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.) |
||||
"To sum up the foregoing discussion,
we shall put aside for the present Kant's terminology and also
his doctrine, to
|
(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:
|
|||||
223 | "It seemed to us that there
was good reason to set ourselves the opposite problem and to
ask whether the most
|
(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. |
||||
224 |
"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
"Examining the first of these ideas, we found that psychic phenomena were in themselves pure quality or
|
(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:
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. |
||||
226 |
"Turning then to the concept of multiplicity, we saw that to construct a number we must [twofold aspect] first have the
"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
|
(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:
And to put SOM's "ughly" and pugilistic classicism in a relevant perspective we show a similar list for comparison:
And for fun let's take a heuristic look at CR's list with some items inherited from SOM (shared items listed last):
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.) |
||||
227 |
"What duration is there existing outside us? [Classically,] The present only, or, if we prefer the expression,
"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. |
||||
228 |
"To the simultaneities, which constitute the external world, and, although distinct, succeed one another for our
"Now these two elements, extensity and duration,
|
(Our brackets, bold and color.) | ||||
229 |
"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
|
(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
|
(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.' |
|||||
231 |
"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
|
(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.
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. |
||||
232 |
"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
|
(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 n¤ 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:
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! |
||||
233 |
"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.
|
(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. |
||||
234 |
"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
|
(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!!! |
||||
235 |
"In the second place, in a duration assumed to be [misconceived as] homogeneous, the same states could occur over again, causality would imply necessary
"But perhaps this distinction is too sharply drawn and perhaps the barrier is easier to cross than he supposed. For
|
(Our link, brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.) | ||||
236 |
"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
"Over against this homogeneous space we have put the self [recovered fundamental self] as perceived by an
|
(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.) | ||||
237 |
"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.) 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. |
||||
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 repeatedany 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. |
||||
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.) |