Chapter: |
I | II | ||||||||||||||||||||
Bibliography | Author's Preface |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ||||
Chapter: |
III | ||||||||||||||||||
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | Conclusion | Index |
|
|
(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.) |
(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.) |
||||
"IT is easy to see why the question of free will brings into conflict these two rival systems of nature, mechanism and dynamism. Dynamism
"A thorough examination of these two conceptions
|
(Our bold and color.) 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:
Both of these rival systems miss an even more fundamental, more highly evolved and more recently perceived quantum 'fact:' quantum reality is intrinsically co- and self-aware! For one perspective on this meme, see Kafatos' and Nadeau's 1990 The Conscious Universe. |
|||||
141 | "Mechanism, on the contrary, discovers within the particular fact a certain number of laws of which the fact is thus made to be the meeting point, and nothing else: on this hypothesis it is the law which becomes the genuine reality. Now, if it is asked why the one party assigns a higher reality to the fact and the other to the law, it will be found that mechanism and dynamism take the word simplicity in two very different senses. For the first, any principle is simple of which the effects can be foreseen [AKA classical certainty; classical predictability; classical cause-effect] and even calculated: thus, by the very definition, the notion of inertia [here, Bergson uses inertia as a metaphor of classical 'state' - Doug - 7Oct2005] becomes simpler than that of freedom [AKA flux as unrestricted changeability and mutability, AKA quantum uncertainty, quantum ensemble (in)determinism, quantum affectings-Valuings-outcomings, quantum flux], the homogeneous [classical] simpler than the heterogeneous [quantum waves as ensemble quantum likelihood omnistributionings], the abstract simpler than concrete [readers should note that Bergson's use of 'concrete' here is a classical notion; Quantonically, flux is absolute and flux is non~quantumly concrete, rather sorso, REIMAR, animately syncrete - Doug - 7Oct2005]. But dynamism is not anxious so much to arrange the notions in the most convenient order as to find out their real relationship: often, in fact, the so-called simple notionthat which the believer in mechanism regards as primitivehas been obtained by the blending together of several richer notions [e.g., m, l, and t as f(flux)] which seem to be derived from it [i.e., flux as f(t)], and which have more or less neutralized one another in this very process of blending, just as darkness may be produced by the interference of two lights. Regarded from this new point of view, [dynamism regards] the idea of spontaneity is indisputably simpler than that of inertia, since the second can be understood and defined only by means of the first, while [dynamism regards] the first is self-sufficient." |
(Our link, brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
To show how much [classically] simpler 'abstract' is than concrete reality, see our comments on human-assisted sensory bandwidth. Then consider how we 'abstract' those very, very limited experiential inputs. Quantum simplicity issi Bergsonian: i.e., dynamic! Bergson shows he intuits classicism's Aristotelian inversion of Truth over Quality. Classical 'truth' 'simplifies' via analytic blending: state-ic synthesis. Classical 'truth' is synthetic! Quantum Quality simplifies via spontaneous coobsfective awareness of bountiful qualitative animacies. Fathom quantum~h¤l¤graphic~sihmplihcihty. Doug - 21Jan2007. (Please omnistinguish classical vis-à-vis quantum 'spontaneity.' See judgment.) Reader, consider how quantization of Planck rate flux becomes an enabler for stochastic spontaneity. Planck rate flux is self-sufficient! Comsider, though, we call it "quantum awareness" which makes animate ensemble choosings among ensemble preconditionings which emerse ensemble outcomings. You may see how we deny dynamism's spontaneity (assuming 'spontaneity' is classical; if it is quantum then we agree...) just as we deny mechanism's causation. Is it easy, now, for you to intuit that spontaneity demands nonclassical memeotics? Here are a few for you to ponder:
Begin A 12Jan2011 Doug Aside on Classical vav Quantum Spontaneity:
Here's a graphic which illustrates what Doug intends by absolute heterogeneous pluralism's quantization as compared to classical thing-king's absolute 'state' AKA dialectical monism's 'inertia:' End A 12Jan2011 Doug Aside on Classical vav Quantum Spontaneity. |
||||
142 |
"For each of us has the immediate knowledge (be it thought true or fallacious) of his free spontaneity, without the notion of inertia having anything to do with this knowledge. But, if we wish to define the inertia of matter, we must say that it cannot move or stop of its own accord, that every body perseveres in the state of rest or motion so long as it is not acted upon by any force: and in both cases we are unavoidably carried back to the idea of activity. It is therefore natural that, a priori, we should reach two opposite conceptions of human activity, according to the way in which we understand the relation between the concrete and the abstract, the simple and the complex, facts and laws. "A posteriori, however, definite facts are appealed to against freedom, some physical, others
|
(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Bergson apparently assumes as modern classicists do, that classical zero momentum may 'exist' in reality.
In quantum reality,
what appeals against freedom is all choice
(choosings) is a quantum ensemble meme. A good example is how
a virus' free
will can sometimes tentatively outrank a human's choice in
a human's system ensemble. Said virus, among many other quantons
in a human's system has voting power in said system's ensemble
choosings. And votes are seldom democratic (due individuals'
quantum
autonomies), only apparently so (due systemic quantum
cohesion.). |