Thank you, Asa, for bringing up that wonderful passage from Bergson's Creative Evolution. It's an inspiring, thought-provoking hypothesis he makes there about a possible relationship of "sympathy" between the ammophila and the caterpillar, that there may be some kind of instinctive, mutualistic relationship between predator and prey, so to speak, whom we can consider "no longer as two organisms, but as two activities [which] would express, in a concrete form, the relation of the one to the other."
Bergson wasn't a scientist, per se, but it seems to me that he did the kind of work that scientists should be doing but aren't especially nowadays: opening fields of inquiry into the mysteries of life, instead of shutting them down.
Thank you, Asa, for bringing up that wonderful passage from Bergson's Creative Evolution. It's an inspiring, thought-provoking hypothesis he makes there about a possible relationship of "sympathy" between the ammophila and the caterpillar, that there may be some kind of instinctive, mutualistic relationship between predator and prey, so to speak, whom we can consider "no longer as two organisms, but as two activities [which] would express, in a concrete form, the relation of the one to the other."
Bergson wasn't a scientist, per se, but it seems to me that he did the kind of work that scientists should be doing but aren't especially nowadays: opening fields of inquiry into the mysteries of life, instead of shutting them down.
Bergson was more of a scientist than any of the atheists on my chopping block. Stay tuned.