(Un)consciousness of breathing?

[AshvinP]

I agree that Thinking is a "whole body phenomenon" (not just in head/brain) - that is even clear from physicalist interpretations of science, but spiritual science details exactly how Thinking occurs throughout the body. In fact, the various parts of our bodies are alive like animals are alive and connected to a "group soul". And in spiritual science, there is not only the physical body, but the etheric and astral bodies.

So, apart from the "whole body" objection to inspiration (clairvoyance and clairaudience) as "Thinking", do you see any other reason why it must be separated from reason and imagination?

Not separated! That's bivalent logic speaking. If we call whole body sentience (better word) whole-body "thinking", the caveat is that instead of good balance and propotion of an organic whole, the spatial and controlling aspects of abstract thinking dominate and maintain imbalance, alienation and loss of meaning.

Let me rephrase - do you think there is discontinuity between reasoned and imaginative thinking (we both agree those are "thinking") and inspired and intuitive thinking? Or maybe you can just state a) what are the fundamental activities (I say W-F-T), and b) what sorts of knowing-cognition belong in the "Thinking" category? Of course, if you agree with me that inspired and intuitive "thinking", "knowing", [insert label here] actually function in a way that allows for systematic investigation of noumenal relations, then it doesn't matter what label we put them under.

I realize that, at first glance, these remarks could seem more aligned with your position that intuition is like a "gut-feeling" which never arrives at any "absolute truth". There is a certain accuracy to such a position, but it is what I call "low resolution" truth and Bergson calls a truth that "limits itself to the intellectual... vague and hypothetical... artificial unity... abstract and empty unity". Please note that I am not claiming, and I don't think Bergson is either, that this sort of view does not have feeling or is never useful when interacting with people. That is not the point at all. Rather, we are asking about the living essence of intuition - must it always remain in the domain of "gut feeling" or "hunch" or "hint"?

Of course there are degrees, and intuition can grow in intensity and clarity. And be called then by other names, e.g. clairvoyance. Bergson did not use the term 'holography', as the tech metaphor was invented much later and elevated into spiritual concept mainly by Bohm, but the term describes quite well - in the limited abstract and spatial sense in which we think and discuss - Bergson's notions of intuition and duration. Of course the metaphor "universe in a speck of sand" goes way way back.

So it sounds like you agree that intuition is a mode of knowing which can systematically investigate the underlying Reality. Correct?

It seeks a step by step and super-precise uncovering of detailed relations. Instinct simply does not provide that sort of resolution.

If you can't trust your instincts, you can't set on a journey of discovery in the first place. Love for thinking does not make us, who try to think as well as we can, any better than fellow people who think less and live in the duration, caring. The real Purpose and Will is to serve, and to be able to do so we need to accept all the help we get to avoid the trap of superiority tripping.

There is no judgment of moral "superiority" involved here, just attempts to understand the living essence of these spiritual life-processes. The basic question is whether thinking-knowing is the means by which we enrich the meaningful content of ideal relations. Thinking by itself does not set us on a journey - I agree that is the domain of Willing and Feeling to instill that impulse. Once we are on the journey, the different concepts of Thinking will play a huge role in what sort of meaningful experience-knowledge can be had by way of it. And, again, I must repeat that Thinking is not "abstract intellect" - it is the physical senses and intellect transfigured into higher perception-cognition. If you are going to make arguments of the sort above, comparing instinct to thinking in the meaning it brings, then you should be using my conception of Thinking. Otherwise you are just arguing against someone else who has an erroneous shallow understanding of Thinking, and who isn't in this discussion.

but then the question becomes whether there is any reason to think our capacities of knowing cannot systematically arrive at eternal Unity through higher perception-cognition, investigation rooted in "experience alone". My answer is no, there is no reason to discount that possibility, and it seems clear to me that Bergson agrees.

Bergson is quite clear when he says that duration is neither unity nor multiplicity. "Eternal Unity" sounds like abstract spatial projection. I'm sorry, but I don't find much meaning in the expression, it sounds like a donkey and carrot scheme of eksoteric abusive religion. Or escape art of the Pure Land frozen existence. Strictly rationally speaking, experiences are changes, differences, we don't and can't experience absolute sameness. Hence there can be no experiencing in Eternal Unity.

We can't say that Earthly modes of experiencing are the only possibility - and these include and give taste of wide variety and beyond - or that there can be no relief from experiencing. But why speculate on such abstract ideas of finality, as long as we live these lives we have chosen to live, as long as there is work to do here, a world to make a better place, gods to heal, take care of each other and to live in Wonder? Why?

You missed the point. Bergson says we should not presume eternal unity or any other sort of unity until we can experience and know it for ourselves. That is also Steiner's position, and I agree with both of them. You are presuming an ultimate Reality of "holography" in which there is no "eternal Unity" and that is a major problem for Bergson - it is the use of "intuition" as abstract concept to leap frog to ultimate Reality, without actually putting in the "new effort for every new problem" to experience-know the Reality itself. That is not something that can be done in one trip, one meditative session, or even a lifetime of those things. The "eternal Unity" is the conclusion which nearly every religion and idealist philosopher in human history has reached, but Bergson is criticizing the way they have reached it, because that way is itself the most meaningful aspect of the Unity.

(as an aside, Bergson is clear when says, "to pass from intellection to vision, from the relative to the absolute, is not a question of getting outside of time (we are already there)" - "already there" means outside of time = eternality.

The "work to do here" will depend on the actual structure of Reality, right? If there is no possibility of the sort of higher cognition spiritual science tries to cultivate, then the work to do here is not much different than what anyone is doing in their daily lives. All of this stuff on BK forum and what not is just a hobby that we can take or leave, like playing or watching sports. Everyone can claim whatever they happen to be doing at any given moment is equally beneficial to the life of the spiritual Whole as what anyone else is doing. Obviously that is very appealing to modern man - we spend 99% of our lives figuring out ways to convince ourselves that is true and denying any proposed Reality which would make it untrue. But, in the spirit of Bergson, that is not the proper approach. We should develop our knowing capacities and start investigating without prejudice and see where it leads.

[SanteriSatama]

Let me rephrase - do you think there is discontinuity between reasoned and imaginative thinking (we both agree those are "thinking") and inspired and intuitive thinking?

There is potential discontinuity, as Bergson discusses the relation between abstract spatial thinking and duration, but I won't say necessary discontinuity. When reasoned and imaginative thinking follows heart (instead of trying to subvert heart) meaningful continuity is possible.

Of course it follows from this that conceptual models of abstract spatial thinking are situational participations in dialectical processes, not objective universals.

So it sounds like you agree that intuition is a mode of knowing which can systematically investigate the underlying Reality. Correct?

I agree with "systematically investigate", but not with "underlying Reality", as process philosophy denies hypokeimenon/substance which means literally "underlying". Bergson is a process philosopher.

There is no judgment of moral "superiority" involved here, just attempts to understand the living essence of these spiritual life-processes.

The comment was not about moral superiority, it was multigenerational practical wisdom concerning the trap of power tripping, if and when the initiations and transformations really start. It is not at all uncommon that they can mess you up pretty bad especially in the beginning, and many do fall in the trap of becoming cult leaders etc. etc. harmful misuse of power.

The "eternal Unity" is the conclusion which nearly every religion and idealist philosopher in human history has reached,

And argument from authority of a billion dung flies can't be wrong. Buddha said well: If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.

(as an aside, Bergson is clear when says, "to pass from intellection to vision, from the relative to the absolute, is not a question of getting outside of time (we are already there)" - "already there" means outside of time = eternality.

That is a clear misreading. Bergson speaks of getting out of the mental prison of abstractions of spatial thinking. Already here means already in empirical time, in duration. Duration is a non-concept "concept" because duration can't be abstracted by thinking into spatial model.

The "work to do here" will depend on the actual structure of Reality, right?

Actual reality is this duration as we actualize in all our relations.

If there is no possibility of the sort of higher cognition spiritual science tries to cultivate, then the work to do here is not much different than what anyone is doing in their daily lives. All of this stuff on BK forum and what not is just a hobby that we can take or leave, like playing or watching sports. Everyone can claim whatever they happen to be doing at any given moment is equally beneficial to the life of the spiritual Whole as what anyone else is doing. Obviously that is very appealing to modern man - we spend 99% of our lives figuring out ways to convince ourselves that is true and denying any proposed Reality which would make it untrue. But, in the spirit of Bergson, that is not the proper approach. We should develop our knowing capacities and start investigating without prejudice and see where it leads.

I'm old school as well as modern, postmodern and metamodern. The great "secret" is that there is no great secret "out there", no "final truth". Of course you won't believe that, and it's fine. And yes of course the Above and Below spirit realms etc. spheres of experiencing are as real as this Middle realm, and offer very valuable learning, wisdom and healing, but there is no other "place" more beautiful and meaningful, more challenging and with more potential to create more beauty.

What else can investigation mean, besides living and experiencing life as fully as we can, continuously learning? There is also a clear prejudice, we should be going towards better times, not worse. I sincerely hope you agree with that.

Heart knows, and also reasoning can conclude, that to go towards better times with less suffering and more joy, the lesson that also and especially spirit realms teach is that we need to open our hearts and deepen and widen our emotional empathy, because that is the ontological basis on which Golden/Silver Rule is built on, and the better we learn to live by that rule in the Reality of Empathy, the less we are able to hurt each other. And so shall it be.

[AshvinP]

Let me rephrase - do you think there is discontinuity between reasoned and imaginative thinking (we both agree those are "thinking") and inspired and intuitive thinking?

There is potential discontinuity, as Bergson discusses the relation between abstract spatial thinking and duration, but I won't say necessary discontinuity. When reasoned and imaginative thinking follows heart (instead of trying to subvert heart) meaningful continuity is possible.

Of course it follows from this that conceptual models of abstract spatial thinking are situational participations in dialectical processes, not objective universals.

Yes, but who is arguing for "abstract spatial thinking"? Seriously, it only takes the least bit of familiarity with Steiner and Barfield to know their entire philosophy and spirituality is geared towards overcoming "abstract spatial thinking". There is no reason to attribute to them something which they, more than any other modern philosophers, did the most to argue against. In fact, all of German idealism, 'post-structural' philosophy, etc. deals only in abstract spatial thinking. I would be glad and very surprised to see you quote an example of some modern philosopher who does not deal in that.

So it sounds like you agree that intuition is a mode of knowing which can systematically investigate the underlying Reality. Correct?

I agree with "systematically investigate", but not with "underlying Reality", as process philosophy denies hypokeimenon/substance which means literally "underlying". Bergson is a process philosopher.

I have no idea why "process" cannot also be an underlying Reality. Like the processes of my metabolism, respiration, and circulation are objectively verifiable aspects of the underlying Reality which sustains my existence and evolution.

(as an aside, Bergson is clear when says, "to pass from intellection to vision, from the relative to the absolute, is not a question of getting outside of time (we are already there)" - "already there" means outside of time = eternality.

That is a clear misreading. Bergson speaks of getting out of the mental prison of abstractions of spatial thinking. Already here means already in empirical time, in duration. Duration is a non-concept "concept" because duration can't be abstracted by thinking into spatial model.

I think you are interpreting this passage incorrectly. "Already there" means "getting outside of time". If you read the surrounding context of what Bergson is writing there, it becomes even more clear. But I think this excerpt is already clear enough. Bergson is criticizing those philosophers who take recourse to "substance, idea, will, etc." to go from one experience or abstraction directly to the eternal noumenal Reality, i.e. German idealists (except Steiner, bc by all accounts, Bergson was not even aware of Steiner). Bergson says we must go into the phenomenal world of time to uncover the detailed noumenal relations. Which is no different from Steiner's spiritual science, where he departed from Theosophy of Blavatsky precisely because it ignored the phenomenal world and its role in spiritual awakening.

I'm old school as well as modern, postmodern and metamodern. The great "secret" is that there is no great secret "out there", no "final truth". Of course you won't believe that, and it's fine. And yes of course the Above and Below spirit realms etc. spheres of experiencing are as real as this Middle realm, and offer very valuable learning, wisdom and healing, but there is no other "place" more beautiful and meaningful, more challenging and with more potential to create more beauty.

What else can investigation mean, besides living and experiencing life as fully as we can, continuously learning? There is also a clear prejudice, we should be going towards better times, not worse. I sincerely hope you agree with that.

Heart knows, and also reasoning can conclude, that to go towards better times with less suffering and more joy, the lesson that also and especially spirit realms teach is that we need to open our hearts and deepen and widen our emotional empathy, because that is the ontological basis on which Golden/Silver Rule is built on, and the better we learn to live by that rule in the Reality of Empathy, the less we are able to hurt each other. And so shall it be.

Well, that is not Bergson's view, Steiner's view, Barfield's view, Jung's view, Heidegger's view... they all concluded human beings were actually free to choose whether they sync up with Reality or stay out of tune... and it's not hard to figure out what happens to people who choose to stay out of tune with Reality. Right now, it is about humility, because it would be beyond arrogant to presume that we know what will "hurt each other" before knowing even what it means to hurt each other or how our actions affect others. We only come to know that by knowledge-thinking, gained by lifetimes of discipline and hard work, which only sounds so tautological because it is so obviously true.

[SanteriSatama]

Yes, but who is arguing for "abstract spatial thinking"?

Not necessarily arguing for, but as we think and discuss, we constantly engage in abstract spatial thinking. And this is not arguing against it, but simply to observe and stay better aware of abstract spatial thinking as we think.

I have no idea why "process" cannot also be an underlying Reality.

Just a terminology issue of standard philosophical jargon, to make a clear distinction between substance metaphysics and process philosophy and to avoid terminological confusion. Hypokeimenon, substance and underlying are Greek, Latin and English words with same basic meaning.

I think you are interpreting this passage incorrectly. "Already there" means "getting outside of time".

I'm pretty confident Bergson is not talking about getting outside of duration, ie. empirical time. Getting out of abstracted and spatialized "time" such as Minkowski space or "eternity", another story.

To make sense of Bergson, we need to make sense of duration. This guy has been very helpful in that respect:

Well, that is not Bergson's view, Steiner's view, Barfield's view, Jung's view, Heidegger's view... they all concluded human beings were actually free to choose whether they sync up with Reality or stay out of tune... and it's not hard to figure out what happens to people who choose to stay out of tune with Reality. Right now, it is about humility, because it would be beyond arrogant to presume that we know what will "hurt each other" before knowing even what it means to hurt each other or how our actions affect others. We only come to know that by knowledge-thinking, gained by lifetimes of discipline and hard work, which only sounds so tautological because it is so obviously true.

It's my view and my will, and I'm not alone. There's Oracle Girl and what not. Sometimes strangers recognize something in me, start talking and call me "old soul" etc., go figure. That's not important because this is not about me, this is about our children and all life on Earth. It's never too late to agree to start to really learn in this duration, instead of making abstract spatial excuses to postpone learning.

[AshvinP]

Yes, but who is arguing for "abstract spatial thinking"?

Not necessarily arguing for, but as we think and discuss, we constantly engage in abstract spatial thinking. And this is not arguing against it, but simply to observe and stay better aware of abstract spatial thinking as we think.

So what is more abstract - contemplating the living essence of exactly how imagination, inspiration, intuition can unfold in our experience, or just forever speculating about how those things may help us sometime in the future by "varying degrees and intensities" in some unspecified manner? I will call the former the Steiner approach.

I have no idea why "process" cannot also be an underlying Reality.

Just a terminology issue of standard philosophical jargon, to make a clear distinction between substance metaphysics and process philosophy and to avoid terminological confusion. Hypokeimenon, substance and underlying are Greek, Latin and English words with same basic meaning.

Ok, then I call Steiner approach philosophy of process plus. It is recognition of process underlying Nature plus also very specified details of how those processes have unfolded and will continue to unfold.

I think you are interpreting this passage incorrectly. "Already there" means "getting outside of time".

I'm pretty confident Bergson is not talking about getting outside of duration, ie. empirical time. Getting out of abstracted and spatialized "time" such as Minkowski space or "eternity", another story.

To make sense of Bergson, we need to make sense of duration. This guy has been very helpful in that respect:

I will try to find another passage from The Creative Mind (his last and therefore most useful work to consider) for you. In the meantime, since you are not reading my essays detailing these things you cannot also expect me to watch your videos. I am surprised bc the last one was filled with qualitative numerology

It's never too late to agree to start to really learn in this duration, instead of making abstract spatial excuses to postpone learning.

Amen! So let's lay our cards on the table - we have been discussing Steiner and Barfield approach to metamorphic progression and higher cognition for a long time now. During that time, I have been studying them and anyone else related to their ideas to write these essays and learn as I go. You have commented a lot in those discussions, so how many of their books, lectures, articles have you actually read? I am genuinely curious as to how your learning process works. How do you come to have such confidence that their approach is off, which you clearly do?

[SanteriSatama]

In the meantime, since you are not reading my essays detailing these things you cannot also expect me to watch your videos.

How pathetic. Your ego is outstandingly boring and I have no interest in talking with it.

[AshvinP]

In the meantime, since you are not reading my essays detailing these things you cannot also expect me to watch your videos.

How pathetic. Your ego is outstandingly boring and I have no interest in talking with it.

the classic Santeri disappearing act when you can no longer answer my questions without revealing you have no interest in "learning" whatsoever, as you have not read any of the people you are commenting so confidently about. Fair enough... until next time!

[AshvinP]

I think you are interpreting this passage incorrectly. "Already there" means "getting outside of time".

I'm pretty confident Bergson is not talking about getting outside of duration, ie. empirical time. Getting out of abstracted and spatialized "time" such as Minkowski space or "eternity", another story.

To make sense of Bergson, we need to make sense of duration. This guy has been very helpful in that respect:

I will try to find another passage from The Creative Mind (his last and therefore most useful work to consider) for you. In the meantime, since you are not reading my essays detailing these things you cannot also expect me to watch your videos. I am surprised bc the last one was filled with qualitative numerology

I did manage to find this passage for anyone interested in Bergson's actual approach to these issues, rather than what they wish his approach would be. It should also be compared with the quote from Steiner immediately below.

Philosophy stands to gain in finding some absolute in the moving world of phenomena. But we shall gain also in our feeling of greater joy and strength. Greater joy because the reality invented before our eyes will give each one of us, unceasingly, certain of the satisfactions which art at rare intervals procures for the privileged; it will reveal to us, beyond the fixity and monotony which our senses, hypnotized by our constant needs, at first perceived in it, ever-recurring novelty, the moving originality of things. But above all we shall have greater strength, for we shall feel we are participating, creators of ourselves, in the great work of creation which is the origin of all things and which goes on before our eyes. By getting hold of itself, our faculty for acting will become intensified. Humbled heretofore in an attitude of obedience, slaves of certain vaguely-felt natural necessities, we shall once more stand erect, masters associated with a greater Master. To such a conclusion will our study bring us. In this speculation on the relation between the possible and the real, let us guard against seeing a simple game. It can be a preparation for the art of living.

The mature man gives himself his own value. He does not aim at pleasure, which comes to him as a gift of grace on the part of Nature or of the Creator; nor does he fulfill an abstract duty which he recognizes as such after he has renounced the striving for pleasure. He acts as he wants to act, that is, in accordance with the standard of his ethical intuitions; and he finds in the achievement of what he wants the true enjoyment of life. He determines the value of life by measuring achievements against aims. An ethics which replaces “would” with mere “should”, inclination with mere duty, will consequently determine the value of man by measuring his fulfillment of duty against the demands that it makes. It measures man with a yardstick external to his own being.

The view which I have here developed refers man back to himself. It recognizes as the true value of life only what each individual regards as such, according to the standard of his own will. It no more acknowledges a value of life that is not recognized by the individual than it does a purpose of life that has not originated in him. It sees in the individual who knows himself through and through, his own master and his own assessor.

[SanteriSatama]

I'm pretty confident Bergson is not talking about getting outside of duration, ie. empirical time. Getting out of abstracted and spatialized "time" such as Minkowski space or "eternity", another story.

To make sense of Bergson, we need to make sense of duration. This guy has been very helpful in that respect:

I will try to find another passage from The Creative Mind (his last and therefore most useful work to consider) for you. In the meantime, since you are not reading my essays detailing these things you cannot also expect me to watch your videos. I am surprised bc the last one was filled with qualitative numerology

I did manage to find this passage for anyone interested in Bergson's actual approach to these issues, rather than what they wish his approach would be. It should also be compared with the quote from Steiner immediately below.

Philosophy stands to gain in finding some absolute in the moving world of phenomena. But we shall gain also in our feeling of greater joy and strength. Greater joy because the reality invented before our eyes will give each one of us, unceasingly, certain of the satisfactions which art at rare intervals procures for the privileged; it will reveal to us, beyond the fixity and monotony which our senses, hypnotized by our constant needs, at first perceived in it, ever-recurring novelty, the moving originality of things. But above all we shall have greater strength, for we shall feel we are participating, creators of ourselves, in the great work of creation which is the origin of all things and which goes on before our eyes. By getting hold of itself, our faculty for acting will become intensified. Humbled heretofore in an attitude of obedience, slaves of certain vaguely-felt natural necessities, we shall once more stand erect, masters associated with a greater Master. To such a conclusion will our study bring us. In this speculation on the relation between the possible and the real, let us guard against seeing a simple game. It can be a preparation for the art of living.

The mature man gives himself his own value. He does not aim at pleasure, which comes to him as a gift of grace on the part of Nature or of the Creator; nor does he fulfill an abstract duty which he recognizes as such after he has renounced the striving for pleasure. He acts as he wants to act, that is, in accordance with the standard of his ethical intuitions; and he finds in the achievement of what he wants the true enjoyment of life. He determines the value of life by measuring achievements against aims. An ethics which replaces “would” with mere “should”, inclination with mere duty, will consequently determine the value of man by measuring his fulfillment of duty against the demands that it makes. It measures man with a yardstick external to his own being.

The view which I have here developed refers man back to himself. It recognizes as the true value of life only what each individual regards as such, according to the standard of his own will. It no more acknowledges a value of life that is not recognized by the individual than it does a purpose of life that has not originated in him. It sees in the individual who knows himself through and through, his own master and his own assessor.

Spiritual sovereignty and spiritual anarchy, of course. But do you really want to reduse ethical intuitions to ego behaving like a petulant child? Is that your ethical intuition? No need to tell me, ask your self, your whole body, if that is your true will.

No problem with the passages as such, but they don't relate to the topic in question, which was Bergson's philosophy of time, philosophy of duration.

I read a lot of books when I was younger. Nowadays reading long form anything is mostly TLDR, I prefer the the audiovisual form which contemporary tech enables, and I'm grateful when somebody does a well digested audiovisual form to explain Bergson's philosophy of duration. Which is of great interest to me not least because of my math hobby which tries to conceptualize duration into formal language. It's madness of a symbolical kind of abstract spatialization, I'm first to admit, but I can't exclude the possibility that there could be some method to the madness. Maybe I'm trying to invent a time machine - isn't that what normal people do?

[AshvinP]

I will try to find another passage from The Creative Mind (his last and therefore most useful work to consider) for you. In the meantime, since you are not reading my essays detailing these things you cannot also expect me to watch your videos. I am surprised bc the last one was filled with qualitative numerology

I did manage to find this passage for anyone interested in Bergson's actual approach to these issues, rather than what they wish his approach would be. It should also be compared with the quote from Steiner immediately below.

Philosophy stands to gain in finding some absolute in the moving world of phenomena. But we shall gain also in our feeling of greater joy and strength. Greater joy because the reality invented before our eyes will give each one of us, unceasingly, certain of the satisfactions which art at rare intervals procures for the privileged; it will reveal to us, beyond the fixity and monotony which our senses, hypnotized by our constant needs, at first perceived in it, ever-recurring novelty, the moving originality of things. But above all we shall have greater strength, for we shall feel we are participating, creators of ourselves, in the great work of creation which is the origin of all things and which goes on before our eyes. By getting hold of itself, our faculty for acting will become intensified. Humbled heretofore in an attitude of obedience, slaves of certain vaguely-felt natural necessities, we shall once more stand erect, masters associated with a greater Master. To such a conclusion will our study bring us. In this speculation on the relation between the possible and the real, let us guard against seeing a simple game. It can be a preparation for the art of living.

The mature man gives himself his own value. He does not aim at pleasure, which comes to him as a gift of grace on the part of Nature or of the Creator; nor does he fulfill an abstract duty which he recognizes as such after he has renounced the striving for pleasure. He acts as he wants to act, that is, in accordance with the standard of his ethical intuitions; and he finds in the achievement of what he wants the true enjoyment of life. He determines the value of life by measuring achievements against aims. An ethics which replaces “would” with mere “should”, inclination with mere duty, will consequently determine the value of man by measuring his fulfillment of duty against the demands that it makes. It measures man with a yardstick external to his own being.

The view which I have here developed refers man back to himself. It recognizes as the true value of life only what each individual regards as such, according to the standard of his own will. It no more acknowledges a value of life that is not recognized by the individual than it does a purpose of life that has not originated in him. It sees in the individual who knows himself through and through, his own master and his own assessor.

Spiritual sovereignty and spiritual anarchy, of course. But do you really want to reduse ethical intuitions to ego behaving like a petulant child? Is that your ethical intuition? No need to tell me, ask your self, your whole body, if that is your true will.

I want to know the living essential meaning of these ethical intuitions, not simply abstract them away with feel-good phrases like "spiritual anarchy" or "spiritual sovereignty". Bergson wrote several books on this topic because he wanted the same thing. Steiner wrote many more books and gave thousands of hours of lectures on the same topic. If you accept reincarnation, then both of them spent even more time in that regard. You seem to think you have reached peak understanding of the topic by a couple of mystical experiences, leaping in one bound to the eternal.

No problem with the passages as such, but they don't relate to the topic in question, which was Bergson's philosophy of time, philosophy of duration.

Of course they relate. Bergson speaks of what we can "gain in finding some absolute in the moving world of phenomena." He speaks of "once more standing erect, masters associated with a greater Master". He speaks of "a conclusion will our study bring us". You can't tell me that the meanings of those phrases and words don't stick in your craw, because every time I write something similar you react with much petulance.