order has no need of explanation^ being purely and simply the suppression of the inverse order. And, for that, it was indispensable to prove that suppression is always a substitution and is even necessarily conceived as such: it is the retiuii-eraents of practical life alone that suggest to us here a way of speaidng that deceives us both as to what happens in things and as to what is present to our thought. We must now examine more closely the in- version whose consequences we have just described. AVhat, then, is the principle that has only to let go its tension — may we say to defend — in order to extend, the interruption of the cause here being equivalent to a re- versal of the effect?
For want of a better word we have called it consciousneaa. But we do not mean the narrowed consciousness that fuoctions in each of us. Our own consciousness is the con- sciousness of a certain living being, placed in a certain point of space ; and though it does indeed move in the same direction as its principle, it is continually drawn the op- posite way, obliged, though it goes forward, to look be- hind. This retrospective vision is, as we have sbo.wn, the natural function of the intellect, and consequently of distinct consciousness. In order that our consciousness shall coincide with something of its principle, it must detach itself from the already-made and attach itself to the being-made. It needs that, turning back on itself and twisting on itself, the faculty of seeing should be made to be one with the act of uiliing—a painful effort which we CAD make suddenly, doing violence to our nature, but cannot sustain more than a few moments. In free action, when we contract our whole being in order to thrust it forward, we have the more or less clear consciousness of motives and of impelling forces, and even, at rare mo- menta, of the becoming by which they are organized into
tOHAP. I
an act: but the pure willing, the current that runs through this matter, communicating life to it, is a thing which we hardly feel, which at most we brash lightly as it passes. Let us try, however, to instal ourselves within it, if only for a moment; even then it is an individual and fragmentary will that we grasp. To get to the principle of all life, as also of all materiality, we must go further still. Is it impossible? No, by no means; the history of philosophy is there to bear witness. There is no durable system that is not, at least in some of its parts, vivified by intuition. Dialectic ia necessary to put intuition to the proof, necessary also in order that intuition should break itself up into concepts and so be propagated to other men; but all it does, often enough, is to develop the result of that intuition which transcends it. The truth is, the two procedures are of opposite direction: the same effort, by which ideas are connected with ideas, causes the intuition which the ideas were storing up to vanish. The philosopher is obliged to abandon intuition, once he has received from it the impetus, and to rely on himself to carry on the movement by pushing the concepts one after another. But he soon feels he has lost foothold; he must come into touch with intuition again; be must undo most of what he has done. In short, dialectic is what ensures the agreement of our thought with itself. But by dia- lectic — which is only a relaxation of intuition — many different agreements are possible, while there ia only one truth. Intuition, if it could be prolonged beyond a few instants, would not only make the philosopher agree with his own thought, but also all philosophers with each other. Such as it is, fugitive and incomplete, it is, in each system, what is worth more than the system and survives it. The object of philosophy would be reached if this intuition could be sustained, generalized
ni.1
and, above all, assured of external points of reference in
order not to go astray. To that end a continual coming
and going is necessary between nature and mind.
When we put bacli our being into our will, and our will itself into the impulsion it prolongs, we understand, we feel, that reality is a perpetual growth, a creation pursued without end. Our will already performs this miracle. Every human work in which there is invention, every voluntary act in which there is freedom, every movement of an organism that manifests spontaneity, brin^ something new into the world. True, these are only creations of fonn. How could they be anything else? We are not the vital current itself; we are this current already loaded with matter, that is, with con- gealed parts of its own substance which it carries along its course. In the composition of a work of genius, as in a simple free decision, we do, indeed, stretch the spring of our activity to the utmost and thus create what no mere assemblage of materials could have given (what assemblage of curves already known can ever be equivalent to the pencil-stroke of a great artist?) but there are, none the less, elements here that pre-exist and survive their or- ganization. But if a simple arrest of the action that generates form could constitute matter (are not the original lines drawn by the artist themselves already the fixation and, as it were, congcalment of a movement?), a creation of matter would be neither incomprehensible nor inad- missible. For we seize from within, we live at every instant, a creation of form, and it is ju.st in those cases in which the form is pure, and in which the creative current is momentarily interrupted, that there is a creation of matter. Consider the letters of the alphabet that enter into the composition of everything that has ever been written: we do not conceive that new letters spring up
240 CREATIVE EVOLUTION iohap.
and come to join themselves to the others in order to make a new poem. But that the poet creates the poem and that human thought is thereby made richer, we under- stand very well: this creation is a simple act of the mind, and action has only to make a pause, instead of continuing into a new creation, in order that, of itself, it may break up into words which dissociate themselves into letters which are added to all the letters there are already in the world. Thus, that the number of atoms composing the material universe at a given moment should increase runs counter to our habits of mind, contradicts the whole of our experience; but that a reahty of quite another order, which contrasts with the atom as the thought of the poet with the letters of the alphabet, should increase by sudden additions, is not inadmissible; and the reveree of each addition might indeed be a worH, which we then represent to ourselves, symbolically, as an assemblage of atoms.
The mystery that spreads over the existence of the universe comes in great part from this, that we want the genesis of it to have been accomplished at one stroke or the whole of matter to be eternal. Whether we speak of creation or posit an uncreated matter, it is the totahty of the universe that we are considering at once. At the root of this habit of mind lies the prejudice which we will analyze in our next chapter, the idea, common to materialists and to their opponents, that there is no really 5icting duraiion, and that the absolute— matter or mind — can have no place in concrete time, in the time which we feel to be the very stuff of our life. From which it follows that everything is given once for all, and that it is necessary to posit from all eternity either material multipUcity it^ self, or the act creating this multiplicity, given in block in the divine essence. Once this prejudice is eradicated, the idea of creation becomes more clear, for it is merged
Ideal Genesis Op Matter
in that of growth. But it is no longer then of the universe i in its totality that we must speak.
Why should we speak of it? The universe is an as- semblage of solar systems which we have every reason to believe analogous to our own. No doubt they are not absolutely independent of one another. Our sun radiates heat and light beyond the farthest planet, and, on the other hand, our entire solar system is moving in a definite direction as if it were drawn. There is, then, a bond between the worlds. But this bond may be regarded as infinitely loose in comparison with the mutual dependence which unites the parts of the same world among them- selves; so that it is not artificially, for reasons of mere conveaience, that we isolate our solar system: nature itself invites us to isolate it. As living beings, we depend on the planet on which we are, and on the sun that pro- vides for it, but on nothing else. As thinking beings, we may apply the laws of our physics to our own world, and extend them to each of the worlds taken separately; but nothing tells us that they apply to the entire universe, nor even that such an affirmation has any meaning; for the universe is not made, but is being made continually. It is growing, perhaps indefinitely, by the addition of new worlds.
Let us extend, then, to the whole of our solar system the two most general laws of our science, the principle of conservation of energy and that of its degradation — limiting them, however, to this relatively closed system and to other systems relatively closed. Let us see what wiU follow. We must remark, first of all, that these two principles have not the same luetaphysical scope. The first is a quantitative law, and consequently relative, in part, to our methods of measurement. It says that, in a system presumed to be closed, the total energy, that
242 CREATIVE EVOLUTION iohaP;
is to say the sum of its kinetic and potential enei^, re- mains constant. Now, if there were only kinetic energy in the world, or even if there were, besides kinetic energy, only one single kind of potential energy, but no more, the artifice of measurement would not make the law artificial. The law of the conservation of energy would express indeed that somethiTig is preserved in constant quantity. But there are, in fact, energies of various kinds,' and the meas- urement of eacli of them has evidently been so chosen as to justify the principle of conservation of energy. Con- vention, therefore, plays a large part in this principle, although there is undoubtedly, between the variations of the different energies composing one and the same system, a mutual dependence which is just what has made the extension of the principle possible by measure- ments suitably chosen. If, therefore, the philosopher applies this principle to the solar system complete, he must at least soften its outlines. The law of the con- servation of energy cannot here express the objective permanence of a certain quantity of a certain thing, but rather the necessity for every change that is brought about to be counterbalanced in some way by a change in an opposite direction. That is to say, even if it governs the whole of our solar system, the law of the conservation of energy is concerned with the relationship of a fragment of this world to another fragment rather than with the nature of the whole.
It is otherwise with the second principle of thermo-
dynamics. The law of the degradation of energy does
not bear essentially on magnitudes. No doubt the first
idea of it arose, in the thought of Camot, out of cer-
t^n quantitative considerations on the yield of thermic
On these difTerenoes of quality see the work of Duhem, L'EvohiHon d* la nieanique, Paris, 1905, pp. 1S7 S.
m.i