Return to Review

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

A Review
Henri Louis Bergson's Book
Time and Free Will

by Doug Renselle
Doug's Pre-review Commentary
Start of Review




Bibliography Author's
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17


18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Conclusion Index

Move to any Topic of Henri Louis Bergson's Time and Free Will,
or to beginning of its review via this set of links
says, "You are here!")



(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.)

(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)


"To sum up the foregoing discussion, we shall put aside for the present Kant's terminology and also his doctrine, to
Modern psychology holds that we perceive things through forms borrowed from our own constitution. which we shall return later, and we shall take the point of view of common sense. Modern psychology seems to us particularly concerned to prove that we perceive things through the medium of certain
[subjective] forms, borrowed from our own constitution. This tendency has become more and more marked since Kant: while the German philosopher drew a sharp line of separation between time and space, the extensive and the intensive, and, as we should say to-day, consciousness and external perception, the empirical school, carrying analysis still further, tries to reconstruct the extensive out of the intensive, space out of duration, and externality out of inner states. Physics, moreover, comes in to complete the work of psychology in this respect: it shows that, if we wish to forecast phenomena, we must make a clean sweep of the impression which they produce on consciousness and treat sensations as signs of reality, not as reality itself."

(Our brackets, bold, color, 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:

  • black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
  • orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
  • green-bold - we see Bergson suggesting axiomatic memes
  • violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
  • blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Bergson's overall text
  • gray-bold - quotable text
  • red-bold - our direct commentary
223 "It seemed to us that there was good reason to set ourselves the opposite problem and to ask whether the most
But are not the states of the self perceived through forms borrowed from the external world? obvious states of the ego itself, which we believe that we grasp directly, are not mostly perceived [refracted] through the medium of certain forms borrowed from the external world, which thus gives us
back what we have lent it. A Priori it seems fairly probable that this is what happens. For, assuming that the forms alluded to, into which we fit matter, come entirely from the mind, it seems difficult to apply them constantly to objects without the latter soon leaving a mark on them: by then using these forms to gain a knowledge of our own person we run the risk of mistaking for the colouring of the self the reflection of the frame in which we place it, i.e. the external world. But one can go further still and assert that forms applicable to things cannot be entirely our own work, that they must result from a compromise between matter and mind, that if we give much to matter we probably receive something from it, and that thus, when we try to grasp ourselves after an excursion into the external world, we no longer have our hands free."

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Doug has noted elsewhere in his reviews of Henri Bergson's opus, that on re~review Bergson uncloaks his gnosis almost spectacularly. I think that is a tell of Doug's self~progress in attaining above~initiate level of gnosis.

In that re~review comtext, then, page 223 text offers extended illumination.

Bergson's "A Priori" is clearly Peircean abductive.

Bergson's "...compromise between matter and mind..." is clearly quanton(mind,matter), quantum~coaffectation, and quantum~animate~middle~inclusion.

Bergson's "...we no longer have our hands free..." is his direct~experience observation that "We are in It and It is in us." Doug's quantonics script shows that countless ways: quanton(nonactuality,actuality), quanton(wavings,waviclings), quanton(~,¤), and so on...

Those examples mirror Essene~gnostic Jesus' "I am in you and you are in me. Therefore God is in you. Do not be afraid." Paraphrased from Jesus' Farewell Discourse in John~Mary. This is expressed quantum~gn¤stically too in Autiot as "Aleph is in blood," and Doug adds, "Blood is in Aleph." See Mark Gaffney's remarks on this as how Western societies have lost their spiritual gn¤sis: quantum~G¤d's immanence. Current NT texts make n¤ mention of immanence, except in NT's only gn¤stic gospel, John~Mary where Jesus says words Doug paraphrased.

Bergson's remarks we emphasize just above describe at a macro level how quantum~reality works: perpetual loopings of quantization~scintillation. Jesus' Essene gn¤sis offers similar exegeses.

That view of reality benchmarks exquisitely Autiot as Cosmic Language of fluxing, self~other~referent, fractal, and recursive quantum~gn¤stic~reality.

Powerful th~ought, dear reader.

Doug - 14Mar2012.


"Now just as, in order to ascertain the real relations of physical phenomena to one another, we abstract whatever obviously clashes with them in our way of
To understand the intensity, duration and voluntary determination of psychic states, we must eliminate the idea of space. perceiving and thinking, so, in order to view the self in its original purity, psychology ought to eliminate or correct certain forms which bear the obvious mark of the external world. What are these forms? When isolated from one
another and regarded as so many distinct units, psychic states seem to be more or less intense. Next, looked at in their multiplicity, they unfold in time and constitute duration. Finally, in their relations to one another, and in so far as a certain unity is preserved throughout their multiplicity, they seem to determine one another [when, indeed, via ensemble quantum valuative association they emerse one another: pragma of expectant creation [Doug's italics of Bergson's remarkable phrasing to highlight his anticipation of Peircean Abduction. 14Mar2012.] vis-à-vis forceful acts of determination]. intensity, duration, voluntary determination, these are the three ideas which had to be clarified by ridding them of all that they owe to the intrusion of the sensible world and, in a word, to the obsession of the idea of space. [Note that as Richard P. Feynman has taught us so well, " is a symptom of quantum~fermionic '1/2 spin' wobble. Doug - 14Mar2012.]

"Examining the first of these ideas, we found that psychic phenomena were in themselves pure quality or
intensity is quality and not quantity or magnitude. qualitative multiplicity, and that, on the other hand, their cause situated in space was quantity. In so far
as this quality becomes the sign of the quantity and we suspect the presence of the latter behind the former, we call it intensity. The intensity of a simple state, therefore, is not quantity but its qualitative sign." [Classical 'quantity' is a zero momentum scalar which depends upon classical state. Classical state cannot 'exist' in an absolutely changing and evolving quantum~reality. See Doug's QQA on Measurement. Doug - 14Mar2012.]

(Our bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics. Our links, brackets and nested brackets.)


Pogson's hermeneutic inset here makes us think, again, of Irving Stein's work in his 1993, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics. To "eliminate the idea of space," we essentially have to do what Stein did: create a new, yet classical, concept which Stein calls "nonspace." We agree, partially! Stein, classically retains an excluded-middle, a Bohrian "exclusive," twixt his nonspace and space.

To us, it looks like: dichon(nonspace, space). Instead, in Quantonics, we see an included-middle, c¤mplementary: quanton(n¤nspace,space). Then we rename our quantum comjugates like this: quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) and call it a modeling of "quantum reality."

Using our new animate percept of quanton we can now view internal and external, intensity and extensity, psychic states and forms, duration and space as quantum compenetrating, interfusing, interpenetrating, copermeable osmosing, animate interrelationships: quanton(internal,external), quanton(intensity,extensity), quanton(psychic_states,forms), quanton(duration,space), and so on...

Doing this, we believe, evolves most of Bergson's complaints regarding two major classical delusions: reality as stable, and objects in reality as independent from one another. We tried our evolved quantum percepts against countless other classical delusions which Bergson views as resulting from these two primary classical delusions. To us, they appear to satisfy Bergson's (and our own, and others', including: William James, Robert M. Pirsig, et al.) complaints.

Begin A Contemporary Aside - 15-16Sep2103:

Three terms Bergson uses over and over and over: intensity, duration, and voluntary determination. Quantumly~hermeneuted these are all gnostic terms. I.e., they all have quantum analogues. Understanding those analogues helps us to understand cobenchmarkings of gnosis, quantum~reality, Qabala, and Autiot.

Why does Doug call them "gnostic terms?" Bergson asks us to internalize these terms in a gnostic process of finding one's inner by "ridding them of all that they owe to the intrusion of the sensible world." Bergson is asking us not to treat these terms as ideasc and notionsc rather as memesq and memeosq. This is autsimilar what Heraclitus meant in his DK B 1 and 2 quotes:

  • DK B 1 quote: "On this account which holds forever men prove uncomprehending, both before hearing it and when first they have heard it."
  • DK B 2 quote: "For that reason you must follow what is common. But although the account is common, most men live as though they had an understanding of their own." (DK is Diels Kranz B Texts)

Compare Hume's anti-gnostic approach to his seven philosophicalc relationsc which all depend (in Hume's classical mind) on strict "intrusion of the sensible world." Hume thus disables any possibility of finding his own inner..

It is crucial to realize that Bergson sees (writes about, narrates) energy as classical: energyc. See his E-Index entry for energy. Bergson sees energy as a analytic-stoppable (nondurational) scalar magnitude (scalar 2D area under a curve). Also see Bergson's D-Index for duration and his I-Index for intensity.

Recall that, as Doug described in his Review of Hoffmann's Act II, classical 'intensity,' intensityc is a scalar magnitude count of photons compared to energyq of photons is individual photons' fluxq rates. Scalar magnitude (intensityc) vav fluxq rate (energyq).

Doug finds it extraordinary that Bergson describes his version of intensity as durational and qualitative: intensityq! Hoffmann describes it as intensityc, nondurational, static, analytic, etc. To simplify, Bergson describes qualitative~intensity as quantum~energy. Bergson describes intensityq autsimilar energyq.

So quantum~energy, energyq, is Bergsonian durational fluxq rate. If we upgrade Bergson's intensityq description as a metaphor of real energyq, Doug can provide a quantum~exegesis of Bergson's intensityq.

Let's start a bullet list:

    • intensityq:
      • intensity'sq quantum cobenchmark is fluxq rate
      • intensityq depends upon quantization of all flux rates
      • intensityq depends upon cooperative~coobsfective~volitional~voluntary free~will scintillation of all flux quanta
      • gnostic individuals fecundate their vicissitudes educing wide variations in their intensitiesq
      • intensityq exhibits equilibria of fluxq rate (slowly changing intensityq)
      • intensityq exhibits chaos of fluxq rate (rapidly changing intensityq)
      • intensity'sq quantons(chaosq,equilibriaq)
      • intensity'sq radicals:
        • rqcs of chaosq and equilibriaq
        • rqfi of chaosq and equilibriaq
        • rqsu of chaosq and equilibriaq
        • and so on...
    • duration:
      • compare durationc
        • perpetual statec
        • perpetual concrete
        • ubiquitous state and concrete
        • static objective formal analytic mechanical interactions
        • stux sux
      • compare durationq
        • perpetual fluxq
        • perpetual quanta
        • ubiquitous flux and quanta of flux
        • transmuting~scintilla of quantal emerqant stindyanic~evolving interrelationshipings
        • flux is crux
    • voluntary determination:
      • Essence: voluntaryq determinationq issi antinomialq necessaryc determinationc
      • compare Bergson's necessaryc determinationc
        • this is Bergson's socialc antithesisc of individual free will
          • Doug's use of antithesisc here begs classical notions of:
            • negationc,
            • contradictionc,
            • falsityc,
            • eitherc-orc bivalencyc of idealc dialecticc,
            • causec-effectc as an idealc culturalc determinatec of socialc [formalc, politically-correct, fascist, Victorian] behaviorc,
            • etc.
        • Boris Sidis called it demos will (Doug calls it "state will, united will, monistic will, monastic will, OSFA will, concrete will, stux sux will, dogmatic will, polemic will, a will of few over many, etc.")
        • classical dialecticians call it "strict determinism"
        • neocan'ts and fascists refer it "rule of law," "our way or the highway," etc.
        • classical religionists say, "I know what I believe! There is only one way to believe: one size beliefc system fits all. If you don't agree we will destroy you or assimilate you. We are Borg (çatholiç, waslum, canesian, whatever, etc.)!"
        • etc.
      • compare Bergson's voluntaryq [volitionalq] determinationq
        • this is Bergson's gnosticq de[omni]scriptionq of individualq freeq willq
        • it is what Doug means by:
          • "fecundate yourq vicissitudes,"
          • "bæ y¤uq,"
          • "find yourq inner,"
          • "learn to understand the accountq, the logosq,"

            "For that reason you must follow
            semasiologies of cosmic energy, cosmic flux. But although the account is one of cosmic flux, most humans live as though they had a dialectical state-ic interpretation of their own." Doug's red bold is what other gn¤stics refer as Error in interpreting and understanding the logos. Doug's paraphrasing and contemporaryq clarification of Heraclitus. Doug - 19Sep2013.

          • "practice quantum~ego's self~responsibility, self~management, self~determination, self~actualization,"
          • "avoid dialecticians and SaS-ERPs,"
          • etc.
        • it is what Gnostics mean by:
          • "embrace indetermination,"
          • "monism is deceit,"
          • "dialectic is war,"
          • "embrace fluxq antinomialism [essentially Poisson~Bracketingsq]," (do 'not' embrace dialectic)
          • "principle rules something not itself,"
          • etc.
        • it is what Pirsig means by:
          • "leading edge of the train,"
          • "edge of now,"
        • it is what Paul Pietsch meant by:
          • "indetermination is 'the' principle feature of individual intelligence-intellect"
        • etc.


End A Contemporary Aside - 15-16,19Sep2103.

225 "You will find that it arises from a [quantum c¤mplementary] compromise between pure quality, which is the state of consciousness, and pure quantity, which is necessarily space. Now you give up this compromise without the least scruple [conveniently forget about quantum reality's internal c¤mplements] when you study external things, since you then leave aside the forces themselves, assuming that they exist, and consider only their measurable and extended effects. Why, then, do you keep to this hybrid concept when you analyse in its turn the state of consciousness? [Due our classically-proselytized predilections to attempt to carry space back into psychic intensity and thereby objectify it.] If magnitude, outside you, is never intensive, intensity, within you, is never magnitude. It is through having overlooked this that philosophers have been compelled to distinguish two [binary, di-alectical, di-chotomous, di-chonic] kinds of quantity, the one extensive, the other intensive, without ever succeeding in explaining what they had in common or how the same words "increase" and "decrease" could be used for things so unlike. In the same way they are responsible for the exaggerations of psychophysics, for as soon as the power of increasing in magnitude is attributed to sensation in any other than a metaphorical sense, we are invited to find out by how much it increases. And, although consciousness does not measure intensive quantity, it does not follow that science may not succeed indirectly in doing so, if it be a magnitude. Hence, either a psychophysical formula is possible or the intensity of a simple psychic state is pure quality."

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Thus: quanton(pure_quality,pure_quantity), quanton(n¤nspace,space). Bravo! Bergson!





Bergson describes this as dichon(intensive, magnitude). Again, in quantum reality, we must learn to view this as quanton(intensive,magnitude)! In quantum reality, neither intensity n¤r magnitude are dialectically pure concepts. Classicists, in their conspiratorial and di-chotomous deign to feign, have imposed di-alectical purity upon magnitude, then attempted to impose magnitude's contrived and convenient pseudo purity upon intensity. Such an approach, as Bergson shows, does n¤t work! Classical binary thing-king, in general, does n¤t work: it oversimplifies reality.


"Turning then to the concept of multiplicity, we saw that to construct a number we must [twofold aspect] first have the
Our conscious states not a discrete multiplicity. intuition of a homogeneous medium, viz. space, in which terms distinct from one another could be set out in line, and, secondly, a process of permeation and
organization by which these units are dynamically added together and form what we called a qualitative multiplicity. It is owing to this dynamic process that the units get added, but it is because of their presence in space that they remain [classically] distinct. [However, as Dr. Stein has shown us, quantum 'units' of reality do not just reside in space. They co-reside or coinside both space-n¤nspace, or PES-VES, or SQ-DQ depending on our choice of metaphor.] Hence number or discrete multiplicity also results from a compromise. Now, when we consider material objects in themselves, we give up this compromise [Pirsig would say that in order to worship SQ in SOM's church of reason, we have to give up DQ. But SQ without DQ is ESQ! A simple way to interpret this pregnant semantic is, "Belief in objective reality creates most of humanity's ills by removing good (i.e., DQ, n¤nspace, VES, or reality's subjective c¤mplement, depending on our metaphor) from reality.], since we regard them as [classically] impenetrable and divisible, i.e. endlessly distinct from one another [see our Quantonics' EEMD]. Therefore, we must give it up, too, when we study our own selves. It is through having failed to do so that associationism has made many mistakes, such as trying to reconstruct [constitute] a psychic state by the addition of distinct states of consciousness, thus [defectively] substituting the symbol of the ego for the ego itself.

Reviewer aside - 1Dec2001:

"The map is n¤t the terrain/territory."

Or as Pirsig says it, "Within a Metaphysics of Quality, science is a set of static intellectual patterns describing this reality, but the patterns are not the reality they describe."

Page 103, Lila, Bantam hardbound 1st ed., 1991.

Folk who say this grasp a key thinking enabler, but often miss its even deeper essence. "The terrain/territory/pattern..." " n¤t reality." When we ask them, "Is our Moon real?" they answer "Yes!" But should they answer "Yes" when we ask them "Is our Moon reality?"

In Quantonics, when we think of our Moon, we view it as a quanton whose animate, included-middle c¤mplements are Moon and Moon's reality c¤mplement. We can show this as:


So in Quantonics when we ask "Is our Moon real or is our Moon n¤t real?" we can answer (think-king Quantonically) "Yes!" without losing our Quality.

Now let's use that think-king to comsider a quantum computer. A quantum computer has qubits. Qubits are quantons. Each qubit has its actual quantum c¤mplement (which we obsfect as various possible mixed classes of coherency, e.g., fermions, bosons, etc.) and its unlimited n¤nactual quantum c¤mplement (which we describe as mixed classes of isocoherency, e.g., isobs, isons, isots, etc.). Thus, we say that a qubit in a quantum computer can "directly experience" quantum reality, where a di-git in a digital computer cann¤t since its digits are only static patterns absent their quantum c¤mplements. A quantum computer is capable of dynamically 'modeling' reality. A von Neumann architecture classical digital computer can only state-ically model reality. This little story is a key enabler to students of Quantonics, who want/need to distinguish quantonic think-king from classical thing-king.

End aside.

"These preliminary considerations enabled us to approach the principal object of this work, the analysis of the ideas of duration and voluntary determination.

"What is duration within us? A qualitative multiplicity, with no likeness to number; an
Inner duration is a qualitative multiplicity. organic evolution which is yet not an increasing quantity; a pure heterogeneity within which there are no distinct qualities. In a word,
the moments of inner duration are not external to one another. [Duration is Quality!]"

(Our links, brackets, bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)



As students of Quantonics, we recognize with clear vision Bergson's qualitative multiplicity as a quantum system whose generic appellation in Quantonics is quanton. A quanton of Quantum Likelihood Omnistributionings, QLOs, a quanton of peaqlos.

So we begin to recognize a list of Quantonics/Bergsonian closely interrelated semantic intuemes:

  • duration (quantum cohesive, c¤mplementary comjugate order)
  • I-cubed, quantum islandic I3
  • Bergsonian qualitative multiplicity (quantum heterogeneity)
  • quantum absolute flux paralogism/sophism, i.e.:
    • "many" open quantum islands of reality in
    • "many" quantum multiverses with
    • "many" emerging quantum comtexts)
  • quantum included-middle(s) n¤t classically 'per se,' rather quantumly "per intera," or quantum commingling, compenetration, copermeation, interpenetration, cowithinitness, coinsidence, etc.

(AKA Quantonic interrelationships, driving many animate quantum uncertainties which evolve at up-to Planck rates of change—actuality emerges and changes when uncertainties latch—or become tentatively 'certain'—we call these massively asynchronous, quasi-parallel, quantized but propagating wave-like Planck-quantum 'events' "quantum measurements")

  • quanton(quantum_cohesion,quantum_autonomy)
  • quanton(cohesive_n¤nactuality,islandic_actuality)
  • quanton(holism-indivisibility,pluralism-heterogeneity)
  • etc.

And to put SOM's "ughly" and pugilistic classicism in a relevant perspective we show a similar list for comparison:

  • analyticity (classical, dichotomous, homogeneous order)
  • radical mechanistic, conventional common intellect, I1
  • quantitative monolithicity (classical homogeneity)
  • classical absolute truth unilogism/monism, i.e.:
    • "one" conventional view of
    • "one" closed reality/universe in
    • "one" substantial context, while claiming
      this provides "unambiguous communications"
  • classical Aristotelian/Newtonian excluded-middle per se
  • dichon(subject, object) (dismisses anti-'real' subjectives)
  • dichon(objective_reality, objective_reality)
  • dichon(anti_monism, monism), i.e., classical antinomy
  • etc.

And for fun let's take a heuristic look at CR's list with some items inherited from SOM (shared items listed last):

  • chaos (classical dichotomous disorder)
  • radical socialism, politically correct common intellect
  • quantitative multiplicity (classical heterogeneity)
  • classical relative truth polylogism/monism, i.e.:
    • "many" relative, incommensurable views of
    • "one" closed reality/universe in
    • "many" substantial contexts and
      thus generally incapable of "unambiguous intercontextual communications"
  • classical Aristotelian/Newtonian excluded-middle per se
  • dichon(subject, object) (within a relative context)
  • dichon(objective_reality, objective_reality)
  • dichon(antimonism, monism), i.e., classical antinomy
  • etc.

And now you can see why CRites appear so philosophically dyslexic to SOMites! Cultural relativism appears as an evolutionary twilight zone twixt classical and quantum cultures. Cultural relativism corresponds coarsely to Nietzsche's nihilism, an intermediate 'phase' twixt classical cultures extreme ills and Nietzsche's imagined perfect world culture, a kind of Dionysian, anthropocentric, existential, qualitative Value utopia. (Much different from our views of quantum reality and its attendant culture.)


"What duration is there existing outside us? [Classically,] The present only, or, if we prefer the expression,
In the external [classical] world we find not duration but simultaneity. simultaneity. No doubt external things change, but their moments do not succeed one another, if we retain the ordinary meaning of the
word, except for a consciousness which keeps them in mind. We observe outside us at a given moment a whole system of simultaneous positions; of the simultaneities which have preceded them nothing remains. To put duration [wholly, homogeneously, classically] in space is really to contradict oneself and place succession within simultaneity. [If we use Stein's model, with a slight Quantonic enhancement, duration is a comjugate quanton(n¤nspace,space). Doug, 19Feb2001.] Hence we must not say that external things endure, but rather that [classically] there is in them some inexpressible reason in virtue of which we cannot examine them at successive moments of our own duration without observing that they have changed. But this change does not involve succession unless the word is taken in a new meaning: on this point we have noted the agreement of science and common sense.

"Thus in consciousness we find states [not a good word since quantum flux is not state-ic] which succeed, without being distinguished from one another [i.e., quantum cohesion]; and in space simultaneities which, without succeeding, are distinguished from one another, in the sense that one has ceased to exist when the other appears [i.e., local islands of quantum autonomy]. Outside us, mutual externality without succession; within us, succession without mutual externality. [Note how Bergson appears to say our internal consciousness is implicitly capable of think-king duration.]

"Here again a compromise comes in."

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Bergson appears to make (elsewhere he describes external duration as natural) a huge classical mistake here! He uses SOM's knife to dichotomize duration! He says there is 'classically no' duration in space. He tells us duration is only internal. We agree that, classically, external moments do not succeed one another; however that is only a manifestation of CTMs. Once we adopt QTMs, classical dichonic dyad, 'external' ascends to quantonic omniad. As an omniad, it is now capable of Bergsonian durational succession! Pirsig makes this similar mistake where he says, paraphrased, "Quality [metaphorically] is the leading edge of reality's train." Near end of ch. 24, pp. 254-5 out of 373 total pages of ZMM Bantam paperback. Curiously, both gentlemen make this same philosophical extraordinarily subtle error in judgment, and our heuristic says it arises from their mutual legacy classicism. It is difficult to remove classicism from one's psyche after 2500 years of intense 'educational' propaganda! Consider how improbable it is to make that specific error of judgment when one intuits Quantonics and quantum modes of think-king. Doug - 22Mar2001.


And our new Millennium III "new meaning" is Quantonics and quantum science as philosophical and scientific cooperative partners in efforts describe a wholly n¤n-classical quantum reality, and remerq world cultures to that new meaning.


"To the simultaneities, which constitute the external world, and, although distinct, succeed one another for our
The idea of a measurable time arises from compromise between ideas of succession and externality. consciousness, we attribute succession in themselves. Hence the idea that things endure as we do ourselves and that time may be brought within space. But while our consciousness thus introduces succession into external things,
inversely these things themselves externalize the successive moments of our inner duration in relation to one another. The simultaneities of physical phenomena, absolutely distinct in the sense that the one has ceased to be which the other takes place, cut up into portions, which are also distinct and external to one another, an inner life in which succession implies interpenetration, just as the pendulum of a clock cuts up into distinct fragments and spreads out, so to speak, lengthwise, the dynamic and undivided tension of the spring. Thus, by a real process of endosmosis we get the mixed idea of a measurable time, which is space in so far as it is homogeneity, and duration in so far as it is succession, that is to say, at bottom, the contradictory idea of succession [pr¤cess] in simultaneity [state].

"Now these two elements, extensity and duration,
As science eliminates duration from the outer, philosophy must eliminate space from the inner world. science tears asunder when it undertakes the close study of external things. For we have pointed out that science retains nothing of duration but simultaneity, and nothing of
motion itself but the position [state] of the moving body, i.e. immobility [state]. A very sharp separation is here made and space gets the best [state] of it."

(Our brackets, bold and color.)

"Therefore the same separation will have to be made again, but this time to the advantage of duration, when inner phenomena are studied,—not inner phenomena once developed, to be sure, or after the discursive reason has separated them and set them out in a homogeneous medium in order to understand them, but inner phenomena in their developing, and in so far as they make up, by their interpenetration, the continuous evolution of a free person. Duration, thus restored to its original purity, will appear as a wholly qualitative multiplicity, an absolute [quantum cohesive] heterogeneity of elements which pass over into one another.

"Now it is because they have neglected to make this necessary separation that one party has been led to deny
The neglect to separate extensity and duration leads one party to deny freedom
and the other to to define it.
freedom and the other to define it, and thereby, involuntarily, to deny it too. They ask in fact whether the act could or could not be foreseen, the whole of its conditions being given; and whether they assert it or
deny it, they admit that this totality of conditions could be conceived as given in advance: which amounts, as we have shown, to treating duration as a homogeneous thing [e.g., a n¤n-heterogeneous number] and intensities as magnitudes. They will either say that the act is determined by its conditions, without perceiving that they are playing on the double sense of the word causality, and that they are thus giving to duration at the same time two forms which are mutually exclusive." [Why define freedom and free will? To make them classically homogeneous, naïvely understandable. To imprison them, inanimately, in SOM's ex cathedra Church of Reason.]

(Our brackets, bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)


"Or else they will appeal to the principle of the conservation of energy, without asking whether this principle is equally applicable [legitimately extensible] to the moments of the external world, which are equivalent to one another, and to the moments of a living and conscious being, which acquire a richer and richer content. In whatever way, in a word, freedom is viewed, it cannot be denied except on condition of identifying time with space; it cannot be defined except on condition of demanding that space should adequately represent time; it cannot be argued about in one sense or the other except on condition of previously confusing succession and simultaneity. All determinism will thus be refuted by experience, but every attempt to define freedom will open the way to determinism. [Consider an alternative where we say that freedom is: Quantum rate choices (plural) made at now's face of change, at Connick's, "…corner of close and soon." Choices using qualitative affects to select next quantal outcomes. This is essentially Pirsig's solution: "Bs Valuing preconditionings As." Juxtapose that to classicism's (singular), "A causes B."]

"Inquiring then why this separation of duration and extensity, which science carries out so naturally in the
This separation favourable to physical science, but against the interests of language and social life. external world, demands such an effort and rouses so much repugnance when it is a question of inner states, we were not long in perceiving the reason. The main object of science is to forecast and measure: now
we cannot forecast physical phenomena except on condition that we assume that they do not endure as we do; and, on the other hand, the only thing we are able to measure is space."

(Our brackets, bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)





Our bracketed comment here is apropos, however what Bergson addresses is a more important issue. It is an issue which Pirsig emphasizes over and over: any attempts to wholly define freedom/Quality traps it in SOM's church of reason, and language's state-ic words and symbols do exactly this. Bergson is saying any attempt to wholly define freedom traps it in SOM's analytic determinism. Both arguments are analogous. Our Quantonics heuristic and hermeneutic is that sentients must attempt to describe Quality's (absolutely quantum animate) interrelationships with actual reality. If we do n¤t, we have abdicated our individual responsibilities to interpret our personal ontologies. That is a large part of metaphysics. We realize, however, that Quality has an unlimited variety of potential descriptions [rather, perhaps, interpretations and quantum hermeneutics; as Philip R. Wallace has said so eloquently, "...interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." Slightly paraphrased, ch. 34, p. 151, Paradox Lost - Images of the Quantum, Springer-Verlag, 1996. And by-the-way, that is precisely what quantum Nature demands of all of us. 26Sep2002 - Doug.], and that we must understand that our attempts will likely achieve progress without ultimate fruition. Probably we shall never "arrive."

Bergson, 113 years ago, did not know about quantum science and its perspectives of quantum reality. Quantum reality is stochastic and thus we may expect ensemble forecasting of physical phenomena. Comsider 'ensemble' vis-à-vis Bergson's uses of qualitative 'multiplicity.'


"Hence the breach here, comes about of itself between quality and quantity, between true duration and pure extensity. But when we turn to our conscious states, we have everything to gain by keeping up the illusion through which we make them share in the reciprocal externality of outer things, because this distinctness, and at the same time this solidification [covering by automatism], enables us to give them fixed names in spite of their instability, and distinct ones in spite of their interpenetration. It enables us to objectify them, to throw them out into the current of social life.

"Hence there are finally two different selves, one of which is, as it were, the external projection of the other, its spatial
Hence two different selves: (1) the fundamental self:
(2) its spatial and
social representation: only the former is free.
and, so to speak, social representation. We reach the former by deep introspection, which leads us to grasp our inner states as living things, constantly becoming, as states not amenable to measure, which permeate one another and of
which the succession in duration has nothing in common with juxtaposition in homogeneous space. But the moments at which we thus grasp ourselves are rare, and that is just why we are rarely free.
The greater part of the [our] time we live outside ourselves, [not tapping into reserve energy,] hardly perceiving anything of ourselves but our own ghost, a colourless shadow which pure duration projects into homogeneous space. Hence our life unfolds in space rather than in time; we live for the external world rather than for ourselves [This root confusion is a major precursor of radical socialism's, i.e., cultural relativism's, genesis.]; we speak rather than think; we "are acted" [we are SaS-ERPs, socially and self-encrusted "role-players"] rather than act ourselves [and recover our fundamental selves]."  

(Our link, brackets, bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Here it is, three and one-half years later. It is nearly August, 2004. We are re-reading portions of Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm. She quotes this page in her chapter 12.

What does Bergson mean?, by "the breach here." (See Doug's January, 2007 TQS News re: 'Hume's Law.') He is talking about how we have been classically trained to "not tap into reserve energy!" He is talking about how SOMites view reality. He is talking about SOM's wall. He is talking about dichon(duration, pure_extensity) AKA classical 'science.'

He is telling us we must learn to "tap into reserve energy!" We must learn to straddle quantum duration and apparent classical space. We must learn to view reality as quantons, like this:

Notice an implication that when we really do tap into reserve energy, we become more free. (This is a real manifestation of quantum reality, one of our best "quantum tells," if you will! For more commentary on quantum individual free will read under these topics: canon, general, Bergson's free act, Boris Sidis' herd consciousness, and Doug on quantum local free will.)

This is what Mae-wan Ho means by "quantum freedom," what she calls autonomy which arises from a quantum phenomenon called "coherence."

Quantum coherence is a kind of absolute freedom (individual autonomy) enabled via a quantum SON. Said SON is absolutely animate and EIMA. However, quantum everywhere~association is n¤t like classical 'objective, interactive' EEMD.

Imagine ideal fascist-social objectivism here, Hitler's Naziism: "the people make the state," and Mussolini's "the state makes the people."

Those are examples of classical social value patterns whose purposes are to:

  • retain status quo AKA 'classical mechanized order,' (we call it "ESQ")
  • generalize social mores as 'common sense,'
  • canonize social 'law,' and thus
  • dogmatize, indoctrinate, parochialize, provincialize and hegemonize individual free will in favor of societal, Demos will.

Quantum association can be both quantum~coherently quantum~autonomous, and every subsystem shares ideal coobsfection with every other subsystem, if they want to share coobsfection.

In classical reality, from a classical conspective, as Mae-wan points out, that is a paradox!

Quantum coherent subsystems can enable, phasistically, both quantum coherent coobsfection and its quantum complement. Any subsystem can be coherent with limited entanglements. Any subsystem can be coherent and sharing associations with other subsystems.

If you think about it, that is how our quantum stages work. It is how holograms work. It is how quantum AI systems will work. And so on...

This quantum organization is what Mae-wan Ho believes "...maximizes both global cohesion and individual freedom...a domain of coherent, autonomous activity...for example, a population or society engaging in coherent activities...[] between individual[s] and collective[s] which ha[ve] previously [classically] been deemed contradictory or impossible." See pp. 151-153 of tRatW, 1993, World Scientific.

See: How to Tap Into Reserve Energy; How SOMites View Reality; SOM's Wall.

See: How MoQites and Quantumists View Reality.

See: think, time, Bergson's duration, and our Quantonics' Bases of Judgment.

Doug - 26-27Jul2004.


"To act freely is to recover possession of oneself, and to get back into pure duration.

"Kant's great mistake was to take time as a homogeneous medium. He did not notice that real
Kant clung to freedom but put the self which is free outside both space and time [noumenal]. duration is made up of moments inside one another [see our nesting of quantons], and that when it seems to assume the form of a homogeneous whole, it is because it gets expressed
in space. Thus the very distinction which he makes between space and time amounts at bottom to confusing time with space, and the symbolical representation of the ego with the ego itself. He thought that consciousness was incapable of perceiving psychic states [durationally] otherwise than by juxtaposition [as n¤n-interpenetrating], forgetting that a medium in which these states are set side by side and distinguished from one another is of course space, and not duration. He was thereby led to believe that the same states can recur in the depths of consciousness [rather, durational psychic 'states' may n¤t recur, and today, 113 years later quantum science tells us that qualitative quantum flux multiplicities may ever 'classically recur,' instead having tentative enduring quantum ensemble (i.e., islandic) persistencies which quantally, quantum ontologically, transition into n¤vel quantonic flux and isoflux ensembles having unlimited coobsfecting animate and quantum uncertain mixtures of isocoherence, coherence, and decoherence - Doug, 22Mar2001], just as the same physical phenomena are repeated in space; this at least is what he implicitly admitted when he ascribed to the causal relation the same meaning and the same function in the inner as in the outer world. Thus freedom was made into an incomprehensible fact. And yet, owing to his unlimited though unconscious confidence in this inner perception whose scope he tried to restrict, his belief in freedom remained unshakable."

(Our brackets, links, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

"To act freely is to recover possession of oneself, and to get back into pure duration." Now, third quarter 2006 we fathom Bergson's implicit gnosticism, his quantum~gnosticism! Doug - 7Aug2006.

See Doug's CeodE 2009 What is Gnosis?


An analogous way of saying this is: we can look at our bodies with our eyes; we see that they are spatially extensive; that apparency of spatial extensity becomes who we are; then we deludedly conclude that mind is objectively spatially extensive too. Thus we incorrectly intellectually adopt an excluded-middle self image of:

     dichon(mind_spatially_extensive_object, body_spatially_extensive_object)!

When we do this, we throw all of our mind's and body's qualitative durations away. This is what science and physics teach us is the right way to thingk. And to do it, they say we must adopt an axiom that space-time is an objective identity.

Bergson's use of 'states' here is classically problematic. Philosophically we have a huge conundrum. Bergson already told us that there is classical state, since it is impossible to classically 'stop' reality. There is n¤ classical 'state' to which we might return! Only quantum ensemble variable/tentative persistence of both animate and inanimate quantonic both flux and isoflux 'exists.' Time is duration, n¤t ideal classical space. If we can adopt that n¤vel view then we may say there is n¤ quantum space that is without duration. Further, we may say there is n¤ quantum 'state' (which we remediate to "phasicity") without duration. And this n¤vel view is where Quantonics arrived and was born about six years ago (1995-1996), i.e., there are n¤ quantons without duration (without duration quantons degenerate to naïve classical objects): our meme (an emergent intellectual virus) of quanton ceases to be a meme without duration. Duration is a key enabler of creative, quantum emergent evolution. Classical objects are axiomatically disabled from any meme of creative, emergent evolution. Quantons are emergent and emersible. Objects are n¤t emergent and emersible!

Our uses of animate and inanimate are n¤n-classical here. A full discussion of these topics is extensive, so let's simplify by saying that quantum inanimacy is n¤t classical 'state.' Quantum inanimacy (or islandic variable/tentative persistency) is roughly:

tentative latchings (i.e., quantum 'decoherence') of
quantum fluxings
both quantum coherent fluxings
and quantum isocoherent isofluxings.

See our, "Whatings happenings nextings."

Our simple, quantum-static (please animate it on your quantum stages) Bergsonian quanton semiotic shows this one of many possible ways:

with left side showing isocoherent isofluxings. Right side shows tentatively latching decoherent fluxings as black/dark-green solid (which has blue-dotted coherence cowithin itself; in quantum reality atomic nucleons are n¤t just decoherent; they include compenetrating zero spin phasicities). Right side also shows next octave coherent fluxings commingling latching fluxings. Both right and left sides emerq an included-middle, interpenetrating, Bergsonian duration, a


We can describe our quanton, using quantonic notation and semiotics, countless other ways.

To move closer to quantum reality, imagine our simple quanton omnimensionally, animated, and immersed in plethoric other larger and smaller quantons whose (iso-, de-, mix-, co-herent) animacies are heterogeneous and asynchronous our simple example. Due to its complexity, we have n¤ contrived example of what we ask you to imagine. It is currently very difficult to depict ~omni dimensions and animate them, let alone a plethora of quantons of them. But let us look at ourselves. All of us are quantons, and we manifest all this complexity which we attempt to describe, and, our quantum stages, because we are quantons, can and do imagine them! Think about this: if all humans were dichons, we would n¤t be able to whistle. Our notes would all come out staccato (i.e., without duration).

As both Bergson and Pirsig prescribe, our quantonic semiotics are really incapable of ever classically conforming quantum reality. We intend, using our semiotics, incremental evolution of humankind's capabilities via animately describing quantum reality. What they accomplish, is they give us a new means of describing and better understanding quantum reality. Compare our approach to classical state-ic definitions of 'reality.'

What about that next level of quantum evolution which will bring us closer to comforming? It is arriving as we speak! It is called "quantum computing." It uses qubits to compute reality! Qubits are real quantons!


"He therefore raised it to the sphere of noumena; and as he had confused duration with space, he made this genuine free self, which is indeed outside [classical] space, into a self which is supposed to be outside duration too, and therefore out of the reach of our faculty of knowledge. But the truth is that we perceive this self whenever, by a strenuous effort of reflection, we turn our eyes from the shadow which follows us and retire into [recover our fundamental selves] ourselves. Though we generally live and act outside our own person, in space rather than in duration, and though by this means we give a handle to the law of causality, which binds the same effects to the same causes, we can nevertheless always get back into pure duration, of which the moments are internal and heterogeneous to one another, and in which a cause cannot repeat its effect since it will never repeat itself.

"In this very confusion of true duration with its symbol both the strength and the weakness of Kantianism reside.
Kant regarded both time and space as homogeneous. Kant imagines [dichotomously] on the one side "things in themselves," and on the other a homogeneous Time
and Space, through which the "things in themselves," are refracted: thus are supposed to arise on the one hand the phenomenal selfa self which consciousness perceives—and, on the other, external objects. Time and space on this view would not be any more in us than outside us; the very distinction of outside and inside would be the work of time and space." [In other words, Kant put self outside duration. He made self a classically "internal" objective "thing in itself."]

(Our brackets, bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Philosophers and scientists of classical ilk deny quantum coherence, and as such deny a meme of quantum coherent reversibility. Consider quantum coherent reversibility as a meme vis-à-vis classical repeatability. Indeed, local reversibility manifests a close analogy of classical repeatability. We think classicists confuse quantum local reversibility as classical repeatability. Then comsider how quantum coherent reversibility is an ideal, real zero entropy transaction. Modern RAM (digital memories) use this quantum reversibility (a meme of Rolf Landauer's, IBM fellow, deceased) to keep high density RAMs from burning up. There are many other examples of this quantum zero entropy reversibility, like: Bénard convection, ink in glycerin, Belousov-Zhabotinsky spirals, etc. Consider that all posentropy (i.e., quantum decoherent) transitionings are quantum irreversible (explained by JC Maxwell's myopic 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics). Essentially, then, n¤ decoherent transitionings are repeatable! What Landauer, et al., found was that under select physical comditions, decoherent systems can couple (viz. Cooper-paired fermions, e.g., electrons, comtrarotating their fermionic 1/2 spins) to become macroscopically quantum coherent, and thus reversible. Bottom line, n¤ quantum transitions are, in general 'repeatable,' however under select coherent and isocoherent comditions, they are/may-be reversible. Quantum decoherent posentropy transitionings are irreversible. This is phenomena to which Bergson refers when he talks of n¤nrepeatability. But his percept is correct in general too because duration is unstoppable, even across/during coherent quantum reversibility.

"This doctrine has the advantage of providing our empirical thought with a solid foundation, and of guaranteeing that phenomena, as phenomena, are adequately knowable. Indeed, we might set up these phenomena as absolute and do without the incomprehensible "things in themselves," were it not that the Practical Reason, the revealer of duty, came in, like the Platonic reminiscence, to warn us that the "thing in itself " exists, invisible but present. The controlling factor in the whole of this [Kant's] theory is the very sharp distinction between the matter of consciousness and its form, between the homogeneous and the heterogeneous, and this vital distinction would probably never have been made unless time also had been regarded as a medium indifferent to what fills it.

"But if time, as immediate consciousness perceives it, were, like space, a homogeneous medium, science would
But if time, as duration, were homogeneous, science could deal with it. be able to deal with it, as it can with space. Now we have tried to prove that duration, as duration, and motion, as motion, elude the grasp
of mathematics: of time everything slips through its fingers but simultaneity, and of movement everything but immobility. This is what the Kantians and even their opponents do not seem to have perceived: in this so-called phenomenal world, which, we are told, is a world cut out for scientific knowledge, all the relations which cannot be translated into simultaneity, i.e. into space, are scientifically unknowable."

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)






A cute way to think about this is, "mathematics can't whistle." Mathematics can't jump and blow bubble gum simultaneously!


Mathematics is anti-phenomenal. Mathematics is anti-durational. Mathematics is anti-quantum!!!


"In the second place, in a duration assumed to be [misconceived as] homogeneous, the same states could occur over again, causality would imply necessary
And freedom would be incomprehensible. Kant's solution. determination, and all freedom would become incomprehensible. Such,
indeed, is the result to which the Critique of Pure Reason leads. But instead of concluding from this that real duration is heterogeneous [with no relation to number], which, by clearing up the second difficulty, would have called his attention to the first, Kant preferred to put freedom outside time and to raise an impassable barrier between the world of phenomena, which he hands over root and branch to our understanding, and the world of things in themselves, which he forbids us to enter.

"But perhaps this distinction is too sharply drawn and perhaps the barrier is easier to cross than he supposed. For
How corrected by taking pure duration into account. if perchance the moments of real duration, perceived by an attentive consciousness, permeated one another [i.e., quantum included-middle]
instead of lying side by side [i.e., Aristotelian excluded-middle], and if these moments formed in relation to one another a heterogeneity [Bergson most exquisitely describes a quanton] within which the idea of necessary determination lost every shred of meaning, then the self grasped by consciousness would be a free cause, we should have absolute knowledge of ourselves, and, on the other hand, just because this absolute constantly commingles with phenomena and, while filling itself with them, permeates them, these phenomena themselves would not be as amenable as is claimed to mathematical reasoning."

(Our link, brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

"So we have assumed the existence of a homogeneous space and, with Kant, distinguished this space from the matter which fills it. With him we have admitted that
With Kant, we assume a homogeneous space, the intuition of which is peculiar to man and prepare the way for social life. homogeneous space is a "form of our sensibility": and we understand by this simply that other minds, e.g. those of animals, although they perceive objects, do not distinguish them so clearly either from one another or from themselves. This intuition of a
homogeneous medium, an intuition peculiar to man, enables us to externalize our concepts in relation to one another, [incorrectly] reveals to us the objectivity of things, and thus, in two ways, on the one hand by getting everything ready for language, and on the other by showing us an external world, quite distinct from ourselves, in the perception of which all minds have a common share, foreshadows and prepares the way for social life. [Ughly!]

"Over against this homogeneous space we have put the self [recovered fundamental self] as perceived by an
But if concrete duration is heterogeneous, the relation of psychic state to act is unique and the act is rightly judged free. attentive consciousness, a living self, whose states, at once undistinguished and unstable, cannot be separated without changing their nature, and cannot receive a fixed form or be expressed in words without becoming public property. How could this self,
which distinguishes external objects so sharply and represents them so easily by means of symbols, withstand the temptation to introduce the same distinctions into its own life and to replace the interpenetration of its psychic states, their wholly qualitative multiplicity, by a numerical plurality of terms which are distinguished from one another, set side by side, and expressed by means of words?"

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

"In place of a [quantum reality's] heterogeneous duration whose [quantum flux] moments permeate one another, we thus get a [classical and relativistic science's substitute] homogeneous time whose moments are strung on a spatial line. In place of an inner life whose successive phases, each unique of its kind, cannot be expressed in the fixed terms of language, we get a self which can be artificially reconstructed, and simple psychic states which can be added to and taken from one another just like the letters of the alphabet in forming words. Now, this must not be thought to be a mode of symbolical representation only, for immediate intuition and discursive thought are one in concrete reality, and the very mechanism by which we only meant at first to explain our conduct will end by also controlling it. Our psychic states, separating then from each other, will get solidified; between our ideas, thus crystallized, and our external movements we shall witness permanent associations being formed; and little by little, as our consciousness thus imitates the process by which nervous matter procures reflex actions, automatism will cover over freedom.(1)" [Cellular automatists beware!]

Note (1): Renouvier has already spoken of these voluntary acts which may be compared to reflex movements, and he has restricted freedom to moments of crisis. But he does not seem to have noticed that the process of our free activity goes on, as it were, unknown to ourselves, in the obscure depths of our consciousness at every moment of duration that the [origin of] very feeling of duration comes from this source, and that without this heterogeneous and continuous duration, in which ourself evolves, there would be no moral crisis. The study, even the close study, of a given free action will thus not settle the problem of freedom. The whole series of our heterogeneous states of consciousness must be taken into consideration. In other words, it is in a close analysis of the idea of duration that the key to the problem must be sought.

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

And here we see essence of classical thought. It is about C O N T R O L. Classical thought's greatest urgency is control. To control behavior, to design environment, to enforce how sentients think (and declare their freedom, i.e., their choice/heresy, "sacrilege"), to control the future via mechanically deterministic radical formalisms (e.g., classical mathematics, excluded-middle, contradiction, falsifiability, induction, cause-effect, state-icity, inanimacy, immutability, impermeability, objective holism, etc.), and ultimately to control nature as their greatest 'opponent.' Bergson shows us how free exegeses solidify and immutate/collapse via radical mechanism as detentions enforced by dogmatic exertions and inquisitions.

Crux! This is amalgamation of Bergson, James, Renouvier, Pirsig's Lila on morality, and quantum moral judgment. As we described elsewhere in our review comments of this work, all quantum special eventings are, quintessentially, moral crises. Quantum reality is an unending quantum fractal quantal recursion of moral valuations whose incremental goal is better.
Doug - 2Jun2002.

238 "It is just at this point that the associationists and the determinists come in on the one side, and the Kantians on the other. As they look at only the commonest aspect of our conscious life [which our everyday acts appear as classical, radically mechanistic illusions that our selves macroscopically obey laws of (classical objective) association], they perceive clearly marked states, which can recur in time like physical phenomena, and to which the [classical] law of causal determination applies, if we wish, in the same sense as it does to nature. As, on the other hand, the medium in which these psychic states are set side by side exhibits parts external to one another [i.e., by Aristotle's third syllogistic law of excluded-middle: classical objects by that law axiomatically disallow quantum reality's included-middle, and thus force classical objects to be mutually external to one another], in which the same facts seem capable of being repeated, they do not hesitate to make time a homogeneous medium and treat it as space. Henceforth all difference between duration and extensity, succession and simultaneity, is abolished: the only thing left is to turn freedom out of doors, or, if you cannot entirely throw off your traditional respect for it, to escort it with all due ceremony up to the supratemporal domain of [noumenal] "things in themselves," whose mysterious threshold your consciousness cannot cross."

(Our links, brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)


Prudential students of Quantonics shall distinguish classical inanimate excluded-middle association from quantum animate included-middle association. Latter is durationally emergent. Former is n¤t.

239 "But, in our view, there is a third course which might be taken, namely, to carry ourselves back in thought to those moments of our life when we made some serious decision, moments unique of their kind, which will never be repeated—any more than the past phases in the history of a nation will ever come back again. We should see that if these past states cannot be adequately expressed in words or artificially reconstructed by a juxtaposition of simpler states, it is because in their dynamic unity and wholly qualitative multiplicity [no relation to number] they are phases of our real and concrete duration, a heterogeneous duration and a living one. We should see that, if our action was pronounced by us to be free, it is because the relation of this action [in general, can always be different, i.e., outcomes are always quantum stochastic, always quantum uncertain] to the state from which it issued could not be expressed by a law [in general, cannot be absolutely predicted, may be quantum ensemble predictable], this psychic state being unique of its kind and unable ever to occur again [Reader, note that in a most general, real sense Bergson is correct here. It is impossible to recreate exactly all of quantum reality as it was when that psychic state occurred. So it is unique. In that most general perspective, all quantum 'states' are unique!]. We should see, finally, that the very idea of necessary determination here loses every shred of meaning, that there cannot be any question either of foreseeing the act before it is performed or of reasoning about the possibility of the contrary action once the deed is done, for to have all the conditions given is, in concrete duration, to place oneself at the very moment of the act and not to foresee it. But we should also understand the illusion which makes the one party think that they are compelled to deny freedom, and the others that they must define it. It is because the transition is made by imperceptible [Planck rate] steps from concrete duration, whose elements permeate one another, to [homogeneous] symbolical duration, whose moments are set side by side, and consequently from free activity to conscious automatism."

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)











Our quantons, when animated, achieve progress toward a new semiotic duration which depicts "permeation" well. Here is a static example which shows permeation of blue-dotted 'freedom' co-permeating black-solid 'symbology:' We believe both blue-dotted and black-solid, animated together, depict Bergson's "concrete duration" better than classical radically mechanistic symbology (i.e., formal predicate logic). Our next step is to enable these semiotics to both emerge and evolve, i.e., to experience quantum ontology. Our previous sentence elicits an inkling of what extraordinary Quantonics advances will happen during Millennium III, re: e.g., active emerqant text. This is a major Quantonics topic which we are covering extensively in our impending Millennium III Whitepaper.
Doug - 13Mar2001.

240 "It is because, although we are free whenever we are willing to get back into ourselves [recover our fundamental self], it seldom happens that we are willing. It is because, finally, even in the cases where the action is freely performed, we cannot reason about it without setting out its conditions externally to one another, therefore in space and no longer in pure duration. The problem of freedom has thus sprung from a misunderstanding: it has been to the moderns what the paradoxes of the Eleatics were to the ancients, and, like these paradoxes, it has its origin in the illusion through which we confuse succession and simultaneity, duration and extensity, quality and quantity." (Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Return to Chapter Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2024 Rev. 15-16,19Sep2013  PDR Created: 23Feb2001  PDR
(18Jan2002 rev - Remediate some quantized 'o' words for QELR.)
(23Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(25Aug2002 rev - Add 'consensus' link to common sense above.)
(26Sep2002 rev - Add EEMD to p. 226 intra-text comments. Correct some punctuation there.)
(26Sep2002 rev - Add p. 228 intra-text comments/links. Add p. 230 red text comments.)
(29Dec2003 rev - Add p. 232 comments 'thingk' link.)
(26-27Jul2004 rev - Add Mae-wan Ho tRatW relevant p. 231 comments.)
(29Oct2004 rev - Add 'How Quantum AI Works' anchor to p. 231 comments. Reset red text.)
(1Nov2004 rev - Typos, various.)
(28Nov2004 rev - Adjust colors. Omni[di]mensional to omnimensional.)
(25Jan2006 rev - Add multi QLO graphic to p. 226 comments. Adjust text colors.)
(7Aug2006 rev - Update p. 232 comments, briefly.)
(11Sep2007 rev - Add page 231 'Hume's Law' comments link.)
(13Nov2007 rev - Reformat slightly.)
(2Apr2009 rev - Correct p. 231 comments spelling of 'indoctrinate.' Make page current. Reset legacy markups. Add p. 232 comments link to Doug's recent What is Gnosis?)
(21Jul2011 rev - Add 'fractal' link to "How to do quantum~fractals.")
(14-15Mar2012 rev - Add p. 223 commentary. Add p. 224 text markups. Add 'quantum measurements' link under p. 226 commentary.)
(15-16,19Sep2013 rev - Add A Contemporary Aside to Bergson's p. 224 text commentary by Doug. Commence task of comparing Bergson's necessary determination vav voluntary determination.)

Return to Review