(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.)
(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)
school tries, in fact, to reduce relations of extensity
to more or less complex
(Our links, brackets, bold, color, violet bold problematics, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Bergson restarts his footnote counts on each page. So to refer a footnote, one must state page number and footnote number.
Our bold and color highlights follow a code:
Reader, comsider that in quantum reality, time is a quantum flux intueme and it comes in countless flavors whose bases appear quatrotomous:
Latter (mixcoherent time) probably most closely, in Quantonics' semantics, corresponds Bergson's "unalloyed" time. His "unalloyed" time allows any nowings to animately and heterogeneously c¤mpenetrate via quantum c¤mplementary included-middle-duration both pastings and futurings.
"Nor need it forget its former states..." But reader, does not classical homogeneous spatial separability (see lisr) and excluded-middle require this? Explain to us how those classical axioms do not require us to forget and not experience Bergsonian duration. Comsider whistling as a modeling of "thinking being directly" for your answers.
Also, compare Bergson's "...set them alongside..." juxtaposed Hermann Hesse's Nobel prize-winning, The Glass Bead Game. Now dear reader, ponder, in your own personal view, whether we are omni[di]scussing quantum~stochastics (PNFings) here? Quantum~ensembles of quantized~notes of process~durable EIMA quiescence? Now fathom temporal (spatial, material (massive), and gravitational) cohera and entropa quantum~stochasticings processings' ensemblings!
Bergson's "melting notes" offers a most perspicuous sense of quantum reality's included-middle! Bergson's duration cann¤t abide Aristotle's excluded-middle!
|101||"The proof is that, if we interrupt the rhythm by dwelling longer than is right on one note of the tune, it is not its exaggerated length, as length, which will warn us of our mistake, but the qualitative change thereby caused in the whole of the musical phrase. We can [probably should] thus conceive of succession without [classical lisr-analytic-, quantitative-] distinction, and think of it as a mutual [included-middle] penetration [i.e., quantum qualitative thought on our quantum stages], an interconnexion and organization of elements, each one of which represents the whole, and cannot be distinguished or isolated from it except by abstract [excluded-middle, classical] thought. Such is the account of duration which would be given by a [quantum] being who was ever the same and ever changing, and who had no idea of space. But, familiar with the latter idea and indeed beset by it, we introduce it unwittingly into our feeling of pure succession; we set [juxtapose] our states of consciousness side by side [stopped and classically stabilized] in such a way as to perceive them simultaneously, no longer in one another [i.e., no longer quantum real], but alongside one another; in a word, [classically] we project time into space, [classically] we [as did Einstein in his special and general theories] express duration in terms of extensity, and succession thus takes the form of a [classically global] continuous line or a chain, the parts of which touch [lisr-analytically] without penetrating one another. Note that the mental image thus shaped implies the perception, no longer successive, but simultaneous, of a before and after [and a begin and end, a start and a stop, i.e., analytic demarcation of ideal classical contrived Zenoesque stoppable/restartable states], and that it would be a contradiction to suppose a succession which was only a succession, and which nevertheless was contained in one and the same instant."||
(Our links, brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
In Quantonics, "...qualitative change..." is quantum change.
Reader, please ponder an alternate hermeneutic for Bergson's "succession without distinction:" nonclassical reality! Classical reality is state-ic. Quantum reality is phase-ic. Quantum 'numbers' count unstoppable (i.e., durational) animate phases; they do n¤t as most classicists presume count collapsible, stoppable classical states!
Classical 'education' teaches our children not to account for duration as quantum beings! Classical language keeps us in this (Pirsig's) detending "church of reason."
Reader, if you want to understand how Einstein really blew it with his Special and General Relativities, try imagining all of us as a blind race absent any abilities to sense and measure light. Assume we can hear (or some sound-sensing analogue) and measure sound. Assume that you can hear a clock's time (vis-à-vis visually watching it as you recede from it: Einstein, at light speed; you at sound speed). Now redo SR and GR. What conclusions do you reach? Also consider sound in an ideal classical vacuum. Are your conclusions real? Now repeat with tachyons, etc.
And that is just what classicists want to call quantum reality, "a contradiction." Bergson shows us a genuine classical contradiction arises in classical thought when one assumes reality is unitemporally static and stoppable. (Here, "contradiction" is a classical idea, a classical concept. In quantum reality there are n¤ contradictions! Why? We can comtrive any comtext we wish, and use it to predicate, deny, and mu any meme. To a classical mind, at first blush, this sounds entirely absurd. However, fathomed in a less shallow way, one begins to see quantum light. Our best analogy here is to anticipate how classicists will react when they first see Millennium III quantum technology innovations: "Impossible!" )
|102||"Now, when we speak of an order of succession in duration, and of the reversibility of this order, is the succession we are dealing with pure [quantum mixcoherent] succession, such as we have just defined it, without any admixture of extensity, or is it succession developing [classically] in space, in such a way that we can take in at once a number of elements which are both distinct and set side by side? There is no doubt about the answer: we could not introduce order among terms without first [classically] distinguishing them and then comparing the places which they occupy; hence we must perceive them as multiple, simultaneous and distinct; in a word, we set them side by side, and if we introduce an order in what is successive, the reason is that succession is converted into simultaneity and is projected into space. In short, when the movement of my finger along a surface or a line provides me with a series of sensations of different qualities, one of two things happens: either I [quantumly] picture these sensations to myself as in duration only, and in that case they succeed one another in such a way that I cannot at a given moment perceive a number of them as simultaneous and yet distinct; or else I [classically] make out an order of succession, but in that case I display the faculty not only of perceiving a succession of elements, but also of setting them out in line after having distinguished them: in a word, I already possess the idea of space. Hence the idea of a reversible series in duration, or even simply of a certain order of succession in time, itself implies the representation of space, and cannot be used to define it."||
(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Bergson says we have two choices in how we perceive reality: either classically or quantumly. (Actually, we agree with Pirsig. Reality is a quanton(DQ,SQ). Bergson describes our choices as a classical either/or which we can show like this: dichon(DQ, SQ). Pirsig refers latter as a "platypus." What is notable in our comparison of quanton and dichon is Pirsig's intuitive quantonic (former script example) balance of both animacy (DQ) and inanimacy (SQ), with their middles quantum-included. Latter classical (script example) mandates an excluded-middle.)
|103||"To give this argument a stricter
form, let us imagine a straight line
of unlimited length, and on
(Our link, brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Parents! Your children are still being taught this classical HyperBoole today! Do you want to support, pay for, and allow your children to attend an education system which is still entrapped in classical Aristotelian and Newtonian legacies? Doug - 15Mar2001.
Following comments are VERY important!
Reader, we do n¤t agree with Bergson's statement here. Can you see his own classical either/or dichon, his own Pirsigean platypus? He tells us reality offers us either pure duration or analytical space. (Bergson's use of a classical knife to do schismatic, either/or cutting of reality here explains our conundrum of his excluded-middle either/or off/on intellectual sympathy which he described in his An Introduction to Metaphysics (see p. 69 there and browser search for 'intellectual sympathy'), and which we diagramed in our 2000 News (big page!).) That contrived platypusean reality is a:
That dichon is n¤n-quantonic! It shows SOM's "comma-space wall" classically separating pure quantum duration from classical analytical space. It is roughly equivalent to an ugly dichonic perversion of Pirsigean MoQ like this:
"What does that mean, Doug?" It means that Pirsig's absolutely animate DQ has been made classically inanimate, by trapping it inside SOM's dichonic, analytic "Church of Reason." Yes reader, that is a perversion, like Jabba the Hut's solidification of Han Solo in Star Wars.
Quantum reality is n¤t an inanimate, SOMitic, classically formal, excluded-middle, dichonic, either/or reality.
Quantum reality is an absolutely animate, MoQitic, emerqant, included-middle, quantonic, both/while/and reality!
Bergson's comments here appear to lack concord with his many other statements elsewhere on Nature's intrinsics of fusion, interpenetration, and permeation.
Throughout his An Introduction to Metaphysics, his Creative Evolution, and his Time and Free Will, Bergson describes prolifically his own intuemes of fusion, interpenetration, and permeation of natural duration's "sympathizing" of both homogeneous and heterogeneous reality (e.g., "...notes in notes..."). Too, his own definitions of duration imply (at least to us, they do) that his quantumesque meme of duration depends upon quantum included-middle memes of "fusion, coinsidence, interpenetration, and permeation."
(Note to readers: we are currently also reviewing Clifford Geertz' Available Light, 2000, PUP.)
If we transcribe Pirsig's sentence using Bergsonese we have,
Notice how, transcribed in Bergsonese, Pirsig's sentence c¤mplementarily inverts (comjugates) Bergson's meme of animate/pure duration from heterogeneous to homogeneous. Too, our transcription similarly inverts Bergson's meme of spatial duration from homogeneous to a heterogeneous plurality of homogeneities!
We are profoundly amazed at this apparent philosophical conundrum of perspective!
But, dear reader, it is a TELL! It is a quantum tell!
Persist and yee shall see fruit borne of this marvelous Bergsonian/Pirsigean quantum soluble paralogism.
Also notice how Pirsig uses a classically objective "not" to place SOM's wall solidly twixt homogeneous (monistic) and heterogeneous (pluralistic). He appears to say to us that reality is either monistic or pluralistic; i.e., dichon(heterogeneous, homogeneous). Just as Bergson apparently did, Pirsig appears to pervert his own Quality as a dichon(DQ, SQ)!
As we can see, when anyone uses English language, it becomes very difficult to escape SOM's Church of Reason! It may be obvious too that is why Quantonics is developing a n¤vel, more animate, language and semiotics for Millennium III!
We find it quite extraordinary that both gentlemen make this apparent philosophical mistake! Especially since Bergson has made such an issue of classical negation as subjective. (Bergson's either/or is an implied classical dichotomy which further demands classical negation or an objective 'not' twixt his pure duration and his spatial duration.)
We appear to stand almost alone on this philosophical issue. William James in his Some Problems of Philosophy appears to perceive a classical either/or here too, and Dr. Irving Stein of Merritt College, Oakland, CA-USA, in his The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, sees his nonspace (heterogeneity) and space (homogeneity) as bistable classical either/or states too!
All these positions appear to us as classical philosophical detritus, dregs of classical legacy language and thing-king (CTMs).
We will look for Bergson, James, Pirsig and Stein examples which illustrate their apparent philosophical dyslexia, and show them here. Mean time, for fun, you will learn much if you search our site and their texts for your own examples.
We offer serious students a Quantonic explanation of our comments and observations above...
Reader, you may also see some other major difficulties arising from our transcription above of Pirsig's postcard sentence in Bergsonese. Consider this classically apparent lack of concord:
"Doug," you say, "How can that be? You adhere both of their philosophies, metaphysics, and sciences with few exceptions. You admire both philosophers enormously. Yet they both arrive at c¤mplementary positions using very similar philosophical modes of think-king!"
Well reader, quantum reality says they are both right!
Our simplest way to show this (yet still n¤t easy to grasp) is using quantons.
We can say Quantonically, both:
If we arbitrarily choose to view any left side of a quanton as Quantonic n¤nactuality and any right side as Quantonic actuality, then our above semiotics say both:
This agrees well with a quantum philosophy of reality, which says that:
Realityquanton(n¤nactuality,actuality), and that we can represent both n¤nactuality and actuality as quantum c¤mplementary both/and comjugates, i.e., both:
What we see now is that quantum n¤nactuality has a heterogeneous nature omnifferent quantum actuality's heterogeneous nature. Similarly, quantum n¤nactuality has a homogeneous nature different from quantum actuality's homogeneous nature. Let's list them:
Folks, these four major bullets are a superb grammatical depiction of quantum reality as we in Quantonics know it today! If you want to know general philosophical quantum reality, memorize and understand these four bullets! And package them thus:
Mimicking Bergson we might say, "Generally, there are at least two 'kinds' of quantum heterogeneity and homogeneity." Further we would say, remembering points made in our opening paragraph above, that as quantum beings we do n¤t live in just one (a subdomain of our last bullet) of those quantum islandic domains as SOMites would have us believe. Rather we live in all of them, together, in quantum c¤mplementarity, simultaneously!
We can now distill all this to quantum comjugate c¤mplementary sentences, both:
It is worth your while to do some think-king about distillation one above. It will help to view how SOM made its large philosophical mistake of OGT in OGC! Similarly, it helps to see how CR made a progressive but largely incomplete philosophical mistake of MRTs in OGC.
SOMites see their own one local island's context as reality and bootstrap (e.g., Peano's modular induction) its specific, local concepts and ideas to full blown generality. They declare their own local truths "the general, absolute truths." Absolute static dogma reigns in SOMland. And now we know their arrogant generalization and concomitant inquisitions fail for Good paralogical and rhetorical reasons.
CRites continued residence in SOM's OGT, but declared all truths relative to viewer perspective. CRites insist there are no absolutes! Chaos reigns in CRland.
What about MoQ? See our superb philosophical comparisons of MoQ, CR and SOM.
As Bergson might say, "And thus we see reality c¤mplements (both pure duration and spatial duration), each with c¤mplements of -geneity (both hetero- and homo-)." Trouble is, he does n¤t say this concisely as we surmise he should. Ditto Pirsig, James, and Stein.
Our Quantonic semiotics can show a simple Bergsonian
In Bergson's congenital Autiot we see quantons(Aleph,Yod). Doug - 20Mar2015.
As you may choose to perceive, there are many ways to look at this quantum meme of comjugate homogeneity and heterogeneity. During Millennium III's first century some of these issues will emerse tentative but more persistent and utile resolutions.