David Ruth

1-605-891-1340

druth17@amherst.edu

17518 Avance Road, Faith, SD 57626-7101

ARCH 364 Architecture(s) of Disappearance

Professor Heidi Gilpin

December 11, 2013

Defining Experience: the Variables that Influence our Perception

The notions of experience, perception, memory and duration are all very interesting to

me. Through discussions with classmates, professors, book readings, and videos paying homage

to the idea of perception, memory, duration and experience, I have come to the conclusion over

the course of this semester that all are intertwined. I believe to perceive and to remember take

place in the same action and cannot be separated—and these notions require duration to manifest

in our consciousness, whose multiplicity of perceptions and internal and external stimuli

received make up our experience. In addition, I realize that these topics are much deeper in

content than I originally believed, and that there are many schools of thought on each.

In the following essay, I will examine the validity of my hypothesis through the lens of

Henri Bergson’s Matter and Memory. Through this essay, I will extensively review Bergson’s

stance on these topics and later use them as a jumping-off point for other works whose

viewpoints I will compare and contrast to Bergson’s, in addition to my own thoughts. By doing

so, I hope to leave the reader with a clearer (or at least unique and interesting) understanding of

what it might mean to experience or perceive our world, and discover the role of memory and

duration/time in these processes.

We now begin our extensive journey into Henri Bergson’s Matter and Memory. In this

work, Bergson compares the opposing ideas that our physical world is resigned to being a pure

state of the mind and the theory that the mind and body are simply atoms and the mind’s

perceptions are mere by-products—epiphenomenon—of our electrochemical processes.1 The

author states the first idea is analogous to the definition of “pure memory” and the latter

analogous to the definition of “pure perception.” Bergson hypothesizes that true existence lies

between these two extremes, and builds a philosophy upon the premise that perception and

memory are, in reality, impure and inseparable from each other. The concept of duration appears

1. Henri Bergson, Matter and Memory (New York: Zone Books, 1988), 26.

Ruth 2

as a tool to extend the life of the present perception to create the opportunity to perform actions.2

This creates a dynamic between perception, space and time I will illustrate in a later paragraph.

All of these concepts are encompassed by the postulate that the mind is always turned towards

practicality and action.3

I feel it important to discuss these models of pure perception and memory before we

discover how they meld with each other in reality and study the implications of such melding. I

note that Bergson, in his writing, urges a philosophy of common sense to understand these

models,4 and because Bergson’s reality is composed of a mix of perception and memory, the

models of pure perception and memory should not “make sense” to one’s personal view of

reality.

With this in mind, I take the notions of pure perception and pure memory at face value in

the lights of materialism and idealism. In the case of pure perception, this means to perceive is to

experience the reality of an image. In the case of the human body, this is limited to one’s sensory

organs/neural system that uses these sensory stimuli to respond to a perceived image via an

action that favors the survival of the organism. This fits with the materialistic model of the

world, because this perception is only a by-product of our sensory-motor system: we perceive

and act accordingly, based on sum of our present perceptions and our instinct to survive. Here in

my opinion, we see at once pure perception cannot be: we would be no more than machines or

extremely complicated mathematical functions…or zombies.

To elaborate, the author, professor, physicist and consciousness expert Arthur Zajonc

discusses in an interview a world parallel to our own where all humans perceive and respond

only to external images—there is no signification, referral to memory, or “first person point of

2. Ibid., 23.3. Ibid., 16.4. Ibid., 10.

Ruth 3

view” as Zajonc says.5 This world is an extreme example of what may occur when we “idolize”

objects or our surroundings. That is, we perceive the image of the object and believe its only

properties are what we immediately experience, rather than the truth that in reality the

object/image is made of atoms that are subject to the laws of nature and the universe and is

many-sided in its aspects.6 (This notion is consistent with Bergson’s view of pure perception,

which I find very interesting.) 7 The solution to staying out of this way of thinking is to be aware

of this fact and pay attention to one’s own perceptions.8 An analogy can also be drawn to

Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus in the chapter regarding the concept of the Bodies

Without Organs. These “Bodies”, according to the authors, are a goal and mindset where

significance and organization is non-existent and substituted for the perfect perception of an

object and its multiplicity of aspects consistent with a given desire.9 Of course, because of the

way our mind works, this is impossible to achieve fully. However, it is a great example, in my

opinion, of what state a being that utilized pure perception only would exist in.

Focusing on Bergson’s thoughts on pure perception again, we see in that the body, like

all other things in the universe, receives and gives back movement.10 The difference lies in the

fact that we may choose the way we return movement to the universe to a degree.11 This choice is

akin to the paying attention mentioned in Dr. Zajonc’s interview. I believe when we pay

attention to some thing, we are affixing our senses to it. When this occurs, we may perceive the

object because it takes on a quality of duration within our minds that allows us to take action (or

5. Arthur Zajonc, “untitled interview,” interview by the Associaziane Spazio Interior Ambiente. International Conference on Science and spirituality, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiWU0nOU0pc.6. Ibid. 7. Bergson, Matter and Memory, 20.8. Zajonc, “untitled interview.”9. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987).

10. Bergson, Matter and Memory, 19.11. Ibid.

Ruth 4

not) on the thing. The amount of time to take action and our likeliness to take action are related

to the influence the object is exerting on us (i.e. the intensity of a small, loudness of a sound,

brightness of a light, etc.,)12—which is often a function of the proximity of the object or the size

of it, as we know from the law of physics—and the necessity of the action that would potentially

be taken. This idea can be illustrated with the concept of the reflex action.

If one is suddenly exposed to a very bright light, the person will automatically squint. In

this case, the need to lower the amount of light entering the eye was immediate because of the

brightness of the light, which is itself a physical phenomenon caused either by proximity of the

light to the iris or the size of the light source (i.e. the Sun is far away, but very large), and so the

duration of the perception is immediate, or length zero.

This is not the only situation in which duration changes, however, and this alternate

situation will lead us into a discussion of the second facet of experience: memory. In a very

interesting scientific article on the notion of time and perception, we find that conscious duration

of a perception changes based on interest.13 That is, an event that carries interest or novelty to us

will appear to last a shorter amount of time because of the sheer amount of new information to

take in and decide action for that reduces our attention on time itself. In less novel, “boring”

situations that are more familiar to us, there is less information to take in and act on

consciously.14 (This is a good place to state Bergson’s theory that duration is reduced for motor

habits that have been learned because the necessary action is always brought about reflexively to

the appropriate learned situation—there is no need to decide on any action.) 15 Therefore, I would

conclude there is more time to reflect on the past, increasing the time it seems to take for a

12. Ibid., 20-21.13. George Musser, “Time on the Brain: How You Are Always Living in the Past, and Other Quirks of Perception,” Scientific American, September 15, 2011, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/15/time-on-the-brain-how-you-are-always-living-in-the-past-and-other-quirks-of-perception/ (accessed December 9, 2013). 14. Ibid. 15. Bergson, Matter and Memory, 45.

Ruth 5

boring event to occur. On the other side of this perception, we see that looking back on a boring

event, it seems as if it flew by—there is little new learned in that duration. However, an exciting

event, when recollected, may be recalled with a longer sense of time.16

The article discusses other interesting aspects of duration, including the fact that our

conscious perception lags approximately 80 milliseconds behind the actual occurrence of an

event.17 This happens because the human mind, with its complexity and wide field of perception,

takes in stimuli from varying distances and therefore different times. These perceptions (within

80 milliseconds) are not noticed as out-of-sync to our consciousness—our labels the stimuli as

happening simultaneously.18 This leads to many implications that, while interesting, are not a

part of our main focus in this essay, so I shall digress from exploring them further.

We have now reached a point in the examination of human experience that requires a

departure from the pure model of perception we have been using. We have mentioned concepts

of reflex, habit, recollection and novel perception. In order for any of these to exist, common

sense tells us there must be some link to past events that guides our perceptions. This link is

memory.

The idea of pure memory, in my opinion, is analogous to recording scenery with a video

camera. Just like pure perception, it involves taking in external stimuli. These stimuli and actions

performed are constantly recorded and logged chronologically in the brain. This capacity for

memory is an incredible resource to evolve, as it offers the organism the ability to recollect

previous events. As a result of this ability, one gains the facility to plan ahead and perceive

situations that have not yet occurred based on surrounding stimuli and predictions made from

these previous experiences.19 (In a study of those with severe amnesia and memory loss—where

16. Musser, “Time on the Brain.”17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid.

Ruth 6

the patient could only perceive his surroundings but not recall any events from the past at any

date—patients were unable to describe themselves in a future setting.) 20 Therefore, memory is

advantageous to human survival, which is one reason we as humans have developed such a

complicated system of remembrance—it is a practical adaptation to the ever-changing

environment we experience as humans.

How exactly does this act of remembering work? I have heard many opinions on the

subject—a good portion of my semester was spent in discussion with my classmates on the topic.

I recall a discussion where a classmate defined experience, in their opinion, as a transmission of

the present to the past. In addition, we tossed about the conundrum that experience seems to call

up from the brain memories of a kind while simultaneously creating memories from the present

experience.

The former idea is interesting to me because Bergson, in his discussion of memory,

classifies the majority of our memories in such a way.21 Once the present moment is experienced

(that is, in my opinion, action was taken or declined to be taken on a perception/image/stimulus,

fulfilling its usefulness and causing the duration of that perception to end), it is recorded and

dated and placed outside our consciousness, which, practical as it is, no longer finds the

particular experience useful. The latter idea steps closer to the true representation of memory

from the perspective of Bergson, and will be explored in future paragraphs.

This begs a question: what is the purpose of these apparently useless memories, then?

From a common sense perspective, I would postulate that if experiences were truly useless after

the initial duration, there would be no need whatsoever to develop a capacity to store them.

Bergson addresses this question through two memory-related concepts. The first—the

development of the habit—is discussed in the pure-memory section of his work. The second idea 20. Ibid. 21. Bergson, Matter and Memory, 80.

Ruth 7

will involve segueing into the interaction between perception and memory, and will answer the

question, “What is perception?” in addition to addressing our curiosities on memory and

experience.

The notion of habit brings us back to Bergson’s original postulate of the practicality of

the mind. When the same action in an unvaried situation is repeated again and again, connections

are made in the brain in such a way that relate the memory of the action to a particular image or

perception. A common example in human beings is the action of walking. The ability to walk

(and all motor “abilities” in fact) began with an initial experience that was repeated again and

again. Each time, memory of the action was stored like any other. However, something within

the brain must have occurred that made the action of walking a habit.

This “something” that turns actions taken from perception into habit “pulls” from past

experiences that which is useful to the present moment, until an automatic sensory-motor

response to a given stimulus is created over time.22 I believe it is an act of efficiency: while the

present perception is prolonged into duration in order for us to discern possible actions, habits

require no conscious thought and therefore no duration to decide upon certain stimuli. These

common pieces of memories, then, form habits that justify their usefulness to everyday life.

Bergson, in this study of memory, stumbles across another problem that is related to our

conundrum of experience stated earlier: if habits are created because of the repetition of action

based on perception, wouldn’t the perception, in order to evoke the exact same memory and

therefore repeat the action, need to be precisely the same? Again, our common sense guides us to

the answer: Because no perception is exactly the same, yet humans are host to myriad motor

habits and skills, we can conclude that repetition of an action need not be precisely the same—

22. Ibid., 82.

Ruth 8

only similar enough to evoke memories of the action.23 This leads us to answer the question:

How do perception and memories interact?

Let us recall for a moment the fact that we record perception chronologically, as a video

would. Dispersed among these memories are repetitions of actions caused by certain stimuli.

Over the length of the “film reel” we can observe the growth of a habit from the repetition of

actions taken on external perception. We noted earlier that habits are formed when the body pulls

useful information from past experience to a stimulus. If the mind is truly like a film reel, with its

countless, specific memories rolled up in the sum total of the first-person perspective of our past,

then we can conclude (according to Bergson) that the memories containing sufficiently relevant

data to the present are called up to relate the present experience to the past out of this “film

reel.”24

This is a powerful statement, because it allows the conclusion that perception is enhanced

by these relevant memories containing images that are called up and projected upon our current

perception, completing it in a way.25 This completion, of course, is rarely perfected because of

the fact that the past and present are never precisely the same. Nevertheless, the mind will

attempt—starting from most recalled/useful memories and working into deeper and deeper levels

of consciousness—to find previous memories that may resemble the current perception. When

this occurs, memories that may have lain dormant for long periods of time are suddenly “brought

back to life” as they are projected onto the present perception and become useful to the

consciousness once again. Relating back to the article on time and experience, we can now see

that the storehouse of recorded memory within us indeed serves a purpose. It is our inner tool

that enhances our perceptions with analogies drawn from locations around our entire past,

23. Ibid., 84. 24. Ibid., 102-103.25. Ibid.

Ruth 9

allowing us to create habits, motor-skills, make decisions, plan ahead, make connections, and

dream.26

It is vital, in my opinion, that I note an important characteristic of perception Bergson

describes that does not fit with some of our previous examinations. During this essay so far, we

examined perception under the postulate of the action-oriented mind. That is, all

perception/memory is manifested temporally in the consciousness in order to respond to sensory

stimuli—whether it occurs in the outside world or happens to occur within or on our bodies—in

the form of action or possible actions. 27 However, because of the complexity of the human mind,

we are gifted with a special skill not developed in most other organisms: we have the ability to

think. That is, we have the power to change our attention from outwards, practical action to

inward self-reflection.

This process of self-reflection, then, occurs any time focus and attention on possible

actions or responses to outside stimuli are changed to focus on the stimuli themselves and the

memories that are inevitably intertwined with it. By focusing on these memories, they in

themselves become stimuli that bring out more and more loosely related memories; soon, one

has discovered the process of daydreaming. I note here Bergson’s comment that to pay attention

to anything is to withhold action and subsequent disposal (or filing away) of perceptions.28

In daydreaming, one’s attention is focused such a way that it delves too deeply at times

into the bowels of the mind, and thought will be conjured up that are not practical or helpful to

the present reality. However, one can lean too far on the other side of attention and focus only on

the present moment. This leads to impulsive action without allowing for duration to aid in

making decisions, and is also a poor habit to have, according to Bergson.29 Indeed, he asserts that

26. Ibid., 153-155.27. Ibid., 57.28. Ibid., 153. 29. Ibid.

Ruth 10

a well-balanced mind is a product of balancing this attention in between these states—just as true

perception lies between true memory and true perception—and that common sense or practical

sense may simply be the state of mind that achieves this balance.30

We now have within our understanding the basic idea of Bergson’s reality: Present

perception and memory are intertwined to create what we would define as a perception of

images. By paying attention to these stimuli, potential actions, and inward portion of our

perceptions, we are able to think in a dynamic way. A question remains, however, from the

beginning of the essay: What, precisely, does it mean to experience something? Is it the same

thing as perceiving? And how does the notion duration play a part, if at all?

I hypothesized in the beginning that to experience was to perceive the totality of our

present perception combined with internal stimulation. This internal stimulation, we discovered,

is that portion of our past memories that can contribute to our present perception for a given

duration, and Bergson’s writings suggest that Common sense may tell us that our present

perception, ideally, ought to utilize all of our sensory organs and draw upon these relevant past

memories. After all, the more one can sense in person, the more rounded an experience one

should have, no? It is to this statement I will put forth a hypothesis: After examining Bergson’s

work, it seems to me that experience is a phenomenon that occurs in a matter of degree rather

than kind relative to perception. That is, to perceive is to experience. The degree to which we are

able to experience a situation, in my opinion, depends on the notion of intensity, which is a

function of the novelty of the situation and the physical aspects of the stimuli observed.

Thus far, we have examined the idea of intensity only a small amount previously in this

essay. Recall that Bergson stated intensity determines the amount of influence an image has on

our body and the likelihood of potential actions to occur, based on practicality and efficiency.31 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid., 20-21.

Ruth 11

(Also recall from Mussen’s article that the amount of new stimuli in a given duration affects how

intently we observe our surroundings, which in turn affects our duration and intensity of the

perception.)32 We now know this practicality is a result of memory in the form of motor habits or

attention to stimulus.33 This attention promotes decision-making and also increases the duration

of a given perception.34 We also know from Musser’s article that intensity is related to the

abundance of new or recollected stimuli, i.e. the first time a specific situation is encountered,

under equal physical and temporal context it will be more intense than the next time a similar

situation is encountered.

From these facts, I believe I may conclude that the intensity of experience is a function of

attention, and that the possible varying degree of this intensity creates an equal variety of

possible experiences. We know our attention to a given duration varies depending on past

recollection of useful information and repetition of potential actions (recall this is the origin of

habit) and so I believe we can conclude intensity and duration are related also. The renowned

philosopher Descartes, author of the philosophy based on the premise of “I think, Therefore I

Am” whom Bergson contrasts his work with in Matter and Memory, states,“[W]e should

regard the duration of a thing simply as a mode under which we conceive the

thing in so far as it continues to exist.” 35 That is, the duration of perception is

caused by attention and, along with intensity, become variables of

perception humans control through attention to truly experience our world.

32. Musser, “Time on the Brain.”33. Ibid., 153.34. Ibid.

35. Gideon Yaffe, "Locke on Consciousness, Personal Identity and the Idea of Duration," Faculty Scholarship Series, 2009, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3717

Ruth 12

Let us dwell on the implications of these facts, using our common reasoning as well as

expert sources on these topics. We know from Bergson that attention increases duration.

Without duration, one would simply react instantaneously to all stimuli in the

form of impulses, and experience would be a very unfulfilling activity. On the

other hand, infinite duration would imply being frozen in time or some other

state of being that common sense tells us is not the way humans experience

life on a regular basis. It should then make sense then, in my opinion, that when one pays

more attention to an image or idea that the image has a greater capacity to influence the body and

eventual actions of the person.

This concept, I believe, is often taken advantage of in the realm of meditation, where the

intensity of the present duration is forcibly perceived to be very low. Consider what would

happen in this situation, where one pays attention to nothingness—a silent, dark void free of all

stimuli. Over time and repetition, I believe the brain would learn to supply accompanying images

of darkness and silence to complete the perception, causing a trance-like state of calm tranquility

within the body that is beneficial to our well being.36 Getting into this state without getting

excited or distracted though, takes time and practice.37

Zajonc backs this hypothesis with similar viewpoints in his work. Additionally, he

believes that balancing this self-reflective, meditative state with a completely open awareness is

a key to successful thought and efficient, productive work.38 I would agree, and upon this

observation I would add that I had described the mindset of common sense as a balance between

attention and self-reflection as well. I do not know whether meditation, then, is the mindset of

36. Arthur Zajonc, “untitled interview”.37. Ibid. 38. Ibid.

Ruth 13

true common sense, but the idea certainly seems plausible. It opens up interesting discussions on

the role of intensity, also, in this context that I would like to very briefly ponder:

Imagine an analogy where we are most efficient—like well-oiled machines—when we

are fully aware and conscious of our world, yet not reactive to any intense aspects of our

surroundings—a meditative state. Increased intensity within duration, then, would act as a

friction of sorts to our machine, forcing our increased attention and therefore an extension of the

present duration that slows down our decision-making process. What is the point of intensity

within perception, then? I feel that as friction is necessary to all machines to run (with no friction

or traction, we could have no moving parts), intensity is vital to our system. It is a survival

mechanism birthed from the complexity of our action-oriented being that allows us to

differentiate between mundane, exciting, and dangerous situations, all of which beget different

potential actions.39 Without this potential action, we are merely dreamers—machines who are

“powered on” but are not doing any helpful work. Indeed, these points are found near the end of

Bergson’s work that we have been examining, which adds credit to this hypothesis, in my

opinion.

We have stated now that duration and attention, perception and memory are all

interrelated. We have observed intensity and what happens when it becomes very low in a

system of perception. Let us explore what happens within experience during very intense

perceptions—traumatic events.

Recall that we remember more intense events because they call more to our attention by

the urgency of their potential acts. This is apparent in situations where we are exposed to great

amounts of pain—physical or emotional—or a situation full of overwhelming stimulation. It is a

very “intense” situation. This is, in my opinion, why trauma and memory have such a

39. Bergson, Matter and Memory, 248-249.

Ruth 14

relationship: Trauma is caused by an event so intense that the mind pays an abnormal amount of

attention to the intense stimuli, but is still unable to act despite the body’s extreme need to do

so.40 (Unfortunately, in chronic cases of trauma such as those found in captivity or war zones,

this “abnormal” amount of attention becomes the new “normal” and compromises the well being

of the victim even further.) 41

From these thoughts, and the works of W. G Sebald’s Austerlitz and the videos After Life

and Rashomon (which I believe are all excellent sources of further study in these concepts) I

examined this semester, I conclude trauma certainly draws implications for our connected

concept of memory. I believe the body, unable to resolve the duration of a trauma via action, is

unable to reconcile or simply make dormant the memory and “put it in the film reel” like a

normal memory would be perceived. It becomes a constant, negative stimulus from within

because of a rewiring of the brain of sorts, and just like habits can be made from repetition of

similar perception, so chronic trauma (such as the case of captivity) can leave physical

impressions on us that resolve in permanent symptoms (i.e. symptoms of PTSD).42 To deal with

such memories, therapy is required to confront and reconcile these memories, which requires re-

experiencing them for the victim.43

However, traumatic memories, because of the event’s effect on the brain, are not like

other memories: I believe because they have not been reconciled, they are often much more

intense—perhaps because any accompanying perceptions would be equally intense. I

hypothesize this causes the memory to be re-lived in an extremely vivid state where other

memories would only produce milder recollections. Judith Herman, an expert on the topics of

40. Judith Herman, “Conversations with History,” interview by Harry Kreisler, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, September 21, 2000, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Herman/herman-con0.html.

41. Ibid.42. Ibid. 43. Ibid.

Ruth 15

trauma and memory, describes the notion of recovery of memory in an interview. Her words

illuminate the ideas surrounding the alterations that take place within the brain after trauma:

[P]eople will describe simultaneously knowing and not knowing what happened.

Remembering and not remembering what happened. When people get their memories

back, they will often describe it as simultaneously re-living the experience and being

outside of it as though it happened to somebody else. So, people learn to divide their

consciousness under captivity, under conditions of coercive control. And since we don’t

even understand unitary consciousness very well, when people have double

consciousness, double reality, I’m in awe. I think it’s a fascinating window into how the

mind works.44

It seems from Herman’s quote and my research that intensity within duration on a high

scale is not beneficial to human experience. Returning to our concept of the human as the

efficient machine, we might conceive that trauma is analogous to an extreme overabundance of

friction within the machine that may cause overheating or even mechanical failure. Recall that

Herman discusses the fact that during traumatic events—especially prolonged ones—the brain is

“rewired” in certain ways.45 Additionally, the brain might even undergo physical, irreparable

injury, which would lead to physical bodily symptoms in addition to mental or emotional

damage.46

Throughout this essay, I have attempted to impart a potential model for understanding

how it is our bodies experience the space around us. By looking through the lens of Bergson’s

Matter and Memory, in addition to interviews and articles from experts on the subject and other

book and video examinations, I believe I may formulate a conclusion on the notion of

44. Ibid.45. Judith Herman, “Conversations with History.”46. Ibid.

Ruth 16

experience, starting with a brief review of the main concepts discussed and my opinion on their

relationships to each other:

I believe the experience of space begins by paying attention to the space itself. The

amount of attention one pays to any aspect of this space (or image) is dependent on the

multiplicity of past experiences one has garnered, which directly correlates to the duration of the

experience—the more links to the past one may relate to the present, the shorter duration the

action-oriented body requires to make potential actions. These links are spawned during attention

as specific memories, deemed by the mind as useful to the interpretation and understanding of

the image attended to, are projected onto the immediate perception of the image. This immediate

image is perceived through the sensory organs and controlled by the nervous system only.

True to Bergson’s view, there are myriad ranges of experience one may perceive based

on the degree of direct perception versus self-reflection present within a system of duration.

Additionally, this level of self-reflection is an aspect of intensity. Intensity affects attention and

the mindset of the perceiver and is based upon the degree that external stimuli influence us. A

very low influence may be indicative of a meditative or dream-like state, while high-intensity

situations involving stress or pain (i.e. traumatic events) may directly affect the physical body in

addition to the mental and emotional states of the victim. In recovery of these memories, we find

disturbing vividness quite unlike normal recollections that ought to differ in intensity from

reality.47

I believe that human experience, then, is at once universal, yet individually unique. All

humans potentially experience life through the same sensory faculties, but to those immediate

perceptions, variations of past knowledge (memories) from within the body are applied to guide

the action-oriented body to the most beneficial decision. This decision, because of humankind’s

47. Bergson, Matter and Memory, 153

Ruth 17

complexity, may require a great deal of voluntary attention to consciously make or not, based

again on memory and variations of intensity projected onto the object based on novelty or

familiarity with a particular situation. (Think: habits, which are also memories.) These

intertwining variables of intensity, attention, and memory affect the perception of our present

reality and also the perceived duration of an event, in which we are given time to respond to

stimuli within the space based through action based on the influence the space exerts on us—

which we know is caused by the aforementioned variables of our perception. These notions of

attention, intensity, duration, and memory all effect each other and influence the way we

perceive space, and it is through their combined efforts that our initial perception of an image

transforms from an initial perception to a personal, unique experience of our universe.

Selected Bibliography

Bergson, Henri. Matter and Memory. New York: Zone Books, 1988.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, vol. 2.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Herman, Judith, interview by Harry Kreisler. Conversations with History Institute of

International Studies, UC Berkeley, (September 21, 2000).

After Life. Internet Video. Directed by Kore-eda Hirokazu. 1998.

Ruth 18

Rashomon. Internet Video. Directed by Akira Kurosawa. 1950.

Musser, George. Time on the Brain: How You Are Always Living in the Past, and Other Quirks

of Perception. September 15, 2011.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/15/time-on-the-brain-how-you-

are-living-in-the-past-and-other-quirks-of-perception/ (accessed December 9, 2013).

Sebald, W.G. Austerlitz. New York: Random House, 2001.

Yaffe, Gideon. Locke on Conciousness, Personal Identity and the Idea of Duration. 2009.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3177 (accessed December 9, 2013).

Zajonc, Arthur, interview by Associaziane Spazio Interior Ambiente. untitled interview

International Conference on Sciene and Spirituality, (2009).

Ruth 19