Correlations in Science, Metaphysics, and Philosophy

Because of the uncertainty principle developed by Werner Heisenberg, and Pharmakon, derived by Jacques Derrida from texts by Plato, I come to a more or less clear understanding that everything is in a constant state of creation and destruction. This writing only has the ability to put it as simple as my semi-educated mind can type it at this moment in time. There are creative stages in destructive cycles, like an elderly person composing music. Or, likewise, there are destructive stages in creative cycles, like a teen-ager crashing automobiles because of “too much intoxication.” 

Creation, as we know it, is possible precisely because of its state of uncertainty. There is a theory in modern mathematics called fractal, which utilizes fractal structures. In other words, every finite form possesses an infinite scale of smaller forms and structures of that same form. An example would be the forms or structures of broccoli or clouds. The more one zooms one’s visual perception in to the form or structure, the more of the same structure, on a smaller and smaller scale, successively appears. This implies the possibility that the whole universe is actually contained in each individual form or structure. 

The uncertainty principle is an understanding that Heisenberg, a German theoretical physicist, developed after researching quantum theory and finding irregular or “uncertain” phenomena while observing material particles at atomic and sub-atomic scales. He found that matter behaved like energy and material particles at different times and under different conditions. Particles, on a sub-atomic level, both have wave-like and physical properties. I think describing the uncertainty principle in my amateur, and, perhaps, ignorant way is sufficient for the development of my brief thesis.

I have recently been reading about the philosophy of Jacques Derrida. One of his main points of reference is the word Pharmakon and the legendary Greek story behind it, as written by Plato addressing a supposed conversation between his teacher, Socrates, and one of his students named Phaedrus, who returns to Socrates after hearing a disagreeable speech by a sophist of the time named Lysias, who expounded on the benefits detriments of lovers, and non-lovers. Socrates harkens a story from an Egyptian legend in which a king named Thamus has a discussion with a god named Theuth, who is a son of the Egyptian god Thoth, about the gift of writing. Theuth sells his idea for a gift to Thamus by proclaiming that writing will be a “remedy” for the peoples’ memory. Thamus disagrees by responding that its effects will likely be the opposite; “it is a remedy for reminding, not remembering, he says, with the appearance but not the reality of wisdom.” The king further says that it will give people a false sense of wisdom, therefore they’ll be difficult to get along with because of a false sense of entitlement. Phamakon is a word that has a double meaning to it which almost renders it meaningless. It basically means “remedy” and “poison” simultaneously. This renders the term as an “undecided” agent which perverts its usage by any author or writer who has the intention to use it in only one of its two inherent properties, thus repressing the unused, unwritten property, which still is present by definition. 

Taoist philosophy has a primary symbol called Ying and Yang which represents a static depiction of polarity or opposites in nature and humankind. Taking a written look at the visual structure of Ying and Yang, we find a wholly circular shape. The circle is divided in to two sides by a backwards “s” contoured line. One side of the formation is called Ying, which is defined as the female/passive/negative/dark side. The other side is called Yang which is defined as the masculine/active/positive/light side. 

Ying and Yang have concomitant features inside either side; the light side has a dark circle which looks like an eye on a simplified head of a fish, and the dark side has a similar eye or circle in it which is light. The symbol, as a whole, is intended to suggest that there is a little bit of darkness in the light, and a little bit of light in the darkness. This is ultimately intended to lead one’s understanding to the holistic property in the duality of everything we know in reality, which, in turn, is a requirement for the transcendence of an individual’s sense of separation and alienation in his or her world, or her or his world. The wholeness of the symbol’s circular shape suggests that there is no separation in all of creation, thus illustrating that the differences are only unstable illusions indefinitely in transition, back and forth.

Trace is part of a philosophy that is identified as deconstruction. Jacques Derrida himself didn’t acquiesce to the implications of the term “deconstruction” to define his philosophical approach perhaps because it wouldn’t be congruent of him to accept that term due to the “undecided” nature of his philosophical perception. The term deconstruction does, however, describe how his philosophy operates when it is applied to other philosophies, and written literature. Trace is specifically described in the idea of difference. We know that there are distinguishable differences between everything that surrounds us. Likewise, there are distinguishable differences between each object’s generalized correlate, written and expressed as words. For example, our understanding of a tree is both an actual signified tree, and the simulacrum of the word “tree” synchronically.

The word “tree” has four letters of the English alphabet in it. Any one of the letters can be replaced with another letter. The “t” could be replaced with the letter “f”, thus spelling the word “free.” Or the two “ee”s at the end of the word tree could be replaced by the letters “a” and “p”, successively, therefore spelling the word “trap.” What this signifies is both presence and absence at the same time. The letters in tree are present while the letters “a” and “p” are absent in the written word “tree.” The way we recognize a certain word or letter, among many, is its present difference distinguished by the trace presence of all absent words and letters. This is a notion innovated in the formal system of differential elements by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure.

Derrida uses Freud’s theory of repression to describe how anything that is written is necessarily a repression of the inverse of what is written, and everything else that is not written or written about. He iterates that everything written is a pharmakon, which is to say that no written thing is absolutely what it describes itself to be because of every other unwritten thing that is possible to write is suppressed. So what is written can only display a superficial expression of certainty. 


Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, social activist, and professor at MIT, outlined his theory that grammar is a faculty inherent in the human brain, which is therefore independent of language and its subsequent component of written text. I suggest that there must be some kind of unity between the metamorphosing grammatical structure inherent in the human brain and the evolving text which manifests itself through our native grammatical structure. Written or pictographed languages have come and gone throughout the various cultures and civilizations of human history, and, yet, our brain’s general physical structure has remained the same for the last 28,000 years according to scientists. This would tend to support Chomsky’s theory of grammar. It should be noted that we all pass through developmental stages as we mature, which allow for increasingly abstract levels of understanding and comprehension. Our brains are basically the most intimate tool we have to help us creatively utilize anything we can around us as external tools, which would include the development of some sort of written language. 

Taking another look at the symbol of Ying and Yang, I’d like to add a new feature to it. I already described how there is a small circle of black in the white side, and there is a small circle of white in the black side. I invite you to imagine for a moment that those small circles in each side as smaller versions of the Ying Yang symbol. So there is a Ying Yang symbol in the “eyes” of each side, and these smaller Ying Yang symbols have Ying Yang symbols in their eyes as well. This is as clear and simple as I can try to describe the fractal theory represented in the Ying Yang symbol. It’s similar to placing two mirrors so they are directly facing each other. Repeating reflections of the mirrors supposedly reflect on to infinity, or, at least, as fast as the speed of light will allow them to reflect. The idea of the Chinese box represents fractal theory as well. 

I believe that if I’m empathetic and sympathetic enough to you, and I know you well enough through shared thoughts and experiences together, then I can say with certain conviction that I have enough intuitive knowledge to communicate written messages to you in which I “know” will be received by you in a certain, individual way, particular only to you. As is generally understood, learning happens through repetition. This is where I find a connection between the mathematical theory of fractals and knowledge, experience and their correlating written descriptions.

What Derrida seems to want to illustrate is the alluding, as well as, the deluding nature of the written word as defined by the term pharmakon. While it seems as if one can never be absolutely certain about anything, one can, at least, found a certain kind of faith, belief and trust in the dominant, generally accepted and unquestioned form of contemporary written language. The uncertainty of the written language that our ancient Egyptian king Thamus, and later Socrates' discourse with Phaedrus, as well as our late contemporary philosopher Derrida all described as possessing is the side which enables us to have the opportunity to question the written language. This uncertainty or questioning does not necessarily have to be destructive as Derrida’s contemporaries claimed. 

While pharmakon can act as a destructive force, we have no choice but to use that force as a remedy. This requires us to exercise the inherent creative faculty of grammar we all possess to one degree or another. I believe there are inevitable destructive and thoughtless usages pharmakon which are intentional, as well as unintentional, yet we still have the opportunity to seek normalcy or stability. I believe most of us do seek stability, as can be verified by our tendency to resist change. Viewed in this way, pharmakon is an agent of evolution, whether if it has both forces of evolution and devolution simultaneously. I believe the pharmakon-ical element of written language ultimately induces us to reach some sort of stasis like the balance of Ying and Yang, and like the unfolding coherency of fractal structures. Our mind’s attempt to find meaningful patterns, and structures in nature and language is our creative heritage, and, therefore, evolution. 

Pharmakon acts like the chaos theory, but in written language. The uncertainty principle seems to induce a sense of chaos in the illusory nature of the everyday materials that surround us. The chaos theory––or butterfly effect––is described as any force which causes an unpredictable disturbance in another stabilized force expressed as a physical pattern. For example invisible forces such as ultra-violet radiation can induce retardation, or evolution in the cellular structures of all earthly biologies. 

I realize Jacques Derrida would probably disagree with my associating chaos with pharmakon, but it does tend to sound more chaotic than it does orderly. So I find it inescapable to accommodate for another binary structure to describe the chaos and the order surrounding us all. And, furthermore, the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung was convinced that there was a certain kind of logic or order in psychologically unstable person’s speech, drawings and writings. 

At this point, I define fractal structure as being the ultimate order in everything, and pharmakon as being the ultimate disorder in everything, supported by the uncertainty principle. Pharmakon, the uncertainty principle, and chaos theory mutate everything like a two, three, and even four dimensional kaleidoscope. So there is chaos in order, and there is order in chaos, as symbolized in Ying and Yang. There is a fluctuating, as well as, uncertain balance and imbalance between these two polarities of existence as understood by humankind. And these polarities seem to be forever seeking new harmony and stasis, as well as new disharmony and instability...forever fracturing into ever differentiating, fractalizing and mutating structures. And, at the same time, forever mending into ever synchronizing, unifying gestalts. 

I plan on describing “mind” in a future blog, but ultimately, I believe a certain kind of wholeness or certainty can be attained by emptying one’s mind and letting go of mental and emotional attachments through meditation, yoga, exercise, sleeping a full eight hours of sleep a night, and eating a healthy diet. I suggest you to take upon these tasks after reading this. 

eVan––February 7th, 2011