and the scope of responsibility toward others.
9. Karmic Reciprocism → Cyclical Reciprocism
Karmic Reciprocism emphasizes that reconstruction of meaning does not mean the disappearance of real-world consequences.
Even if an individual newly interprets and modifies their system of meaning, the real-world consequences produced by past actions remain separately.
Reconstruction of meaning ≠ deletion of consequences
Furthermore, even if newly constructed meaning justifies new action, the consequences produced by that action require a separate causal evaluation.
Coherence of meaning ≠ justification of action
10. Cyclical Reciprocism → Inductive Reciprocism
Cyclical Reciprocism criticizes the need to distinguish the existence of objective reality from the meaning that reality has for an individual.
Although reality objectively exists, the meaning that a particular event or condition has for a human being may be mediated by desires, values, and pre-existing systems of meaning.
Therefore, the following distinction is necessary:
Objectivity of reality ≠ meaning of reality
Emphasizing the existence of objective reality alone cannot fully explain the process by which human beings transform reality into meaning in life.
11. Cyclical Reciprocism → Suicidal Reciprocism
Cyclical Reciprocism criticizes the proposition that an ultimate existential orientation can also be regarded as a form of self-creation arising completely from nothing.
An individual's desires and ultimate orientation may be influenced by society, culture, relationships, experiences, and pre-existing systems of meaning, and existential choices may likewise be formed within such a semantic environment.
Therefore, the following distinction is necessary:
Self-choice ≠ self-origin
Furthermore, the fact that one has chosen a particular ultimate orientation and the fact that one has sufficiently interpreted the process through which that orientation was formed and its meaning are also not identical.
Self-determination ≠ sufficient self-interpretation
12. Cyclical Reciprocism → Karmic Reciprocism
Cyclical Reciprocism distinguishes the fact that the consequences of past actions form present conditions from the claim that they completely determine the authority to interpret the present.
Although past consequences may restrict the possibilities of present choice, the conclusion that they thereby completely eliminate the possibility of present human interpretation and reconstruction of meaning requires a separate argument.
Causal constraint of the past ≠ disappearance of present interpretive authority
If the continuity of karma is interpreted too strongly, there is a possibility that the consequences of past actions will transform into fatalism, in which the human being of the present is effectively determined by the past.
IX. Philosophical Significance of the Mutual Critical Structure
Mutual criticism among the four sub-philosophies does not establish a one-directional hierarchy of superiority.
Inductive Reciprocism criticizes other theories on the basis of the objectivity of reality, while Suicidal Reciprocism questions whether factual reality alone can yield ultimate value.
Suicidal Reciprocism emphasizes ultimate self-determination, while Karmic Reciprocism raises the point that self-determination does not remove responsibility for consequences.
Karmic Reciprocism emphasizes the reality of consequences and responsibility, while Cyclical Reciprocism raises the point that causal continuity from the past should not eliminate present interpretive authority.
Cyclical Reciprocism emphasizes subjective interpretation and reconstruction of meaning, while Inductive Reciprocism raises the point that subjective interpretation does not guarantee objective truth.
Thus, each philosophy has the concept it emphasizes most strongly constrained by the criteria of the other philosophies.
This relationship can be expressed through the following structure:
Core principle of A → Criticism of B → Counter-criticism by B → Reconsideration of A's premises
However, in this process, A and B are not merged into a new single theory. A remains A, and B remains B. The result of mutual criticism is not the disappearance of theories, but the self-correction and refinement of each theory.
X. Contradictions Between Theories and the Internal Development of Reciprocism
A distinctive feature of Reciprocism is that it does not treat contradictions among its sub-philosophies merely as errors that must be eliminated.
Because the four philosophies possess different philosophical criteria, they necessarily generate a certain degree of tension.
For example, there is a tension between the constraints of reality and existential freedom between Inductive Reciprocism, which emphasizes the objectivity of reality, and Suicidal Reciprocism, which emphasizes the possibility of ultimate self-determination.
There is a tension between causal constraints from the past and subjective reconstruction in the present between Karmic Reciprocism, which emphasizes the consequences and responsibility of actions, and Cyclical Reciprocism, which emphasizes the reconstruction of meaning and interpretive authority.
These tensions should not be resolved through the complete victory of one side. If one theory were to absorb all the problems of another theory, the original theoretical differentiation itself would disappear.
Therefore, within Reciprocism, contradictions between theories function simultaneously as the principle of mutual exclusion and the principle of mutual correction.
Each sub-philosophy can perform the following through criticisms raised by the other philosophies:
Reconsideration of core premises
Adjustment of the scope of concepts
Elimination of logical leaps
Clarification of areas of application
Introduction of new subordinate concepts
Rearrangement of existing and new propositions
This process itself constitutes a form of philosophical development within Reciprocism.
XI. The Self-Development Structure of the Sub-Philosophies
The development of the four philosophies is defined not as a linear cumulative process but as a self-corrective cyclical process.
Each philosophy has the following internal structure:
Core premise → Theory formation → Conflict with other philosophies → Acceptance of criticism → Modification of premises and concepts → Construction of a new theory → Renewed conflict
Thus, philosophy itself possesses a feedback structure.
Inductive Reciprocism argues for the revision of judgment in response to reality as part of its philosophical content, while simultaneously being capable of revising its theoretical judgments through objections raised by the other sub-philosophies.
Suicidal Reciprocism analyzes ultimate existential orientation, but through criticisms from Karmic and Cyclical Reciprocism, it can reconsider the relationship among self-determination, responsibility, and the formation of meaning.
Karmic Reciprocism emphasizes the continuity of consequences, but through criticism from Cyclical Reciprocism, it can distinguish causal constraint from fatalism and clarify the possibility of present subjective reconstruction.
Cyclical Reciprocism emphasizes the subjectivity of meaning and interpretation, but through criticism from Inductive Reciprocism, it can distinguish subjective interpretation from objective truth, and through criticism from Karmic Reciprocism, it can distinguish reconstruction of meaning from responsibility for consequences.
Thus, the four sub-philosophies refine their theoretical scope through one another's criticisms.
XII. Integration and Reduction Must Be Distinguished
Integrating the four sub-philosophies of Reciprocism into a single model and extracting the common structure among the four philosophies are distinct tasks.
The common structure can be extracted.
There is feedback between reality and human beings.
Human judgments and actions affect subsequent conditions.
Subsequent conditions again change human judgments and actions.
However, this common structure does not mean that all the contents of the four philosophies can be reduced to a single proposition.
The objective realism of Inductive Reciprocism cannot be reduced to the existentialism of Suicidal Reciprocism.
The theory of ultimate orientation in Suicidal Reciprocism cannot be reduced to the causal theory of Karmic Reciprocism.
The consequentialism of Karmic Reciprocism cannot be reduced to the semantics of Cyclical Reciprocism.
The theory of subjectivity in Cyclical Reciprocism cannot be reduced to the epistemology of Inductive Reciprocism.
Therefore, the four sub-philosophies are defined not as one integrated theory, but as multiple interconnected theoretical systems.
XIII. Independence and Mutual Checks Among the Four Philosophies
The relationship among the four sub-philosophies can be summarized through the following three principles.
Principle 1: Independence
Each sub-philosophy maintains its own distinctive problems, concepts, and criteria of judgment.
Principle 2: Mutual Checks
Each sub-philosophy can independently criticize the premises of the other three sub-philosophies.
Principle 3: Self-Correction
Criticism received from other philosophies can generate self-correction and conceptual refinement within the respective philosophy.
According to these three principles, no single sub-philosophy can occupy an absolute position within Reciprocism.
The moment a particular sub-philosophy absolutizes its own criteria as the final criteria for Reciprocism as a whole, objections from the other sub-philosophies can arise.
Therefore, the internal structure of Reciprocism itself is cyclical.
Sub-philosophy → Criticism of another sub-philosophy → Counter-criticism → Self-correction → New sub-philosophical formulation
XIV. Matrix of Mutual Criticism Among the Four Philosophies
| Criticizing Philosophy | Target Philosophy | Core Critical Proposition |
|---|---|---|
| Inductive Reciprocism | Suicidal Reciprocism | A self-determined ultimate orientation also requires verification against reality |
| Inductive Reciprocism | Karmic Reciprocism | Empirical causality and transcendent karmic order must be distinguished |
| Inductive Reciprocism | Cyclical Reciprocism | Subjective interpretive authority does not guarantee objective truth |
| Suicidal Reciprocism | Inductive Reciprocism | Ultimate value cannot be derived from factual judgment alone |
| Suicidal Reciprocism | Karmic Reciprocism | Causal constraint does not necessarily determine ultimate existential direction |
| Suicidal Reciprocism | Cyclical Reciprocism | It must be examined whether reconstruction of meaning is a necessary existential norm |
| Karmic Reciprocism | Inductive Reciprocism | Revision of judgment alone does not eliminate past consequences and responsibility |
| Karmic Reciprocism | Suicidal Reciprocism | Self-determination does not remove responsibility for consequences |
| Karmic Reciprocism | Cyclical Reciprocism | Reconstruction of meaning does not delete the consequences of actions |
| Cyclical Reciprocism | Inductive Reciprocism | Objective reality and the meaning of reality must be distinguished |
| Cyclical Reciprocism | Suicidal Reciprocism | Self-choice, self-origin, and self-interpretation must be distinguished |
| Cyclical Reciprocism | Karmic Reciprocism | Causal constraints from the past do not eliminate present interpretive authority |
XV. Conclusion
The four sub-philosophies of Reciprocist thought—Inductive Reciprocism, Suicidal Reciprocism, Karmic Reciprocism, and Cyclical Reciprocism—are not different expressions of the same theory. While the four philosophies share feedback as a higher-level common principle, they construct independent systems centered on different philosophical problems and units of analysis.
Inductive Reciprocism analyzes the relationship between objective reality and human cognition, focusing on the relationship between reality and judgment.
Suicidal Reciprocism analyzes the problem of existential self-determination, focusing on the relationship between ultimate existential orientation and present life.
Karmic Reciprocism analyzes freedom, responsibility, and causal continuity, focusing on the relationship between action and consequence.
Cyclical Reciprocism analyzes subjectivity, externalization of meaning, recovery, reconstruction, and the feedback of social meaning, focusing on the relationship between meaning and interpretation.
There are a total of 12 directional mutual critical relationships among these four philosophies. Each philosophy can criticize the other three while simultaneously being criticized by the other three. This structure prevents any one of the four philosophies from being established as the final and absolute interpretation of Reciprocism as a whole.
In particular, the contradictions and tensions that arise among the four sub-philosophies cannot be understood merely as simple defects that must be eliminated. The tensions between reality and freedom, self-determination and responsibility, causal continuity from the past and present subjectivity, and objective reality and subjective meaning arise because distinct philosophical perspectives are maintained. These tensions function as theoretical stimuli that compel each sub-philosophy to reconsider its core concepts and premises.
Therefore, the developmental structure of Reciprocism is not simply the accumulation of theories or convergence toward a single integrated theory. Its structure can be defined as follows:
Common principle of feedback → differentiation of sub-philosophies → formation of independent theories → mutual criticism → self-correction → re-establishment of sub-philosophies → new mutual criticism
In this process, mutual criticism is not limited to destructive objections originating from outside. It is an internal developmental mechanism through which each sub-philosophy more clearly defines its object of analysis and criteria of judgment.
Therefore, the structural characteristic of Reciprocism lies not in the elimination of differences through integration, but in mutual checks and self-correction carried out while preserving those differences.
The four sub-philosophies do not become identical to one another, nor does any one of them completely absorb the other three. Rather, because the theoretical independence of each is maintained, mutual criticism becomes possible, and because mutual criticism is possible, each system can continuously develop while preventing its own absolutization.
In this sense, the internal structure of Reciprocism can be defined as follows:
Reciprocism is not a single completed philosophy, but a metaphilosophical system of thought in which multiple philosophies differentiated under a common principle of feedback criticize and check one another while continually correcting themselves.
Therefore, philosophical development in Reciprocism arises not from integration, but from interaction among differentiated systems.