Duration

Henri Bergson begins the first chapter of his book Creative Evolution with a reflection on time and how individuals perceive it. He asserts that the way science looks at time as a series of individual moments that are possible to differentiate is wrong. Bergson believes this because experiences build upon each other and no two instances are exactly alike. Instead Bergson would have individuals perceive time as states that move from one to the next continuously, each state building upon all the other states that preceded it. Why do we describe time and change in this abstract and, in Bergson’s opinion, incorrect manner? If Bergson is correct then our understanding of the world around us and how we perceive things may have to change.
When describing how things change, people generally indicate points on a timeline at and identify them as when something became something else; this is especially true of evolution. Scientists identify points in time and define what the organism was then. Organisms are said to be one thing at this time and then become another at that time. Bergson points out is that the problem with this method is that these organisms didn’t just become these new species all of a sudden, as it might suggest. Instead things change gradually over time, slowly changing from one form to the next. A fish did not just wake up one day and become able to survive on land, instead each generation of fish changed slightly from the one before it. Every generation built upon the growth of its ancestors, the progeny consistently overcoming the parents.
Our lifetimes can be perceived a similar way. If one reflects on themselves as a child, one can instantly see how he is different now than he was then. While we are different than we were previously, we are undeniably still the same person throughout our lifetimes. So is there an identifiable point at which each one of became the man or woman we are today? Certainly not; we would instead say that we gradually grew and changed to become the person we are today. As organisms there is no stop to our change. We change continuously at the same rate, each moment we experience building upon the last, our intellect revising as necessary according to new information. This continual change is what Bergson describes as duration.
Duration is not just the replacing of each instant with the next. Nothing is being replaced and everything continues to have an effect. Each moment is influenced by the one that preceded it such that each moment builds upon what every moment that preceded it started. Bergson describes duration excellently as “…the continuous progress of the past which gnaws into the future and which swells as it advances” (4). This description brings to mind the idea of the “snowball effect”. Each moment that passes is added onto our snowball of experience and influences every moment that follows.
Understanding the past might inform our actions in the present, but an experience can never be repeated twice even with the same conditions present, and as such it is impossible to foretell the future. Since each experience builds upon all the ones that preceded it, even if we are presented with the same circumstances of an experience a second time, we will not have the same experience as our previous experience of the same circumstance because the first one informs the new one. As such, even if we could possibly know all the variables in the equation of experience, we would still not know what will come. Bergson describes this occurrence by relating it to the painting of a portrait: even if one know what the model, background, canvas, paints and brush look like, no one, not even the painter himself , can possibly know how the portrait will turn out. To foretell the future is to try and indentify what we have not experienced by way of what we have already experienced, which are necessarily different.
Bergson ends his section on duration with a thought on existence: “…we find that, for a conscious being, to exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly. Should the same be said of existence in general?” (7). When we exist, we take part in duration necessarily, which means we are constantly changing. What changes us are new experiences that inform our understanding and improve our abilities. As such, to change is to mature. As we mature we recreate ourselves better than before. Bergson ends by asking us whether we can describe existence as this progress, and it appears we can.
If Bergson is correct and we start looking at our own existence in this fashion, it appears we have only to gain from it. Instead of constantly living in the present, individuals would look to the past to inform their present actions. This act can only make the future of one’s existence better. If we keep in mind that every experience builds upon the ones that preceded it then we will make sure to do the best we can with every experience. The reason we gain from this practice is that our futures can only get better if we improve our pasts.
As was previously described, our experiences of the past are constantly trying to overflow into our present. What is meant by that is our past cannot be stopped from influencing our present actions. Our past experiences are preserved in how they influence our later experiences. Therefore every experience informs our mental capacity and improves our means. If we make sure to have informative experiences as often as possible, then just as the past pushes into the present, our new improved intellects will inform our present without effort.
If we are to take up Bergson’s ideas on duration and how we experience, then we will be forced to change how we consider experience and education. This is not a bad thing though, as it should surely improve how we grow and improve our intellects and abilities. However it seems a difficult task to drastically change how we perceive the world.