Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Space, Time and Consciousness: An Enquiry into Duration

The theory of duration is the cornerstone of Bergson's argument in Time and Free Will, and, as such, much of the discussion presented in the book revolves around it. Simply speaking, duration is essentially the process of succession of states which we undergo in our consciousness. However, when it comes to understanding what is meant by that, we realise that it is a complex idea which is difficult to grasp and can potentially produce serious misunderstandings. In order to understand what Bergson means by duration, a number of other concepts must also be examined and clarified.

Space, Time and Consciousness: An Enquiry into Duration William Fujii The theory of duration is the cornerstone of Bergson’s argument in Time and Free Will, and, as such, much of the discussion presented in the book revolves around it. Simply speaking, duration is essentially the process of succession of states which we undergo in our consciousness. However, when it comes to understanding what is meant by that, we realise that it is a complex idea which is difficult to grasp and can potentially produce serious misunderstandings. In order to understand what Bergson means by duration, a number of other concepts must also be examined and clarified. Space and time are two key concepts in Bergson’s idea of duration. He makes a clear distinction between the two, which are seen as homogenous and heterogeneous, respectively. A homogenous medium, space is measurable, extensive and has qualitative characteristics. On the other hand, Bergson sees time as something immeasurable, intensive with qualitative attributes. This is Bergson’s definition of time. The problem here lies in the fact that generally, and more so from the scientific point of view, time is seen as something with characteristics which resemble those of space rather than those of time. The reason why this is a problem is because the idea of duration is deeply related to the notion of heterogeneous time, as it can only exist within such a time, and 1 if time were indeed homogenous, then duration would not be possible, because it cannot occur in space either. Since it is a succession of states of consciousness that occurs intensively in our minds in a qualitative way rather than an extensive quantitative phenomenon, duration cannot exist in space – for as soon as we try to objectify and externalise duration, it becomes something else. It becomes space. To make this clear and support his argument, Bergson gives an example of the idea of a flock of fifty sheep being counted in duration. Here we have a flock consisting of fifty sheep, and to count this flock in an attempt to experience duration, one could begin by picturing in his or her mind all the fifty sheep at once. The problem, however, is that in that case the sheep would be placed in space rather in time. Needless to say, this would not represent duration, since there would be no process of succession within one’s mind but just the idea of fifty sheep occupying different spaces within a wider given space. A second attempt to experience duration could be made by counting and picturing all the sheep, one by one, until the fiftieth. This time, due to a succession of images which follows one after another, it seems as if one has succeeded in counting in duration. However, this too would mean counting the sheep in space and not in duration, for in order to count them individually – picturing only one at each time – and yet retain the image of the previous ones which have already been counted, one would need to use space, since it would be in space that they would be located in order to form a sum of fifty. Therefore, neither can pure duration happen in space nor can it be present in homogenous, spatialised time: It can only be experienced within heterogeneous time. This notwithstanding, the line which divides pure duration and spatialised time is not so easily identifiable, so it is quite possible to instantly spatialise time without even 2 attempting to do so. For instance, Bergson argues that if a point with its own consciousness was to move through a line of infinite length, it would feel the succession of different feelings as it progressed across the line, adding up one feeling to the other and gradually combining all of them, thus making duration palpable and therefore real. But as soon as it could rise above and see a broader picture of the line which it was traversing, its consciousness would fix several imaginary points on that line and as a consequence, duration would quickly turn into space. This is due to the fact that, by establishing different points on different parts of the line, the idea of space is involuntarily introduced, since those points are present in space. Consequently, the moment the notion of space is introduced, the immeasurable, intense, heterogeneous qualities of duration and duration itself cease to exist, since they cannot occupy spatial dimensions. This shift from duration to space is facilitated by the confusion which arises when we try to measure duration. As previously said, duration is immeasurable. If by any means it were to be measured, the only way to do so would be to attach some sort of symbol to it in order to symbolically represent it in space. To that end, whatever symbol that is attached to duration must be placed in space and in space only, it cannot exist outside it. Therefore the relationship between duration and symbols, such as numbers, causes a confusion which leads to time becoming spatialised. We can identify this happening in the aforementioned example of the conscious point traversing the lone: By symbolically representing the trajectory which the point had made and also that which it was yet to make, an objectified line was created in space, which resulted in the qualities produced by duration being nullified and duration becoming space. When analysing this process of heterogeneity turning into homogeneity, the 3 importance which different kinds of multiplicity have are not ignored by Bergson. Just as space and duration are two different conceptions, they, for their part, are each related to distinct types of multiplicity. Discrete multiplicity is that of material objects, a multiplicity that is numerical, quantifiable and exists in space. On the other hand, there is the continuous multiplicity, which cannot be quantified and seen as numerical without symbolical representation and is non-existent in space, instead being a faculty of consciousness. The idea of succession, which is inherent to continuous multiplicity, is the very key to duration, for it constitutes the pillar of this idea, since without succession there would simply be space and no duration. Each of these multiplicities has opposing characteristics and occupies its own key position within its own ‘boundaries’ – namely space and duration–, and that is why when we externalise or homogenise duration, we take away from it its vital characteristic and spatialise it. The interaction between space and duration does not occur directly, and Bergson argues that there is a link between these two that works as some sort of channel through which the latter turns into the former: Simultaneity Although space and duration differ significantly from each other, they still have common features which may bring them closer. For instance, duration takes place in our consciousness and is made of a series of heterogeneous moments, which succeed one another and form a totality composed of distinct sensations that are inseparable and at the same time impossible to tell when one ends and when the other begins. Rather, the end of one becomes the beginning of the other, each of them permeating each other and forming a larger and more complex one. Nevertheless, each of these moments can be linked to the objective, extensive moments that are divisible and happening simultaneously in the spatial, external reality. It is at this point that the two intermingle 4 and duration ceases to exercise its original function, or, as Bergson puts it, it becomes a ‘seemingly homogenous duration’ (p110). Here we are introduced to the concept of motion, the living symbol of this “homogenised duration”, and Bergson argues further in order to clarify another misunderstanding regarding space and duration. Motion is seen as measurable because it takes place in space and leads to the misleading notion that it is quantitative, when in reality what is actually quantitative is the space traversed by that motion, rather than the motion itself. To support this, he points out to the fact that motion is not an object but a progress, since it is the progression of an object from one point to another. It is a process that happens in the mind, an act exercised by the consciousness in response to a movement that took place in space. An example of a shooting star is used by Bergson to make this as understandable as possible. A shooting star, which is characterised by motion because it moves, leaves its trace in the form of a line of fire. Now, this line of fire represents the space traversed by the star, which can be clearly seen as an extensive, objectified reality. On the other hand, the act of traversing that space – which is motion – cannot be seen externally, but only in our consciousness. We can see the trace the shooting star left behind as it moved rapidly through space, but we cannot see the very act that made that star move. Thus, it is not that pure duration can be turned into homogenous duration. Rather, it is a misunderstanding that originates from attaching an extensive symbol to duration by localising the progress made by motion in space. Once it has been accepted that duration cannot exist in homogenous time or in space and the misunderstandings that surround this idea have been clarified, one moves closer to understanding what Bergson means by duration: To experience duration is to endure a 5 succession of feelings and states without distinguishing between previous and present sensations. It is something that consciousness perceives but cannot see, it exists outside space and is a process in which consciousness successively experiences different sensations. In duration, past sensations do not vanish in order to give room to present ones but are rather ‘joined’ by them in a process of addition in which the sensation of each state is retained (not in space) and combined to the others to form one whole successive process, much like musical notes which in their totality form a tune. This is what Bergson means by duration, a real experience of time. Duration has a wider significance that encompasses not only our timely processes but also our feelings in general. The process in which heterogeneous, immeasurable and qualitative duration turns into a homogenous, measurable and quantitative space has a considerable impact on our feelings and how we express them. Bergson argues that our feelings are like living beings that are inconstant, ever-changing, always developing, and that this is possible because they live and develop in duration, whose moments are also ever-changing and intermingle with each other. Therefore the spatialiation of duration has a deep impact on the nature and dynamic of our emotions, since by separating qualitative living feelings from one another – feelings that were interconnected and melting into each other when they existed in duration – and releasing them into space, we rid them of their liveliness and turn them into lifeless feelings. This externalisation may lead one to assume that he or she has analysed his or her feeling when, in fact, what is actually taking place is a juxtaposition of states of feelings that have lost their qualities, in the exact same way that duration loses its qualities when it becomes spatialised. In externalising the way we feel and projecting those feelings into a homogenous, quantitative medium such as space, we end up 6 distorting the actual meaning and nature of our feelings. It is because of this loss of quality of our feelings that, to Bergson, duration is so significant, not only in regards to the experience of time but also regarding states of our consciousness in a wider, deeper sense. Bibliography Bergson, H, Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness (New York: Dover, 2001) 7 8