Recursive Creative Reconstruction

This paper develops a structural and phenomenological account of cognitive reintegration through recursive creative continuity formation. The originating observation arises from lived cognition in which small creative acts—such as arranging images, sequencing transitions, selecting music, constructing humorous narratives, combining symbols, modifying pacing, and repeatedly revising visual or conceptual structures—appeared to contribute to a much larger process of cognitive reorganisation over time. These activities were not initially experienced as formal cognitive rehabilitation or deliberate system construction. They were manageable, low-pressure forms of creative engagement. However, repeated participation created increasingly stable relationships between image, sound, timing, memory, emotion, humour, identity, symbolism, and conceptual structure. The paper introduces recursive creative reconstruction as a Cognitive Branch concept describing how cognition may partially reintegrate itself through repeated creative acts that preserve enough continuity for further structure to become admissible. Under this account, creativity does not function only as expression. It can also operate as a recursive construction environment in which cognition: re-enters disrupted continuity; experiments without catastrophic consequence; stabilises local relationships; preserves successful structures; introduces bounded variation; compresses repeated relations; and gradually develops larger navigable architectures. The paper integrates Continuity Empathy as a self-directed reconstruction method. The relevant question is not merely what a creative act produces, but: What continuity is cognition attempting to recover, protect, preserve, or extend through repeated return to this creative form? The paper examines continuity recovery, play, iterative layering, symbolic recombination, emotional organisation, narrative continuity, external creative artefacts, recursive compression, self-recognition, conceptual architecture, perfection pressure, overload, and the transition from fragmented experimentation to large-scale cognitive integration. It does not propose a neuroscientific mechanism, clinical treatment, or universal theory of creativity. Its contribution is structural, developmental, philosophical, and phenomenological. Its central proposition is: Recursive creativity may support cognitive reintegration when each low-stakes iteration preserves enough continuity for the next layer of structure to become admissible.