Does empty space warp spacetime

Is it still me who burns unrecognizable?
I do not tear memories in.
O life, life: being outside.
And I in fire. Nobody who knows me.

(Rainer Maria Rilke 1926 in the Duineser Elegien)

1

One of the first shocks I remember is the observation that I am not you, that my ego is apparently alone in the world, next to all the other selves that I don't know what makes them tick. Ticking in the sense that an ego asks the moment to what extent it can take me in and accommodate me, to what extent it allows a role that I raise to play or how I refuse to play roles. If the other egos act out of just as complex considerations and impulses that are difficult to understand as I do, then the other is in principle not comprehensible for me, then it remains a black space that I shine into, but from which I only get information about the architecture of the in it effective apparatus and its drives. I know there is an apparatus there, but I don't know how it works until I know how I work myself. And even then I cannot be sure that my functioning can be generalized, whether the difference felt can only be related to the generated content or even to the mechanistic level. That is the extreme of uncertainty. I am most likely to escape it when I do not even think about difference, that is, by absorbing and entrusting myself to mass flows. I may then experience an OK that unlocks shared moments for me that remain question-free and therefore carefree.

"I'm in the front row with popcorn.
I get to see you - close up. "

(Alanis Morissette)

The second shock is that I am a you. That for the other person I am someone whom he asks, who wants to know from me which mechanisms and apparatuses shape my appearance in me and why of all things. I am the respondent and through my behavior I have to provide information about what I have been able to discover in the world so far in the shapes of the moment. Have I seen abysses or skies, have I got devil machines running, hopelessly difficult operation, or space for levitation attempts and experiences of taking off. Do I have to be ashamed of my findings, of my thinking, or is there an agreement and aha - may I openly show my failure or do I have to hide it / myself behind accepted masquerades. Can I celebrate my success or do I hold back?

Am I the devil if I don't walk in the moment smiling, if I can do it, because my set of questions warps the balance of my face? It's not attractive, it's easy to find out, attractive is different. In any case, it works when… I don't even look in the mirror in the morning, when I weave in corrective procedures after a cup of coffee and then consciously straighten my face without really overcoming the burdens of the night and the burdens of the years. Thanks to mimicry, I can be attractive as long as no situation, no possible glimpse of the naked, reveals me. Which interior spaces do I create in order to hide myself and what do I give freely to the outside? I am free to honestly entrust myself to you or to use it as a stage. My investment is my business, the space that I create around me belongs to me and my comprehensibility ...

2 a

So far I have had nothing to do with Nietzsche. I come across him in countless quotes while reading Ferdinand Ausher's book "Power of form"that I had ordered for a review to see whether it would provide information about the interrelationships between the terms form and information; Shape and design; Existence-as-world and existence-in-the-world. My first notes (about the outline of the banks) started & became the following thought movement:

My idea is that every specific body strives to
to master the whole space and to expand one's power
(- his will to power :) and push back everything that opposes its expansion.
But he continually encounters the same aspirations of other bodies and ends
to arrange ('unite') with those who are related enough to him:
s o c o n s p i r i e r e n s i e d a n n z u s a m m e n z u r M a c h t.
And the process continues ...

(Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachlass 1887-1889, 14 [186], KSA 13, 373f, emphasis in the original.)

It is noticeable that Nietzsche thinks of space as an area that opens up by consolidating the range of one's own effecting presence and at the same time displacing other agents.

This is where basic assumptions are hidden that need to be clarified. We are talking, for example, of a whole room (probably the vessel that contains everything?), And also of a force that wants to expand and is capable of pushing back. In Nietzsche's interpretation, space is something that has to be conquered and consolidated. It is important not only to defend it, but to expand it and to shape its environment in such a way that the basic dilemma of existence is no longer a dilemma, but a secure zone. Power would assure: a world not contradicting me, not displacing me. Force would be the means of exercising power here, a repulsive force that removes everything that harasses me, that which is unable to conspire with me.

Nietzsche sees this on an elementary level. In elementary terms, there is no reason to speak of oppressing or repressing and of claiming a space in which other being “is there” (like hyenas arguing for a scrap of meat). In fact, in addition to the space that I claimed as an elementary part, there is a lot of other space and no need to dispute the space of another subject. On the contrary: Something peculiar happens in the space I use, namely the displacement of the space to the extent that corresponds to my extent. There can be no more space where I am - if space, as anchored in the generally accepted idea and concretized in the geometric theories of relativity, is an entity of its own existence.

If there were the property that matter creates itself spontaneously (which implies an interpretation of the mathematics of quantum physics), and a space around it that cannot escape, but on the contrary tears open as a creative vacuum, then we were living in a cosmological saucepan. The space, still thought of as an entity, should therefore be such that it gives way to the subject and does not come under pressure as a result. Otherwise, through its presence, the subject changed the density of the space. A fixed grid will come under pressure and its lines will be distorted, and indeed compressed, around the intruder. A non-fixed will evade the thing and stay as it is. A space that follows the thing into gravity would be stretched. Space explorers would find a rich field of activity, but the subject is anected by physicists and all poetry pushed away into an area for weirdos and idiots.

Personally, I think space is neither an entity nor limited. It just doesn't exist. Even the mathematician Bernhard Riemann, on whose non-Euclidean geometries Einstein based his theory of relativity, formulated a pending decision in his Habitilationsschrift in 1854: binding forces acting on it are sought. ”Einstein and physics have found a third way in the geometrization of space-time: the real influences the space in such a way that it looks as if a force is at work.

The starting point was the observation of coordinates. Siegfried Müller-Markus gives us a vivid example in 1986 in “The God of Physicists”: If we draw two points on a sheet of paper, the coordinates remain fixed in a perpendicular system as long as we leave the paper alone. What happens to the coordinates when we curl the paper? Now we suddenly have the problem of having to describe curved paths between the coordinates; imaginary lines follow curved paths on the object. However, and crucially: we did not change the coordinates, but the object, the sheet of paper.

Einstein now says: space-time is the sheet of paper, the coordinates are things. With this he makes a momentous leap: He adds a coordinate carrier to the things of this world and says that it really exists. An omnipresent additional thing among things that is actually made impossible by the same example - argued differently - because it shows that coordinates on things change when things change, e.g. when we move things. The coordinate stands for a point on a thing that itself - this is also crucial - can never be point-likei- and when the thing changes, the coordinate changes.

The problem of coordination becomes even clearer when the sheet of paper not only arches, but also moves relative to me and I am sitting in a carousel while the earth rotates around itself. What if I crumple the paper and throw it in the air from my seat? How do I describe what happens to the two points on the sheet of paper in relation to an observer of the observer? What are the valid perspectives and how can I reflect the changes that are happening to the things involved? How can I design a valid coordinate system that captures everything that exists as a coordinate? And is it legitimate to idealize things as points? Which yardstick do I use to show the “distance” between two points? A tape measure that I place over the curved paper?

Continuing with the digression, the thought is about to end: Assuming the paper were (according to the physicist's interpretation) the space, the measuring tape that I impose on it or (most sensibly) stick on would have to go along with every bulge and every crumple Experienced on the "surface of space", the paper surface, every pore of change, every game of movement, without getting shorter or longer, as long as the (painted) coordinates remain in their place on the paper. But how fine and how thin does the measuring tape have to be to get the right results? Can it also measure the elevations of the cellulose, the wood particles in the paper, the watermarks that lie between the origin and the point, possibly the atomic waves and valleys - at what level is space homogeneous? And wouldn't the points in the observation of reality from the outside show a wild course in the vacuum, which is caused by the bending and folding of the paper?

The distances on the sheet would not change unless the paper itself expands or contracts. The play of movement of the coordinates would be due purely to changes in the paper on which they are painted. Whether the paper flies out of the tent of the general camp as a crumpled surrender in a high arc has no influence on the distance between the painted points, as does the changes that the paper undergoes while the general, furious, compresses it between his hands and forms it into a ball.

The tape measure stuck on makes all of these manipulations with you. The outsider, however, who does not see the sheet of paper (after all, it is the invisible space), would “accidentally” see two points dancing through the air in the immediate vicinity, which in static truth - on the paper - are far apart and visible there would still lie if you smoothed the room.

In this example we are changing the sheet of paper and creating movement of the coordinates.

Which force but should be able to crumple the paper in the manner of a general? We are immediately back in the “domain”, an additional assumption of the divine that cannot be proven. That is why Einstein saves himself in the following reflection: Things themselves change space, in such a way that all existence, even light, in the presence of large masses, large other existences, must follow curved paths. The coordinates themselves change the sheet of paper underneath and stretch or shrink the tape measure.

That means nothing more than flexibility. According to this reading, real space is deformed by another existence. This corresponds to the popular and widely used rubber blanket example to illustrate gravity, which can be described as the geometric deformation of a space skin. Mass changes the shortest possible path that things can take because it changes the skin on which things travel. The embedding of the mass is balanced in the space-time skin, that is the concept of general relativity. The coordinates suddenly have weight and warp the paper. They threaten to fall through the skin of existence, and if they are heavy enough, they do too, leaving a black hole behind. Then no measuring tape leads anywhere, but flees to infinity.

I will now shorten it: the coordinate problem (with the simultaneity problem it contains) is the physics challenge that Einstein tried to answer. Every spatial researcher should constantly re-examine the problem from this point of view. Personally, it becomes relatively clear to me every time, without wanting to justify it here in detail, that the special and general theory of relativity do not definitively reflect the "real relationships"iireflect, and the space defined by it is probably just a description aid that we use to be able to think relatively more coherently. What I'm getting at: In reality, space is neither a water (= a three-dimensional skin) nor a grid. It arises as a property when a subject is assured of its location and thus becomes the truth of form in the other. The subject does not suppress anything when it establishes that it is there, but through its existence it formats the possibilities (including contact) of everything else. In this respect, Eigenraum is always a form of communication, information not only about a relative where, but also about a specific how.

And back to Nietzsche: It makes a difference whether I push something away or whether I express myself. The subject becomes the place of existence and potential, it encapsulates its movement in a formal offer, only on site or better: as a place to happen. The subject is a place of its own presence and cannot take up a second presence; it will not rob the other of his identity, but it can allow his presence if his formal truth fits into his own location. Two subjects are then present without one displacing the other. As an ensembleiii make a much more extensive offer than you could as a soloist. Potential is expanding, reactivity, attractiveness, if you will. The I, which is located, becomes the you, which is located.

2 B

The fact that I write these sentences shows sufficiently what Nietzsche calls “conspiration”, namely the tendency to find one another, to “understand one another”, to arrange stability, and ultimately even to be on the move as a life. There is somehow a conspiracy in Nietzsche's thinking that helps ward off threats, assert or expand areas of power, you hear a Darwinian tone, I would rather speak of reconciliation and fraternization. The way in which molecules enter into a relationship has nothing to do with an ego-driven acquisition of power, but with a form fit that is essential for survival, the simple fact of better survival in the sea of ​​information when survival means presence. Anyone who does not want to fly apart as light, but rather to claim a place, has to take care of stability, be it by rotating on its own axis or by getting caught in something else - for example through rhizomatic interweaving.

You can neither think nor find the "whole" space, because space only exists when something offers itself as content and locates itself. Wherever I am, I carry my space with me and have to assert it against other spaces that are around me. Space is not an abstract concept for topological relationships, but rather a lived behavior. The room that allows my survival in a small, shabby box in a pile of the same little shabby boxes, in which I hide from henchmen who would pay no attention to such a small box, and the space that I as a summiteer on the Mount Everest needed for my mere survival is not measured according to the volume that I fill, but shows how I accumulate masses of information, how my knowledge and my understanding are mapped and fit into the reality of things. Just as the presence on the summit of Mount Everest can only be the final link in a long chain of space that makes use of the knowledge and experience of previous generations of mountaineers, the wooden shed is a space that supports my speculation about search preferences, supported by decades of knowledge of human nature Depicts minions (“nobody fits in there”). In both cases, “my space” is the area that I bring into the world, filled with selected information from the past that help me to get through the world safelyiv. The places, outdoor spaces and stages that I use for this are and will remain what they are without me. “The whole room” is a thicket of individual spaces that interlock and screw together, a jungle of presences that is not only dangerous in the actual, but potentially. Something lurks behind the tree that the tree cannot do anything for. Potential is part of every address.

When surviving in the thicket, the most expedient, most powerful space I claim can also be one minimized by hiding. It makes sense not to see space as an outside to be conquered, but as a move from the inside in the game of core attitudes. The overall space that is created is of secondary importance at first; it remains to be seen whether it is stable with my presence and, ideally, remains. If it doesn't stay that way, my contribution to the space was either unsuitable or too demanding.

If the appetite for a burger leads to entire habitats being cut down, something is wrong with my right to be present. Then my type of presence calls for spaces that go well beyond what is necessary. Let us think of evolution as a natural principle that can only keep spatial claims stable as long as they are respectfully raised (in Anglo-Saxon the opposite term is called abuse, i.e. abuse), then we can imagine where our right to be present and our inquiries about life end. If we think about living space, then we necessarily ask: How do I define my space and become non-terminable?

In the case of humans, this is a very complex topic that societies answer with assigned role-plays. In order for a society to survive, its members must also be participants; the common space needs to be filled with claims and objections from its own spaces. It is wise to steer these demands, to feed people like a stray pack of dogs and then to fence in, in other words: to define one's own spaces, to determine minimum dimensions. Chosen people, politicians, work here to help the money people, under the cloak of equality the masses find the unified fodder. There is none there Existence in the world more but Existence as a world. A great swindle of our time is that we sell and export assigned spaces as a world. The world is what WE live, everything else just serves it. If we want to experience the world, we have to rule it, we have to penetrate into its spaces and assert ourselves in it.

This is the conclusion from Nietzsche's analysis, the conspiratorial act among people. The fact that Nietzsche considered coexistence per se, wanted to present being-in-the-world as a common conspiracy towards a common life, ennobles his thought as a musical one that seeks harmony (Latin cōnspīrāre = to be in harmony, to work together). Little can be found of this conspiracy. Today we talk about liberation and neoliberalism and mean unrestrainedness, the dismantling of borders up to globalization and thus also of unrestrained world consumption.

3

“Humanism is the fundamentalism of our culture, it is the political religion of the globalized Occidental man who thinks himself to be so good and clear that he would like to see himself imitated everywhere.” Sloterdijk (2001). An analysis which, if read incorrectly, has a lot of potential for outrage, but which, if read and thought carefully, names one of the main reasons for the emergence of jihadism, for example.

I can remember a lot of insults to which Peter Sloterdijk was and still is (also recently he was clearly located again as the AfD's argument provider) - mainly from the left-wing liberal side, which is not able to interpret judgments without being true to the line and prefers to remain in thought bubbles than to dare to venture into unknown territory. Such ex-rebels, now well naturalized and taken care of, “... don't realize that they are behaving like little stiff lieutenants on the hill of relief. As soon as you touch the tragic space, they scream and think they have sighted the enemy, then productively experimenting authors look ... like five-star generals of the new gloom ”, Sloterdijk tells us in“ Self-experiment ”(1996).

Tragedy and drama no longer exist in the equal world of shared fodder. That there is Syria is because there is Syria. If Syria were part of the liberated, relieved world, there would be no more tragedy there either. The easy livin ' Modernism is clearly anchored in the core of Western social thought, linked to the great concepts of humanism, and is regarded as a principle that can be transferred everywhere, yes, inescapable. Heaviness is backward being tied to the earth. Modernity helps us to overcome the lag, makes us independent and floating. Progress is a space offensive and we have Red Bull for records.

Anyone who thinks of bare existence and existential, who does not strive with intellectual picnic baskets under Tuscan olive trees or in weightless orbits, who gives up the self-realization project because he discovers the category of guilt, has failed vertically and is the curmudgeon in the role backwards, Who wants to spoil the rest of the people's fun. Anyone who has stopped puffing up falls back out of the hot tub.

The lively consumer of light products, the laughing Hans in the spotlight (“how is it going positive?”), The cheerful Weißbescheid are socially wanted types who find small, colorful skies in a small space that they “share” in the sense of communication, but not in the sense of common space. There are reasons and means to stand out in every color. Difference is a property of every color, only white and black seem different, final, inevitable, immiscible - what I type here has its own severity. I don't differentiate myself, I stay at home; Mourning, death, emptiness, raw form are games of vagueness between something and nothing. The writer sacrifices possible world consumption in colored parties, withdraws to signs and tries to draw the colorfulness of the world from the black and white offside. These are balloons that he lets go of, contributions of meaning out of nowhere, contours of the world time that is ticking behind. But also spaces and markings, mapping of minima and maxima.

Back on the rails of the essay: Seen a few days ago while zapping on television: a report about an AfD event, where the party vice as a beaming man converses with party friends in an attractive, important and busy manner (and exactly "overlooks" how pointing the camera at him). I switched off immediately, just like I would switch off if I met this inflated person in my private sphere.

If one says that one is an inflated type, then one means that one shows the space of his ego expanded beyond normal measure, that he steers himself like a big balloon through the present air. In the sentence there is the observation that people claim their own space and that some are real space thieves. The supercentres banished in depth by psychology It - i - About me, the psychic reactors, banished to the inside, undetectable, provide the radial striving with which the skin of the room is stretched, and their own air, the highly reactive oxygen for mental stretching.

You can sit next to someone and give them a comforting hug without penetrating their bladder, and you can sleep with someone without actually penetrating or being penetrated. I only reach whose realm opens up to me, who gives up their space requirement for the moment in order to test a common space. Ideally, people can be with one another in such a way that their own space ceases to be unnecessarily braced and yet does not collapse - this leaves space for the other to be as he is. That has absolutely nothing to do with renouncing Eigenraum, but rather with changed statics. The more inflated the ego, the more trajectories occur, the more fixed struts have to support and protect (and prevent entry). I-people have to go far to find the other, and they are alone on the way. Loners, dropped projectiles as well as unrecoverable missiles. Eigenspace is not measured in terms of stere and cubicv.

From this small example one could develop a philosophy of localization, if the place can also be a space-consuming thing and not a pure meeting point for coordinates, i.e. a philosophy of looking for and asserting space, a bubble scenario like Sloterdijk's spherology a few years ago and interior theory, and how astrophysicists paint it in the speculative multiverses. Accordingly, humans would be a place where their own space happens.

The moment we break away from the idea that space is something that extends into purely geometric dimensions, we can see space as something that needs to be lived. It is not there and is filled, but it arises in the first place with existence and the directions that it can take. Directions that can be considered dimensions, attempts at expansion, which in many cases are not yet expansion, but at least movement patterns that could provide information.

Directions are themselves the coordinate system on which the time and the sum of the success are plotted. Whoever wants to become a police officer has to go a path that opens up this dimension to him, whoever strives for an autonomous life in the country has a dimension ahead of him that he must learn to achieve, and whoever wants to get through the world as a poet goes his own way towards a poem with which he opens up the hoped-for dimension as he sees fit.

This diversity of bubbles and diversity of bubbles, this chaos of spheres is the diversity of people. The human being is not designed as a serial automaton, the dimensions of which are fixed in advance, but as a space that happens. The world places he encounters teach him to explore directions in which he can go and survive in the process. He develops his own possible space from places, using external dimensions to develop his own paths. His basis for this is perception, which takes what he finds and assesses the consequences. Perception is a basis of one's own space and therefore it is of the utmost importance to find keys that are as coherent as possible, optical rays, acoustic waves, it is important to feel movement thermally and of course: social competence, to have space for the space of others. Perceiving controls the size of your own bladder. It cannot be said that the "gamer " generally has no space for others, but one can say that he does not develop it because he lacks the world places for it. He doesn't visit her. Nor can the hermetic be judged as unworldly, he enlivens places of the world that are alien to others. The dimensions of the self-sphere reflect the complex discoveries of being able to move in the perceived world. And indeed: when a neo-Nazi and an asylum seeker face each other, worlds meet.

Worlds that can only develop common spaces if there is an insight into the fundamental right of one's own space, the equality of human places. Precisely because the bubble cultivates its own from directional decisions and cultural perceptions, it is nothing more than a snapshot in a world location and is no more or less worth than any other bubble.

So the inflated type is a whisker who wants to increase its surface area so that it has space for its honeycomb palaces and can be seen from afar. A potency reporter who hides his unsuccessful homework. When the foam settles, your own water remains behind as a puddle. He disregards and denies general equality, which in the harmless case is acknowledged with appropriate laughter. He is actually a coward who wants to hide in this way that he does not trust himself, that he does not trust the small space of his ego to be significant and that he failed to develop it. In a similar way, the neo-Nazi is an asshole because he uses the people's greater space as an excuse for his poorly developed own space. Poorly developed individual spaces are always problematic; Islamists also feel that they have failed horizontally and then look for their way upwards. The bubble that takes off has made it, it floats in other spheres. The vertical has been an issue ever since humans have been able to standvi.

4

Each subject weaves its relationships like the threads of a spider
to certain properties of things and interweaves them
to a solid network that supports his existence.

(Jakob von Uexküll, Theoretical Biology 1920)

The image of the spider, which adapts the properties of its web to the properties of its prey, shows the dialogue in capturing the world. The subject has features and thus becomes the object of the feature search. The way we think (have learned to think) controls the appearance of the objects we encounter.

In his thinking, Uexküll draws on the biologist Johannes Peter Müller (1801-1858): “It doesn't matter,” writes Müller, “which irritates an eye, whether it be pushed, pulled, squeezed, galvanized, or which he likes feel communicated stimuli from other organs, for all these different causes, as against indifferent and simply irritating, the light nerve perceives its affection as a light sensation, looking at itself darkly at rest. ”Like every receptor, the eye is initially a wall of chosen welcome .

Our inner state is the dark radar screen to which traffic communicates in a way that we have acquired as living beings, and the acquisition of curious terminology turns this information into world views that carry like networks. So far we have all this on the plan, only that we acquire more and more terminology every day, virtually and comfortably delimited and thus substitute the subjects of the world with the subjects of the network. It knows things in us that are only available online. Web places have become world places. The web is a space like any other in which I search for features. The way we think controls the appearance of the objects we encounter. We look online for what others found online and feel connected and shared. The net takes away uncertainty and prevents the free fall into the inner darkness. There is room for endless spinning or for awakening questions.

We have to make this decision ourselves. I am in favor of asking over and over again all of our answers, from which we have knitted our living spacesvii. If there is room for us in the future, our reading will determine what it looks like. Then there must be no reservations and no conceptual castles that only weirdos dare to approach. We're all nuts, or, as Monika Rinck would say: idiotsviii.

Finally: What deconstructivism meant was not the negation (all meaning), but the continued questioning, the expansion of the permission to ask questions. And what he opposed to positivism was not knowing better, but asking different questions, which also includes the idiotic, the daring and / or the poetic, the exploration of space in its own way.

La poésie ne s'impose plus, elle s'expose

says Paul Celan. Poetry practices looking at coordinates as telling what is possible. Poetic people, even those with obvious bladder weakness, are idiotic space explorers and politically indispensable.

Frank Milautzcki, December 22-26, 2015

i Chaos researcher Friedrich Cramer in "The Tree of Time - Foundation of a General Theory of Time" (1996):

There is no point. The acceptance of the point is the greatest and most fundamental delusion, indeed seduction of logical thinking.

It affects not just the point, but a whole range of mathematical constructs such as zero. There are very real, fundamental problems of thought that one must face (again) today. A whole bucket full of old fish stinks not only up to the sky, but far beyond it, into singularities, dark matter and multiverses. Friedrich Cramer mentions some substitute concepts that accompany us more sensibly through the world: Cantor dust, showers of errors, snowflakes, Menger's sponge, space-time foam, fractal carpets. These are mathematical images for complex aspects of existence and there closer to reality than the simple zeros, nothingnesses, "coincidences" and infinities that mathematics has offered us up to now (and which, on closer analysis, cannot be found anywhere as reality in world facts). A new realism (Gabriel & Co.) should begin here and thus complete the deconstruction: let fresh fish swim.

ii Relationships are real when they can be ascertained. The concept of their explanation, however, falls back on assumptions that cannot always be proven. A concept doesn't have to be "true" just because it coherently explains something real. If I can create equivalent concepts that have the same coherence with the same range, then we have undecidable alternatives, from which we usually prefer by belief.Real simultaneity can never be established or proven due to the necessary signal transit time, but to sacrifice it as a term seems to me fatally one-dimensional: Can't the subjects share their existence with a signal precisely because they are in this world at the same time? Doesn't this signal have to run on an imaginary membrane of the here and now that is shared by all beings, regardless of the relative transmission and reception problems within various interial systems? Simultaneity has nothing to do with synchronicity, it speaks of the temporality of things, which is shared by all existence, which right now forms the universe with us. Temporality is the property of existences to be able to come into contact with other existences during their own existence, no matter how long that takes. There may be universes that are non-simultaneous with us (which then have their own simultaneity), but we will never know that. These speculations are only fodder for popular science feeding.

iii If there were space as an entity, then it would take an enormous force to separate such a multiple location again, because that would mean reinstalling lost space where there is no more space, for example between the quarks. With this sentence one can think of core forces and loss of mass. The idea here would be that the entanglement of particles that eliminates space can only be resolved if space is reinstalled between them. This requires overcoming the vacuum (the space without space) - space (can it be diluted?), Which extends over the entire universe, must be "sucked" into a gap so that the multiple location is simplified again. This is no easy matter, especially with vibrating, rotating things that are screwed into one another. That could be an indication of why the strong nuclear force is so strong and would then speak in turn for the entity in terms of description.

iv The environment, wrote Jakob von Uexküll in 1931 in "The role of the object in biology",

is populated with objects that are invisible to us, but which have the same reality for the foreign subject as the objects of our world do for us. The objects of our environment experience the most varied transformations in the world of animals: In the dog world there are only dog ​​things, in the dragonfly world there are only dragonfly things that have hardly any trait in common with our human things. It was a mistake to believe that the human world provides the common stage for all living beings. Every living being has its own special stage, which is just as real as the special human stage. Through this knowledge we gain a whole new view of the universe. This does not consist of a single soap bubble, which we have inflated beyond our horizon to infinity, but of millions of narrowly circumscribed soap bubbles that overlap and cross each other. ... The spider weaves its thread so thinly that it becomes invisible in the coarse local mosaic of the fly. ... Wherever we look, we see such complementary fits in pairs of coordinated environments. You can say that the universe is filled with a concert of duets, trios, quartets and choirs. The most haunting duet is provided by the never tiring song of competition between males and females. But inanimate nature is also fully involved in the concert, in the form of water and fin, air and wings, soil and foot and all its hundredfold variations.

One can take Uexküll's statement into the sentence: space is committed. In all its complexity, but also its special limitation, it is only present when it is walked through, not in the sense of entering a hall, but like stepping out of me, showing one's own understanding as a building. Understanding means taking a position, standing with your own truth. When I understand, I walk into space. Gilles Deleuze described this complex in his Spinoza book (1988) as follows:

Relationships and assets have their own scope, their own thresholds (minimum and maximum), changes or transformations for each thing. They select in the world or nature what corresponds to the thing, i.e. what the thing affects or is affected by it, what moves or is moved by the thing. ... Every point has its counterpoints: plants and rain, spider and fly. Accordingly, no animal, no thing is ever to be separated from its relations to the world: the inner is only a selected outer, the outer a projected inner: the speed and slowness of metabolism, perceptions, actions and reactions are linked to such an individual in the To constitute the world.

Constitution as a consequence of the conditions, Eigenraum as an attempt to pass into the environment. Real world as a result of the memory world. Deleuze goes beyond perception and understanding - beyond the creation of space - and brings flexibility into play, dynamic ontology, special relativity.

v Where the hermit hermit can represent a more expanded bubble than the cell in jail - it practices solo technique, where the jail brother has to learn to act in a familiar way, because egomania can only be bought with the right of the very strongest. Foucault called such extreme locations “heterotopias”. Today we are talking about parallel societies and worlds in the shadows - basically there are as many heterotopias as there are demarcations.

vi The nature of our body and the space it opens up for us gives us our dimensionality. We stand vertically on the plane like a coordinate system and can shape with our hands (if you pause for a moment and play a few space games in front of your face, you will quickly notice how you use yourself as a reference point and that there is a distance to what you see, a security of distance, a subject-object relationship, not to say an imaginary, distanced objectivity). To what extent axes that are perpendicular to one another should be distinguished has never become clear to me. As soon as I rotate, only the origin, the center of the sphere, is a coherent reference. Cosmically, I cannot speak of left, right, above, below, of any direction, but only from my own body - if dimensions are possible directions of expansion, then we have to recognize every possible expansion as a dimension and thus ultimately n dimensions . During a rotation, the bottom becomes the top and the left becomes the right, we are in empty space, direction only makes sense "in relation to" something. But we think away from ourselves, center ourselves on ourselves. A three-dimensional world view is an anthropocentric order structure, which in realiter does not have any reality.

vii Galileo in Brecht's "The Life of Galileo", 9th scene:

We will question everything all over again. And we will not go forward in seven mile boots, but at a snail's pace. And what we find today, we will cross off the board tomorrow and only write on again when we have found it again. And what we wish to find, we will look upon with particular suspicion when found. ... Take the cloth from the pipe and point it at the sun!

viii Udo Kawasser in his review of Monika Rinck's pamphlets “Risk and Idiocy” fixpoetry:

The idiot as a marginal figure insists on his being and becomes resistant as a result. However, you cannot choose this position yourself. It's always the others who make you an idiot. In addition, the idiot is not just someone who understands nothing, but is someone who understands things differently.

Fixpoetry 2015
All rights reserved
Reproduction only with the permission of Fixpoetry.com and the author
This item is intended solely for private use. However, you are welcome to link the article. Articles identified by name do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors.