Things that are and are not. Or on the principle of uncertainty

“Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away…” (H. Mearns)

In parallel with the debates of the post-modern theologians (whether God is dead or not, how and why; a blog post tackling some of these issues which I’ve read this morning: there is a come back of (apparent) christian discourses, at least among certain intellectuals. They are apparent as in they preach Christian values and norms, all the right/key-words are there, but somewhere along the way the subject is killed and all that remains is authoritarian discourse. What puzzles me is not the format or the content, but how something can be great in intention, but it isn’t in the same time. Therefore, I decided to write a post on theories about things that are and are not in the same time 🙂

Firstly, there we have the images: Metamorphic postcards.

Then, we have Lacan’s theory of the Real. “The Real is that which is neither in place nor out of place, but having no place other were it happens to be. The Real is always and in every case in its place, for it carries its place on the soles of its feet” (Schmidt, 2001). It all starts from a wonderful demonstration done by E. A. Poe, “The Purloined Letter”, the story of a clue that is hidden in plain sight, but is overlooked as it is not recognised as being the clue. In other words, something can exist, but its existence being overlooked until recognised in its Symbolic dimension (in Lacan’s terms), which makes it to be and not to be simultaneously.

Coming from the string theory and quantum physics area is the theory (much debated and criticised) of The Holographic universe. Basically, it states that the entire universe is a holographic projection of 2D information stored on the cosmological horizon (see for a more detailed discussion: ). We exist, but we are holograms.

And last but not least, coming still from quantum physics, a witty joke that summarises some of their ideas on uncertainty:

“Schrodinger and Heisenberg were driving in a car. Eventually, a cop pulled them over and ask Heisenberg, “Sir, do you know how fast you were going?” Heisenberg replied, “No, but I can tell you exactly where I was.” Thinking this was a weird response, the cop decided to check the vehicle. He come back up to Schrodinger and asks, “Sir, did you know you had a dead cat in your trunk?” Schrodinger replied, “I do now.” “

In the end, I guess it’s the lack of doubting ones intention that gets the discourses out of track, out of focus in W. Allen’s terms:

PS: I am grateful to 2 of my friends who showed me some of the materials I used here


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s