Weird Studies/Courses/Bergson/Enactivism

28 Oct 2025 - 28 Oct 2025
Open in Logseq
    • Although I'm still having trouble really getting Bergson, every so often I come across a passage that makes perfect sense, that has me nodding in agreement and admiring the clarity. Yesterday I had an extra-strong moment like that; I read something and said, wait a minute, didn't I once say almost exactly the same thing? The passage is from Matter & Memory, p 82:
    • We become conscious of these mechanisms as they come into play; this consciousness of a whole past of efforts stored up in the present is indeed also a memory, but a memory profoundly different from the first, always bent upon action, seated in the present and looking only to the future. It has retained from the past only the intelligently coordinated movements which represent the accumulated efforts of the past; it recovers those past efforts, not in the memory-images which recall them, but in the definite order and systematic character with which the actual movements take place. In truth it no longer represents our past to us, it acts itand if it still deserves the name of memory, it is not because it conserves bygone images, but because it prolongs their useful effect into the present moment.
    • This was strikingly similar to something I wrote in 1992, in a grad school paper, described and linked here:  Emotion Paper . At the time I was skeptical of the received ideas about representation found in AI and cognitive science, and was trying to reform them and came up with something action-oriented. I had zero knowledge of Bergson, but it seems pretty Bergsonist to me now, albeit still materialist and representationalist:
    • The basic idea of enactive representation is that representations are not objective encodings of states of the world, but subjective encodings of past experience. Representations are used to anticipate and evaluate the results of possible actions. They do this by re-enacting or simulating past experiences.
    • Or maybe its anti-Bergsonist, since it has none of his metaphysics and is proposing a mechanistic model for mental things like memory. Nonetheless I thought there was a lot of convergence, We were thinking about similar problems and coming up with kind-of similar solutions.
    • I realize that while I hadn't heard of Bergson at the time, his ideas had filtered into my own thinking via phenomenologists and Francisco Varela and the Heideggerian critiques of AI that were happening. A lot of the ideas I had been reaching for had roots in Bergson's work. Bergson himself might have fallen out of the discourse, but his influence has been pervasive, with resonances in unexpected places.
    • Anyway sorry to go on about my own 30 year old writing but I was tickled to make this discovery and changes how I think about Bergson, makes me realize we have more in common than not.