(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.)
(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)
|Bergson begins, "IT is usually
admitted that states [see state
and state] of consciousness,
sensations, feelings, passions,
efforts, are capable of growth and diminution; we are even told
(Our bold, color, brackets, links, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Bergson restarts his footnote counts on each page. So to refer a footnote, one must state page number and footnote number.
Our bold and color highlights follow a code:
Readers should ponder: "common sense," "judgment without reflection," "one sense fits all," "society as common sense," "individual as extraordinary sense," in their classical mechanical and quantum non~mechanical flavors and hues.
|2||"When we assert that one number is greater than another number or one body greater than another body we know very well what we mean. For in both cases we allude to unequal spaces, which shall be shown in detail a little further on, and we call that space the greater which contains the other. [Repair missing text 29Jun2010 - Doug] But how can a more intense sensation contain one of less intensity? Shall we say that the first implies the second, that we reach the sensation of higher intensity only on condition of having first passed through the less intense stages of the same sensation, and that in a certain sense we are concerned, here also, with the relation of container to contained? This conception of [alleged] intensive magnitude seems, indeed, to be that of common sense, but we cannot advance it as a philosophical explanation without becoming involved in a vicious circle. For it is beyond doubt that, in the natural series of numbers, the later number exceeds the earlier, but the very possibility of arranging the numbers in ascending order arises from their having to each other relations of container and contained, so that we feel ourselves able to explain precisely in what sense one is greater than the other. The question, then, is how we succeed in forming a series of this kind with intensities., which cannot be superposed on each other, and by what sign we recognize that the members of this series increase, for example, instead of diminishing: but this always comes back to the inquiry, why [allege] an intensity can be assimilated to a magnitude."||
(Our brackets, bold and color.)
Those of you familiar with Pirsig's works will recognize his "hot stove" example here. We get off a hot stove before we are even aware of any intensity, let alone its magnitude! Reality's actual quantum complement is both coherent and decoherent quality with classical, immutable, inanimate 'quantity' as an apparition, which Bergson explains!
Begin a 29Jun2010 Doug aside on classical issues of scalar containment:
End a 29Jun2010 Doug aside on classical issues of scalar containment.
|3||"It is only to evade the difficulty
to distinguish, as is usually done, between two
species of quantity,
(Our bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Extensive forms of Bergson's magnitude are classical, i.e., using a quote from his Creative Evolution, classical measured extensive magnitude assumes "Reality is both stable and objects in reality are independent of one another."
Again, in his Creative Evolution, Bergson showed us how classical logic/reasoning assumes negation/'not' is objective. However, he then showed us that real negation is subjective, what we in Quantonics call "quantum c¤mplementary." Given negation is subjective (analogous to saying "quantum reality has included-middles" vis-à-vis Aristotle's 'excluded-middle') then can we develop a concept of logical bivalent truth, its inverse falsity, and thence a concept of logical contradiction? Our conclusion is that if we assume negation is subjective then we must assume also that contradiction is subjective, thence a classical concept of objective contradiction is unreal, indeed invalid. Quantonics accepts this point of view. But why is Bergson apparently using 'not,' i.e., classical negation, objectively? Or is he? Unfortunately, he does n¤t tell us!
|4||"If we now ask ourselves in
what does this idea consist, our consciousness still offers us
the image of a container and a contained. We picture to ourselves,
for example, a greater intensity of effort as a greater length
of thread rolled up, or as a spring which, in unwinding, will
occupy a greater space. In the idea of intensity,
and even in the word which expresses [estimates]
it, we shall find the image of a present contraction and consequently
a future expansion, the image of something virtually extended,
and, if we may say so, of a compressed space. We are thus led
to believe that we translate the intensive [internal] into the
extensive [external or spatial],
and that we compare two intensities, or at least express the
comparison, by the confused intuition of a relation between two
extensities. But it is just the nature of this operation which
it is difficult to determine.
"The solution which occurs immediately to the mind, once it has entered upon this path, consists in defining the intensity of a sensation, or of any
(Our brackets, bold, color, link, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Bergson is telling us what Pirsig tells us.
Bergson: classical, spatially extensive measurements are inapplicable to [quantum] reality's quality.
Pirsig: static pattern measurements are incapable of capturing or representing reality's Dynamic Quality.
Classical computer di-gits are sampled ESQ! Quantum computer qubits can animately and hermeneutically represent DQ as tentatively coherent both DQ and SQ! Di-gits (dichons) are bivalent-state-ic. Qubits (quantons) are omnivalent-phase-ic.
In quantum reality, we deny classical objective cause and effect. Bergson's intensities, in quantum reality, are ensemble qualitative affects. We can demonstrate, directly, using Bergson's intuemes of luminous sources, using photons in a quantum double-slit experiment projecting diffracted photons on a white screen. Results are n¤t classically objective, rather, indeed, they are quantum-qualitative. Quantum measurement is n¤t about number and magnitude. Bergson understands! His intuitions and instincts are superb! Consider that he was writing these sentences over 110 years ago (~1888)!
|5||"But, in the immense majority of cases, we decide about the intensity of the effect without even knowing the nature of the cause, much less its magnitude: indeed, it is the very intensity of the effect which often leads us to venture an hypothesis as to the number and nature of the causes, and thus to revise the judgment of our senses which at first represented them as insignificant. And it is no use arguing that we are then comparing the actual state of the ego with some previous state in which the cause was perceived in its entirety at the same time as its effect was experienced. No doubt this is our procedure in a fairly large number of cases; but we cannot then explain the differences of intensity which we recognize between deep seated psychic phenomena, the cause of which is within us and not outside. On the other hand, we are never so bold in judging the intensity of a psychic state as when the subjective aspect of the phenomenon is the only one to strike us, or when the external cause to which we refer it does not easily admit of measurement. Thus it seems evident that we experience a more intense pain at the pulling out of a tooth than of a hair; the artist knows without the possibility of doubt that the picture of a master affords him more intense pleasure than the signboard of a shop; and there is not the slightest need ever to have heard of forces of cohesion to assert that we expend less effort in bending a steel blade than a bar of iron. Thus the comparison of two intensities is usually made without the least appreciation of the number of causes, their mode of action or their extent."||
(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
It is well to understand that intensity in quantum reality, as Bergson implies, may n¤t be viewed as a linear magnitude. All quantum~intensity changes are quantized. And their affects depend upon many quantum phasicities including: isocoherence, coherence, decoherence, interference, diffraction, etc. Too, when energy levels of "intensity quanta" are below what is required to, for example, affect an electron's shift to its next higher atomic-energy 'shell,' n¤ apparent "choice by an atom" to change will be made. From a classical view, what we say is both "qualitative," and "absurd."
Here we see Bergson apparently retain a classical, state-ic mind-body dichotomy, in his use of "within us and not outside." In quantonics we see an animate phase-ic
This follows Pirsig's lead of mind/body as Static Quality's Static Patterns of Value which commingle and compenetrate Dynamic Quality. We show this as quanton(DQ,SQ), and infer:
And from that we can further infer:
When we depict Bergson's verbal description using our classical script we see dichon(mind, body).
In our Quantonics view,
For us then, measuring both intensity and magnitude assumes both are animate and qualitative and require stindyanic quantum measurement. Implication is that all classical magnitudes are essentially delusional. Why? Quantum intensity is quantal as we described just above, and quantons affected by other quantons "make choices" based upon energy levels of their affectors.
A comvincing example of what we are saying here is Dirac's description in his The Principles of Quantum Mechanics of photons and their atomic absorber quantonic interrelationships making QED choices when photons' oblique 45o incidences are polarized in tourmaline.
This issi an¤thær bæautihful eample ¤f pr¤f¤umd p¤wær ¤f ¤ur quantonic scrihpts. Quantons aræ ihnterrelati¤nships which aræ ihn quantum pr¤cæssings ¤f assæssing Valuæ while making ch¤¤sings, chancings amd changings rægarding whatings happænings netings basæd ¤n l¤cal comtetings' bættærings.
As Bergson shows, even though his language is too classical, classical views of reality simply do not work. However, quantum perspectives do!
"There is still room, it is true, for an hypothesis of
the same nature, but more subtle. We know that mechanical, and
especially kinetic, theories aim at explaining the visible and
sensible properties of bodies by well
"For, quite possibly, the intensity of a sensation bears witness to a more or less considerable work accomplished in our organism; but it is the sensation which is given to us in consciousness, and not this mechanical work [rather, quantum n¤n-mechanical workings] . Indeed, it is by the intensity of the sensation that we judge of the greater or less amount of work accomplished: intensity then remains, at least apparently, a property of sensation. And still the same question recurs: why do we say of a higher intensity that it is greater? Why do we think of a greater quantity or a greater space?"
(Our brackets, links, bold, and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Bergson shows his great depth of perception here. For example, from a quantum perspective intensive mass is a direct consequence of fermionic spin ½ wobble, i.e., mass is an artifact of rotationally nonsymmetric quantum_flux! However, where Bergson says, "...many of us foresee the time when the intensive (qualitative) differences of qualities, that is to say, of our sensations, will be reduced to extensive (quantitative) differences between the changes taking place...," (our parentheticals) we now know that mass is only apparently extensive and its genuine intensiveness actually arises from intrinsically qualitative atomic "choosings" affected by both local and n¤nlocal ensembles of subatomic quantum flux energy levels.
Attempts to make mass and other quantum phenomena extensive represent a continuing classical deign to feign. Classicism, SOM, does its best to transform quantum reality into a naïvely dichotomous, spatially-extensive, Cartesian reality. Bergson, as we shall see, denounces classicism for this.
There is a crucial lesson here for students of Quantonics.
Classical extensive reality is a manufactured product built on historical insistent dogma, province and convention to use Platonic and Aristotelian dialectic. This insistence is borne of Plato's and Aristotle's hatred of sophists! Hatred is a tell of dialectic itself: dichon(love, hate).
Dialectic and its classical accoutrements turn quantum reality into a kind of intellectual dimensionally limited, temporally limited, dichotomy limited, staticity limited, et cetera limited, Flatland. Dialectic disables manifold animate semiotic hermeneutics of reality and as such disables any opportunity to understand reality.
A huge epiphany here is that classical mathematics are dialectical! Classical mechanics are dialectical! Classical objective thing-king CTMs are dialectical!
And Bergson's instinctive/intuitive grasp of quantum consciousness vastly exceeds that of classical 'modern' and 'postmodern' neuro- 'scientists' at Millennium III's commencement. In quantum light, it does more solve our problem.
When, as students of Quantonics, we approach our commencement, we shall see all including gravity, mass, time, space, et al. as "intensities" of quantum flux! Flux is crux!