(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.)
(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)
|"Perhaps the difficulty of
the problem lies chiefly in the fact that we call by the same
picture to ourselves in the same way, intensities which are very different in nature, e.g. the
(Our bold, color, links, 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:
intensity ought to be more easily definable
in these simple cases, where no extensive element seems to be
involved. We shall see, in fact, that it is reducible here to
a certain quality or shade
which spreads [spreading] over [compenetrating] a more or less
considerable mass of psychic states, or, if the expression
be preferred, to the larger or smaller number of simple states which make up the fundamental
"For example, an obscure desire gradually becomes a deep passion. Now, you will see that the feeble intensity of this desire consisted at first
(Our brackets, bold, color, links, and violet bold italic problematics.)
See our English language problematic 'define.' Pirsig tells us, and we agree, that DQ ("pure intensity") is partially describable in terms of n¤n-Bohrian "exclusive" SQ, and those descriptions are always agents of their own change and evolution toward better. Thus, as students of Quantonics, we must assume that "pure intensity ought [n¤t] be more easily [classically] definable."
In place of Bergson's 'states' here, we would superp¤se our isoconic quantum stages heuristic.
Bergson's "a certain quality or shade" corresponds in Quantonics to quantum both coherent and decoherent phase-icity of an animate aggregation (locally autonomous ~island) of quantons shaded by their ubiquitous comjugal quantum isoflux c¤mplement, which Bergson sees as our (all reality's) source of instinct.
So we can say here that when Bergson uses "intensity," we intend, in our more modern quantonic lingo, that he speaks of narrow bandwidths of compenetrating quantum qualitative flux. We may show that in any one of these ways:
That will be our assumption henceforth.
Similarly, when Bergson uses "extensity," our hermeneutic is that he is speaking in classical language of a classically objective, spatial, quantitative monism. We call it, in Quantonics, 'SOM,' by which we intend, 'classical reality.'
See Bergson's CE_39 for a cinematographical metaphor of his "...side by side."
|9||"When it is said that an object
[say, for example, a word] occupies a large space in the soul
or even that it fills it entirely, we ought to understand by
this simply that its image has altered the shade of a thousand
perceptions or memories [in our SON
stages], and that in this sense it pervades them, although
it does not itself
come into view. But this wholly dynamic
way of looking at things is repugnant to the reflective consciousness,
because the latter delights in clean cut
distinctions, which are easily expressed in [classically objective]
words, and in [classically objective] things with well-defined
outlines, like those which are perceived in [classically objective]
space. It will assume then that, everything else remaining identical,
such and such a desire has gone up a
scale of magnitudes, as though it were permissible
still to speak of magnitude where there is neither multiplicity
nor space [i.e., quality
depicted as quantity]! But just as consciousness (as will
be shown later on) concentrates on a given point of the organism
the increasing number of muscular contractions which take place
on the surface of the body, thus converting them into one single
feeling of effort, of growing intensity, so it will hypostatize
[i.e., to classically objectify; to intentionally enter SOM's
mythos] under the form
of a growing desire the gradual alterations which take place
in the confused heap of co-existing psychic states.
But that is a change of quality rather
than of magnitude.
"What makes hope such an intense pleasure is the fact that the future, which we dispose of to our liking, appears to us at the same time under a multitude of forms, equally attractive and equally possible." [And we see that quantum futures are an ensemble of possibilities, where classical future is y=f(t) determinate.]
(Our brackets, bold, color, links, and violet bold italic problematics, and violet bold italic problematics.)
SOM despises quantum flux/animacy!
Quality is quantum, i.e., potentially manifold omni- hyper-dimensional, beyond ~Hilbert-spatial,
Quantity is classical, i.e., uni-low-dimensional,
Students of Quantonics, can you now see how impudent, imprudent and impossible it is to depict quality as quantity?
Consider how hope is much more qualitative than quantitative, much more quantum than classical.
|10||"Even if the most coveted of
these becomes realized, it will be necessary to give up the others,
and we shall have lost a great deal. The
idea of the future, pregnant with an infinity of possibilities,
is thus more fruitful than the [a, any] future itself,
and this is why we find more charm
in hope than in possession, in dreams
than in reality.
"Let us try to discover the nature of an increasing intensity of joy or sorrow in the exceptional
(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
This is how we are feeling when we are tapping into reserve energy.
|11||"We thus set up points of division in the interval which separates two successive forms of joy, and this gradual transition from one to the other makes them appear in their turn as different intensities of one and the same feeling, which is thus supposed to change in magnitude. It could be easily shown that the different degrees of sorrow also correspond to qualitative [aesthetic] changes. Sorrow begins by being nothing more than a facing towards the past, an impoverishment of our sensations and ideas, as if each of them were now contained entirely in the little which it gives out, as if the future were in some way stopped up. And it ends with an impression of crushing failure, the effect of which is that we aspire to nothingness, while every new misfortune, by making us understand better the uselessness of the struggle, causes us a bitter pleasure."||
(Our brackets, bold, color, violet bold italic problematics, and violet bold problematics.)