“Time is the seed of the universe”
Written By
Reginald Webber
Translated and Annotated By
Dick Whyte
In Association With
Solar Metaphysics and Wayfarer Library
1A. There is more to time than a clock-ticking, more than a going forwards. Henri Bergson calls clock-time “copied from space,” (n1) in the sense that we first learned to measure and divide space into uniform lengths. It was later applying this concept to time which gave us what we call “clock-time.” Time and space, as “measurements,” are nothing more than useful concepts which have allowed for the partitioning and selling off of discrete units of space and time (we buy so much space to live in, and sell so much time to pay for it). However, in terms of the “universe” itself, space and time do not exist as separate entities, and there are no uniform “discrete units.”
1B. There is no space without time, and no time without space. Space and time are really nothing but “movement,” in all directions all at once, without a centre or an end, without limit. This is why Henri Bergson defines movement as the primary state of “existence” (unlike Kant who uses space and time). Rather than “being,” Bergson thinks in terms of “becoming” (not space and time being, or being in space and time, but always moving, always becoming). Think of it this way: space and time cannot be pointed to, cannot be “seen” (what is space but “nothing being there,” and what is time but “nothing being then”). Space and time are not actually “there.” What is there is movement. We look at this movement, and then sense that two things are achieved in moving: the covering of space, and the taking up of time. Hence, space and time are not “really there,” they are only “here” for our perception. We perceive “movement,” and then analyse this movement into space and time (a binary). These concepts “organise” our lives, but they are not “being” in the universe. Everything that is “being” is “moving.” No matter how stationary things seem they are always moving, relatively to something else.
2. “Being” is a very special word in metaphysics. Being, or “On” (in Greek), was the state of all things in general, in all their manifold nature (as substance). I am being atoms, organs, blood, water, cells, perceptions and so on, all at once (as well as being the one self I call “me”). I am “being” one, and many “beings.” I am both a unified (one) being, and a plural being. Not only am I being, but I am therefore a part of everything which is being, the total set of beings. I am beings being beings. Not only this, but if I am a part of the set of all beings, and all beings are part of the set of being, then every “being” must have something in common, some essence which is being itself (the essence of being). In Western philosophy, and science from at least circa 1000-2000 A.C.E., the essence of being was usually thought of as the containers space and time (what is essential to being is being “in” space and time). Isaac Newton even contested that space and time were absolute, meaning that they really existed as two separate entities, as the universe (n2).
3. Aristotle in The Metaphysics considers “movement” to be the essence of the universe, and theorises that space and time are analysed from this raw experience (n3). In this sense he was in agreement with Henri Bergson (writing in in the 1890s) who said that space was nothing but the perception of space-covered, and time nothing more than the perception of time-taken. They are not really being (ontos on), as such, though they are real perceptions (and experiences) for us, as organisers of our lives. They are real to experience, but not to the universe itself, to being itself (the ontos on, the “really real”). This is in agreement (partially) with Einstein’s analysis of space an time. Einstein found that the amount of time covered when moving changed depending on the speed. In this case there was no uniform “time,” passing at the same rate for everyone. Time was an experience, and changed depending on the spatial arrangement (the movement over space). Time and space are curved, not flat. There is not either space or time (I measure space and time separately, and cannot do it at the same time, “either/or”) but moving blocs of spacetime (or timespace) which is always both space and time (n4). There is not space or time, but a moving whole, a bloc of movement, a “movement-image” (n5). As such everything which exists “in” space and time (being “in”) is actually “being” movement (which means they are also being space and time: space and time are not containers any more, but the thickness of the body). Space and time are perceived after the fact, while movement is perceived now (not only in that movement is perceived by me, but also that my perception is moving).
4. Both Bergson and Einstein find a different time than that “copied from space.” Let us assume that it is “true” that time is linear, but that events differ in temporal positions (happen at different “times”) depending on whether you are moving or not. Think of a train travelling from left to right on train tracks. Imagine observing this train from a hill nearby. As the train travels across the expanse of your vision two bolts of lightening hit the train. One hits at the back (left) and the other at the front (right). Both hit at exactly the same time. Luckily you have equipment on you for measuring just such an event. To you they are simultaneous. But for another observer this might not be the case. Relatively speaking you are stationary for the duration of the event. If we think of a passenger on the train things are very different. When the lightening hits their body is travelling toward one bolt (the right) and away from the other (left). Because it takes time for light to travel to our eyes for them the right bolt happens before the left bolt, and the two events are not simultaneous (n6).
5. Clock-time is usually thought of as “uniform” (like space) in the sense that we are all dragged into the future simultaneously, as one movement, ageing together at the same rate (space spreads out uniformly and can be measured). In our experience, however, time is not uniform. We speak of a experienced time as “long” or “short” (regardless of the length of measured/uniform time: hence a movie can feel long or short to different observers, while taking the same “time”). The things we see happen just behind the real world (n7). Light travels from the sun and hits something, taking time, and then hits our eye. Then our eye takes the rays of light and turns it into an image to be looked at, and takes time. Then our brain processes it, and takes time, and then we see it. By the time we view it, in terms of “light time” (Einsteinian time) we are a good deal away from the real world. It is really “out there” (pun intended), forever out of reach, what Lacan calls the “real” (the ontic). The ontic/onta (real, or being) is always vanishing, always invisible, always escaping us. Even when I look at my own hand the image I see of it (mediated by light) takes time to reach me. But am I not being this hand? No. It is a past me. I cannot see “me” being “my hand.” The hand I see is me in the past (like time travel). Not only this, but it must take time to “become” this image of the world I experience. Something is travelling, taking time, crossings space, become an image in my body. My “body” then is behind my “mind” in time. This is why philosophy, and metaphysics found it necessary to divide the world in two, not into space and time, but ontology (being, really real knowledge of the world, extensive) and phenomenology (becoming, perceptions, images, experiences, no real knowledge but that of the self, intensive). These two “folds” of existence are not separate but happening concurrently. Not only is the world being (including our body “then” and “there” to perception) but my consciousness is being “here,” and “now,” in another time-zone altogether. The world “out there” is the ontic, and the world “in here” is the phenomenological. Writing metaphysics (philosophy about “being,” and philosophy itself) is the act of making a theory of how these two things are connected, and whether we can have any knowledge of the “really real” (ontic) if we are always “behind” it (phenomenon). Consciousness is the “first phenomenon,” in the most usual sense of the word. It astounds me. Consciousness itself does not astound, but reflection on the consciousness-of-consciousness has this potential. The turning of the consciousness on itself to reflect on its own being is philosophy.
6. Henri Bergson is amazing to me because he makes all these worlds being at once. Rather than phenomenology and ontology at odds (firstness and secondness), he recognises that they are enmeshed, entangles, and interconnected at all times. If this is the case, then neither is the “really real” (as with space and time) and there is needed a mediator, something between them (a “thirdness”). Not only is there the body (in one time zone) and the perception of images (in another time zone) but there is the image itself, which could be called the Greek “meson,” or “middle.” Until Bergson’s work there had been two conflicting philosophies presented, and every philosopher attempted to prove one or the other to some degree: the first maintained that all perception is an illusion and that reality was only found in being itself, in the ontological (Aristotle), while the second maintained that this “being” is an illusion and that we can only know our “experience,” or “phenomenon” (Descartes).
7. Bergson maintained that there was no need to conflict the two. Yes, our phenomenon (the one perception we “see”which includes all the data of sensation “in one blow”) is separated from the world of being, but it is still formed within it. There are “lines of light” which bounce in all directions (quaquaversal) and these really contain information (sense-data) which our eyes translate. The image we see is something made by the mind, and yet it is made by the world as well. It is a middle-point, a “meson,” a mean(ing). Each of these things are in a different time-zones, all of these occupying entirely different dimensions of space-time/movement. Hence, there are always three dimensions. These three modes we might call; 1) the “real” (out there); 2) the “imaginary,” or the “image” (the image which is happening on/in the eye) and; 3) the “symbolic,” or what Bergson calls “duration” (our experience of lived-time as we watch the “image”). But there is also a flow of time which exists between the world and us, flowing from things into us. This “time” is not that of “moving forward” (the real, the image and durating all move forwards together) but the joining of the three “moving-forwards.” It is a “timespace” which covers space itself, and takes its own time, not “occupying” space and time, but “becoming it.” It is the time of light. A “light-time.” The “light-time” traverses three “frames of reference” (the world, the eye, and the mind).
8A. After Bergson’s metaphysics (felt, not “proven” with mathematics) Einstein showed scientifically that there was, at least, two frames of reference (n8). One “frame-of-reference” (world reflecting light) is always in relation to a second “frame-of-reference” (our body absorbing and viewing images of light). Einstein uses “bodies-of-reference” as his starting point for the Theory of Relativity. Stripped of complex mathematics Einstein is simply saying that there are always at least two bodies-of-reference at any one time (say, “on” and “phenomenon”). For science, this significantly means that the scientist must acknowledge their influence over what they study. With light this is particularly relevant, as when we look at it it changes what it is being (for our perception at least). Light is particles when we are looking, and waves when we are not (n9). These two cannot be separated, the one always influences the other (but in which direction). The observer alters the phenomenon it watches, and the phenomenon alters the observer’s being (on). Cause and effect as strictly linear is disturbed. The observer, and the observed, actually form “one” system, which is their “two” systems being one (which is two, and so on to infinity). This thought is central to the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and his notion of intersubjectivity. Very simply, I usually think of myself as a subject (subjective) who views objects (objective). Hence my subjective-self, is within the objective world, and yet, is not the objective world. Merleau-Ponty points out that when someone looks at me, I become an object, and I am reminded of other subjects: we switch places.
8B. This constant switching of places, this “one” system, is the “intersubjective.” Hence, there is not one “objective” world which we are “subject” to (for example: at one time we thought it was objective science to say people other than white males had “small brains,” subjecting people to one version of reality) but an “intersubjective world,” which we all “live”as constantly reversing subject/objects. Of all the philosophy I have read Henri Bergson and Maurice Merleau-Ponty are by far the most beautiful and fun to read. Their books (for me) are not fact or fiction, but a special kind of writing. Their books are not non-fiction because they are totally speculative, and yet they are not fiction exactly because they do not tell a story. Yet I am absorbed as I am most often by stories, and I feel that I have learned enormous amounts, as I feel most often reading non-fiction. Their writing is poetic as well, gathering together all three strains of language.
9. In conclusion (?) regardless of whether we take space and time to be real (as Newton did) or in the mind (as Kant did) there is another flow which is not accounted for by these two terms. Using Kant’s categories of space (outer) and time (inner), there is also a flow from space into time, from the outer into the inner, by way of light (and images). Equally there is a flow of time from the inner self to the outer world in the form of expressions and reactions (n10). These poles are called “perception” and “expression” by Merleau-Ponty. Bergson maintained that first there was On (the outer world) and then there was Phenomenon (our image of the world, which contains traces of “on” within it). This is the passage from the world of light to the image. As such “On” is a type of firstness, always by itself. “Phenomenon” is a type of secondness, in which one “On” is related to another “On” (the interior). Firstness is itself. Secondness recapitulates firstness, and relates it to another aspect of firstness. Firstness is quality, and secondness relation (n11).
10. Merleau-Ponty makes On manifold in-itself, not only a perception (phenomenon) but an expression, going in the other direction, from the inner to the outer. As such there is not only time taken from the outer to the inner (in seeing our image of the world) but time taken from the inner as it makes its way to the outer as an expression of movement. In this way there are two simultaneous modes of being, the perceptive and expressive self (existing superimposed over the other, like the layers of time I have been discussing). The timespace taken from eye to image, and from mind to body is fully “reversible” (a key concept in Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy). Time flows not only in one direction, but in the opposite direction simultaneously, and the two can communicate. This is a long way from the time “copied from space,” which flows in one uniform direction for everyone.
11. There is no word for this dimension of “time,” yet it is clearly a dimension of reality which is as real as movement itself. This pocket of time is not conceptual, but really there. This time is quantum-time, so small in duration it is likely to be ignored or forgotten, and therefore unnamed. But whatever is unnamed has the tendency to become unknown. As B. Ruby Rich writes, “Whatever is unnamed, undepicted in images, whatever is omitted from biography, censored in collections of letters, whatever is misnamed as something else, made difficult-to-come-by, whatever is buried in the memory by the collapse of meaning under an inadequate or lying language – this will become not merely unspoken, but unspeakable,” (n12). This unnamed dimension allows us to glimpse the “real,” and yet we have no way to directly talk about it. It is “missing.” This quantum-time, this unnamed “flow” explains many natural phenomena in a way that makes real sense to me. The first being that odd thing which we call “consciousness” (distinct from the “conscious mind”).
12. As I have already intimated, influenced by Merleau-Ponty, any two (or more) systems which come into contact, for that moment, also form one single system (while still be in the individual “times” of the two). When you remove a plant from the dirt, the whole area around it is effected. The plant is not only itself, but part of one system, that particular area in which it is found. It is a perception for us, something to see, but it also an expression of the state of the whole area. Flowers that “are” or “are not” (“being” or “not being”) flowering, expresses that their surroundings have less (or more) of something which the plants need within it (and vis-versa). Descartes makes this plea for the body and the mind, stating that our mind is not like a driver in a machine, but fully entwined with the body, the two as one single system of consciousness. We are not a separate mind (phenomenon) and body (on) but an intertwining of these two things. As such these two things become like space and time again, and we find that they are not two things but one, not one but two (and so on).
13. Space and time are not containers existing before movement, or becoming movement (as Kant, or Newton held) but came from it, occurring in our mind after the “real” (moving) has done its thing. Movement is not a “synthesis” of space and time, not a merging of two things, but an origin from which these two are analysed by our mind. When we intermix the two conceptual objects (measurements of “space” and “time”) we get velocity (n13). Space-covered divided by time-taken is equal to a number, which is the average speed of the object taking-time to cover-space. In a “synthesis” the larger thing must always dominate (slave/master relation). To have time (the inner), it must be “in” space (outer). To have space is not necessarily to postulate time. In this way we divide the larger (space) by the smaller (time) and get velocity (n14). Velocity is a “mean,” or middle-point, an average, a “meson.” Velocity says movement, but it is not movement itself. It is the “expression” we develop for comprehending it. Really we travel at varying speeds, always in the process of change. Velocity is a “static rate of change,” a synthetic interpretation. When we really move we do not move at uniform velocities but perform erratic movements. In the terminology of Gilles Deleuze all things have two heads, two poles (say space and time) and these poles can be synthesised, or taken back to the origin (the genetic-sign). This origin is “one” by itself (n15).
14. Merleau-Ponty on the other hand describes a “chiasm” between the “two” in which “every cohesion is sustained.” (The Visible and the Invisible). Rather than one by itself, this is one which has the two within it, and yet two which are themselves two ones, becoming one. He calls this the “intertwining.” Light is a great example of his ideas. Light is intertwined with us, rather than “one” with us. Light is different from us, and yet together we form one system of exchange. In this case there is the body (expression/on) and the mind (perception/phenomenon) and a “chiasm” between them. These two systems show their presence by being “reversible” in time. This chiasm must be traversed by something both forwards and backwards simultaneously. What I mean, is that if our mind can create expressions (from in to out) and also images (going out to in) then it is going in two directions of time (in the unnamed dimension) at the same time! It is time-travelling!
15. Therefore, something is both created by, and enables communication between the body and the mind. Between the senses (moment of time -1: entwined with the “real”) and the sensing of the senses (moment of time +1: the conscious mind) there is an energy or spirit, or something, which can leap from one to the other, which can go forward and backward in time. This would be the thing that we call “consciousness.” It must travel faster than light, in order to interpret it, and create images, and inform the mind and body of perception and expression all at the same time. To travel faster than light is to travel in time. Therefore our “conscious mind” would not be able to detect this thing, for it operates in a dimension we have not even named yet. This is the conclusion of Greek philosophy, expressed in the term “nous.” Nous is not the mind, and not the body, it is the “intuition” which exists between them, consciousness in-itself. Not consciousness-of-consciousness, or being-conscious, but a pure “plane of consciousness.” The “nous” is the mind which thinks everything before we do (which creates the image/sign of the world we see, and the expressions we “sign”). The conscious-mind is ourselves in the usual mode of being. Consciousness (conscious-nous) is the relation (one) between the two, perhaps even an eventual communication between the two (as one).
16. The amount of time-travel done by the nous, relative to our existence, is slight, in quantum-moments, but it seems to me, that if these speculations are at all accurate, its postulation is necessary. One point from recent history which I would like to draw on, well illustrates this.
17. A young boy described the experience of his father falling over recently (the father was fine, he bled a little, but did not incur any damages). He said that before it had “happened” he became aware of it, and turned his head, so that he saw the whole event as it happened (in a sort of slow motion), rather than hearing it and then looking to it (seeing it as, or after it had happened). I have heard numerous people describe experiences like this. My explanation is that the “nous” is able to sense the event in the time zone of the body and then transfer this information instantly to the mind (faster than the images take to form) and performs the body-action of looking, before the time zone of the phenomenon (the image) has happened. The nous “slows-down” time (for experience) and travels backwards in time, relative to the conscious-mind in order to distort the flow of cause and effect. Our action was not a reaction, but a pre-action.
18. This brings us to the limit of pre-science, which I am not going to discuss here. This is the “science of time-travel.” These notes are meant to simply show the necessity of, and interesting nature of the “thought,” and “speculation,” the activity of metaphysics, or philosophy, can sometimes provide. Philosophising with concepts like “on,” and “phenomenon,” (or space and time) is not just something with relation to itself, but expresses the manner in which our sciences and minds categorise the world. When science pictures an atom we first encounter neutrons and protons, two halves of the nucleus. Then the electrons spin around the ball formed by the inter-mixture of protons and neutrons. These are free floating, able to do very strange things. The area of science concerning the intertwining of particles and waves in light, the superimposition and entanglement of light, was expressed in philosophy many thousands of years before it was expressed in science, a sort of “prescience.” We have always told the future, not the future of possible events, but the future of virtual worlds. It is a form of prescience, as I said, the limit of the virtual imagination has to use symbols to reach the “real.”
19. This is why I feel that the introduction of “Noology” is particularly important to modern philosophy. Noology is the codex of philosophy, restoring it to positive use. There is very little work currently on noology. Deleuze and Guattari approach it, as does Merleau-Ponty (from the opposite ends of the spectrum). The foundation of noology is the postulation that there is movement of bodies, and movements of the interior, and that these are entwined in one reversible system of exchange. This is not space or time, but a fold in the two, as one. Perhaps this can be expressed as folds, rather than spaces or times. The “fold” is a term used by both Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze, though for Deleuze there are two folds, and for Merleau-Ponty there is one. This is the reversal they both performed in their philosophies, reversing their thought. We are not in space or time, but enworlded, as much the world, as the world is itself, folded into the fabric of being. We are folded into the world, particle to particle, flesh to flesh, mind to mind. Merleau-Ponty often uses this expression in his descriptions of seeing. We do not see the world, but the world’s flesh (light) presses up against the flesh of our eyes, and we are seeing and seen at once, being and been, living and lived.
20. These notes represent a quick history of the ideas which “time” provides the mind. Each word, or concept, is not just a “thing” to be used, but a vast territory in which we can spend energy thinking, or living, getting into its spirit. The mind is a vast space in which we can journey, finding concepts as real as anything we have ever experienced before. This is noology. As Deleuze and Guattari write, noology is the study of the “images of thought,” of the pure existence of the nous, and all its wonderful abilities, all those things which have been denied to us for centuries. Metaphysics was outlawed by the Christian church, and all noologists (and gnostics, alchemists, witches) were killed. We are approaching the limit of what is known, and what has been known. This is noology.
Notes
(n1) “A time which is mechanical, homogeneous, universal and copied from space, identical for all movements.” (Deleuze, The Movement Image, p1)
(n2) Newton says space and time are real entities, that they each exist apart from the other, as the containers of the whole universe (which is within space and time, exceeded by them).
(n3) Aristotle: “Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is – indeed time is either identical to movement, or an affection of it.” (The Metaphysics, p369)
(n4) The difference between “classical” modes (including, but not limited to, science and philosophy) and “modern” modes is the movement from the “either/or” decision (you are either white or black, either man or woman, either adult or child, light is either particles or waves, the world is either real or perception, and so many variations, or synthetic solutions) to the “both/and” situation (light is both particles and waves, and therefore also something else, the universe is both space and time, and therefore something else: Merleau-Ponty’s “chiasm,” Deleuze and Guattari’s “Body-without-Organs” which is never one, but always multiple, and various).
(n5) This term is taken from Deleuze’s book of the same name. In The Movement Image Deleuze applies Bergson’s philosophy to the cinema.
(n6) Einstein, Relativity (1916: Three River’s Press, 1961).
(n7) For Lacan there is a triad of “being” (as with Peirce, Bergson, Deleuze and so on). There is the “imaginary” (my mind, what is unreal), the “symbolic” (the language I learn to describe and understand the world with), and there is the “real.” The “real” is that which I came from (pre-language) and that which I discover when language breaks down, when there are fissures between experience and my capacity to explain it. All metaphysics chases the “real” (much like the term used in jazz music, “chasing the train”). This triad becomes a “machine” for explaining our “drives.” Once we have learned language, we begin to “study.” As we study we encounter so many conflicting things, and there is a breakdown in our ability to trust in language to express anything. We catch a glimpse of the “real.” Then we try to explain it in language, this thing we have glimpsed. We make up language to do so (common to philosophy) and bend language in other places (expanding definitions, or collapsing definitions). Once we have explained it, we have something we are proud of. We change, and then feel that we did not get to the “real,” only closer to it. We begin again, and again, and again. This is the “drive.” Einstein was driven by a glimpse of the real, and in this he found the various static theories which survive today. He never reached the real though. We never have.
(n8) Einstein, Relativity, p36.
(n9) Even the look of a camera changes light from particles to waves. The same is true for time. When Einstein figured out that moving bodies actually bend time (experiencing different times) the experiment was eventually proven with clocks, with machines. How did machines experience time differently? Or perhaps, a better question is: how did time manage to experience the two machines differently? This is “strange” science indeed.
(n10) Roman Jakobson analyses language (one) into two things: the code and message. The code is language itself (linguistic structure and so on) and the message is what we mean to say, and what is understood by the code. For Jakobson this means that there are four relations: code to message, message to code, code to code and message to message (CM, MC, CC and MM). He decides this mathematically, before he lists any examples. Jakobson is the only theorist I have seen who shows this transition from two to four concepts mathematically. Kant, for example, analyses the phenomenon (one) into two (space and time) and then goes on to explain that there are four further concepts, but never provides the mathematical link. Using Jakobson’s law we can see that Kant’s four categories are the relations: TS (quantities), ST (qualities), SS (relations) and TT (modality). This same pattern can be found in many categories, though usually without the middle step (AA, BB, BA and AB). A friend of mine, revising Bazin’s categories of “kinds of filmic space” spent two years thinking of, and refining the categories. He did not know that he was looking for “four,” but did it by “accident.” For me, the “nous” is what does this work, without us knowing it (see later for what the nous is).
(n11) C.S. Peirce defines that there is firstness, secondness and thirdness. These are his essential categories of being. There is first “qualities” (what we sense, firstness), and then there are “relations” of qualities (secondness). Finally these things are seen by someone (an observer, a third frame-of-reference) called the interpretant, who perceives a “representation” (thirdness). Hence, there is not one and two, but one in two, and these both folded into the concept of three (which is one, and three). I highly recommend Thomas Gouge’s book The Thought of C.S. Peirce for anyone interested in his work (Peirce never published any “books,” only scattered articles).
(n12) B. Ruby Rich, “In the Name of Feminist Film Criticism” (1978) in Patricia Erens (ed.), Issues in Feminist Film Criticism (Indiana University Press, 1990) p268.
(n13) Galileo was the first to develop the theory of velocity, on which all subsequent science (up to, and including Einstein) was based. It is at the heart of the theory of relativity.
(n14) Hegel’s system relies on this. There is a “thesis” (on, the world being) and there is the mental “antithesis” (the world not-being, phenomenology). Between these two things there will always be a synthesis. This is expressed in his work on the “slave-master” binary. Marx held that in social arrangements this synthesis would have to come, that those people with power (thesis) would eventually be challenged by those who were denied power (the anti-thesis). Marx is a kind of modern Moses, proving logically that slaves must be freed, that synthesis would have to eventuate.
(n15) This is why Deleuze (and his mentor, Bergson) is an “ontology of phenomenology,” rather than just an ontology (which denies phenomenology, the ontology of “God”) or a phenomenology (which denies ontology, like Berkeley, or later Hegel) or a phenomenology of ontology (Merleau-Ponty, Sobchack). This produces 4 relations: OO, PP, OP and PO, as well as the pure categories O and P by themselves. Ontology always folds back to “one” and produces “three” (the pure ontology of the Christian “God” complex, and Deleuze and Bergson). Phenomenology always has “two” (or more) and produces “four” (as in Jakobson, Kant, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, and so forth).
Bibliography
Aristotle (382-322 B.C.E.)
The Metaphysics (Penguin, 1998)
Henri Bergson
Matter and Memory (1896: Zone Books, 1991)
Gilles Deleuze (see Felix Guattari)
The Movement Image (1986: Minnesota Press, 2001)
Albert Einstein
Relativity (1916: Three River’s Press, 1961)
Patricia Erens (ed.)
Issues in Feminist Film Criticism (Indiana University Press, 1990)
Felix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze
A Thousand Plateaus (1987: Continuum, 2004)
Martin Heidegger
Being and Time (1926: Blackwell, 2004)
Immanuel Kant
The Critique of Pure Reason (1781: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952)
Maurice Merleau Ponty
The Visible and the Invisible (Northwestern University Press, 1968)
F.E. Peters
Greek Philosophical Terms: A Lexicon (New York University, 1967)
Copyright Reginald Webber and Dick Whyte, 2007.
