Intro to Matter and Memory: Henri Bergson's Theory of the External Image
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- **Important notice ** Some comments on my videos seem to be deleted automatically, before I can read them. I would never delete anyone’s comment. If you would like to contact me and your comments are being deleted please reach out at :
purememoryphilosophy@gmail.com
An in depth guide to Bergson's often overlooked concept of the external image as put forth in chapter 1 of Matter and Memory
All animations made by me.
For more content on Bergson's external image, see:
• Bergson's Holographic ...
check out more of my art here:
/ mattcangiano
Great video! I Would love to hear more on Bergsons concept of memory, I hope you continue making video's.
This was very nicely done. I appreciate the shout-out you gave to Stephen Robbins. I've been a devoted follower of his series on Bergson and find that your interpretation of Bergson's theory of the image of the external world resonates well with his.
Thank you! Stephen Robbins is a great mind who is under appreciated, I hope more people find their way to his work.
You sound just like a grown up Linus. Love it.
A very cogent explication of the basics of Bergson. Thank you!
Thank you, glad you think so!
actually I' study Philosohpy and I excited with this video. Thank you very much
Hey! I appreciate your videos on Bergson a lot. I have read his work extensively last summer and they had a big impact on me, but I will definitely have to revisit them again and again. His conception of "image" was the part i wrestled with the most, and it was fun in a mind-bending sort of way. Listening to your video was a great way to refresh my memory. I also really like the animations.
Thanks!
Thanks so much for the feedback! I struggled with what he meant by ‘image’ very much the first two times I read the text. Eventually I realized, that like most of his ideas, I did not need to think up to it, but rather undo my habits of thought in order to reveal what immediate consciousness already knows. I think this concept is one of the most profound concepts in Bergson, and one of the hardest to understand. I’m glad you enjoyed the video and animations, hope it added clarity and not confusion hahaha!
@@purememory939I would definitely agree that it is one of the most profound concepts in Bergson's work, and maybe one of the most overlooked ones. He is really great at undoing the habits of thought. I find his approach to metaphysics very freeing.
And the video didn't add any confusion at all, it is the opposite!
Hella good job, man. You should keep making videos. And by the way, your approach to philosophy is similar to many others. Few are ONLY philosophers. most of us are "something else". I'm a software developer (that's how I pay my bills) but I have a passion for creativity, philosophy, and deep stuff.
Hey! Thanks for the feedback. I just added that in there to kind of give context to my approach. I love the idea of people being invested in tradition of philosophy but coming from different backgrounds. Its prime terrain for new thought and perspectives! Im actually putting together a new video right now, hopefully it will be out by the end of the month :)
Good words man, you're right. Sometimes i wish the parttime scientists/philosophers could join forces in a more constructive venture. Knowledge should not solely be produced by universities and they should not necessarily have all the authority.
it still surprises me that after so many thousands years we still question consciousness and still don’t know a thing about it
It depends on what you mean by 'know'. Personal, I think it is the only thing we actually know intimately and immediately. Everything else is secondary speculation. So, what if consciousness is primary? It does not matter how many years one spends, you can not explain an ontological base, by the concepts it gives rise to? As Bernardo Kastrup states; you cannot generate the territory out of the map.
@@purememory939 Knowledge is Relative as it applies only to our particular Time Period and the Sciences have, again in our Time Period. Knowledge is transmissable.
Wisdom however, is not transmissable. Wisdom comes from Experiences, Feelings, those precious moments of Enlightenment we sometimes have. This cannot be put into adequate words for words often alter the meaning and impact of said Experiences, Feelings…..
As Wisdom is the Inner Consciousness, it is not Secondary at all. Knowledge, being Relative, is Secondary as it applies only to the “Here & Now”. Remember, not all Knowledge of past times was correct and cert8what is currently classified as Knowledge is often hopelessly incorrect. Science is the Religion of Matter, but it is a Religion all the same, it is not Knowledge
Wisdom transcends words.
True Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom belong together in a strange way. Consider the meanings of the words.
Knowledge is to know something. It does not mean that you Understand that something. I know of Calculus but blowed if I understand it (because I have not studied it)
Understanding is Knowledge that is actually understood, deeply, with all implications and aspects fully understood.
Wisdom transcends both as it deals with the “Changeability and Transmutability” of both Knowledge and Understanding. Wisdom deals with both Knowledge and Understanding coming From each Inner Consciousness rather than from an external source. Even Knowledge, which is seemingly and External Educational Result, initially was the “brainchild” of a person in the past which was researched and tested and written about until it is transmitted to you as current educational knowledge.
However, when we discuss Knowledge in the context of the Esoteric or the Metaphysical, then THIS KNOWLEDGE is completely Relative. Its Understanding is Relative. Its Wisdom is Relative, as all apply only to You. Even if you belong to a group then Your understanding of issues will differ from the understanding of a fellow “believer”. Thus it is Relative. What You experience through your beliefs will differ from anyone else no matter how strict and dogmatic the Beliefs, Religion or Cult; or even the Philosophy. Everyone, Every Single Person Understands Life, Experiences and Knowledge uniquely and differently from every other individual and unique person.
Also I say that Knowledge is Relative in the above paragraph because “Knowledge” in Science differs radically from Knowledge of Religions and other belief systems though now some scientists are embracing the Vedic writings as Science rather than as religion………..whereas in the past the Hindu, Sanskrit religion and writings were held as heretical and taboo by both Science and Christianity……. and so it goes on.
I write this because I am old and have experienced much in my Life. Knowledge is actually the least. Understanding is far greater but also has more levels to it - levels of Understanding. Wisdom however, is actually Indefinable for it cannot be put into words. Words actually pervert the Meanings one wishes to express from Wisdom. Sometimes simple words of wisdom can be used but when one tries to extend and enhance those gems of Wisdom, one loses the meaning in the complexity of the effort.
I can say that I have an Understanding of Consciousness; what it is, where it comes from, how it works…. but I could never place said Understandings into words. Such Understanding transcends words. Words do it no justice at all and merely pervert Its Truth. This clearly indicates that such Understanding is NOT secondary as you imply. What people Know is but surface Knowledge. What you call Secondary Speculation is actually the Primary Source, of all Knowledge as well.
Mind, this is all Relative as it comes from MY Knowledge, Experiences, Understandings and Wisdoms alone. All this does not come from YOUR Knowledge, Experiences, Understandings, and possible from no one elses as well. So, it is all Relative.
And Einstein’s theory of Relativity is the most important piece of Knowledge of all! But how do YOU Understand and Experience it? If you merely Know it then that is not adequate when discussing the subject of Consciousness. Not Enough! Knowledge is not the Primary at all if one does not understand a thing about it.
@@purememory939 Another point which may interest;
Knowledge is Learning and Conviction about what one has learnt according to the Level of Understanding of the Individual.
Direct Experience is quite different, is inexplainable and mostly described via the person’s past beliefs. However the Event experienced is mostly different to how one translates it…….
Complex, but pertinent
@@anitaheubel3228 I agree with much of what you say. The problem is that the words 'knowing', 'consciousness', 'wisdom' can mean many different things, I think that is where some of the confusion came in. When I said secondary speculation, I meant something more along the lines of what you mean by 'Knowledge'. For example we experience the world and from this we might create a concept of matter. This concept is relative, and is secondary to our concrete experience. I agree with you that wisdom and raw understanding or pre-conceptual understanding are primary, and can not be communicated or 'conceptualized' without changing their very nature.
After reading your response, i'm curious, why are you surprised that we have no knowledge of consciousness? The fact that you are surprised indicates that you believe it is possible to have knowledge about it?
@@purememory939 I quite understand, and mostly agree. It is in fact, Relative. All of it.
It must be pointed out that Direct Experience cannot be put into words as the experience itself loses Truth in the process. Too many words are needed and used to explain and describe the Experience. Too many interpretations, analogies, examples…….are used and all remove Truth from the Experience. Therefore, Your Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom from Your Direct Experience can never be passed on to another person and thus can never be as Knowledge, Understanding or Wisdom for that other person; only ever for You. It is thus Relative to You alone.
Brilliant Video. Kudos for your great effort👌
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video! super concise and well summarized info, I almost feel like I read the book. Thanks for your work, Bergson is the modern day Spinoza
Glad to hear you liked the video and found it useful. Thanks for the feedback. Interesting parallel you've drawn between Spinoza and Bergson. Bergson's idea of images as primary provides an immanent account of perception. I believe Deleuze recognized this deeply. I too, read Bergson through the Spinozist lens of immanence!
You are indeed an artist, a creator. More power to you good sir🪬
Thank you for the encouraging words!
Banger
Fantastic! Very illuminating. After reading CE I am trying to figure out the exact place of matter vs spirit because he talks about the vital impetus (elan vital) as a “psychical” force. I guess I’m trying to figure out if he’s dualistic and his general view of where matter vs. vital impetus are located. This video was helpful.
When you say that our consciousness just appears to be located within our bodies, because it is subject to our sensations (25:35), how exactly does this work? Why is our consciousness receiving our sense data if it is not located inside our body? Is a new consciousness created every time a point of indeterminacy arises? Would then quantum particles that act randomly/indeterminately have their own consciousnesses? Also does that mean consciousness can change between bodies at will, if consciousness is simply choosing the body as a center?
Thanks for the feedback and the great question. The way I see it, and it’s been a while since I have read Bergson, is that consciousness and the body, co-define each other, and it is through this reciprocal process that an identity is maintained. This becomes more clear in Chapter 2 of Matter and Memory when the faculty of recognition is explored. I have written a script for this chapter I just haven’t gotten around to recording it yet.
In short, I think Bergson sees memory as serving action, the body is at once a vehicle of action that is also physically altered by its own actions (the creation of motor mechanisms in Bergson’s language). The past of a specific actor then, inherently becomes the most relevant to that specific body, this creates a specific past-present resonance, which comes to be seen as a life. In theory, this identity (which is a specific contraction and retention of the past) is not absolutely distinct, but rather porous, not fixed but ever becoming. For instance, this might explain instinctual fears, which would be a generalized memory relevant to all bodies. Surprisingly I cover this problem of identity quite a bit in my Occult series on Bergson. Hope this helps!
Thanks for your video! Do you know a wonderful text by Quentin Meillassoux "Subtraction and contraction"? Brilliant comment on these things
I have been meaning to read Meillassoux but haven't got around to him yet, I will be sure to check out that text, the title sounds enticing. Thank you for the suggestion!
Thank you for telling what's in matter and memory. I have been reading but i am no native speaker of english, and since bergson is so different from others in his thinking, english is a bit too difficult for me to understand what he is saying. Your words are very clear, I am glad I understand b's philosophy now ..-that is..chapter one. Do you have the intention to tell what's in the other chapter's too. I HOPE SO !
Thanks for the feedback and I’m glad you found the video to be elucidating! My main focus in making this video was to emphasize the importance of Bergson’s idea of external perception as I found it’s profundity was often overlooked. I am currently writing a script for some more personal videos that orient around Bergson, but perhaps I will cover the rest of the chapters of matter and memory in the future.
@@purememory939 Thanks for your response. I am trying to understand what Bergson's thought means for `responsibility'. What would his idea's change in my responsibility for myself, and what would it change in my responsibility for others/anything outside. Would it change anything at all? At this moment his words are working like a sort of cleaningmachine in my thought. It is not easy to understand what B's words imply. And to go a bit further: what do these implications imply? So, I am looking forward to find more on Bergson. I am reading three of his other books (these are translated in dutch:)). I am a frescomaker btw. The technique of fresco is a proces...it can only be made in a synthesis with the maker so to say. thanks again for your thoughts.
@@annetfresco2895 This is a great question, and it’s one I’ve pondered myself. I immediately think of his work Time and Freewill where he gives a formulation of the free act. In this text he suggests that the free act is not prefigured, it is not determined, rather it is an action that is expressed from the entirety of our being, evolving in a continuous transformation as it ripens into existence. This happens as a living process, and because duration is continuous change, there is no static position from which this act flows, rather, the action is the flow. So the act is expressed by us as it happens, but it is not predetermined, even we cannot foresee what will happen. This becomes interesting in regards to the idea of ‘responsibility’, for on one hand the more free the act the more we can attribute it to the self, yet on the other hand if we associate this action with ‘control’ we must split ourselves in two and suppose a static 'doer' behind the 'doing' which will force us back into the realm of determinism. This seems to pose a problem for the idea of responsibility, as responsibility seems to imply that we are both free and in control, but as I have just discussed freedom is exactly what is liberated from control. Maybe we have to redefine the idea of ‘control’ or the idea of ‘responsibility’ in relation to freedom as indeterminate expression. I haven’t read ‘The Two Sources of Morality and Religion’ but judging by the title, this might address your area of interest more directly! And wow that is so cool that you are a fresco maker, what a beautiful process. I myself am an oil painter and can see how Bergson is very relevant to both of these art forms.
@@purememory939 Thank you for your response! I agree very much with you about the process of frescotechniques. I never painted with oil (because of the smell, it makes me sneeze `Bergsonwise' that is: non-stop), I have no idea about the process of oilpainting - but no doubt you are right. I will send you my thoughts about responsibility as soon as I figured out more. Thank you for the title, it might help understanding this subject. Thank you.
@@purememory939 Hello. I read your answer again and again (during the months:). At this moment I think responsibility has to be redefined -as you said. Perhaps it has to do not so much with action, but with reaction. My thoughts: if there is no static positions, it means there is flow. What is flow? It must mean that there is a continues influencing and being influenced, iow. experience. Static positions mean there cannot be any influencing/experience, because static things cannot change (it would lose it's indentity). Only through experience `things' grow, learn, transform. ------ Perhaps responsibility means to choose in whatever comes to you as a potential experience, not really an action but more a kind of reaction, in that sense that one can feel a yes or no to the potential experience, and it that way one builds himself/itself. I imagine a growth like an onion grows, it has no core (no `doer') but it grows layer by layer by layer by layer,etc. I am sorry I have a lack of words in english. I am talking about allowing whatever happens to work in to you and using a decisiveness to allowing that, to wanting `to have' that. So responsibility in this way has to do with being what you are/will be/the nature of your being. It is about having a response of yes or no to ONE thing. Not a choice between two things which changes the color of the concept responsibility. Does this thought make any difference? I hope you will let me know what you think about it.
You've given a very clear presentation that was easy to follow, thank you. However, I've never read Bergson so I need some further clarification. My questions are not coming from a defensive posture -- I'm not a materialist. I tend to see mind, matter and energy as three phases of the same movement, developed as extensions of one another. Which is to say I'm merely coming from a somewhat distinct but overlapping (in some regards) non-material perspective (not idealism either). But to understand Bergson better I need some clarification: What does he make of Korzybksi's "the map is not the territory"? Is there no distinction between map (image) and territory (material)? Also how does he account for illusion if image is located in the material itself? That is, he clearly accounts for illusion as you note -- the illusion of subjectivity. But what about self-deceptive interpretations -- images that are falsified by wishful thinking (which tend to be rampant)? Are they "part of the external thing itself?" How can they be part of the thing itself and also be hallucinatory? Thank you.
I wonder if one answer to my question might be that illusions are lopsided, one-sided aspects of reality itself. That is, very limited portions that leave out so much of the thing itself that it becomes essentially bizarre. However, this seems to skirt the issue of honesty and dishonesty. So my question would then shift to what is his view on honesty and dishonesty? In other words, what about images (or portions) that are utterly self-deceptive and wrong? Are they still somehow part of the material itself? Are they in a sense broken portions of the thing itself, reflecting itself? If that's the case, then how would he account for dishonest motives? Would these be responses rooted in a fragmented portion of the material world? I may be off, but it seems that Bergson's view would be able to answer in some fashion like I've suggested, or would the response from his perspective be altogether different? Thanks.
I wonder how he would regard a distinction that is softer than dichotomy. For instance, we could also make a distinction between two forms of imagery -- Seeing (or insight), which is basically what Bergson describes, and Thought or Intellectualism, which is also part of the material universe itself, but the material of the brain reflecting on a portion of the eternity of the brain itself. I mean, why shouldn't the material of the brain be able to do certain limited things in the direction of imagery -- stories, lies, honest and dishonest metaphors, maps -- which could be a less animate form of material reflecting itself? While also maintaining what Bergson suggests as a higher form of mind, Insight, Seeing, etc. After all, there seems to be a real distinction between a meditative or proprioceptive mind and a mind that is reflexively responding, a conditioned mind. This is just my own preliminary image (or portion) of what I've made of Bergson's vision. I might be way off base. (Then again, Can I be wrong if I'm not dishonest? Is this a potential in the world, as he mnight say? Fun to play in this sandbox, thank you again.
Thanks for these challenging questions, and sorry for the delayed response. Your approach to matter, consciousness, and energy as existing on a continuum, could be read as very Bergsonian (see maybe Creative Evolution or even Deleuze’s book on Bergson). I myself have come to read Bergson as a type of dualist in which the duality exists as extremes of a polarity.
To address your question of the image as object. Bergson is providing a profound solution to the problem of representation, which relates to the distinction you call up between the ‘map and the territory’. The way I read this in his book Matter and Memory is that the image we have of the world, in principle, is not a recreation, or a re-presentation, but belongs to the world itself. For Bergson perception in its pure form (this distinction between pure and concrete perception is important), is part, of the territory itself.
The natural response to this, is and should be, exactly what you put forth: “What about hallucination?” for as you point out, sometimes I experience the world differently than it is. I recommend reading Matter and Memory for he addresses the problem rigorously and expansively, in a way that I can not parallel here. I also recommend checking out Stephen Robbinson's TH-cam channel on Bergson, where he explores this problem in a fascinating way.
That being said, I will touch on it briefly here. I can’t remember how clear I made it in this video, but the idea of perception as external is true only in the theoretical extreme of pure perception. For a number of reasons, Bergson is quite fond of these distillations, (which I believe I touch on in the video). In actual concrete experience, perception (no matter how much we divide it) is always composite, involving a flow of time, and thus involving the past. In Bergson’s term, it is a Duration. In this synthesis, the past comes to insert itself in the present, in the servitude of action. It is in this temporal contraction where the subjective dimension of perception exists, and also the possibility of hallucination. I may (and sometimes do) hallucinate a bug crawling on the wall out of the corner of my eye when really it is just a speck of dirt because past images find relevance towards action in this image. This aggregate of Memory and Perception is what we call concrete perception and is how 'my image' may differ from the object (pure external image).
This is covered in depth in Chapter 2 of Matter and Memory, with special attention to recognition, which is a particularly interesting instance of the past in the present. I have written a guide to this chapter, but have yet to get around to recording it. This is encouraging me to follow through and post it :)
Hope this helps!
Excellent. I'll have to chew this over a while. I did get out a book by Bergson (well, a collection of essays I believe), which I haven't started yet. Your example of concrete perception was excellent. I was certainly dumping a lot of explanatory work on your plate, which wasn't the kindest thing to do. But I sometimes allow myself the pleasure of just responding in the excitement of the moment and going a bit haywire. I figure I can make amends afterwards, as long as I'm being sincere, which I am naive enough to be (at present). I will follow up your suggested references and read the book. Thanks.@@purememory939
Just found you, bouta binge the rest of your content thanks bro
222 likes 👌🏾🙌🏾
A year later, are you still interested in Bergson? Currently, I'm very interested in Bergson's ideas.
Oh it's been more than a year that I've been interested in Bergson, more like 6. I'm constantly reading/rereading and returning to him. Right now I'm getting into Phenomenology and seeing how it is relevant to Bergson's project, which despite popular opinion, I think it is. Simultaneously I'm also working on the rest of the chapters for Matter and Memory, and will hopefully have those out sometime this year!
@@purememory939 that sounds fun. I can't help but try to see the world through Bergson's metaphysic. After encountering his work I've reconsidered everything I learned in my studies of physics, math, philosophy, and cognitive science. I had some help though, check out Stephen E. Robbins TH-cam channel or publications and books if you haven't already.
What phenomenology are you interested in? I've recently been caught up in thinking about the phenomenology of remembering.
I am aware of Stephen Robbins, I think his work is extremely undervalued. In my opinion he is of the sharpest minds concerning the philosophy of consciousness. I mention him right at the end of this video.
As for phenomenology I am starting with Husserl which will take some serious time and effort. So far it has been really interesting. I am also interested in the phenomonology of remembering, and think that Bergson touches on this in many places, including Chapter two of Matter and Memory.
Trump gives a speech to millions, and nobody is conscious. I'm not a materialist, but now I have to wonder, because that does seem to have been confirmed. (Apart from this poor attempt at wit, I'm enjoying the excellent video).
hahahahah