Return to Review
If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!
Doug's Pre-review Comments
Henri Louis Bergson's
- for his
Many Quantonics, quantum and Pirsigean MoQ-relevant comments
appear in this pre-review commentary.
Our pending review of William James Sidis' The Animate and
the Inanimate (AIA) mandates this review.
Reader, this book, Bergson's Creative Evolution, is
simply awesome! Mae-wan Ho told us in her book the
Rainbow and the Worm how great Henri Bergson was as both
a scientist and a philosopher. Now we can affirm her superb judgment.
Bergson, 100 years ago, without apparently knowing it, stood
both with one leg in a classical realm and another
leg in a ~quantum realm of his own intuition. His thinking and
innovations closely align those of ours here in Quantonics. His
words anticipate nearly all of Robert M. Pirsig's work.
So you may see that we, indeed, are awestruck by Henri Bergson.
If you are a biologist, or better, if you are a quantum biologist
you will find this review simply tantalizing. His descriptions
of evolution, acquired traits, mechanism, finalism, and on and
on and on will expand your own intuemes
If you are a philosopher, you will hear this great man give
philosophy enormous respect it is duewhich unfortunately,
modern 20th century science has relentlessly propagandized
as useless nonsense. So if you need to have a truly great scientist
remind you of how important your philosophical endeavors are,
this book is for you.
Bergson spends three chapters (271 pages!) building foundation
and covering most philosophical issues we know about. He lays
foundation, incredible foundation.
Then with gusto,
at chapter IV's beginning, Bergson tells us how classical perspectives
of reality suffer two great illusions:
- A classical illusion that reality is stable.
- A classical illusion that things in reality are independent.
We worked for years trying to achieve Bergson's eloquent simplicity!
And in just three short pages (topic
39 beginning, pp. 272-274) he takes us to crux. Number one
above agrees with our "Flux is crux!" which is a c¤mplementary
statement of his negative, "Reality is 'not' stable!"
His number two agrees with our convincing and inarguable refutation
of Aristotle's syllogistic
Were we to write our own parallel of Bergson's An
Introduction to Metaphysics, we would start with those
Bergson then goes on to absolutely destroy a pillar of modern
formal propositional logic. He incisively uncloaks logical
negation's innate subjectivity! We are awed by this. We are
even more awed that Western culture stubbornly and naïvely
continues its general use of formal logic as though it were globally
objective. Without knowing of our 100 year newer quantum perspectives
Bergson intuits anti-classical memes. His conclusion of negation
as subjective eliminates any general use of falsifiability.
Too it declares SOM's dichons
logically inept. To our delight, he inures a new meme, without
using our adopted name: quanton.
Bergson indirectly specifies a new quantonic meme to replace
classicism's dichon. See Bergson's topic 39, The
Idea of 'Nothing.' Carefully read its full, mind-altering
text and our comments.
- Translators' use of English language to translate Bergson's
French language text -
We assume Arthur Mitchell is an Anglo, born and raised with classical
English language tendencies and predilections. We do not know
French language. Nor do we know language translation techniques.
We may infer Mitchell's efforts were all manual and labors of
love. Today, by comparison, we would use automated language processors
to assist. Mitchell had no such 'luxury.' We sense, however,
that many of Bergson's semantics lost some of their Bergsonian
French glow in translation. Where Mitchell likely was
classically formal and innately biformal, we think Bergson was
(and most French are) less so. Simple examples are classicists'
over-zealous use of thelogos.
We sense Mitchell did this in spades, and probably altered at
least some of Bergson's semantic intent.
A shallow but cogent example is how French language offers four
versions of 'the:' le, la, l', and les. French, by comparison
offers, ce, cet, and cette for both 'this' and 'that.' In English
a 'this' or a 'that' could very easily be 'the,'
and indeed and unfortunately often is. We assume Mitchell
substituted 'the' for each.
Where French is subtle and full of nuance, English is somewhat
brutish and lacking finer sensibilities. That lingual deficit
discounts English speakers' abilities to grasp essential discernments
of quantum philosophy and science
from classical philosophy and science. (See our Quantonics'
Millennium III English Language Remediation.) Then, as we
have shown in our Jun1999QQA
on thelogos, Westerners tend to substitute 'the' far too often
for articles, possessives, et al.
Did Mitchell do that? As you can see in our QQA,
if he did, it drastically alters semantic content of any text.
If we compare T. E. Hulme's thelogos to Arthur Mitchell's we
see Hulme (Introduction to Metaphysics translator) at
6.93% and Mitchell (Creative Evolution translator) at
7.17%, so we cannot infer much from that except perhaps that
Anglo translators of French literature are somewhat consistent
in their use of 'the.' Our own sensibilities found Hulme's translation
of Bergson's An
Introduction to Metaphysics, personally less 'Victorian.'
Too, as we mention in our Jun1999QQA,
Bergson's An Introduction to Metaphysics is about philosophy,
and his Creative Evolution is about (then) advanced biological
science. We observe (based upon very limited statistics and experience)
that science and scientists vis-à-vis philosophy and philosophers
appear to favor overuse of 'the.'
14Mar2001 - Subsequent evaluation of F. L. Pogson's own thelogos
in his 1910 translation of Bergson's Time
and Free Will shows 7.27%!
- Bergson harbors (depending upon translator's impact) some
(apparent) latent classical temperaments. A major one which we
find problematic is his habit of distinguishing instinct
and intelligence as a near perfect SOM
dichotomy. Seldom he describes them as intermingling, and more
often we sense his emphasis of their classical excluded-middle
disjointness. We wish we could just say to him, "Both instinct
and intelligence are actual patterns of value and as such are
of a single class actuality. Quantum awareness is their more
quantum antecedent which expresses itself in quantons(instinct,intelligence)
with a vast spectrum of quantum
uncertainty interrelationships depending upon which branch
of reality's tree of evolution a species or subspecies resides."
We found it useful to thrust Bergson's categorical dyads (he
uses this biformal technique frequently) into two other frames:
dyad2) and quanton(dyad1,dyad2).
Having that comparison at hand, it became easier for us to assess
his semantics and intentions. If we adhere Pirsig's MoQ
modeling of reality we can view all actuality's constituents
as Static Quality Patterns of Value or SPoVs.
Explicitly in our case at hand, instinct and intelligence then
are SPoVs. In MoQ, SQ
may be exclusive, i.e., ESQ.
In that case SPoVs which are ESQ absolutely refuse to change.
In MoQ, select SQ SPoVs may experience evolute c¤mplementary
interrelationships with other SPoVs. In order for this to happen,
SPoVs may not be ESQ. Rather, they always commingle Dynamic Quality
to a greater or lesser extent. Given that brief background, you
may choose to view dichons as ESQ dyads and quantons as dyads
which commingle DQ.
Once you take that approach and ask yourself whether instinct
and intelligence naturally evolve, you may deign to conclude
that quantons more naturally model reality than do dichons. However,
it is very useful to see whether you think Bergson is thinking
of instinct and intelligence as dichonic dyads or quantonic dyads.
- Adhering classical language predilections, Bergson (or his
translator) uses singularity with extreme monistic regularity.
We know or anticipate that he will tell us of heterogeneous time.
But he uses words like intelligence, instinct, intuition, consciousness,
et al., routinely in their singular forms. This lingual habit
supports SOM's quantitative edict of one, of homogeneity, of
unilogic. Quantum reality shows us there are many qualitative:
intelligences, instincts, intuitions, consciousnesses, et al.
What we are saying is that Bergson's heterogeneity of time is
a more general intueme which carries over into nearly all reality.
SOM language reinforces our addiction to One Global Context,
i.e., SOM's box.
Our comments above, now, in retrospect, having commenced review
of Chapter IV, need some clarification. Bergson appears to have
used a technique of story-telling evolution in Creative Evolution.
In Chapter IV, beginning with Topic 39, Bergson starts a gradual
process of increased uses of plurals. It appears that he wants
us to acquire a newer lingual habit of plurality prior to introducing
his heterogeneous time intuemes.
Too, our earlier comments regarding his uses of classical constructs
appear to fit this evolutionary process. Now we can see Bergson
easily moving from classical description of philosophical issues
to more quantumesque descriptions. It takes awhile to accustom
oneself to his unannounced comtextual
transitions. To help you, reader, distinguish his classical descriptions,
we commenced insertion of bracketed terms like this: [classical],
- Bergson appears as an anthropocentric. A clear indication
of this is his frequent apparent agreement with Protagoras',
"Man is the measure of all things." Another
is his rather 'objective' allocation of "proper conceptual
intelligence" to humans, while denying it to any other members
of Earth's animal kingdom. We see his demarcations, of this sort,
as latent classical subject-object schisms. Surely, these dialectic
cuts are not compatible with new millennium rhetorical memes
of quantum cohesion.
If one thinks more carefully about Bergson's anthropocentricity,
one begins to sense that he sees intelligence as reality's ultimate
accomplishment, and that reality achieves only that accomplishment
in Homo sapiens. This view puts us right back in SOM's box, right
back in Pirsig's Church of Reason. But quantum reality and its
intrinsic flux and proemial awareness can create ascendant patterns
of Value far beyond any human comprehension! Intellect and intelligence
are but one of infinite potential flavors of pattern commingling
by sentients. Cuttlefish offer a notable Earth borne example.
Using QTMs we probably
should conclude that Homo sapiens is not an ultimate evolutionary
form, rather a lesser evolved form whose successors will achieve
vastly greater pragma. We can anticipate other Stellar and other
Galactic evolute parallels of enormous varieties of other sentience
too, many beyond our rude means to fathom (especially rude if
we use CTMs). Similarly,
we probably should conclude that quantum reality will create
unlimited manifestations of pattern interrelationship schema
superseding what we Earth-chauvinistically and anthropocentrically
- At Chapter IV's beginning Bergson implies that classical
mind is irretrievably static. We argue this is only classical
learned behavior, and not congenital. See our comments at Topic 39's very beginning
(pages 272-4). Also consider Bergson's view of mind as taking
a series of static snapshots of reality as very akin David Deutsch's
view (which he claims follows Karl Popper) in his Fabric
of Reality. Bergson, notably, goes on to efface Popper's
own "falsifiability," by demonstrating negation's innate
We see 'mind' as many commingling quantum
stages whose potential when locally enlightened by habitual
use of quantons can escape classical staticity.
If you feel that you are trapped in SOM's
box and suffer CTM
malediction, may we offer a cure? Please see our How
to Tap Into Reserve Energy. Also see our QELP
and QELR pages.
Doug - 31Dec2001.
- We expected a complete coverage of Bergson's view of heterogeneous
time here. That did not happen. However, per his title, Creative
Evolution, we did find ample coverage of Bergson's views and
his coverage of detailed philosophical and scientific issues
of evolution and its antitheses.
Expect frequent additions to this text over several years as
we re-read and ponder Bergson's issues here.
Other reviews of Bergson works include:
An Introduction to
Time and Free Will,
Matter and Memory.
Thanks for reading,
To contact Quantonics write to or call:
Suite 18 # 368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
©Quantonics, Inc., 2000-2011 Rev. 5Feb2009
PDR Created: 1Sep2000 PDR
(7Nov2000 rev - Extend comments and
(20Nov2000 rev - Finish comments and add other review links.)
(23Feb2001 rev - Correct title commentary.)
(14Mar2001 rev - Add link to pp. 272-274, topic 39 beginning.
Add Pogson thelogos metric to item 1.)
(2Jun2001 rev - Correct some typos.)
(3Jun2001 rev - Correct main link back to review page.)
(25Jun2001 rev - Add link to our Quantonics' Millennium III English
(14Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(31Dec2001 rev - Add link to How to Tap Into Reserve Energy
(17Jan2002 rev - Change all occurrences of 'complementary' to
(2Jun2002 rev - Add missing TaFW links to completed review.)
(28Jul2002 rev - Add 'Two Great Classical Illusions' anchor.)
(10Apr2006 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(14Nov2007 rev - Reformat slightly.)
(5Feb2009 rev - Change wingdings font to gif. Add link to our
QELR of 'science.' Massive respell.)
Return to Review