It is in theory and philosophy which I delight, I have passion for, and is that facet of my identity by which I know myself the most intimately. Consequentially it is also the facet by which I feel the most isolated, philosophy itself not being a common, household pursuit.
It is in metaphor that I find... a "layering", and thusly through this layering the written parallels the visual. The isolation produced in the experiencer - by the obscurity of the philosophical and theoretical references - serves, I hope, to function as a marriage of the layering metaphor to the experience (of the audience). The experience discussed within the poem, and the truth of that experience, manifests in a baklava-like fashion in the layered understandings of myself in the minds of others, the mind of myself, the mind of "the perceiver", and the mind of God.
There are some elements, some references, which it would be helpful to explain before reading the poem. These references are to Leibniz, Schrodinger, and Camus. Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles, crudely stated, says no two individual objects are exactly alike, and that any two objects which are indiscernible are thus indistinguishable and identical substance. Schrodinger, a physicist, took issue with the notions of uncertainty in measurements and statistical predictions suggested by some Quantum theorists, and presented a thought experiment functioning after the logical formulation of a "reductio ad absurdum" - a reduction to the absurd. This theory involved a cat being placed into a box with a "diabolical mechanism" which, under certain conditions, vents a poisonous gas into the box, and thus allowing the observer to know the cat as both alive and dead at the same time. Camus, neither a physicist nor a philosopher but a writer among the Irrationalist Movement, and a self-proclaimed "absurdist," sought to address the absurdity of a meaningless, godless world.
Quantum Mechanics deals with the state of matter and its relative "discernability". Some theorists discuss interactions of quantum objects with measuring devices and perceiver both, which produces effects measurable only statistically - an idea with which Einstein ultimately became disillusioned. Many Philosophers question if what we perceive is actually what is actually true of the object being perceived, and further still how is that we know anything at all. Quantum Theory, with its theoretical elements of "complementarity" and "uncertainty", thusly bears a pertinence to the philosophical speculations on the concepts identity ad individuality. Does Quantum Theory, then, imply that the fundamental particles of physics can not be regarded as individual objects? If one can maintain metaphysical speculations of individual objects while yet positing Quantum Theory, does the resultant indistinguishability of objects violate Leibniz's Principle of Indiscernibles?
So, the uncertainty inherent to communication, the elusiveness of understanding, and the implications of that all upon my identity distinguished from the perceptions of others (as such is based upon uncertain communication and elusive understanding) finds expression through the vehicle of Quantum Theory used as metaphor.
Only in the infinite, and infinitely knowing mind of God, as am I robed in Christ, do I find I can be fully known, understood, fully perceived. As God is true, and truly existent, and all things hold together in Him, by His holding them together, then therein lies the greatest and most certain of Hope to be known, beyond even the philosophical or theoretical certainties and uncertainties fathomable in the mind or even experiences of Man. This is a hope we as yet only vaguely discern, and could be said to be an indiscernible certainty.
proves me Leibniz looking in a mirror.
Ask me to trust you, then
prove you are not Schrodinger putting my
soul into the box of your own "diabolical mechanism"
which is only all of what you can conceive.
Poor Albert (the other one) became disillusioned, but i
am finding there is complementarity enough, and abounding in
in what i know of what i know.
Reductio ad absurdum, after all -
and i am too tired to prove anything to you,
when i prove my own death every time i look inside me,
and all the other times i don't.
In the momentum of my soul,
and the interaction of my mind on truth, i cling to how
Camus was indeed a stranger in the mind of God -
whom knows that which makes this "Principle of Me"
totally Absurd, truly.