Bergson / Intuition

[uncledote]

The Philosophy of Life
by Swami Krishnananda
PART II: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOME WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS
Chapter 16: Henri Bergson
Bergson, the philosopher of intuitionism and of creative evolution, conceives Reality as a vital impetus, an élan vital, whose essence is evolution and development. The élan vital is a growing and flowing process, not a static existence which admits of no change whatsoever. Logic and science, intellect and mechanism cannot fathom the depths of the vital impetus which is the basis of all life. There is change and evolution everywhere, nothing merely is. All existence is a flux of becoming, moving and growing, a succession of states which never rest where they are. The intellect works mechanistically and constructs rigid rules and systems which cannot accommodate the rolling evolution of Reality. There can be no enduring substance in the river of life. Everything is changing, goes beyond itself. We can never get immutable things anywhere in the universe. Even consciousness is not unchangeable. It is a living, moving, growing and evolving process. Consciousness is the essence of the élan vital which is the great Reality. It is impossible to know Reality through logic and science. It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings. The élan vital is a creative spirit which defies the attempts of the mathematical manner of approaches to it, and demands a deeper sympathy and feeling which will enter into its very essence. In intuition we comprehend the truth of things as a whole, as a complete process of the dynamic life of the spiritual consciousness. Instinct is nearer to intuition than is intellect. Intuition is instinct evolved, ennobled and become disinterested and self-conscious. Instinct, when not directed to action, but centred in knowledge, becomes intuition. Intuition has nothing of the mechanistic and static operations of the logical and the scientific intellect. Intellect is the action of consciousness on dead matter, and so it cannot enter the spirit of life. Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition. Reality has to be lived, not merely understood.

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/phil/phil_16.html

[jupiviv]

Logic and science, intellect and mechanism cannot fathom the depths of the vital impetus which is the basis of all life.

If logic can't fathom the depths of this vital impetus, then how can this statement be made in the first place?

All existence is a flux of becoming, moving and growing, a succession of states which never rest where they are.

If that's true, then how can we understand that they are a succession of states?

The intellect works mechanistically and constructs rigid rules and systems which cannot accommodate the rolling evolution of Reality.

Only the flawed intellect constructs rigid rules. And Reality cannot undergo any evolution, because there is nothing that it can evolve from, and nothing that it can evolve to become.

It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings.

How can we be certain that intuition leads to the knowledge of Reality? What if intuition is the knowledge of illusions?

Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition.

Actually it's just the opposite. You have to follow intuitions until you are able to reach a solid conclusion, and then apply that wisdom to your life.

[mental vagrant]

Logic and science, intellect and mechanism cannot fathom the depths of the vital impetus which is the basis of all life.

If logic can't fathom the depths of this vital impetus, then how can this statement be made in the first place?

All existence is a flux of becoming, moving and growing, a succession of states which never rest where they are.

If that's true, then how can we understand that they are a succession of states?

The intellect works mechanistically and constructs rigid rules and systems which cannot accommodate the rolling evolution of Reality.

Only the flawed intellect constructs rigid rules. And Reality cannot undergo any evolution, because there is nothing that it can evolve from, and nothing that it can evolve to become.

It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings.

How can we be certain that intuition leads to the knowledge of Reality? What if intuition is the knowledge of illusions?

Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition.

Actually it's just the opposite. You have to follow intuitions until you are able to reach a solid conclusion, and then apply that wisdom to your life.

You're exemplary. Your rigid thinking and mine are causing us to develop opinions about what is said. Suppose no constants exist after the play button is pressed and that we can't fathom the changes because an infinitely large portion of them are inperceptible, i mean this literally. I'm taking neither side, my only contention is that can't ever complete our understanding but experience the new.