Duration, memory, and image

 ” JIGEN-KANSATSUSHI(Dimension-Paratiron)“ψ3; the directionality of “depth” which has been crushed and identified within the direction of the object’s/matter’s background. In Noosology, it is the fourth-dimensional axis that rises vertically from three-dimensional space. Merleau-Ponti concluded that this domain is a place that includes the one who is seeing (the subject). 

　Let us consider, for example, a situation in which an object/matter is in front of us.

 When we say “there is a cup” in our daily lives, the cup exists in the objective reality, and light strikes it. The reflection of that light enters the eyes. The retina captures the image of a cup and sends signals to the brain. Then the image is reconstructed at some point in the brain. That is the general explanation for “seeing things.” In Human Gestalt, we habitually think this way. It is common sense for us since schools also teach this way, and most people do not doubt this. 

However, what will happen if we consider the relationship between what is being seen (the object) and who is seeing (the subject) not within the three-dimensional spatial configuration but in the temporal configuration?  It corresponds to clarifying the significance of ‘having an object/matter in front of us’, keeping in mind the structure of the Dimension-Paratirons ψ3-ψ4. [1] [2] In other words, why don’t we consider the subject-object relationship by assuming an intervention of a mutually inverted 4-dimensional axis between them? On the one hand, there is a place of no time that encompasses all time (called duration); on the other hand, there is a place that makes us feel as if time is coming from the past and flowing into the future. Perhaps the two aspects of the world we conceptualize as subject and object are not based on three-dimensional spatiality but rather originate from this four-dimensional reciprocally inverted relationship. 

  When I began to see the structure of ψ3 and ψ4, I did a lot of research to see if any philosopher had tried to recapture the subject-object relationship as a problem of time.    From a Noosology’s viewpoint, the subject-object relationship is a matter of orientation in the fourth dimension, i.e., “GAIMEN (the Outside of human beings; visible)” or “NAIMEN (the Inside of human beings; invisible).” Then I realized that there were brilliant philosophers in history who had attempted to do so: especially Henri Bergson.  I think it is fair to say that Bergson was the first philosopher who tried to overcome the subject-object problem from the temporal aspect.

  According to Bergson, there are two kinds of time; one is physical time, measured by the hands of a clock, and the other is real time, as perceived actual by living human beings. You could call it existential time (Bergson calls it “duration”). Physical time expresses each passing moment like a point (in fact, physics treats instantaneity as point time) and the flow of time as a continuous aggregation of points (the time axis t is a typical example). Bergson calls such a notion of physical time “spatialized time” and criticized it as a scab that covers and hides real time (duration).

　Here, let us examine the existence of matter in physical time. Usually, we think of matter with three-dimensional bulk as existing in the external world. In this case, what we call the external world corresponds to space-time in physics terms. Time flows from moment to moment in this world, and each moment is quickly stored in the past. In such a flow of time, it may seem nonsensical to say that “matter exists” because the implication of “existence” itself includes some passage of time. Therefore, to prove that matter exists independently of the flow of time, it is necessary to verify the existence of matter in the absence of time, that is, in instantaneity. However, consciousness cannot grasp the present as an instant. When consciousness perceives a present moment, it is already in the past. Thus, the instantaneousness or presentness as a point in time is, in a sense, an ungraspable existence that is a blind spot of consciousness.

　So, Bergson boldly states, “Matter is memory.” Doesn’t it sound cool? I love that!  What Bergson tries to say here is that when we say, “There is an ashtray there,” the ashtray is not just the present ashtray being there, but the past history of the ashtray fluttering like the tail of a comet: the ashtray of one second ago, of one hour ago, of one month ago, and so on. This fluttering can be meant by what Bergson called duration. If the word “duration” is not clear enough, you can replace it with “memory.”

 The state of “existing” includes the memory of the one seeing it — that sounds true. When I recognize an ashtray in front of me, it is not just an object; my memory of the ashtray is attached to it. — I remember that the ashtray was here earlier and is in the same place now. Therefore, the perception of “there is an ashtray here” contains a continuity of time. If I were to go back further in my memory, there was a time a month ago, dropping ashes into this ashtray, I had an auspicious thought, “Maybe I should quit smoking.” But then, I couldn’t resist the temptation of the pleasure that an after-dinner smoke brings. At the end of the thought, dropping ashes into it again, I said, “I love cigarettes!” The fact that the ashtray exists as an object in front of me at present is supported by my continuing awareness of it. And, with this continuity fluttering in the air, the ashtray is still here: It continues to exist.

　The ashtray captured by a gaze with such thoughts is utterly different in nuance from a material ashtray we simply leave out in the objective world. It is not an ashtray that consciousness reconstructs merely as a representation. It is something that lives with me, neither a substance nor a mere idea. Bergson called this something “image,” as distinct from thing or representation. Beautiful, isn’t it? 

  An image: When Bergson says, “Matter is memory,” he refers to matter as an image. And this image is no longer interpreted as an object but as a function of the spirit that includes the activity of the one who is seeing, the subject. –To be continued