Rightly or wrongly, Bergson is again of interest today mostly because of the work of Gilles Deleuze, work that is, in essence, a neo-Bergsonian form of thought, and therewith no less ambiguous regarding the place of the divine. Deleuze’s central categories of di% erence, multiplicity, the virtual, life, evolution, problematics, process and empiricism all derive from Bergson more than from any other philosopher. And, consequently, Bergson’s contemporary avatar is seemingly no
less duplicitous when it comes to God and the transcendental than was his master. Despite Deleuze being the philosopher who has done with ‘the judgement of God’ like Antonin Artaud, who has embraced the earth like Friedrich Nietzsche (see Vol. 4, Ch. 18), and who prioritizes immanence as an absolute like Baruch Spinoza (see Vol. 3, Ch. 11), Deleuze can still be seen as a spiritualist thinker, a philosopher ‘out of this world’ (Hallward 2006), and a transcendentalist, no less than his mentor. For the truth is that Bergson, like Deleuze, is a philosopher of conjunctions, of God and nature, of spirit and matter, of the transcendent and the immanent – each dyad being held together as tendencies or movements, rather than being either identi# ed as one state or opposed as two.