TIME How we screwed up our relationship with the universe, and how to get it back Part 3

By Dr Eric Zabiegalski and Per Brogaard Berggren

Last month we continued our discussion about time, the universe, and our relationship with each and we made the argument that our relationship with the universe, and, as a result the world, were “off-kilter” and it had to do with our relationship with the concept of time. Stemming from an ignorance and avoidance in recognizing the way in which the universe gives us the amazing gift of time, we would amend our earlier statements to say that we no longer think it’s a willful “arrogance of ignorance”, a knowing that we don’t know but not caring, which is the cause of our consistent suffering , but instead a not-understanding, in combination with confusion and mismanagement of reality and our perception. Bottom line, we keep stubbing our toe over these same rocks of ignorance as we move forward.  What can we do? How can humanity stop this mental tripping and progress from a clumsy walk to an easy stride? By gaining a clearer picture of what’s going on and then changing our thinking; our mental, and physical behavior.

Snapshots of Time

A photograph represents a snapshot in time, a still frame. But it can also represent a memory of time passed or a perception of the future. In the terms of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze such a picture represents three different aspects of time which are all connected but different, changing, and lived in a coexistence as one. What he calls habitual time (repetition which also draws out something new as it repeats). This is the same but slightly different each time, think of a spiral or helix, coming full circle but at a different place each time, repetition (sameness), and newness is present in every moment of habitual time. Memorial time (memory which does not just describe the past, but also creates, and enacts, and changes the past to redress the present and inform the future) and future time , made of a static synthesis of the newness of the present and the sameness moving forward, preceded by present unfolding differences supporting likely, but also unpredictable futures.

Life and Time

Turning to these process philosophers and substance philosophy may enrich our understanding about pausing periods of “time” as clocks do and serve us in recognizing that lived life is experienced in process and only when “things” relate do they actually live and live in our consciousness. In terms of relational philosophy, to paraphrase Floridi, it is not about the “citizen” but instead “citizenship”, lived relational time more than the time of an entity, thought, or thing, time is an adverb more than it is a noun or pronoun. In this aspect there’s a significant difference between not knowing or caring, and not knowing what to do about it. The latter is not an arrogance of ignorance, but rather frustration and in order to continue with life we distract ourselves and try to forget about it. We deny it because we cannot cope with high levels of uncertainty and complexity, we are all flawed humans who have been gifted with consciousness along with lived experience in a material world, of time, and clocks. Is it better to follow a philosopher’s concept of time, the mechanical clock, both, or neither? That is the question. This month Per and I continue our discussions, considering what is likely real and unreal, what time is, as it relates to space, change, and us, and what we can and should be doing about it. You are part of this journey; we hope you will continue to join us on it. Your views, insights, and feedback are opportunities to gain deeper understanding, we learn and grow from one another. 

6 April 1922

If that day in 1100 when monks put a mechanical clock in the tower of a German village for the townspeople to use was the moment we began to get off course with the universe in regard to time, then perhaps this date was when we veered off the road completely. Surprisingly, the significance of this event has gone largely unnoticed by humanity until recently. The event I’m referring to was a debate between well-known analytical philosopher, Henri Bergson, and physicist Albert Einstein on the subject of time. Never heard of Bergson? That wouldn’t be a surprise as most haven’t though in 1922 he was more famous than Albert Einstein and many scientists and scholars argue to this day more brilliant than him on a whole different level. So, why haven’t we heard of him , and why has Bergson, perhaps the most important philosopher in the last 100 years, been patently ignored and practically expunged from science and history? The answer as you’ll see, is the same reason we still have so much trouble with time today. In a discussion between physicist/biologist Alex Gomez-Marin and psychologist Dr. Iain McGilchrist the two characterize Bergson as one of the most important intellectuals in the modern world. Bergson, who’s 1889 thesis predates Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg’s theories on the interpretation of quantum wave mechanics by 40 years, was once credited with creating the first traffic jam in New York City when he appeared there to speak. 

The Debate

 Perhaps if the answer to the question of time, and life, was as simple as the number 42 we wouldn’t be having this much trouble. So what was the debate? The two were discussing the nature of time and Bergson’s position was from one of phenomenology, a scientific approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience, and philosophy, while Einstein’s view was one of mechanics and physical science. While Bergson did not disagree with Einstein, he believed there was more to the nature of time than physical science and mechanics and time also had to do with human consciousness and our perception of the phenomena of time, Einstein didn’t agree. As the debate unfolded Einstein presented his views in a matter-of-fact scientific manner and it was thought at the time (even by Einstein), that Bergson did not understand Einstein when he presented his argument. But many scholars (including McGilchrist and Marin) now agree it was the other way around, Einstein misunderstood Bergson, he (Bergson) was talking at a whole other level above Einstein. Eventually, Einstein began to become frustrated and in what was perhaps a moment of anger said to Bergson in a dismissive way, “the time of the philosophers is unreal”, meaning the philosophers concept of time was incorrect. While I’m not sure of Bergson’s response, if he gave one, he could have just as easily replied that the time of the clockmaker was equally unreal?

Marin comments, “If history is written by the winners” then Einstein won the debate. Could this have been the reason why Bergson has gone largely ignored, even ridiculed since that debate over time? And does humanity need to think more metaphysically in order to rescue time from its de-natured and specialized, version we use today? Perhaps.  Interestingly, in his later years Einstein began embracing philosophy, phenomenology, and metaphysics more in science and his research as he searched for a “theory of everything.” Even publicly commenting that the brilliant fellow physicist of the day David Bohm (also a philosopher like Bergson) was his “spiritual son”, perhaps Einstein had a change of heart. Was Bergson rejected ,ridiculed, and dismissed for decades because of this ongoing split between science and philosophy and the way in which the different hemispheres of our brain view the world? One seeing a disembodied, static, mechanized, and abstract view of existence while the other considers life, the universe (and time) in a contextualized, living, embodied, and incarnate landscape and flow? And did 6 April 1922 solidify the end of a shot for humanity at a truer reality balanced between science and philosophy? Only time will tell. On a final note, Marin asks: “Could Bergson have been societies first victim of cancel-culture?”  I don’t know the answer to that, but his ideas are urgently needed for consideration today.

 Two Faces of Time or Three?

Bergson argued that time has two faces, one is objective time, and the other is lived time. The first time (objective) is the time of watches, clocks, and calendars, the second, what he called La durée (duration) is the lived experience of time.  When approaching Bergson’s idea of “durée” in a context outside of the clocking of events, Per turns to Danish philosopher Ole Fogh Kirkeby and his “Eventum Tantum (the ethos of the event) 2005, which paraphrases:

“All principles are, in Bergson terms, above the “cinematographic view” of science, consisting of the ability to create static images of reality and understand life’s movement as an illusion created by a combination of static images, like a motion picture works.”

It almost seems ridiculous discussing two different abstractions happening at once, mechanical time and lived time. But reality is a process which is indifferent to whether we observe it or not – birds still fly even though we don’t observe or perceive them. If Bergson and Einstein had perhaps invited physicist Niels Bohr to their discussion and he introduced his concept of complementarity, the idea that objects in quantum mechanics have pairs of complimentary properties which cannot be observed or measured together, perhaps they wouldn’t have quarreled on their views. With that said Per and I postulate there is a third phenomenon at work here, one which eluded Einstein and Bergson in 1922 and still escapes our complete perception about the true nature of time to this day. These two ways of seeing time (the clock and the lived experience), are those of the two hemispheres of the brain and its differing views on life. There is a third way of seeing time as yet understood completely by man. One in which time is the thing which sets everything in motion and gives life to everything. Without time, there would be no mountains, no night or day, no ages, no seasons, no eons, no cosmos, no life, nothing at all.  

 Dr. Zabiegalski and Per Brogaard Berggren are available to talk to your organization or venue about ambidexterity research or speak informatively and eloquently about organizational culture, organizational leadership, strategy, learning, complexity, IT, business neuroscience, creativity, mindfulness, talent management, personal success, emotional intelligence, Action Learning, and storytelling. Contact Eric, or Per on LinkedIn about a talk, keynote presentation, or workshop today!