The stretched psyche: The stretched string

It is 8:42 on Friday night. I pulled at my laptop, wanting to write about Shadow element of our personality. However, as I start typing, the fingers seem to have a mind of their own. So here I am, sitting with a hand written article on Shadow, willing to transcribe it, but with a psyche that is unwilling to go there. Perhaps the topic of Shadow needs to ferment some more before it can be distilled into words ? Perhaps I am still ignorant about the nature of the shadow? Perhaps it is the Shadow that creates this shadow over the Shadow? Be that as it may, my psyche refuses to be led….and I have to honor the creative process. Especially what emerges after 2 weeks of creative block. So let me relinquish the delusion of control, end the intrapsychic conflict between consciousness and the unconscious, and use my hands in the service of the psyche – allowing them to express the strivings of the psyche. Be warned the writing, being straight from the unconscious, would have a rambling quality to it.

For the last 3 days I have been drawing strange drawings. Gone are my usual scrawls and doodles. These that emerge now are more sophisticated pieces of work (sophisticated by my own earlier standards! I am hopeless at drawing!) They’re short brief, brisk strokes, quite unlike the flowing curves that are usually my style. They have a definite urgency about them, for I have been compelled to draw every morning. The art, if it can be so called, has a distinct personality that is different form the personality of my usual drawings. And I hadn’t even noticed till a few of my family and friends commented – they seem to be strings! Landscapes are made of strings, trees are made of strings, flowers are stringy, even human figures appear to be stringy. And once this had been pointed out, it dawned on me that I was also attending a class on String Theory and M theory (Physics). This seems to be Jung’s synchronicity – the dance of the unconscious. “Whats going on ?” I asked myself today.

Like most, I go up and down in emotions thru my days. Sometimes I am sad, other times I’m happy, sometimes during the day I may become upset, other times I feel bliss, peace and contentment. Most times I feel love. This intense feeling that is nameless, formless, and wordless.

This morning, I was intensely upset. I went thru a slew of emotions that left me distressed and debilitated. Then thru the day, the clouds lifted, and life became promising again, as I knew it would. Still later in the day, the heart warmed up, and I could feel love flow thru me, and affection, and belonging.  I belonged to the universe, and the universe belonged to me. Every part of it – the beautiful, the strong, the weak, the ugly, the broken, the fragile, the ruined – all of it. I was all those, and more. It was an experience from the core of my heart. And still, still later I tried to understand where it came from and what it meant. I mean why do we go these variations in our lives ? The ups and downs ? The peaks and troughs? The day and the night? The good and the bad? And thinking along these lines, Jung’s opposites became evident. It dawned on me that we cannot locate ourselves anywhere outside of these opposites. If we try, we are doomed to failure. Our existence is bounded by opposites. We can only exist within these opposites. And within those opposites we bounce around, and are stretched by the forces exerted by the two ends. Just like a string. Every continuum of our existence is a string!  And just like a string it gets stretched taunt in moments that will test its resiliance and tenacity. And it occured to me that if it is a string, then it must follows the laws of physics, the laws that govern the behavior of the string.  And yes, on closer observation, it seems to do so !!! The understanding was phenomenally insightful.

This morning, after being compelled to draw a few doodles hastily, my thoughts were drawn to the String Theory. I experiece a deep connection between psychology and String Theory. The physics and mathematics of an open string can be daunting, but we’re concerned only with the concept, not the mathematical proof. I believe that the psyche follows all laws of physics. But here is what came out of my first class.

Imagine the psyche as an open string. The string comprises of a series of elementary particles that are glued together from one end to the other end. At rest, the particles in the string exist close to each other, under inertia. When we stretch the string, we pull these particles away from each other. But since they are cohesively “attached” to each other, they resist this pulling. It is almost as if there exists a spring between these particles, that resists stretching but when sufficient force is applied, it will stretch itself so the particles can be pulled apart, and yet can return back to their original shape. That is just what the spring does – right? if the stretch is too much, new particles will be created within this gap, to prevent the particles from permanently being separated from each other, and to prevent the string from breaking. These new particles that are created have nothing to do with the original string at rest, could not have been created if the string had not been pulled, and the purpose of their existence is to prevent the string from snapping. Of course if the string is pulled even more, there is a gap created between these newly inserted particles also, and eventually no more particles can be adjusted within the gap and the string snaps.

Isn’t this exactly how humans relationships work as well? But I am not going to discuss that macro aspect of life. I would rather focus on consciousness. Imagine the psyche as a string. When it is pulled in distressing situations, the gap causes the creation of conscious awareness. This conscious awareness is always a consequence of being stretched beyond the ordinary circumstances. Just like the string, when the psyche is stretched, new virtues arise to fill the gap.  When stretched beyond human endurance, the new virtues get stretched beyond the point of endurance, and what are essentially virtues, become malignant disorders, even psychosis. So when life stretches us on occasions, we may exhibit signs of distress, but return to the normal position when the situation or  the crisis comes to  close. Hence all of us at various times in our lives, experience psychotic breaks that may well be expressed as anger, rage or outrage. In some cases, were the endurance is tested beyond limits, the string snaps. Chronic schizophrenia, for example, would be one consequence of such stretching.

In his excellent thesis on the subject, Kenneth Wright, the author of Vision and Separation : Between Mother and Baby espouses the same line of thought.  He argues that it is the separation between mother and child that causes consciousness to be forged into existence, that it is the structuring vision of the mother that enables light, or consciousness to be created. Whatever is outside the vision of the mother, becomes dark, irrational, incoherent = unconscious. In other words, rationality, coherence, structure and light are the qualities that arise in the psyche that has been stretched into or thru separation from the mother. Words, symbols, and therefore language, arise as a consequence of the need to catch the attention of the mother, and guide her vision again to those areas that are wishing to be expressed. We use words and symbols so we may catch mother’s attention. Empathy, compassion, humility are consequences of trauma as well. So we can say that the separation trauma is akin to the stretching of the string like psyche, it gives rise to new qualities/virtues as well as being the source of psychopathology in humankind.

There are many such similarities, between physics and psyche brought  to light by pioneers like Arnold Mindell (Quantum Mind), Ervin Lazlo (Science and the Akashik Field), Amit Goswami (The Self Aware Universe), but any detailed explanation would be taxing without an appropriate understanding of the concept that underlie the String Theory, outside the scope of this article. What I would like to say however, is that although I use string theory metaphorically, in reality, since orientation of the string determines a particular dimensions/force, the scientists having calculated either 11, or 24 dimensions (4 of them are the spacetime continuum, and then there’s the theory of electromagnetic forces and gravitrons), it may well be possible that consciousness may be one dimensison of the proposed string. In that case what currently appears coincidence and metaphor may actually be laws that govern consciousness. In other words, the laws of Physics may apply to consciousness as well. How cool would such a discovery be?

So I leave this exploration here, and hope that thru this brief article, some of you – like me -will develop interest in these parallel worlds of psychology and physics.

So next time any of you think Physics is only for the scientifically minded, or anyone scientifically minded thinks psychology is for idiots, please remember that these various fields unite at the apex, hence the quest for a unified theory.

BTW: I promise to start working on the Shadow as soon as I am able to.

36 responses to “The stretched psyche: The stretched string”

  1. Madhu,

    no I didn’t mean Dvaita – or at least according to my notes, I didn’t! I am familiar with Advaita.

    The word ‘dva’ means two so there is certainly a link. As I understand it ‘dvandva’ means the two twos or maybe the second two – and it goes back to that point about if you don’t want/accept the two, then here’s another two.

    Hope you’re having a good day,


    • karin,

      I have never heard of this, and this seems fascinating. I will certainly look into it as soon as I get a chance. I know of the dvaita philosophy but I haven’t heard of this one.

      Thanx again.


      • Hi Madhu

        Please do share anything you discover, as this whole line of enquiry fascinates me.


      • Karin, I googled, and the only thing that turned up was on Wikipedia. It was the meaning of the linguistic word, and the types of dual word combinations. I am afraid you’ll have to quickly get your teacher to explain and then return to enrich our understanding…

        I had never even heard of the word prior to this exchange…



      • Madhu,

        ‘quickly’ is a relative word. My teacher is based in France and travels a lot. He isn’t always the most rapid responder to e-mails so….I will e-mail him but don’t expect a response too soon! Let’s see what happens….


  2. how are you!This was a really impressive subject!
    I come from milan, I was fortunate to approach your subject in bing
    Also I obtain a lot in your topic really thank your very much i will come again

  3. Ok – think I’ve got myself terribly confused though through this particular incarnation.

    My understanding of purusha is of the abiding spirit, whereas prakriti is the incarnation. Once prakriti was described to me as the pattern on an oriental carpet when it’s unrolled and all of the business of the design unfolds.

    I find it hard to organise your words, it’s getting late here and my brain’s fading!

    Prakriti is the acted upon, the passive energy, the inert, is it also the one that calms?

    Purusha is spirit, it acts, it agitates, it is pure being, pure consciousness, it penetrates.

    I feel confused about which destroys and which births?

    Am I on the right track? If you don’t hear from me again tonight, look forward to our next exchange.


    • Karin,

      Hinduism is tens of thousands of years old. Since it is not a religion, but a philosophy of life, it has evolved to the point of absolute flexibility of thought. So it may be I don’t know some of it, or that there are different explanations.

      I have never heard of Prakriti as being an incarnation. To me that is Maya, an aspect of Prakriti. Ishwar, or the abiding spirit in this line of thought, is Shiva – not Purusha. Maya is an incarnation, the soul, Parvati or Shakti, and unfolds the naaam-roop (nameform) design which becomes the world as we know it. As far as know, Prakriti itself is more than just Maya. It is the initiating energy. the highest absolute. Maya is a concept of Advaita Vedanta, which came after Samkhya, so basic principles are the same, just tweaked around some – the reporting structure and job descriptions are a bit different ! Kinda like a Bob Dylan song sung by Emmylou Harris, or Sting. But having said that, what you are saying may well be true, and it may be just that I may not have heard it. That in itself doesn’t make it untrue, for my knowledge is very limited.

      I think part of the difficulty goes away if you hold onto the everyday meaning of these terms for mneumonic memories. In Sankrit and in Hindi, Prakriti is also the word we use for nature. And Purush is the term used for man. If you remember that, their energies become easier to remember because of the menumonic correlate. Mother/nature/prakriti gives birth, regenerates, father/purusha goes to war, and destroys. The evolution depends on how these two interact, and how their balance is maintained in the universe – that evolution is determined by the Tamsic, Rajsik and Sattvic aspect of interaction. It just so happened that the psyche of women in our society thru previous generations was conditioned to have a higher concentration of Prakriti, and a lower concentration of Purusha. And vice versa for man. But all that is changing now, and we are trying to find an internal balance thru conscious awakening rather than maintain an external balance thru social interventions. Eastern society was more prakriti oriented, western being purusha oriented….

      You’re correct about the rest. Thought vs feelings, Consciousness vs unconscious, Differentiation vs Uroboros, Day vs Night, Sol vs Luna, and most important Left vs Right Brain. These are not jumbled around now…they are Shiva and Shakti. Equals. Ishwar and Maya are not equals. Ishwar enables Maya, in that sense Maya is born of Ishwar, and is also his partner, but Ishwar and can exist independent of Maya. Those that are represented by Shiva and Shakti cannot exist independently, they co-exist. The world would end. So the heirarchy is differnt in my opinion. But I am not an authority on this anyway.

      Have a calming sleep and may Prakriti take good care of you….

      • Good morning Madhu.

        Thank you for all of this. I like the comparison to a performance of a Dylan song by different artists by the way.

        I know that I came across the idea of Prakriti as an incarnation of Purusha, when discussing with a friend, so I did an internet search and found the following:
        ‘God, the Primal Purusha, is eternally associated with Prakriti (Pradhana) on the macrocosmic level, and continually projects and withdraws it as the ever-evolving creation. In the same way each individual purusha is eternally associated with prakriti on the microcosmic level and engages in a series of incarnations, evolving the personal prakriti to the point where it becomes a perfect mirror of the individual purusha and there is a practical separation between the two, just as on the cosmic level.’

        My mind just doesn’t hold all of this, it runs through like a sieve and I’m left with a taste or sense of the whole, which is somehow jumbled. Maybe this is because I lack the experience to embed it ‘between the skin and the flesh’ (a Charles Zeltzer phrase.)

      • I am on a midnight prowl…

        The way I see that quote, what he says is that the macrocosmic Purusha incarnates on the microcosmic level. And so does Prakriri. Which rings true with me. It doesn’t mean to me that the Prackriti is an incarnate of Purusha? But then it goes on to make the reference to Purusha as a God, alluding to Prakriti as being the creation of Purusha. I have never heard that before, thats all.

        Ah, now I see it! The author has taken that from the Upanishads, which are part of the Vedantas. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, in Vedanta, Maya is a creation of God, the Ishwara. And since Vedanta came after Sankhya, and is of it, the terms Purusha and Prakriti are often used as synomyms for Ishwara and Maya. Samkhya itself, as I mentioned, does not dwell on the concept of God. It assumes pre-existence of Purusha and Prakriti. The difference is chronological.

        At least that is how I experience it.

        Interesting. There is method in this madness.


      • Thanks again Madhu. I had intuitively grasped the macro/micro distinction and wondered if that was operating.

        I am wondering whether your grasp of the chronology of the evolution of these ideas and beliefs comes wholly from self-study, years of exploration and/or particular courses/teachers? It is very interesting to me that our dialogue has developed at this time as I am endeavouring to work with a teacher to explore similar ground and yet am finding him very elusive, it has so far taken over a year and a half not to have a meeting and our dialogue is complex and cloudy – now all of a sudden you are here!

        Much appreciated, and hope you sleep well. Off for a day but will be in touch,

      • Karin,

        Unfortunately I have never had a chance to study anything of Hinduism or Buddhism or anything religious or spiritual formally. I grew up in India, and I guess such things rub off on you several times everyday in the form of rituals, sacred rites, role models, casual admonishments from parents etc to direct moral consciousness and a profusion of religious ceremonies every year. Kinda like even if one wasn’t trying to learn English, but if one lives here, one will end up with a reasonably good working knowledge of English. Its in the air you breathe. Perhaps that is why you’ll rarely find Indians discussing this stuff between themselves! Because it just is – intermixed in our existence.

        I have enrolled to start classes on Judaism this month though. Looking forward to it.

        Hope your day goes well.


      • Hello Madhu

        Yes, I had thought I remembered you saying you had never studied any of this before and yet you seem to not only understand intuitively from the inside but also have an impressive grasp of sources and chronology. I wish I could say the same about my own formative culture. Being half-Jewish and with only a scanty grounding in Judaism, I would benefit from the course you’re attending so look forward to seeing it infuse your blog.

        I had another thought about your title ‘the stretched string’ which is itself a metaphor for the breath. Interesting to think of both the psyche and the breath as a stretched string.

        I had an interesting day dipping into the music industry – truly another world!

        Hope all is well with you,

      • If you like reading about symbolism involving Indian gods and godesses, you may like my next few posts ! (I think I published it once by mistake so you must have got a glimpse thru your inbox!), And this time I am taking my time writing. 🙂

  4. Hello Madhu, I loved reading your post. I prefer the word ‘polarity’ to ‘opposites’ and I think it complements the string model. I see the contrasting emotions as complementary or reciprocal. I always describe Jungian functions and preferences as polarities on a continuum. Maybe it’s just how the language feels to me but it creates a different sense of connection and a different picture in my mind.

    • Karin, Thanx a lot. Glad that you liked it. Jung uses the term opposites, and Hinduism/Buddhism too, so I am used to the terms.

      Polarity is more muted word, and represents a continuum, whereas the opposites mean to convey the brutal differences that exist at the ends….like Shiva and Shakti. These are not polarities, just pure opposites. It is more difficult, but more powerful to transmute the opposites…polarities appear easier…

      Perhaps this is how language appears to *me*. Or maybe the difference is in that you wish to see them as muted…but they really aren’t in my opinion…they are stark…uncompromising…


      • Madhu, interesting observations. Need to reflect on the mutedness but see the brutal starkness too On reflection maybe you are right. Thanks, Karin

      • The thought just appeared to me that perhaps mutedness or starkness of our perception has nothing to do with the concept. Perhaps muted is a property of you being projected on these? And perhaps starkness is a property of me, being projected?

        very likely.

        Interesting. Thanks for enabling the insight.

      • Madhu,

        your follow-up comment about mutedness being a possible quality of me projected onto the concept resonates hugely with me. I cannot speak for starkness and you, not having met you, but if this feels right to you, then I accept it to. This reflection of yours has been hugely helpful to me too and connects with other feedback I have had recently about myself. However, I still think there is a ‘truth’ in the starkness of the opposites that I have been missing, perhaps all my life; so I think both the observations about qualities and ways of seeing the content coexist for me. Thanks.

      • Karin,

        Thanx and your welcome. The point I was trying to make was not so much about the opposites, but that we cannot comprehend anything that isn’t within. The external reality can only be observed and experienced thru internal filters. What the real world is, is and will remain unknown to us. But because rational cognition can exist only in the spacetime continuum, bounded by opposites, therefore we can only experience day and night, shiva and shakti, good and bad as – yes – polarities. But those polarities cannot be recognised except as a reflection. In that sense any external object, or theory, is but a reflection of internal reality. They are simply mirrors in which we can see parts of ourselves….if we did not have parts, we could not see anything.

        At the end of the poles lie the brutal endpoint. If it weren’t so, we should not experience Hitler and Nazi Germany as pure evil. It was the end point of our side of the “string.” However, that “end” represented the benign “end” of another string which stretched onwards into their own civilization and culture. And the two strings were joined at the poles., almost attracting each other as well as annhilating each other – the point where those cultures, and points of view met and fused, enabling this long string of humanity – some good, some bad, some ugly. Like it or not, we were all part of the same string that was/is segmented into smaller sections, joined at the place where polarities, or opposites meet. Hence the religious conflicts at both ends of cultural assimilations. And also, the beneficence of the god and the malevolence of the devil within each human being.

        Lakoff and Johnson wrote a book called Metaphors we Live By. I gleaned thru it a few years ago, but I was green in the area of symbolism. Your post has motivated me to re-read it now, with this example.

        Thanx for stimulating and sparking the discussion. Always a pleasure. I also just remembered something – and my apologies for the broken promise.

      • Thanks Madhu for further insights which I will reflect on. This dialogue is proving very stimulating. Your comments about the brutal and benevolent ends of our interconnectedness on the same string make me think that perhaps you are approaching writing about the shadow after all. But then, I am known for my ability to blend concepts (mutedness, amorphousness and nebulousness are all words used), so if this link is unhelpful then please disregard it.
        No apology necessary, and there is something new that might interest you.

      • Interesting point Karin, yes! I believe I am, now that you point it out. And in a more muted and interconnected way rather than the abrupt topic change that I was attempting. Perhaps that abruptness is what created resistance. One can only glide along the continuum – discrete quantum jumps in understanding are impossible.

        And it links back to the blog I wrote on Kali…the opposites within the Great Mother. Seems I am dancing on the verge of Shadow, unable to make a move in describing it authentically, experientially – except thru borrowed words from more established authors. Perhaps the creativite endeavor needs to be owned completely by the psyche.

        Thanx for the insight. I am grateful to you and will reflect on this. Something that occurred to me was perhaps there was a need within you to soften the edges, to maintain peace. In terms of images from physics that I am currently visualising, the poles would be clouds of diffused electron density. Whereas the opposites would be within the depth, the core of the electron. Does this difference mean anything to you?

      • Madhu, it feels to me that you are able to approach the Shadow head on, in its starkness and brutality. Yes, I saw the links with your previous post on Kali and the Shiva-Shakti dialogue. And what you said about the co-existence of two very different realities or truths is still resonating.

        I have been remembering a retreat I attended last year where a yoga teacher talked about Dvandva, pairs of opposites (in Sanskrit Dvy means two as you probably know). For something to oppose/be an opposite, they need to be ‘in the same playground’. To the extent that we cannot live the two (the difference), we create another two – false differences and this leads to samyoga (conflict). We create the Dvandva. So it’s something like saying, ‘you don’t want to live the two? I’ll give you two.’ Asana practice is moving towards the possibility of living the difference. What makes a person adaptable? The more that person can live the two.

        I am not sure I understand all this, it comes and goes. But perhaps it will add to the insights.

      • Karin,

        My knowledge about the deeper aspects of Dvandva and about the physical and metaphorical aspects of Yoga are scant. I know yoga only as a way of meditation, morality and ethics, but since you have mentioned it in this conversation, I am sure it was meant to be, to further my knowledge, and I am sure it has a lot to do with all this, so I will be researching it later today.

        Very interesting concept of “I give you two”. It seems to be a concept of duality, in fact multiplicity. Out of one come two, and so on.

        Yes, all this comes and goes. But it really doesn’t go anywhere. It all falls into the unconscious where it reposes and is repossessed when situation demands. The concept of the unknown, of heaven, of celestial repository. All within…..

      • Hi Madhu, I hope you will share any further insights from your researches into Dvandva. The teacher who raised this is called Peter Hersnack and he has written a book called La Chair Vivante (which I haven’t read yet.)

      • Madhu, it does make a lot of sense. And really that’s where my thinking was going but you’ve organised it really well here. I just wanted to check – when you say about Purusha and Prakriti, ‘So there’s a passive energy, and an active energy, or principle…one is, (being), another does (doing). One remains inert, other penetrates. One births, another destroys. One acts, another is always acted upon. One agitates, another calms.’ Is the first always Purusha-related and the second always Prakriti-related? Or have you jumped around at all? Just need to get my mind around this for clarity.


      • Madhu, I could have a stab at it, but if you wanted to organise them, that would be helpful. I’ve got a little confused about the characteristics due to a Shiva-Shakti dialogue! Thanks.

      • Karin,

        Feel free to take a stab at it. The best way to understand it is to try it yourself. I’ll point out of there is a misunderstanding.

        Shiva and Shakti is the same principle – just using a different language/filter/label.


      • Karin,

        Could you have meant Dvaita, the philosophy of duality and “mispronounced” it as Dvaindva? I did not make the connection between the two! LOL!

        Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is about non duality. A-dvaita. No-duality. Dvaita, as you can see is a philosophy based on duality, opposites….yes, that seems to fit.


    • Karin,

      I was hopeful, but I don’t think I will have time today. Soon perhaps. And I’ll be happy to share my perspectives.

      Something else that leads you to the opposites would be Sankhya, or Samkhya philosophy – unless you’re already there. You may already know – it is the most ancient philosophy on which the later popular sections of Hinduism, including Advaita Vedanata, were built. It is neutral about god, with an atheistic stance, hence it was discarded, but Ayurveda is based on Samkhya. It appears that apart form the Chinese yin-yang concept, Samkhya is the well that Jung drew most from…the concept of animus anima is taken from Purusha and Prakriti, the two principles that guide the face of evolution. Very powerful in their meaning.



      • Hi Madhu, yes I have studied Samkhya though with a brain like a sieve I can always use refreshers. Ah, I did not realise that the anima-animus was taken from the purusha prakriti distinction (another two – which for me links with your Shiva Shakti dialogue). This is hugely helpful as I understand that purusha is linked with the masculine and prakriti with the feminine. Is that also your understanding? No need to reply now but more will surely follow.

      • Karin,

        Purusha isn’t masculine neither is Prakriti feminine as the West understands it. It is more like two different kinds of energies – opposites – that were given these names. So there’s a passive energy, and an active energy, or principle…one is, (being), another does (doing). One remains inert, other penetrates. One births, another destroys. One acts, another is always acted upon. One agitates, another calms. Both are needed to maintain a balance. Together these principles create the world as we know it, and govern its continuity. When one of these energies gets out of balance, there is distress….

        Every aspect of creation is comprised of these two balancing energies…including human psyche. This is the same as Shiva and Parvati is, yin and yang, anima and animus….

        because the behavior of Prakriti is predominated in the role of the feminine, earth, nature, therefore feminine, earth, nature and women are associated with Prakriti. But Prakriti is the guiding principle only. Its an extreme. In reality, all these objects lie on a continuum between the extremes of Purusha and Prakriti – if that makes sense. These are the only absolutes. The rest are composites. Hence Shiva and Shakti are considered absolutes as well. There is nothing beyond them. People assume such language means they are gods, and there is nothing beyond god, but the real meaning is that they are absolutes, the extremes in consciousness and creativity. One cannot bypass their power. There is nothing conceivable beyond that principle that they represent – like infinity in opposite directions. beyond infinity lies only infinity, so infinity is contained within infinity. Similary everything beyond is contained in these two energetic extremes.

        Hope that makes sense?


  5. Yes there is a connect between dissimilar fields.It takes an unbiased mind to percieve that. With your skill at bring objective it connected faster.
    Good work. Can identify with it.
    Didn’t know I could unlock W blocks!

    • Rajeev.

      Thanx. I have been enthralled by String Theory for the last 7 years, since I first read Brian Green’s The Elegant Universe. There was so much more to write, but I didn’t want it to get too complex.

      And thanx for the effort at creative block. Much appreciated.


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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: