Return to Review

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

 
A Review
of
Henri Louis Bergson's Book
Time and Free Will
Chapter II: The Multiplicity of Conscious States - The Idea of Duration
Topic 19: Duration, Succession and Space
by Doug Renselle
Doug's Pre-review Commentary
—
Start of Review

Chapter:

 I II

Translator's
Preface

 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


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!")

 
Topic 19...............Duration, Succession and Space

PAGE

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

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

100

 "The English school tries, in fact, to reduce relations of extensity to more or less complex
Mistake of the attempt to derive relations of extensity from those of succession. The conception of "pure duration." relations of succession in time. When, with our eyes shut, we run our hands along a surface, the rubbing of our fingers against the surface, and especially the varied play of our joints, provide a series of sensations, which differ only by their qualities and which exhibit a certain order in time. Moreover,
experience teaches us that this series can be reversed, that we can, by an effort of a different kind (or, as we shall call it later, in an opposite direction), obtain the same sensations over again in an inverse order: relations of position in space might then be defined as reversible relations of succession in time. But such a definition involves a vicious circle [Thomas Kuhn in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions offers "circularity" and "vicious circularity." Try browser searching for 'circular' there.], or at least a very superficial idea of time. There are, indeed, as we shall show a little later, two possible conceptions of time, the one free from all alloy [~impurity, impurities], the other surreptitiously bringing in the idea of space [a classical excluded-middle impurity]. Pure duration is the [rhythm] form which the succession of our conscious states assumes when our ego lets itself live [recovery of fundamental self], when it refrains from [classically, excluded-middle-] separating its present state from its former states. [Reader, if you are a golfer, and if you have not seen a movie titled Bagger Vance, you need to see it. In that movie, Bagger Vance (Will Smith) tries to teach Junuh (Matt Damon) how to do what Bergson is talking about here: how to become coherent with quantum reality. In Quantonics, we also refer to this as "Tapping Into Reserve Energy." Bergson also calls this "thinking being directly." Pirsig calls it "direct experience." Sometimes we show it as "k-now-ing." It happened to Pirsig when he wrote ZMM and Lila. It happened to Edgar Bergen when he worked with Charlie McCarthy. It's like QTM think-king near light speed and having your local time approach quantum coherence while everyone around you continues aging. Personally, this is an experience we have quite often. It is a giddy feeling of one's own quantum stage racing ahead while others' decoherencies drag like classical mental anchors. One actually feels spread out in Bergsonian duration with a wider temporal/spectral view of quantum reality. Doug - 29Apr2002.] For this purpose it need not be entirely absorbed in the passing sensation or idea; for then, on the contrary, it would no longer endure. Nor need it forget its former states: it is enough that, in recalling these states, it does not set them alongside its actual state as one point alongside another, but forms both the past and the present states into an organic whole, as happens when we recall the notes of a tune, melting, so to speak, into one another. Might it not be said that, even if these notes succeed one another, yet we perceive them in one another, and that their totality may be compared to a living being whose parts, although distinct, permeate one another just because they are so closely connected?"

(Our links, brackets, bold, color, violet bold problematics, 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

Reader, comsider that in quantum reality, time is a quantum flux intueme and it comes in countless flavors whose bases appear quatrotomous:

  • Isocoherent time (fully cloaked negentropic n¤nactual time, immeasurable by sentients in actuality),
  • Coherent time (actual zeroentropic reversible time),
  • Decoherent time (this corresponds Maxwell's posentropic (2nd 'law') n¤nreversible 'classical time' except quantumly it is definable in terms of quantum vacuum flux), and
  • Mixcoherent time (mixtures of above; our closest quantum rendering of Bergson's durational time — this is our quantum modelings — we mix in classically ungrammatical present participle plurality intentionally here to script a more quantumesque reality — this is probably most characteristic of time as we sense it, e.g., as young children and critters sense it, in absence of any proselytized 'classical' unitemporal concepts).

Latter (mixcoherent time) probably most closely, in Quantonics' semantics, corresponds Bergson's "unalloyed" time. His "unalloyed" time allows any nowings to animately and heterogeneously c¤mpenetrate — via quantum c¤mplementary included-middle-duration — both pastings and futurings.

 

"Nor need it forget its former states..." But reader, does not classical homogeneous spatial separability (see lisr) and excluded-middle require this? Explain to us how those classical axioms do not require us to forget and not experience Bergsonian duration. Comsider whistling as a modeling of "thinking being directly" for your answers.

Also, compare Bergson's "...set them alongside..." juxtaposed Hermann Hesse's Nobel prize-winning, The Glass Bead Game. Now dear reader, ponder, in your own personal view, whether we are omni[di]scussing quantum~stochastics (PNFings) here? Quantum~ensembles of quantized~notes of process~durable EIMA quiescence? Now fathom temporal (spatial, material (massive), and gravitational) cohera and entropa quantum~stochasticings processings' ensemblings!

Bergson's "melting notes" offers a most perspicuous sense of quantum reality's included-middle! Bergson's duration cann¤t abide Aristotle's excluded-middle!

Return to Chapter Index

101 "The proof is that, if we interrupt the rhythm by dwelling longer than is right on one note of the tune, it is not its exaggerated length, as length, which will warn us of our mistake, but the qualitative change thereby caused in the whole of the musical phrase. We can [probably should] thus conceive of succession without [classical lisr-analytic-, quantitative-] distinction, and think of it as a mutual [included-middle] penetration [i.e., quantum qualitative thought on our quantum stages], an interconnexion and organization of elements, each one of which represents the whole, and cannot be distinguished or isolated from it except by abstract [excluded-middle, classical] thought. Such is the account of duration which would be given by a [quantum] being who was ever the same and ever changing, and who had no idea of space. But, familiar with the latter idea and indeed beset by it, we introduce it unwittingly into our feeling of pure succession; we set [juxtapose] our states of consciousness side by side [stopped and classically stabilized] in such a way as to perceive them simultaneously, no longer in one another [i.e., no longer quantum real], but alongside one another; in a word, [classically] we project time into space, [classically] we [as did Einstein in his special and general theories] express duration in terms of extensity, and succession thus takes the form of a [classically global] continuous line or a chain, the parts of which touch [lisr-analytically] without penetrating one another. Note that the mental image thus shaped implies the perception, no longer successive, but simultaneous, of a before and after [and a begin and end, a start and a stop, i.e., analytic demarcation of ideal classical contrived Zenoesque stoppable/restartable states], and that it would be a contradiction to suppose a succession which was only a succession, and which nevertheless was contained in one and the same instant."

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

 

In Quantonics, "...qualitative change..." is quantum change.

Reader, please ponder an alternate hermeneutic for Bergson's "succession without distinction:" nonclassical reality! Classical reality is state-ic. Quantum reality is phase-ic. Quantum 'numbers' count unstoppable (i.e., durational) animate phases; they do n¤t as most classicists presume count collapsible, stoppable classical states!

Classical 'education' teaches our children not to account for duration as quantum beings! Classical language keeps us in this (Pirsig's) detending "church of reason."

 

Reader, if you want to understand how Einstein really blew it with his Special and General Relativities, try imagining all of us as a blind race absent any abilities to sense and measure light. Assume we can hear (or some sound-sensing analogue) and measure sound. Assume that you can hear a clock's time (vis-à-vis visually watching it as you recede from it: Einstein, at light speed; you at sound speed). Now redo SR and GR. What conclusions do you reach? Also consider sound in an ideal classical vacuum. Are your conclusions real? Now repeat with tachyons, etc.

And that is just what classicists want to call quantum reality, "a contradiction." Bergson shows us a genuine classical contradiction arises in classical thought when one assumes reality is unitemporally static and stoppable. (Here, "contradiction" is a classical idea, a classical concept. In quantum reality there are n¤ contradictions! Why? We can comtrive any comtext we wish, and use it to predicate, deny, and mu any meme. To a classical mind, at first blush, this sounds entirely absurd. However, fathomed in a less shallow way, one begins to see quantum light. Our best analogy here is to anticipate how classicists will react when they first see Millennium III quantum technology innovations: "Impossible!" )

Return to Chapter Index

102 "Now, when we speak of an order of succession in duration, and of the reversibility of this order, is the succession we are dealing with pure [quantum mixcoherent] succession, such as we have just defined it, without any admixture of extensity, or is it succession developing [classically] in space, in such a way that we can take in at once a number of elements which are both distinct and set side by side? There is no doubt about the answer: we could not introduce order among terms without first [classically] distinguishing them and then comparing the places which they occupy; hence we must perceive them as multiple, simultaneous and distinct; in a word, we set them side by side, and if we introduce an order in what is successive, the reason is that succession is converted into simultaneity and is projected into space. In short, when the movement of my finger along a surface or a line provides me with a series of sensations of different qualities, one of two things happens: either I [quantumly] picture these sensations to myself as in duration only, and in that case they succeed one another in such a way that I cannot at a given moment perceive a number of them as simultaneous and yet distinct; or else I [classically] make out an order of succession, but in that case I display the faculty not only of perceiving a succession of elements, but also of setting them out in line after having distinguished them: in a word, I already possess the idea of space. Hence the idea of a reversible series in duration, or even simply of a certain order of succession in time, itself implies the representation of space, and cannot be used to define it."

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

 

 

 

 

 

Bergson says we have two choices in how we perceive reality: either classically or quantumly. (Actually, we agree with Pirsig. Reality is a quanton(DQ,SQ). Bergson describes our choices as a classical either/or which we can show like this: dichon(DQ, SQ). Pirsig refers latter as a "platypus." What is notable in our comparison of quanton and dichon is Pirsig's intuitive quantonic (former script example) balance of both animacy (DQ) and inanimacy (SQ), with their middles quantum-included. Latter classical (script example) mandates an excluded-middle.)

Return to Chapter Index

103 "To give this argument a stricter form, let us imagine a straight line of unlimited length, and on
Succession cannot be symbolized as a line without introducing the idea of space of three dimensions. this line a material point A, which moves. If this point were conscious of itself, it would feel itself change, since it moves it would perceive a succession; but would this succession assume for it the form of a line?
No doubt it would, if it could rise, so to speak, above the line which it traverses, and perceive simultaneously several points of it in juxtaposition: but by doing so it would form the idea of space, and it is in space and not in pure duration that it would see displayed the changes which it undergoes. We here put our finger on the mistake of those who regard pure duration as something similar to space, but of a simpler nature. They are fond of setting psychic states side by side, of forming a chain or a line of them, and do not imagine that they are introducing into this operation the idea of space properly so called, the idea of space in its totality, because space is a medium of three dimensions. But how can they fail to notice that, in order to perceive a line as a line, it is necessary to take up a position outside it, to take account of the void which surrounds it, and consequently to [CTM-]think a space of three dimensions? If our conscious point A does not yet possess the idea of space—and this is the hypothesis which we have agreed to adopt—the succession of [psychic] states through which it passes cannot assume for it the form of a line; but its sensations will add themselves dynamically to one another and will organize themselves, like the successive notes of a tune by which we allow ourselves to be lulled and soothed. In a word, pure duration might well be nothing but a succession of qualitative changes, which melt into and permeate one another, without precise outlines, without any tendency to externalize themselves in relation to one another, without any affiliation with number: it would be pure heterogeneity. But for the present we shall not insist upon this point; it is enough for us to have shown that, from the moment when you attribute the least homogeneity to duration, you surreptitiously introduce space."

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents! Your children are still being taught this classical HyperBoole today! Do you want to support, pay for, and allow your children to attend an education system which is still entrapped in classical Aristotelian and Newtonian legacies? Doug - 15Mar2001.

 

 

 

Following comments are VERY important!
Muchas buenoisimo enlightenment here! Doug.

 

Reader, we do n¤t agree with Bergson's statement here. Can you see his own classical either/or dichon, his own Pirsigean platypus? He tells us reality offers us either pure duration or analytical space. (Bergson's use of a classical knife to do schismatic, either/or cutting of reality here explains our conundrum of his excluded-middle either/or off/on intellectual sympathy which he described in his An Introduction to Metaphysics (see p. 69 there and browser search for 'intellectual sympathy'), and which we diagramed in our 2000 News (big page!).) That contrived platypusean reality is a:

dichon(pure_duration, analytical_space)!

That dichon is n¤n-quantonic! It shows SOM's "comma-space wall" classically separating pure quantum duration from classical analytical space. It is roughly equivalent to an ugly dichonic perversion of Pirsigean MoQ like this:

dichon(DQ, SQ)!

"What does that mean, Doug?" It means that Pirsig's absolutely animate DQ has been made classically inanimate, by trapping it inside SOM's dichonic, analytic "Church of Reason." Yes reader, that is a perversion, like Jabba the Hut's solidification of Han Solo in Star Wars.

Quantum reality is n¤t an inanimate, SOMitic, classically formal, excluded-middle, dichonic, either/or reality.

Quantum reality is an absolutely animate, MoQitic, emerqant, included-middle, quantonic, both/while/and reality!

Bergson's comments here appear to lack concord with his many other statements elsewhere on Nature's intrinsics of fusion, interpenetration, and permeation.

Throughout his An Introduction to Metaphysics, his Creative Evolution, and his Time and Free Will, Bergson describes prolifically his own intuemes of fusion, interpenetration, and permeation of natural duration's "sympathizing" of both homogeneous and heterogeneous reality (e.g., "...notes in notes..."). Too, his own definitions of duration imply (at least to us, they do) that his quantumesque meme of duration depends upon quantum included-middle memes of "fusion, coinsidence, interpenetration, and permeation."

Pirsig, strangely, apparently suffers a very similar classical philosophical dyslexia. In a recent postcard to us (dated 21Dec2000), he says,

"I think the static patterns of cultures are in accord with Geertz' pluralism, but they all follow quality which in its Dynamic condition is monistic not pluralistic."

(Note to readers: we are currently also reviewing Clifford Geertz' Available Light, 2000, PUP.)

If we transcribe Pirsig's sentence using Bergsonese we have,

"I think the homogeneities of cultures are in accord with Geertz' pluralism, but they all follow duration which in its pure condition is homogeneous not heterogeneous."

(Observe our plural (i.e., many) use of Bergson's singular monistic "homogeneity" to transcribe Pirsig's plural (i.e., many) use of "static patterns!")

Notice how, transcribed in Bergsonese, Pirsig's sentence c¤mplementarily inverts (comjugates) Bergson's meme of animate/pure duration from heterogeneous to homogeneous. Too, our transcription similarly inverts Bergson's meme of spatial duration from homogeneous to a heterogeneous plurality of homogeneities!

We are profoundly amazed at this apparent philosophical conundrum of perspective!

But, dear reader, it is a TELL! It is a quantum tell!

Persist and yee shall see fruit borne of this marvelous Bergsonian/Pirsigean quantum soluble paralogism.

Also notice how Pirsig uses a classically objective "not" to place SOM's wall solidly twixt homogeneous (monistic) and heterogeneous (pluralistic). He appears to say to us that reality is either monistic or pluralistic; i.e., dichon(heterogeneous, homogeneous). Just as Bergson apparently did, Pirsig appears to pervert his own Quality as a dichon(DQ, SQ)!

As we can see, when anyone uses English language, it becomes very difficult to escape SOM's Church of Reason! It may be obvious too that is why Quantonics is developing a n¤vel, more animate, language and semiotics for Millennium III!

We find it quite extraordinary that both gentlemen make this apparent philosophical mistake! Especially since Bergson has made such an issue of classical negation as subjective. (Bergson's either/or is an implied classical dichotomy which further demands classical negation or an objective 'not' twixt his pure duration and his spatial duration.)

We appear to stand almost alone on this philosophical issue. William James in his Some Problems of Philosophy appears to perceive a classical either/or here too, and Dr. Irving Stein of Merritt College, Oakland, CA-USA, in his The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, sees his nonspace (heterogeneity) and space (homogeneity) as bistable classical either/or states too!

All these positions appear to us as classical philosophical detritus, dregs of classical legacy language and thing-king (CTMs).

We will look for Bergson, James, Pirsig and Stein examples which illustrate their apparent philosophical dyslexia, and show them here. Mean time, for fun, you will learn much if you search our site and their texts for your own examples.

  1. One Bergson example occurs in topic 21, p. 108, where he says, "...interpenetration of conscious states is going on, which constitutes true duration..." Clearly this exemplifies a quantum both/and of both spatial and pure duration. Bergson offers countless other similar examples.
  2. Our best Pirsig example is his paraphrased-exemplified re-uses of a paracomposite "...we are in It and It is in us..." quote of Eugen Herrigel. Juxtapose this to his prescient, "Both mind and matter are...capable of each containing the other without contradiction." See Pirsig in Lila: See 5-6 pages into chapter 12 of Lila, page 178 of a Bantam paperback or page 154 of a Bantam hardbound.

We offer serious students a Quantonic explanation of our comments and observations above...

Reader, you may also see some other major difficulties arising from our transcription above of Pirsig's postcard sentence in Bergsonese. Consider this classically apparent lack of concord:

  1. Pirsig sees his DQ as a monism (homogeneity), where Bergson sees his own pure duration as heterogeneous (a pluralism).
  2. Pirsig sees his SQ as a pluralism (heterogeneity), where Bergson sees his own successive extensity ("side-by-side 3-space, or spatial duration") as a homogeneity (a monism).

"Doug," you say, "How can that be? You adhere both of their philosophies, metaphysics, and sciences with few exceptions. You admire both philosophers enormously. Yet they both arrive at c¤mplementary positions using very similar philosophical modes of think-king!"

Well reader, quantum reality says they are both right!

How?

Our simplest way to show this (yet still n¤t easy to grasp) is using quantons.

We can say Quantonically, both:

  • Realityquanton(monism,pluralism), and
  • Realityquanton(pluralism,monism).

If we arbitrarily choose to view any left side of a quanton as Quantonic n¤nactuality and any right side as Quantonic actuality, then our above semiotics say both:

  • Actualityquanton(monism,pluralism), and
  • N¤nactualityquanton(monism,pluralism).

This agrees well with a quantum philosophy of reality, which says that:

Realityquanton(n¤nactuality,actuality), and that we can represent both n¤nactuality and actuality as quantum c¤mplementary both/and comjugates, i.e., both:

  • Actualityquanton(islandic_autonomy,many_autonomies), and
  • N¤nactualityquanton(cohesive_isoflux,many_isofluxes)

What we see now is that quantum n¤nactuality has a heterogeneous nature omnifferent quantum actuality's heterogeneous nature. Similarly, quantum n¤nactuality has a homogeneous nature different from quantum actuality's homogeneous nature. Let's list them:

  • N¤nactual_heterogeneitypluralistic_heterogeneous_isofluxes
  • Actual_heterogeneitypluralistic_heterogeneous_islandic_autonomies
    • CR's MRTs in OGC is a subspecies of these heterogeneous quantum fluxes.
  • N¤nactual_homogeneitymonistic_cohesion_of_heterogeneous_isoflux
  • Actual_homogeneitymonistic_homogeneous_islands_of_autonomy
    • SOM's OGT in OGC is a subspecies of this homogeneous quantum flux.

Folks, these four major bullets are a superb grammatical depiction of quantum reality as we in Quantonics know it today! If you want to know general philosophical quantum reality, memorize and understand these four bullets! And package them thus:

Quantum_Realityquanton(N¤nactuality,Actuality).

Mimicking Bergson we might say, "Generally, there are at least two 'kinds' of quantum heterogeneity and homogeneity." Further we would say, remembering points made in our opening paragraph above, that as quantum beings we do n¤t live in just one (a subdomain of our last bullet) of those quantum islandic domains as SOMites would have us believe. Rather we live in all of them, together, in quantum c¤mplementarity, simultaneously!

We can now distill all this to quantum comjugate c¤mplementary sentences, both:

  1. Actual reality issi many locally autonomous islands whose internals are locally homogeneous, and
  2. N¤nactual reality issi homogeneous quantum cohesion of many isofluxes.

It is worth your while to do some think-king about distillation one above. It will help to view how SOM made its large philosophical mistake of OGT in OGC! Similarly, it helps to see how CR made a progressive but largely incomplete philosophical mistake of MRTs in OGC.

SOMites see their own one local island's context as reality and bootstrap (e.g., Peano's modular induction) its specific, local concepts and ideas to full blown generality. They declare their own local truths "the general, absolute truths." Absolute static dogma reigns in SOMland. And now we know their arrogant generalization and concomitant inquisitions fail for Good paralogical and rhetorical reasons.

CRites continued residence in SOM's OGT, but declared all truths relative to viewer perspective. CRites insist there are no absolutes! Chaos reigns in CRland.

What about MoQ? See our superb philosophical comparisons of MoQ, CR and SOM.

As Bergson might say, "And thus we see reality c¤mplements (both pure duration and spatial duration), each with c¤mplements of -geneity (both hetero- and homo-)." Trouble is, he does n¤t say this concisely as we surmise he should. Ditto Pirsig, James, and Stein.

However, Mae-wan Ho, a quantum biologist, interprets and commingles both Bergson (intentionally) and Pirsig (unintentionally) in a manner similar to ours (paraphrased) both:

  1. "Actuality is an infinitely divisible ('many' a la Pirsig), quantitative homogeneity ('one' a la Bergson), and
  2. "N¤nactuality is an indivisible ('one' a la Pirsig), qualitative heterogeneity ('many' a la Bergson)." See chapter 12 of her, the Rainbow and the Worm.

Our Quantonic semiotics can show a simple Bergsonian

quanton
on right and
on left with
n¤nactuality's

with

isoflux
 actuality
n¤nactuality
blue dotted
animately

"fusing, interpenetrating, permeating" actuality.

In Bergson's congenital Autiot we see quantons(Aleph,Yod). Doug - 20Mar2015.

As you may choose to perceive, there are many ways to look at this quantum meme of comjugate homogeneity and heterogeneity. During Millennium III's first century some of these issues will emerse tentative but more persistent and utile resolutions.

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
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2028 — Rev. 20Mar2015  PDR — Created: 23Feb2001  PDR
(3Jul2001 rev - Update extensive p. 103 commentary.)
(21Jan2002 rev - Remediate quantum comtextual occurrences of 'complement' to 'c¤mplement.)
(2Jun2002 rev - Add anchor to our Pirsig recent postcard quote. Add link to our Geertz' AL review.)
(3Jun2002 rev - Add anchor to page 101 Zeno comments.)
(19Jun2002 rev - Add Heterogeneous Durational Quantum Timings anchor to beginning of page 100 comments.)
(21Jun2002 rev - Repair some p. 103 comments re: quantum homo- and hetero-geneous actuality/n¤nactuality.)
(27Jun2002 rev - Clarify our p. 101 SR & GR comments for sound speed vis-à-vis light speed gedankenments.)
(3Jul2002 rev - Change several occurrences of Bergson 'states' to bold italic and violet.)
(23Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(7Aug2002 rev - Assure all colons are emboldened.)
(9Jan2003 rev - Add Zenos_Paradice link under page 101 text embedded bracketed comment.)
(17Jun2003 rev - Add Chapter Title link to Pogson's Index item on 'Duration.')
(23Jan2004 rev - Repair p. 103 comment quantum 'not' in a Pirsig postcard quote.)
(2Mar2005 rev - Adjust colors. Reset page width constraints.)
(8Aug2005 rev - Add Bagger Vance anchor to p. 100 text.)
(18Jan2006 rev - Add pages 100 and 101 comments 'pastings nowings futurings' link (100) and 'phase' link (page 101) to our QELR of 'time.')
(23Mar2006 rev - Adjust colors.)
(21Jan2008 rev - Reformat slightly.)
(5Nov2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)
(11Dec2008 rev - Add minor commentary updates in red text. Add two p. 101 commentary links: 'static,' thence 'durational.')
(12Mar2010 - Minor comment upgrade to p. 100. Make page current.)
(20Mar2015 rev - Reformat p. 103 narrative~commentary. Reset legacy markups. Make page current. Adjust color.)

 

Return to Review