1. This second section of Bergson's "Modern Science" is concerned with the evolution of scientific though between ancient and modern methods. The primary example used here is the emergence of taxonomies. From as early as the first paragraph strong ties were made to a Foucauldian way of thinking. Bergson stated “signs substitute for the objects themselves”(329) which relates, in my mind, to Foucault’s theory that with out current modes of seeing, the word and “sign”, as Bergson referred to it, have come to be more valuable than the actual three-dimensional objects they represent. The way in which our mind simplifies and categorizes, what Bergson calls “laws of genera” (330), referring the scientific toxonimization of our world has caused both scientists and humans alike to overlook to gaps between both different objects as well as the relationship between symbols and the objects that they represent. Yes Bergson emphasizes that cinematographical vision is wrong, but why are the “intervals between moments” that are overlooked with this type of vision so valuable to him? In a sense, modern man has tried to conquer time through science by breaking it into smaller pieces dissecting each moment for more study, but what Bergson seems to comprehend is that man’s current mode of seeing does replicated the real it only distorts it. Although the title of the piece is “Creative Evolution”, which seems to condone new attempts at understanding and representing time, Platonic and Aristotelian Ideas are lacking, while to current modes do too much and alter the real.
2. It is easy to think that Bergson is just a senile old man who doesn’t like the technological changes caused by film occurring around him. But is there something more? Is it more that just a pure invalidation of technological advances? I actually believe that he has taking a page from the works of Walter Benjamin who believed that with capturing a moment through any reproductive mean detracts from the original “aura”. Yet Bergson takes this argument a step further. Even the discussion of a moment through language detracts from the “total definition or description of a period.” (110) This occurs because instead of describing one single fact, several distinguishable phases are noted. With the sentence “none of them has the right to set itself as a moment that represents or dominates the others” Bergson virtually invalidates the idea of the pregnant moment. This is almost to say that the sum of all of the cinematographically created moments do not add up to the actual real period. In essence, the sum is greater than the whole of its parts. And although the view from a camera is far more precise than that of an eye, this still doesn’t seem to compensate for the intervals of time missed between moments recorded.
3. There are two types of knowledge that Bergson introduces. The first is cinematographical and the second states that “we should no longer be asking where a moving body will be, what shape a system will take… it is the very flux of the real that we should be trying to follow.”(342) This second kind of knowledge which displaces cinematographical vision almost calls humans to appreciate the current moment—smell the flowers. But this isn’t a fortune cookie instructing its reader to focus on today and deal with tomorrow when it comes. Furthermore Bergson describes this second knowledge as “practically useless”(343) because it will not extend mans domain over the real. So why is it here? It only exposes that the first type of knowledge (cinematographical), which allows people to foresee the future, is again, a fraud. This vision is just a representation of the real which is actually going on currently. Bergson seemingly want to have his cake and eat it too. He want to pure vision of reality, but at the same time he craves a “empire over nature”(343). How is this possible? Man is still a slave to time no matter that he can break a day into 24 hours or re-watch a moment that happened in the past. Scientific knowledge has tried to give man a greater understanding of time and nature by forming hierarchies and taxonomies of information. This mosaic of information is incomplete, as Bergson discusses. Yes, like the lapses of time missed by cinematographical time, scientific knowledge is not a real portrayal of the world, but it is an attempt for further understanding. Vision through this mode is incomplete, but does Bergson have a better suggestion for understanding the world?
-Olivia Hatalsky
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is the view of a camera really “far more precise than that of an eye?” (Paragraph 3) Olivia’s confidence caught my attention because I feel that Bergson is trying to make us question this new technology, rather than revere it for its accuracy. Not only does it miss those precise moments of life fit into the intervals of “clicking the button,” but it also creates an illusion of a flux through those same broken up intervals. Although the camera is a trusted device today, Bergson is trying to make us question our perception of the truth—not to rely so much on technology. Furthermore, what I found most interesting was the idea that time is specific to each individual who experiences it during a certain situation. Bergson explains that the duration of time is only “absolute for my consciousness” (114); thus, I understood this as time being different to us all. If seeing an opera is a fun activity for me, it will be experienced as one duration, but, for someone who does not enjoy this activity, the time will “not fly by.” Pushing this idea further, if we can experience the same activity totally differently just by adjusting our mood, can we, in a way, control time and duration?
When Olivia mentions the idea of further our understanding of the word, in paragraph 3, i think she truly captured the intent of the philosophers (meaning artists/ scientists) that try to find the most effective way to explain our world. I think, like most things, itis nearly impossible to fully understand and comprehend the way in which our world operates. When i read all of these explanations, i can personally sit back and just take movement, space, time for what it is. it is not in my nature to try to pick apart our world. which sometimes isn't so entirely bad. but can you imagine life without those innovaters who are pushing for the answers? bergson may not have a concrete solution or answer to understanding time, but if he and others did not write and push our minds, we would still believe that the world is flat.
Post a Comment