Reply to comment

 I think your post is really interesting and brings up a lot of the tensions in Barad’s piece. I am really intrigued by the issues of objectivity, content and ethics within the context of quantum physics and philosophical thought. In your post you reference Barad’s criticism of relying on content in order to make judgments. I think this is an interesting aspect of her argument, especially within the context of her opening statement: “Matter and meaning are not separate elements”. She interestingly equates matter and meaning suggesting that something’s substance, its matter, and its content are intrinsically linked to its corresponding meaning and significance. In this sense to it seems that there is an inextricable relationship between content and knowledge and that, to a certain extent, we must rely on content in order to have knowledge. I can see why this approach would have interesting ethical implications, especially with the argument that there is no objectivity: how can we judge actions and intentions if there’s no objective lens through which to judge? I think your reference to her discussion of the past is interesting, as well as your tie in to information decoding—and the question of whether information can be decoded if the content itself appears to be absent.