I am glad i came across your video for me trying to understand Bergson on my own seems impossible. I will watch more of Bergson the way you present him. I first came across him by way of Stephen Robbins on youtube. Robbins was very kind to reply to my e mails on his videos. I will be 74 years old next month but still have a curious mind. I have studied Buddha's teachings for the majority of my life as truck driver and ending my work career as a Railroad Conductor 14 years ago. Thank you so much for sharing your understanding and the gift of expressing it out loud.
I've got a ton of Bergson books and the BEST, thus far, is an old one by Alexander Gunn. It is easier to follow than most. I recommend starting there but RUclips is also excellent.
THANK YOU for this clarification, I'm reading Bergonism and I was stuck on the damn cone part. What the hell does he mean by 'rotating' as supplement to 'contraction'? How am I supposed to understand this 'rotating'?
This is a really difficult question which Deleuze discussed without, imo, making it much clearer. I think that it has a lot to do with the different ways that a nebula of memories can influence our consciousness, not just by becoming memory images. Rotational changes the multitude by reorienting and organizing them… elsewhere he calls is a turn if the kaleidoscope. The contraction change has more to do with compressing complex elements into smaller simpler symbolic or habitual units.
that satie'esque kind background loop is interrupting the matter. i got your point, it is a furniture music, and excellent choice. (i had to say this sorry)
@SocraticSwansongs will be viewing more of your valuable work professor. Sudden passing of my wife, 6 months before I reitred, she was negligected for 13 days. She died like prophet, yet she was a saint! We had 47 short years together! For almost 3 years I have been trying for causes for existence of Evil and Ethernal life has brought me here! As this will remain to my final days! God bless!
Havnt read bergson, but i get interested in reading matter and memory now, does he develop or reject platonic realism or theory of forms? Is he an occasionalist?
Thanks for your explanations! So, did I understand correctly that consciousness is a plane of memory, that tries to connect to the present? Why does Bergson say that memory is the bridge between matter and spirit? And what exactly is the panpsycism, Bergson means? What is the spirit? And The elan vital is time, right? In which way is the plane holografic? Is the hologram memories then? Seems like the more I try to understand Bergson, the less I do understand 😅
Yea consciousness is a plane of memory, contracting the past into a concentration of memories, configuring them in a way that makes them fit together so that they make sense of the present and, normally, to afford it with a path toward something useful
Pure Memory can not reside (or 'be spaced') in the brain coz that would spatialize the temporal. Any residence, be it in the brain or in some other etheric realm, would mean it is spatializable. Bergson is claiming pure memory exists temporally and temporally only (unlike habit-memory, or memory-images present to fill up the gaps in perceptions). This grounding on absolute temporality supports his thesis that the past and future still exist, albeit virtually, that means he is not looking at the passage of time as a timeline but as a duration, since a timeline is again spatialized time (so is calendar time for example). Thus, pure memory, by being what is, can not be spaced inside the brain or in a computer (as those uploading consciousness nerds and the brain-in-a-vat nerd like to think). Same goes for the spirit-body problem that Bergson tackles, as it would be incorrect to think of the spirit being spaced inside the shell of a body, since he frames the spirit to be more akin to pure memory. In the same vein, he is not a fan of representationalism. The very word, 'represent' has the sense of re presenting, that it is happening THERE in the world and my consciousness is presenting it HERE again in its little made up world inside my brain for my body to act on it, making it a spatialized claim apropos representation as the bringing the there to a here. In fact, the logic of representation, even representation of ideas not conscious to me -- such as in theoretically knowing of the existence of something (e.g., when am conscious of the existence of atoms even though I can never sense it like I can with an apple in front of my eyes) -- still has this the world there now brought here in the symbolic domain of math and science to presented here so we can manipulate symbols and so on. Re-presentation == move the presence of there in the world to here in my world == a transportation in space between worlds.
Also, would have been nice for viewers, if you wanted to mention that The Image is not of the world, rather the world is a world (read: multiplicity) of images. Its not that the real world is out THERE and we HERE are perceiving it via images (as the materialists would claim), for that would suffer from a logic of representation (there to here movement), nor that we HERE are fabricating the world out there (as the idealists would claim). Once you drop representation, it allows you to drop having to chose between either camps of idealism and materialism, and as a bonus you get the concept of time that is not tampered by sprinkles of spatialization. Although he does say something weird in Pg159 of 'Matter and Memory' (the Dover Philosophical Classics edition), "For the images can never be anything but things, and thought is a movement" -- Is he trying to say that images are not in flux, but it is thought that puts the flux in things-as-images?
As far as I understand, we see the images because of our mode of perception, so that we can act on them. If we only saw processes, we could not really act.
I'm not sure you can say that for Bergson "the future still exists, albeit virtually ". For him reality is continuous generation of novelty. While you can say the past continues to exist in memory, my understanding is that for Bergson the future is completely open and yet to come, so to speak. That is also why it is also unpredictable. What can be predicted are only the regularities that can be extracted from the whole of reality (those regularities on which science focuses), regularities that relate only to repeatable, quantifiable, measurable subsets of reality, but not to reality as a whole (and not to living systems, which share the same unpredictability of the whole).
Aye good stuff. Memory is navigation. Survival. I fear our memory has been hi-jacked by morons, leading to our brain's becoming stuffed full of the non-essential. A wild animal does not remember in this way.... Indeed, to re-member means something else entirely, does it not, as does the word 're-call', or 're-collect'. BTW, you look like that guy out of the recent film, 'Something in the Dirt'....
Great video. Terrible music mix that drowns you out. I’m not sure why the default move is to add mysterious droning beats to philosophical discussions. Let it speak for itself.
The piano doesn’t play the whole way thru. Also, it’s putting the ideas that I’m talking about to work in real time; can you focus your attention to not be distracted by the noise ?
I found the music alternatingly illustrative and annoying, but it's RUclips, not university. You can get a pdf and use the read aloud feature, or you can accept the creator's choices. The music made me think about the way vibrations and rhythms are an interface between time and space, which seems to be relevant here.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I am glad i came across your video for me trying to understand Bergson on my own seems impossible. I will watch more of Bergson the way you present him. I first came across him by way of Stephen Robbins on youtube. Robbins was very kind to reply to my e mails on his videos. I will be 74 years old next month but still have a curious mind. I have studied Buddha's teachings for the majority of my life as truck driver and ending my work career as a Railroad Conductor 14 years ago. Thank you so much for sharing your understanding and the gift of expressing it out loud.
Thanks!! Glad it’s helpful. Never a bad time to start philosophizing!
I've got a ton of Bergson books and the BEST, thus far, is an old one by Alexander Gunn. It is easier to follow than most. I recommend starting there but RUclips is also excellent.
This is so good, thanks so much for your time and insight in putting this together!
THANK YOU for this clarification, I'm reading Bergonism and I was stuck on the damn cone part. What the hell does he mean by 'rotating' as supplement to 'contraction'? How am I supposed to understand this 'rotating'?
This is a really difficult question which Deleuze discussed without, imo, making it much clearer. I think that it has a lot to do with the different ways that a nebula of memories can influence our consciousness, not just by becoming memory images. Rotational changes the multitude by reorienting and organizing them… elsewhere he calls is a turn if the kaleidoscope. The contraction change has more to do with compressing complex elements into smaller simpler symbolic or habitual units.
Existential philosophy combined with micro tonality is some kind of stellar experience
Thanks for stopping by!
that satie'esque kind background loop is interrupting the matter. i got your point, it is a furniture music, and excellent choice. (i had to say this sorry)
Opertunity to constrict the focus of your cone. Honestly my voice audio got messed up with noise so I put in the background music to cover that up
Great explanation, even an engineer can relate to your clear in depth explanation! Awesome!
🙏🏻
@SocraticSwansongs do you teach western philosophy? Or just an expert!
@@no42arak-st-floor44I am assistant professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies
@SocraticSwansongs will be viewing more of your valuable work professor. Sudden passing of my wife, 6 months before I reitred, she was negligected for 13 days. She died like prophet, yet she was a saint! We had 47 short years together! For almost 3 years I have been trying for causes for existence of Evil and Ethernal life has brought me here! As this will remain to my final days! God bless!
@@no42arak-st-floor44very sorry to hear that. Wishing you all the best on your journey ❤
EXCELLENT.
Many thanks!
what is the background music?
Something I threw together! Planning to make it into a song at some point…
why are you using microtonal music? Does Johnston led to you to Bergson?@@SocraticSwansongs
Havnt read bergson, but i get interested in reading matter and memory now, does he develop or reject platonic realism or theory of forms?
Is he an occasionalist?
Thanks man helps a lot
Excellent job Jack. I am a fairly big Bergson fan myself. Reach out if you ever desire a "Bergson chat."
Michael Pryzdia
ASU
Super helpful.
🙏🏻
Can we get a collaboration with Formscapes?
That would be great! Don’t know him but think that would be a great conversation
@@SocraticSwansongs yes yes yes it would ❤
Thanks for your explanations! So, did I understand correctly that consciousness is a plane of memory, that tries to connect to the present?
Why does Bergson say that memory is the bridge between matter and spirit?
And what exactly is the panpsycism, Bergson means? What is the spirit? And
The elan vital is time, right?
In which way is the plane holografic? Is the hologram memories then?
Seems like the more I try to understand Bergson, the less I do understand 😅
Yea consciousness is a plane of memory, contracting the past into a concentration of memories, configuring them in a way that makes them fit together so that they make sense of the present and, normally, to afford it with a path toward something useful
The backround music is disturbing 😢
Dilate your cone a little more
Pure Memory can not reside (or 'be spaced') in the brain coz that would spatialize the temporal. Any residence, be it in the brain or in some other etheric realm, would mean it is spatializable. Bergson is claiming pure memory exists temporally and temporally only (unlike habit-memory, or memory-images present to fill up the gaps in perceptions). This grounding on absolute temporality supports his thesis that the past and future still exist, albeit virtually, that means he is not looking at the passage of time as a timeline but as a duration, since a timeline is again spatialized time (so is calendar time for example). Thus, pure memory, by being what is, can not be spaced inside the brain or in a computer (as those uploading consciousness nerds and the brain-in-a-vat nerd like to think).
Same goes for the spirit-body problem that Bergson tackles, as it would be incorrect to think of the spirit being spaced inside the shell of a body, since he frames the spirit to be more akin to pure memory.
In the same vein, he is not a fan of representationalism. The very word, 'represent' has the sense of re presenting, that it is happening THERE in the world and my consciousness is presenting it HERE again in its little made up world inside my brain for my body to act on it, making it a spatialized claim apropos representation as the bringing the there to a here. In fact, the logic of representation, even representation of ideas not conscious to me -- such as in theoretically knowing of the existence of something (e.g., when am conscious of the existence of atoms even though I can never sense it like I can with an apple in front of my eyes) -- still has this the world there now brought here in the symbolic domain of math and science to presented here so we can manipulate symbols and so on. Re-presentation == move the presence of there in the world to here in my world == a transportation in space between worlds.
Also, would have been nice for viewers, if you wanted to mention that The Image is not of the world, rather the world is a world (read: multiplicity) of images. Its not that the real world is out THERE and we HERE are perceiving it via images (as the materialists would claim), for that would suffer from a logic of representation (there to here movement), nor that we HERE are fabricating the world out there (as the idealists would claim). Once you drop representation, it allows you to drop having to chose between either camps of idealism and materialism, and as a bonus you get the concept of time that is not tampered by sprinkles of spatialization.
Although he does say something weird in Pg159 of 'Matter and Memory' (the Dover Philosophical Classics edition), "For the images can never be anything but things, and thought is a movement" -- Is he trying to say that images are not in flux, but it is thought that puts the flux in things-as-images?
As far as I understand, we see the images because of our mode of perception, so that we can act on them. If we only saw processes, we could not really act.
I'm not sure you can say that for Bergson "the future still exists, albeit virtually ". For him reality is continuous generation of novelty. While you can say the past continues to exist in memory, my understanding is that for Bergson the future is completely open and yet to come, so to speak. That is also why it is also unpredictable. What can be predicted are only the regularities that can be extracted from the whole of reality (those regularities on which science focuses), regularities that relate only to repeatable, quantifiable, measurable subsets of reality, but not to reality as a whole (and not to living systems, which share the same unpredictability of the whole).
I hope I understand this on the second listen
It took me many years, with the help of many experts, to understand this. Don’t give up!
Aye good stuff. Memory is navigation. Survival. I fear our memory has been hi-jacked by morons, leading to our brain's becoming stuffed full of the non-essential. A wild animal does not remember in this way.... Indeed, to re-member means something else entirely, does it not, as does the word 're-call', or 're-collect'. BTW, you look like that guy out of the recent film, 'Something in the Dirt'....
Agreed. Looks like an interesting film!
Great video. Terrible music mix that drowns you out. I’m not sure why the default move is to add mysterious droning beats to philosophical discussions. Let it speak for itself.
What music?
I would have loved watching this, but for the absolutely annoying piano-noise. Impossible for me to think through this horror!
The piano doesn’t play the whole way thru. Also, it’s putting the ideas that I’m talking about to work in real time; can you focus your attention to not be distracted by the noise ?
I found the music alternatingly illustrative and annoying, but it's RUclips, not university. You can get a pdf and use the read aloud feature, or you can accept the creator's choices.
The music made me think about the way vibrations and rhythms are an interface between time and space, which seems to be relevant here.
The eerie BG piano is really distracting :/
Contract your cone
@@SocraticSwansongs 😆💯💯
@@alexvlair9290been planning to re upload with the music lower but can’t find where I saved the original project 😂
Ah too bad! But oh well, it's a fascinating topic, thanks for putting it together! I'm sure there are other viewers who aren't as distracted 😋