.png)
“Memory is not inside the individual mind, but each mind is inside memory, like fish in an ocean. The ocean of memory is the virtual past, which gushes forth at each present moment in a perpetual foundation of time. In this sense, as Deleuze phrases it, ‘time is not inside us, but just the contrary — time is the interiority in which we are, in which we move, live and change’”
(Bogue, Deleuze on Cinema 119)
“Memory [is] immediately consecutive to perception.” (Deleuze Cinema 2 289).
As Felicity Colman writes in Deleuze and Cinema, “Deleuze variously describes this function on the time-image as a psychological issue of perception, or ‘recognition’ or ‘reflection’, a ‘zone of recollections, dreams or thoughts’, describing the doubling movement of ‘creation and erasure’, or creation and destruction of forms.”
(Colman 137).
"The image emerges without ground, because it emerges through the opening of ground. As Bergson-Deleuze said, being is the past (memory) but becoming is the opening of being. The present opens the past, the living present emerges —through (or as) ‘zones of indetermination’— by opening past time to an unexpected, unforeseeable future. It is not a matter of creating new energy; it is a question of something new coming into the world by transformation of existing energy. This power of metamorphosis or ‘evolution’ is called Eros or libido — not energy but desire, creativity that irresistibly and irreducibly informs matter from within and makes it live. The totality of time is neither closed nor given; ‘duration signifies invention, creation of forms, continuous elaboration of the absolutely new’— something no equation, no memory-function can determine in advance.”
(Canning, “The Imagination of Immanence”, The Brain is the Screen 337).
“It is as if an image in a mirror, a photo or a postcard came to life, assumed independence and passed into the actual, even if this meant that the actual image returned into the mirror and resumed its place in the postcard or photo, following a double movement of liberation and capture.”
(Deleuze, Cinema 2 72)
As Suzanne Guerlac writes in her book on Henri Bergson’s philosophy of time, “Duration can only be lived. . . This is what Bergson is trying to do: to bring to philosophical awareness what has been absolutely suppressed by thought and is structurally inaccessible to it: the radical force of the time of becoming.”
(Guerlac 63)
"[Crystals of time] reveal different ways in which the whole of that great ocean of the virtual past may be related to the ongoing actualization of time in a present moving toward a future.”
(Bogue, Deleuze on Cinema 126)
As Guerlac explains Bergson’s conception of “confused multiplicity”:
“Confused multiplicity has nothing to do with space or with number, and everything to do with the radical force of time that occurs, as we shall see, as Pure Duration.”
(Guerlac 62)