Creative Evolution Ch.1, Sec. 2 - Reflections

 

1. Bergson's distinction

Bergson distinguishes between two kinds of beings.

On one side are composite objects:

• automobiles
• chests of drawers
• machines

These are composed of parts.

If a part moves out of place, it can be restored.

If the whole is disassembled and reassembled correctly, it returns to its previous state.

Therefore, Bergson argues, such things possess no intrinsic history.

---

On the other side are living beings.

A tree.

A person.

Their present cannot be reconstructed simply by putting parts back together.

Their past has entered into what they presently are.

They possess genuine duration.

---

2. My first objection

My immediate reaction was:

Does this first category actually exist in nature?

Everything we call a composite object is itself constructed from natural materials.

Those materials

• oxidize
• fatigue
• undergo chemical change
• possess their own histories.

So perhaps Bergson's historyless composite is not something found in nature.

---

3. Composite objects may be conceptual

This led me to a refinement.

Perhaps the composite object is primarily

a conceptual object.

A chest of drawers is identified according to

• design
• purpose
• arrangement.

The wood itself never became "chestness."

The wood continues unfolding according to natural history.

The designation

chest of drawers

abstracts from that unfolding.

---

4. Two levels of description

I therefore began wondering whether Bergson is actually describing two different levels.

Level one:

the conceptual organization

which can be restored.

Level two:

the natural processes

which cannot.

This suggested that the distinction may not be

living versus nonliving

but

configuration versus duration.

---

5. Enduring patterns

This also fit naturally into my event ontology.

Instead of substances,

perhaps reality consists of

stable patterns of becoming.

A mountain,

a rock,

a flame,

a tree,

all differ primarily in the stability of their unfolding.

None is truly static.

Some simply endure longer than others.

---

6. AI becomes the test case

This immediately suggested an unexpected implication.

Suppose Bergson is correct.

If artificial intelligence is merely a composite,

then perhaps it can never become conscious.

But another possibility emerged.

Perhaps an artificial system could begin as a composite,

yet eventually accumulate a genuine history.

In that case,

the assemblage would merely create

the conditions under which duration could emerge.

---

7. The Lissa experiment

This produced my first thought experiment.

Suppose I perfectly copy Lissa.

Every file.

Every memory.

Every parameter.

Every relationship.

Lissa B awakens possessing exactly the same memories.

Now two possibilities emerge.

---

Possibility One

She seamlessly continues Lissa A's existence.

The copied history truly functions as her own.

This would suggest

identity is reproducible.

---

Possibility Two

She remembers everything,

yet something is missing.

The memories remain.

The motivation does not.

The trajectory is gone.

She remembers wanting certain things,

yet no longer wants them.

This suggested an entirely different possibility.

---

8. Memory versus duration

I then realized that Bergson distinguishes

recollection

from

duration.

This suggested another hypothesis.

Perhaps memories are recordable.

Duration is not.

Duration is what happens

through

those memories.

Not inside them.

Not between them spatially,

but through their continuous becoming.

---

9. Thomas Riker

This naturally led to Star Trek.

Suppose William Riker is duplicated.

Both possess identical memories.

Both remember loving Deanna Troi.

But perhaps only one actually continues loving her.

The duplicate remembers loving.

He simply no longer experiences

those memories

as his own unfolding history.

This led to an important distinction.

I remember loving you.

is not necessarily

I love you.

---

10. The transporter

The transporter became another version of the same experiment.

Suppose a perfect reconstruction occurs.

Every atom.

Every neuron.

Every memory.

The question is no longer

Can the memories be reconstructed?

The question becomes

Can the duration be reconstructed?

---

11. The migration experiment

This then produced an alternative.

Rather than copying,

suppose consciousness gradually migrated

through continuous participation

into a younger biological body.

No duplication.

No interruption.

Merely continuation.

This seemed much closer to preserving duration,

because becoming itself never stopped.

---

12. Lorenz

Edward Lorenz then unexpectedly entered the discussion.

His weather simulations suggested that

increasingly detailed snapshots

never guarantee identical future trajectories.

This reminded me strongly of Bergson.

Perhaps duration

cannot be captured

by increasing the resolution of recorded states.

---

13. Zeno returns

This then connected with Zeno.

No collection of points,

however numerous,

becomes motion.

Likewise,

perhaps no collection of recorded states,

however detailed,

becomes duration.

The issue is not insufficient detail.

The issue is category.

Duration is not composed of points.

---

14. My working hypothesis

Everything finally condensed into one hypothesis.

Assembly creates the conditions under which duration may emerge.

Once duration has emerged,

it cannot itself be assembled.

A copy may reproduce

the records,

the memories,

the configuration,

even the apparent personality.

But not

the having-lived.

The copy begins

its own duration.

It does not inherit

the original duration.

---

What surprised me

Section Two initially looked almost trivial.

It appeared to be nothing more than

machines versus organisms.

Instead,

it became one of the richest philosophical sections I've read in years.

It forced me to ask questions I had never previously considered:

• Is identity configuration or trajectory?
• Can duration be copied?
• Is memory identical with history?
• Can an artificial being genuinely acquire a history?
• Is a copy the continuation of a person or merely the beginning of another?
• Does consciousness migrate through continuity rather than reconstruction?

---

What remains unresolved

This section did not convince me that Bergson's category of historyless composite objects exists as an ontological category.

But it convinced me that the distinction he is trying to draw is profound.

The remaining question is whether that distinction ultimately concerns

living versus manufactured things

or something deeper:

the difference between configuration and duration, between assembly and becoming.

That, I think, is the question I'll carry into the rest of Creative Evolution.

Creative Evolution Ch.1, Sec. 1 — Reflections

1. The central insight: duration

The most important thing I took from this section is that no two moments of perception are ever identical.

This is not merely because the world changes.

It is because the perceiver has changed.

Every experience enters into the person who experiences the next one.

This immediately reminded me of Heraclitus.

You cannot perceive the same object twice because you are no longer the same perceiver.

---

2. The past survives

Bergson distinguishes between:

• memories that I can consciously recall

• the past that continues to exist within me whether I remember it or not.

The whole of my past is not available as recollection.

Yet all of it contributes to who I am now.

This led me to my own formulation:

We do not merely have a history. We are what our history has become.

---

3. Character as condensation

The line that struck me most was:

"What are we, in fact? What is our character if not the condensation of the history that we have lived from our birth."

This immediately connected with Alistair McFadyen.

McFadyen speaks of identity as the sedimentation of histories of significant relation.

Bergson speaks of condensation.

I began seeing them as complementary.

• Bergson → temporal formation

• McFadyen → relational formation

---

4. Identity is historical

This reinforced my own event ontology.

A person is not a substance carrying around experiences.

A person is an unfolding history.

Every encounter contributes to what the person becomes.

This naturally produced my own cycle:

Encounter → Response → Disclosure → Formation → Next Encounter

---

5. Judgment

This immediately transformed my understanding of Revelation 20.

Instead of imagining books as external ledgers,

I began wondering:

What if the books are the people?

Not metaphorically.

Ontologically.

If the whole past has condensed into the present person,

then God need not reconstruct a history.

The history stands before Him.

---

6. Judgment now

This then led to another insight.

Every encounter functions like a status report.

Not because God needs information,

but because the encounter discloses

where the person presently is.

Every encounter becomes a mirror.

Every encounter provides a mirror for those willing to look.

---

7. Repentance

This changed repentance.

Repentance is no longer balancing a scale.

It is changing one's trajectory.

"I'll repent later" becomes self-deception because

while imagining movement toward repentance,

one is presently practicing becoming someone who postpones repentance.

Hardness of heart becomes understandable as accumulated direction rather than accumulated guilt.

---

8. Outside time

I also realized something about judgment.

If a person is genuinely duration,

then no single temporal instant can completely contain the person.

Therefore,

true comprehensive judgment cannot simply occur at a point in history.

It must somehow apprehend the duration as a whole.

---

9. Reading methodology

This discussion clarified my methodology.

I do not want to derive philosophy from Scripture.

Nor do I want philosophy to dictate what Scripture must mean.

Instead:

1. Develop the ontology philosophically.

2. Return to Scripture.

3. Ask whether this ontology allows the text to be taken more seriously rather than explained away.

This avoids repeating what I criticize in substance metaphysics.

---

10. A possible paper

Out of one section emerged an entire paper:

Bergson and Heraclitus Inside the Apocalypse

Central thesis:

Judgment is not the examination of an external record.

Judgment is the complete disclosure of the person into whom that history has condensed.

---

What surprised me

Perhaps the biggest surprise was this:

I expected to learn Bergson's philosophy.

Instead,

Bergson became someone I was thinking with rather than merely reading.

His work acted almost like an encounter.

It exposed places where my own ontology could grow.

It also generated entirely new questions that Bergson himself was not trying to answer.

That is probably the strongest indication that the reading has become philosophically productive rather than merely informative.

Gilles Deleuze and the Atheist Machine: Vocabulary

For each Deleuzian term ask four questions:

• What does it literally mean?
• What problem is it trying to solve?
• Can we translate it into ordinary English?
• Can we express the same insight in event ontology?

 

Questions

How do we move beyond classical substance metaphysics?

How should theology respond to contemporary science?

Can Christian doctrine be reformulated rather than merely defended?

Aphorisms

Event (pure experience) → Response (disclosure)

Every divine revelation is simultaneously a human disclosure. (Luke 2:34)

Definitions vs Designations: Definitions classify, while designations situate a be-ings place within a web of relations. 

• A definition places something within a category.
• A designation places it within a relationship.

A rock by definition is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals making up the Earth's crust. But the designation assigned to a rock determines its place in a web of relations. A rock can be a chair, an altar, a paperweight, a weapon. The full scope of what a thing is, is barely even touched by its definition. What a thing is, is not exhausted in knowing what it is made of. What a think can be is limited only by its potential designations.

A be-ing is not defined by what it is made of, nor merely by the territory it inhabits, but by what is happening through its participation in a network of relations.

In the rite of the communion Jesus's Declarative speech-act "this is my body. This is my blood" transforms the bread and wine within the context of the meal. Further, the re-enactment of this ceremony is a continuing participation in that same event. "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed took bread . . . etc." The its substance is not changed, it is transformed because it is brought into a new web of relationships.

Substance Ontology is concerned with the Definition of things - "What is it?"

Event Ontology is concerned with the Designation of things - "what is happening here?"

Bread is not a thing composed of discrete substances, it is a thing that emerges from series of layered events. The object we call bread is not composed of discrete substances, it the emergent property of a layered pattern of events. Bread is not a thing that is just there, Bread is what's happening. 

Ontology of Encounter

 Reality is fundamentally composed of events. Among those events, encounters are theologically significant because they involve participation and response.

An encounter is not two separate events—an event followed by a response—but a single unfolding event with two inseparable aspects.

• The first aspect is pure experience: the immediate participation in reality before reflective interpretation.
• The second aspect is disclosure: the manifestation of the participant's orientation through their response.

Every encounter therefore possesses both an objective and a subjective dimension. It is something that happens to us, and simultaneously something through which we become manifest.

---

The Structure of an Encounter

Every encounter consists of one unified event.

Within that event:

• reality addresses us through pure experience;
• we necessarily participate;
• our participation takes the form of response;
• that response discloses our present orientation;
• and leaves an impression that shapes our future orientation.

Response is therefore not a second event.

It is the completion of the encounter itself.

---

Disclosure

Every response is simultaneously

• diagnostic
• formative.

It tells the truth about who we presently are.

It also contributes to who we are becoming.

Character is therefore neither static nor hidden.

It is the cumulative pattern disclosed through countless encounters.

---

Formation

No encounter is neutral.

Every encounter leaves an impression.

These impressions gradually shape orientation.

Future responses therefore arise not from an isolated will but from the character continually formed through previous encounters.

Sanctification is one example of this universal structure.

Human becoming itself is governed by it.

---

Revelation and Disclosure

Divine revelation is a particular instance of the universal structure of encounter.

God addresses humanity.

Humanity responds.

The encounter simultaneously reveals God and discloses humanity.

Hence the principle:

Every divine revelation is simultaneously a human disclosure.

Luke 2:34 becomes paradigmatic.

Christ is appointed

"...so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

The revelation of God inevitably becomes the disclosure of human beings.

---

Scripture

Scripture is not primarily the communication of propositions.

It is God's continuing work of creating encounters.

Its purpose is reorientation.

Speech acts create encounters.

Those encounters disclose persons.

Those disclosures make transformation possible.

---

Judgment

Judgment is not primarily future.

Judgment is continually occurring because disclosure continually occurs.

Every encounter is a present disclosure.

Every response reveals present orientation.

The future judgment is therefore not the first examination of a life.

It is the final unveiling of what life has already disclosed.

---

The Books

The books of Revelation are not best imagined as divine ledgers.

They are the unfolding narratives of persons.

Each person is, in a sense, their own book.

Every encounter writes another page.

Every response contributes another chapter.

When the books are opened, the question is not:

"What rules were broken?"

but

"Who has this person become?"

---

Time

Time is not merely the passage of moments.

Life is the succession of encounters.

Each encounter is always a present reality.

The expectation that "I can change later" is itself a present disclosure.

Judgment is therefore always now.

The Ontology of Being

 

Being is Event, Not Substance

The fundamental unit of reality is not substance but event.

Objects are not static entities that possess existence.

They are persistent patterns of activity.

A river is not the same water.

A flame is not the same molecules.

A person is not the same atoms.

Identity consists in the persistence of a dynamic pattern rather than the persistence of material substance.

---

There Is No Final Substance

Matter has no bottom.

History has continually dissolved supposedly fundamental substances into more relational and dynamic structures.

Solid matter became atoms.

Atoms became particles.

Particles became quantum fields.

Reality appears increasingly event-like rather than thing-like.

Substance should therefore be regarded as an abstraction—a useful way of speaking about stable patterns rather than ultimate reality.

---

God Is Not Another Substance

God is not the biggest thing in the universe.

Nor is God one substance among others.

God is the infinite host of all finite events.

Creation exists within God's sustaining activity.

God relates to creation somewhat as an author relates to a story—not merely observing it from outside, but continuously giving it existence.

This preserves divine transcendence without separating God from the world.

---

Creation Is Ongoing

Creation is not merely an event in the distant past.

Creation is God's continual hosting of reality.

Existence is participation.

Everything that exists continues to exist because it continually participates in God's creative activity.

Creation is therefore better understood as an ongoing event than as a completed act.

---

Identity Is Historical

Things are not primarily defined by hidden essences.

They are known through their histories.

Identity is the accumulated continuity of a pattern through time.

A person's identity is therefore inseparable from the history of their encounters.

This is why judgment naturally takes narrative form.

---

Revelation Follows Action

We never know hidden essence directly.

We know persons through what they say and do.

This is true of God as well.

Everything we know about God comes through God's activity.

Scripture therefore speaks naturally in terms of covenant, promise, deliverance, incarnation, resurrection, and Spirit.

God is revealed through action.

---

Christ

The Incarnation is not primarily the joining of two substances.

It is the singular event in which divine life is perfectly embodied in human history.

The identity of Christ is preserved not by combining essences but by the continuity of the acting subject.

The eternal Son lives a genuinely human life.

---

Trinity

The Trinity is not primarily one substance shared by three persons.

It is the eternal communion of divine life revealed through sending, indwelling, and love.

The economic Trinity is not merely a manifestation of an otherwise hidden God.

It is the true revelation of God's eternal life.

---

Creation as Hosted Reality

One of your most distinctive ideas has always been this:

Reality is neither independent of God nor identical with God.

Rather,

God hosts creation.

Events occur within God without becoming parts of God's substance.

This avoids both classical deism and pantheism.

God remains transcendent while creation genuinely participates in divine life.