Bergson's hand: toward a history of (non)-organic vitalism

Introduction Let me say at the outset that my question is not whether or not Bergson was a vitalist. If vitalism is defined as a theory that proposes a "vital force" underlying phenomena which transforms matter into living, organized matter while stressing its irreducibility to physico-chemical phenomena, and if one takes into account the bergsonian notion of life that is "more than anything else, a tendency to act upon inert matter" (CE, 96), as well as his notion of the "elan vital" ("the explosive force?due to an unstable balance of tendencies" [CE, 98]), then incontestably there is a kind of vitalism in Bergson. My concern here is to understand what kind of vitalism is at work in Bergson's philosophy1 This being so, where in his work should we focus on the intertwined relationships between life and matter, mind and body, the organic and the inorganic, the body and the machine, and so on? I propose to approach this question via the notion of the "organ," a notion that seems to give a key to Bergson's vitalism. For the term "organ" is an amalgamation of various meanings, whose condensation into a single word is highly significant for our inquiry. Let's look at a few of organ's meanings. First of all, it means machine, for in Greek organon means "instrument of work, tool." Next it means a part or member of a body?either individual, or social. Finally, organ can be a voice?a medium of communication, as a newspaper is the "organ" or voice of a party.2 Like the theory of life in Creative Evolution which unmistakably calls forth the theory of knowledge, the "organ" possesses its specific organon, which could be useful for our inquiry into a unique vitalism. More generally, a whole series of words like organ, organized being, organic, organism, organization, organicism, organon, as well as organum, orgue (musical organ), and even (not unreasonably here) orgasm or orgiasm,3 belong to a constellation of words related to the org (shorthand for this