Our pending review of William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate (AIA) mandates this review.
Expect frequent additions to this text over several years as we re-read and ponder Bergson's issues here. They are vast, deep, and have much to do with needed changes for Millennium III.
First, we cann¤t overemphasize an importance of your immediate reading of Time and Free Will's (TaFW's) Translator Preface. F. L. Pogson captures Bergson's essence beautifully and eloquently.
If you are a diligent reader of our other Bergson reviews, you know how brilliant Henri Louis Bergson is. Rapidly he is moving to our upper echelons of durational humanity. Bergson is superb! He preceded Pirsig by 87 years and essentially Pirsig has n¤t written or said anything new and beyond Bergson's prescient works. Apparently all Pirsig has done is popularize Bergson's own philosophy, metaphysics, and science in rampant best selling novels. Yet n¤where in Pirsig's works do we see any references to Bergson! Pirsig, clearly a genius in his own right, apparently was able to develop his own philosophy, his Metaphysics of Quality independently of Bergson's works.
We cann¤t say enough good about Henri Louis Bergson. We just spent an eight month hiatus from this review (commencing a review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light which led to our reading Isaiah Berlin's Magus of the North, Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (of which we chose to go ahead and review), and perusal of William James' Varieties of Religious Experience, only to be further interrupted, as we all were, by 911 Infamy, and thence further interrupted by reviews of A Beautiful Mind (1998, Nasar), The Conscious Universe (1990, Kafatos and Nadeau), The Quantum Brain (2001, Satinover), and At the End of an Age (2002, Lukacs)), and upon return we find how enormously Bergson places most other humans in a realm of relative mediocrity. We just conjectured, this morning at breakfast, "What might have happened if early quantum scientists had read Bergson's marvelous works?" One outcome we think would have been some vastly different paradigm shifts than ones we have seen thus far, in Earth's Western cultural 20th century.
From a perspective of philosophy, we have seen Bergson's brilliance in his Creative Evolution and in his An Introduction to Metaphysics. In his CE, he offered several massive classical delusions which are of maximal import to Millennium III quantum philosophy and science:
Now, in Time and Free Will Bergson offers more classical delusions, including delusions (use TaFW's superb Index to search for Bergson's uses of specific terms below):
Mae-wan Ho, in her 1993 book, the Rainbow and the Worm, Chapter 12, interprets Bergson's percepts of his intuitive quantum~time, his intuitive quantum~reality, and compares them to his denunciations of classical conceptual time/reality like this:
Bergson bottom-lines his view of time in topic 34, page 196, like this:
"...units of time which make up living duration, and which the astronomer can [spatially] dispose of as he pleases because they give no handle to science..."
Bergson tells us that his durational time, what we call "quantum tihmings," are n¤nconceptual, n¤nanalyzable by, and give n¤ handle to CTMs and classical scientific methods. We agree.
We have tried and tried and tried to grasp time intellectually. We cannot, without putting time back into SOM's box, SOM's vicious circle.
Bergson shows us why. To classically conceptualize quantum tihmings we must turn them into space. We must accept a classical axiom that time-space is an identity, a classical identity. One way in which we do this is to look at Earth as a big wheel/ball whose equator may be classically viewed as a tire's tread.
When we roll our Earth-tire on a plane surface one full cycle from a reference point, say Greenwich's meridian, to its next occurrence, we have 'one' day. But that view of 'day' is n¤t quantumly perceived as heterogeneous quantum tihmings:
Earth time is n¤t absolute, and it is a major failing of classical science to first identify space with time, and thence to impose that monistic, hegemonous classical concept on all humanity. Classically, incorrectly, most of us who are still classicists/cultural relativists view Earth time as marks on a linear space; similarly for Earth's solar orbit. Then classicists claim this is 'the' time, the unitime for all mathematical, scientific, ontological, and philosophical reference. But it is n¤t! Time is n¤t space. Classical space is homogeneous, numerable, measurable, lisr, haltable, locally absolute, extensible, state-ic, etc. Quantum tihmings are n¤ne of those classical properties/characteristics. Tihmings are absolute flux, unstoppable, n¤nanalyzable, emerging, emerscenturing quantum flux! We cann¤t use one tire as an exemplar for quantum heterogeneous tihmings. This is n¤t perceptually, memetically easy to grasp. Why? Nearly all of us have been classically proselytized for 2.5 millennia. We have to unlearn CTMs and commence learning QTMs and their analogues.
As part of our pre-review comments, we want to show you a table of frequently used Bergson terms and compare them to semantics from other philosophical, metaphysical, scientific, and lingual sources this table is living text we shall use it as working space to evolve our local hermeneutics of Bergson's TaFW:
Simple, naïve, juxtaposition of classical objects.
Bergson's semantic for 'associationism' is analogous SOM's.
AKA Quantonic Interrelationships
Classical either/or schism
One kind of:
Subject-Object Metaphysics declares we can state-ically assess any dichon and assess absolutely its right or wrong answer/view.
Classical either/or schisms
Many kinds of:
Cultural Relativism can take any classical monistic schism and view it from unlimited, state-ic, relative points of view, none 'better' than any other.
|Determinism||Bergson says Determinism is antithetical Freedom||Stochasticity, Quantum uncertainty; animate, probabilistic ensemble "whatings happenings nextings" 'determinism'||Classical analyticity, absolute certainty; single-event "what happens next" determinism.||Classical relativity, chaos, many relative "whats happens nexts" certainties|
Bergson tells us that classicists "confuse" duration (a Bergsonian qualitative heterogeneous percept/meme) with extensity (a classical quantitative spatial concept).
|Dichon(past, future)||Dichons(pasts, futures)|
Space (a la Descartes, Kant)
Bergson uses with: Simultaneity, Succession, Quantity, Externality.
Extensity is Space. Interpreted classically, things in Extensity are side-by-side, apparently obeying Aristotle's law of excluded middle.
|Freedom||Any attempt to define Freedom leads to analytical Determinism||
Freedom is a pure analogue of Quality
Quantonics claims Freedom, AKA Quality, is reality! Reality is n¤t wholly definable (i.e., reality, due its absolute fluxing, is n¤t definite, rather reality is indefinite uncertain), but is intrinsically describable indeed, actuality is a tentative description of reality which is always and forever Planck rate quantally, incrementally becoming better.
Disallows Freedom because Freedom 'contradicts' classical analyticity which claims all 'reality' is objectively definable.
Freedom is 'subjective.' It allows individual choice.
Choice is classical analytical 'heresy.'
|Freedom is analytical choice|
|Form||See emerq.||Classical analysis-synthesis.||Plural classical analysis-synthesis.|
Fusion is an analogue of James' "compenetration," Pirsig's/Herrigel's "...we are in It and It is in us," and Quantonics' "included-middle."
All quantons are quantum included-middle fusion-capable.
Absolute classically analytic objective synthesis or Newtonian/Leibnitzian predicate integral calculus based upon Aristotle's syllogisms.
Bergson says classical analytic objects "lie side-by-side," excluded-middle incapable of quantum fusion.
|Relative objective synthesis, based upon Aristotle's syllogisms.|
Bergson tells us heterogeneity is one of two kinds of reality. Its c¤mplement is homogeneity.
Fused, included-middle multiplicity; Permeating ensemble plurality; Qualitative multiplicity; Plural intensities
Bergson tells us that classicists mistakenly interpret reality's qualitative heterogeneity as analytically homogeneous, as spatial extensity.
Many pragmalogical memes offer animate hermeneutics of quantum reality. Essentially, this is both qualitative and animate islandicity.
Pluralisms like "reasons" in SOM are "no reason." Why? Reason is objective. Thus "reasons" as a plurality is seen as subjective, and so "reasons" as a plurality is a classical negative. Simply, in SOM:
Many objective state-ic reasons offer relative views of any 'scientific' fact.
Bergson tells us homogeneity is one of two kinds of reality. Its c¤mplement is heterogeneity.
Infinitely divisible monolithicity. Bergson sees this as analytical/reducible/synthetic space/extensity.
In several topics he claims homogeneity and heterogeneity are in classically, excluded-middle either/or interrelationships with one another. See, e.g., our comments at pages' bottoms, Time and Free Will, topic 17, p.97, and topic 19, p. 103.
MoQ: Quality is in us and we are in Quality.
Quantum: C¤mplementary commingling cowithinitness of Physical Energy Space and Vacuum Energy Space.
Quantonics: quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality). Compenetration.
|Homogeneous conservative formal conpenetration; perpenduation (as a shoestring perpends a shoe, or a button perpends a button hole, a nail perpends a board, etc.).||Heterogeneous relative formal conpenetration; multitudinous architectural (radically mechanical) perpenduation.|
|Juxtaposition||"Side-by-side." A la Hesse's Glass Bead Game.||Objective placement.|
An Bergsonian analogue of duration.
Bergson shows us how classical science, by delusionally assuming its abilities to stop reality's motion temporally, "eliminates mobility from motion." From which we may infer that, "classical science eliminates duration from reality."
[Important note to our Quantonics community: this is a presumption made by John von Neumann which caused him to look for 'collapse' of quantum wave functions. Bergson explains why quantum wave functions do n¤t n¤r cann¤t 'collapse.' ]
In Quantonics, we say that "Classical science concepts are unreal." And, "Classical science's deign of feign is to 'cleigm' classical models of reality are real."
MoQ: Dynamic Quality.
Quantum: Absolute flux.
Quantonics: Relentlessly animate quantons.
Unitemporal [classical] analytically stoppable motion.
No concept of absolute mobility. No percept of duration.
Polytemporal [classical] analytically stoppable motion.
No concept of absolute mobility. No percept of duration.
|Objective, analytically reducible/divisible (to multiplicity) conservative monolith, synthetically integrable/constructible (from multiplicity) conservative monolith, multitudinous particulate multiplicity, in a single monolithic context, governed by pre-existing discoverable absolute truth||A multiplicity of SOM contexts, all relative to one another.|
|Necessity||See our QQA on cause-effect.||AKA classical cause-effect||AKA classical causes-effects|
Coinsidence, included-middle, compenetration, quantum superposition, quantum c¤mplementati¤n, etc.
|Conservative objective membranous osmosis||Relative objective membranous osmosis|
|Quality||Bergson tells us that classicists "confuse" quality (a durational percept/meme) with quantity (a classical concept). Classical attempts to quantify reality destroys reality's much more potent and valuable qualities.||
Any classical, analytic attempts to wholly define Quality state-ically latches it, thus any static definition of Quality has lost its Quality (i.e., lost its quantum animacy, lost quantum realities' imperatives for absolute change). See Bergson's Freedom.
Synonyms: Quantum vacuum, VES, QVF, Pirsigean Reality, Good, Value, Steinian nonspace, Quantonic nonactuality, etc.
In Quantonics, quality is quantum superposition-, included-middle-, animate-, everywhere-associative-, n¤nl¤cally-extended in quantum isoflux. By n¤nl¤cally-extended in quantum isoflux we intend quantum arbitrary probability distribution of m, l, t, g, etc., quantum flux memes.
In SOM, quality is Subjective, Dialectically worthless.
In SOM, quality is unextended, and unextensible.
|In CR, quality is Subjective, Relativistically worthless.|
Bergson sees our classical predilections to quantify quality as misguided.
He dislikes human's apparently innate need to abstractly and intellectually map complex and plural quality onto simple and singular quantity.
Bergson blames 'science' and 'mathematics' and 'geometry' for our naive attempts to oversimplify reality.
In Quantonics we deny quantification of reality as real.
To us, reality is qualitative, not quantitative. Quantity is only a classical apparition based upon malperceived classically both stated and unstated presumptions.
We deny any reality of induction arising from counting.
We deny any quantitative reality as logically separate from qualitative reality.
In SOM, quantity is Objective, Monolithic, Classically homogeneous, Dialectically supreme.
In SOM, quantity is num[b]erably/numerically extended in space.
Quantity is a symbolic counting abstraction. However, classicists view measurable, material 'quantity' as real, and thence begins their long and arduous separation from quantum reality.
Classicists elevate quantity over quality and thus elevate truth over value.
See Peano's axioms.
Quantity per se is ESQ.
|In CR, quantity is Objective, Multiplicate, Classically heterogeneous, Relativistically supreme|
Bergson uses 'simultaneity' with: Extensity, Succession
He tells us that classicists "confuse" succession (a durational percept/meme) with simultaneity (a classical analytic concept).
Essentially [classical] simultaneity, to Bergson, is temporal immobility. Just as homogeneous space immobilizes immutable matter, homogeneous time is 'deterministically' stoppable by classicists who wish to do so. And worse, classical mathematics supports both material immobility and temporal stoppability.
To Bergson, [classical] simultaneity denies real duration, real mobility. We agree.
A close metaphor/analogue of 'simultaneity' is classical 'identity.'
|Where classical 'simultaneity' is Bergsonian immobilizable 'state-icity,' quantum simultaneity is Bergsonian absolutely mobile-durational and animate phase-icity.||Homogeneous classical immobility.||Heterogeneous classical immobilities.|
|Space||To Bergson, classical concepts of space are problematic.||In Quantonics, Spaces (~spacings) are qualities, definable in terms of absolute quantum flux. Spacings are animately heterogeneous. Spaces' middles are included in all reality (Spaces compenetrate all reality.). Quality is quantum superposition-, included-middle-, animate-, everywhere-associative-, n¤nlocally-extended in quantum isoflux. By n¤nl¤cally-extended in quantum isoflux we intend quantum arbitrary probability distribution of m, l, t, g, etc., quantum flux memes.||In SOM, Space is a measurable (non-definable) quantity. Space is state-ically homogeneous. Space is a numerable extensibility. Space is excluded from its contents. Quantity is numerically extended in classical space.||In CR, Spaces are measurable (non-definable) quantities. Spaces are state-ically heterogeneous. Space is a numerable extensibility. Space is excluded from its contents. Quantity is numerically extended in classical space.|
Bergson uses with: Numerability, Extensity, Simultaneity.
To Bergson, classical concepts of numerable, separable, stoppable states of succession are problematic.
To Bergson, "Succession without distinction" is Interpenetration.
In Quantonics, quantum evolution is intrinsically emergent. Quantons are emerscents. Quantum emergence is "Succession without analytical distinction."
Quantum reality emerges.
In SOM, analyticity absolutely guarantees "Succession with distinction."
Classical reality is predicate.
In CR, analyticity absolutely guarantees "Successions with relative distinctions."
Relative reality predicates.
|Time||To Bergson, classical concepts of time are problematic.||In Quantonics, Times (~tihmings) are qualities, definable in terms of absolute quantum flux. Times are heterogeneous. Times middles are included in all reality (Times compenetrate all reality.).||In SOM, Time is a measurable (non-definable) quantity. Time is homogeneous. Time is spatially extensible and thus numerable. Time is an independent, unilogical quantity. All measurement events may be described in terms of one absolute time standard.|
As in our other prereviews we want to list some other Bergsonian problematics:
Our profound thanks to Dan Glover for exposing Quantos to a meme of real animacy as a linguistic 'ing.' As he so eloquently told our Quanto List members (paraphrased), "We cannot model reality, we are modeling reality." Reality isn't a classically stoppable 'been,' rather reality is a quantum 'be-ing.' Quantum reality has n¤t been classically creat-'ed,' rather it is quantally creat-'ing' itself! Long ago on TLS, Dan also broached the's linguistic tiredness, from which we developed our meme of thelogos. Thanks again, Dan. Watch for his new book announcement on our top page. Dan is using our MoQ architecture diagram (a classical, static view of MoQ) in his new textbook.) Doug - 22Mar2001.
We will add more here as we continue our post-review efforts on TaFW.
Thanks for reading,
Doug - 3Jun2002.
Other reviews of Bergson works include:
Matter and Memory, and (orig. 1896)
Time and Free Will (you are reading our prereview of it now), (orig. 1889, tr. 1910)
An Introduction to Metaphysics, (orig. 1903)
Creative Evolution. (orig. 1907, tr. 1910)
Thanks for reading,
Independence - We want to add, here, what some implications of this classical 'independence' delusion are. To do so, we are making a c¤mplementary assumption that 'objects' are quantumly n¤t 'independent' of one another:
As we can see, any classical notion of 'objective independence,' as Bergson shows us, is a delusion one of many, n¤, countless, classical delusions.
'Independence' note added 11-12Jun2002 - Doug.
Motion Occupies Space
- If classical motion occupies space, would n¤t classical
objects which occupy space be motion? Rather,
classicists say objects can be in motion, they do 'not'
say objects are motion itself. Also, classicists assume objects
may have 'zero' motion/momentum. In that case do we infer that
classical objects are 'not' motion itself or 'not' in motion
itself? Bergson unravels this classical problematic by showing
us that classicists calculate motion/velocity as space/space where
they deny qualitative durational time and impose quantitative
analytic space as a time proxy 'identity.' Here we see Einstein's
own delusional space-time 'identity.' (Try this same descriptive
process on time, above, after asserting, classically that, "time
We want to tell our readers here, that we agree with Bergson that science's largest problematic interjects via its space/space concept, its mandate of a radically mechanical space-time identity. In quantum reality mechanical space is n¤t time and time is n¤t mechanical space.What is absent is a quantum analogue of real n¤nmechanical, durational, included-middle, animate, heterogeneous tihmings. But Bergson worries that is perhaps n¤t possible to achieve. His inference, as we interpret it, is that time is n¤nconceptual/n¤nmechanical (like Pirsig's DQ). If that is so, then there is n¤ mechanical proxy for time; indeed, we can have n¤ mechanical proxy for time. There is n¤ classical, radically mechanical space-time identity!
Shades of David Bohm:
"The fact that quantum systems cannot be regarded as made up of separate parts working together according to causal laws means that we are now led to a fundamental change in our general methods of description of nature...In a system whose behavior depends critically on the transfer of a few quanta, however, the separation of the world into parts (for instance, wave or particle) depends on factors that cannot be ascribed uniquely to either part, and are not even subject to complete control or prediction...The underlying structure of matter...is not mechanical...This means that the term 'quantum mechanics' is very much of a misnomer. It should, perhaps, be called quantum nonmechanics...We have seen that the classical [radically mechanistic] concepts of continuity, causality, and analysis of the world into distinct parts are all necessary for each other's consistency; foregoing any one of them leads to the necessity of giving up all...The entire system of classical concepts must, therefore, be replaced by a totally new system...The expression of the new quantum concepts is beset with severe difficulties, because much of our customary language and thinking is predicated on the tacit assumption that classical concepts are substantially correct...We anticipate that new ways of using language may ultimately be developed...To avoid wrong interpretations of the quantum theory, arising from difficulties in the language, the reader should grasp the theory in terms of a whole new system of [n¤nmechanical-]concepts..."
From pages 167-8, Chapter 8, Sec. 26, Quantum Theory, by David Bohm, Dover paperbound, 1951, 1989. Our brackets, ellipses, bold, color and italics. Could we, we would substitute percept for all occurrences of Bohm's use of 'concept.' Too, we would remove his thelogos while substituting qualogos.
Our ellipses, above in our quote of Bohm's ½ century old prescient words, intentionally skip/avoid Bohm's legacy reverence of some classical ideas. Our view is that reverence is now unjustified. Why? Because, in Quantonics, "...the classical [radically mechanistic] concepts of continuity, causality, and analysis of the world into distinct parts..." have, in general, failed! In Quantonics we demonstrate and describe their failure, in quantum reality's larger realm, over and over and over. Bergson's Time and Free Will, which we are reviewing here, provides superb adjunct demonstrations and descriptions of classical conceptual failures recognized by Bergson 113 years ago near an ending of a pre-quantum mechanical age.