The Thinkable and Unthinkable IV: How Arkady Plotnitsky’s Complementarity Intersects with Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, and Complexity—Confronting the Santa Fe Institute’s Epistemic Blind Spots

Introduction

In recent years, the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) has become a major interdisciplinary hub for studying complex systems, artificial intelligence, and the nature of cognition. With roots in American psychology (particularly behaviorism and cognitive science) and analytic philosophy of science, many of its research programs implicitly assume that human intelligence is fundamentally “rational-calculable” and, therefore, amenable to comprehensive formalization or computational modeling. As a result, SFI’s approach can appear to be a “hybrid” of different perspectives, while arguably remaining monolithic in its rationalist commitments.

In stark contrast, Arkady Plotnitsky, a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Literature at Purdue University, advances a viewpoint that resists these classical assumptions. Engaging deeply with quantum mechanics, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and philosophy, he challenges the idea that human cognition—and indeed reality—can be reduced to deterministic or strictly rational frameworks. While SFI’s researchers often describe themselves as “science-grounded,” Plotnitsky’s work arguably offers a more thorough scientific worldview, one that does not set aside the deeper challenges posed by quantum physics. By integrating quantum phenomena in a way that highlights not just how we know but how reality itself behaves at the most fundamental levels, he reveals limitations in mainstream approaches to mind and intelligence.

Ironically, a humanities scholar like Plotnitsky may be closer to the heart of modern physics—precisely because he recognizes the far-reaching consequences of quantum theory for concepts of meaning, subjectivity, and the “unthinkable.” By contrast, those who continue to rely on strictly determinist or computational views of cognition risk maintaining what might be called a “Rationalist” epistemology—complete with unexamined metaphysical assumptions about logic, determinism, and classical coherence.

Plotnitsky’s Paper in The Undecidable Unconscious

This tension plays out in a very concrete way in Plotnitsky’s essay, “The Thinkable and the Unthinkable in Psychoanalysis and Philosophy, From Sophocles to Freud to Derrida”, which appeared in The Undecidable Unconscious: A Journal of Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis (Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014). Published alongside my own inaugural essay, “Let Us Not Forget the Clinic,” Plotnitsky’s piece engages the intersections of deconstruction, psychoanalysis, and physics, showing how each field contends with dimensions of experience and matter that cannot be fully captured by classical, deterministic accounts.

His essay clarifies why the journal is called The Undecidable Unconscious. While my essay tried to orient a more “deconstruction-heavy” readership toward practical applications, Plotnitsky’s arguably was even more fitting for the journal’s overarching aims: his text exemplifies a critical engagement with non-classical thinking—where quantum phenomena, psychoanalytic processes, and deconstructive insights converge on what cannot be reduced to a single, stable framework of rational thought.

A More Comprehensive Scientific Perspective

Plotnitsky’s background as a humanities scholar might lead some to assume he lacks scientific rigor. Yet his work demonstrates a deep command of modern physics—particularly quantum mechanics—as well as an insistence on the broader philosophical, ontological, and psychoanalytic ramifications of these discoveries. In so doing, he challenges assumptions often taken for granted in American psychology and analytic philosophy, both of which can privilege rationalist, calculable models of thought.

From this vantage, we can pose a direct question to SFI: Is it truly grappling with quantum mechanics as a field that upends classical notions of mind and reality, or is it minimizing the more unsettling implications of quantum phenomena? If SFI remains devoted to computational, system-based theories that quietly assume classical coherence, it may be ignoring the possibility that human intelligence—like subatomic entities—does not conform to purely deterministic logic.

Engaging the “Unthinkable” in Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis

Plotnitsky emphasizes the concept of the “unthinkable”—those aspects of existence that resist assimilation into classical structures of reasoning. Modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, encounters phenomena that defy the old determinist worldview, demanding new ways of conceiving reality. In parallel, psychoanalysis—especially in Freudian, Lacanian, and Derridean readings—suggests that the human mind has an irreducible kernel that cannot be made fully transparent or rendered fully rational. This unconscious dimension is not simply an unknown region that might someday become known; rather, it is constitutive, an ever-present limit on how we conceive of ourselves and the world.

Similarly, deconstruction (Derrida’s différance, for instance) shows how language and meaning are never fully present or settled. There is a structural openness, a play of absence and presence that refuses to be pinned down to any definitive point—mirroring in language something akin to the “superposed” or indeterminate states we see in quantum phenomena.

When read together, these fields—quantum mechanics, psychoanalysis, and deconstruction—expose fault lines in classical thinking. Rather than dismissing these insights as mere epistemic or philosophical curiosities, Plotnitsky shows that they demand we reconsider how reality operates at both the physical and psychic levels. By weaving these perspectives together, he provides a basis for questioning the increasingly computational model of mind that dominates not only mainstream AI research but also many complexity-science initiatives.

SFI’s Epistemic Blind Spots

To be clear, the Santa Fe Institute has done pioneering work in complexity science. It has highlighted emergent phenomena, adaptive systems, and cross-disciplinary dialogues that shed light on economics, ecology, social systems, and more. However, the question remains whether SFI integrates the deeper transformations demanded by quantum mechanics—transformations that do not merely challenge how we know but how things are. A truly “post-classical” theory of mind must confront the possibility that intelligence is, in part, defined by processes analogous to quantum complementarity: multiple, incompatible perspectives may be required to capture a more complete picture of mental life.

Classical Bias in Cognitive Science: Many SFI-inspired models of cognition still assume a rational, computable substrate for intelligence—one that might be scaled up or rendered as formal algorithms in AI. Yet Plotnitsky’s reading of quantum physics suggests we cannot simply treat mind as a rational system plus a dash of complexity. At root, the phenomenon of mind may have non-classical features that refuse to be converted into a single, unified program.
American Psychology and Behaviorism: While mainstream psychology has evolved beyond pure behaviorism, the emphasis on empirical measurement and computational modeling can overlook psychoanalytic insights into the unconscious—where the unthinkable dimension shows itself. If measurement tools are all structured by classical logic, they may fail to register or even look for phenomena that are not classically determinable.
Analytic Philosophy of Science: Within analytic traditions, there is often a comfort in formal logic and propositional clarity—admirable qualities, but ones that can marginalize paradox, undecidability, and contradiction. Quantum physics, psychoanalysis, and deconstruction each highlight the abiding role of such paradoxes in both reality and subjectivity.

By not incorporating these lessons, SFI’s approach might ultimately repackage complexity in classical rationalist garb, leaving the most disruptive, non-classical insights of physics—and mind—out of play.

Revisiting Plotnitsky’s Concept of Complementarity

In quantum mechanics, Niels Bohr introduced the principle of complementarity to address the paradoxical reality of wave-particle duality. Rather than treat electrons and photons as either waves or particles in some absolute sense, Bohr argued that both descriptions are valid yet irreconcilable. Plotnitsky extends this insight to language, meaning, and the psyche, arguing that certain aspects of mind (like the unconscious) cannot be fully integrated into a single, stable viewpoint.

Freudian Unconscious: Freud originally framed the unconscious as hidden knowledge, theoretically accessible through analysis. Yet as psychoanalysis evolved—especially in Lacan’s hands—it became clear that certain dimensions are structurally beyond what classical reason can subsume.
Derridean Différance: Derrida insisted that meaning is always deferred, fracturing any totalization. This resonates with the idea of irreconcilable frameworks in quantum physics: just as wave and particle cannot be fully merged, meaning likewise escapes total containment in any single sign.
Bohr’s Radicality: Far from mere epistemic limitations, Bohr’s argument suggested that physical reality itself does not conform to the classical either/or logic. Plotnitsky’s reading of Bohr implies that our theories about mind should acknowledge the equally non-classical dimension within human thought.

In each case, the point is not simply that we don’t yet know how to unify these perspectives; it is that reality—in physics, language, or psyche—may embody a fundamental tension that cannot be harmonized by classical means.

Overlaps with Complexity, Psychoanalysis, and Deconstruction

Interestingly, complex systems research often embraces certain non-linearities, uncertainties, and emergent phenomena. Yet it frequently stops short of concluding that these complexities might point to deeper non-classical realities. Meanwhile, psychoanalysis and deconstruction have for decades probed the paradoxes of mind and meaning, revealing structural gaps that do not lend themselves to a purely rationalist or deterministic approach.

Incompleteness of Knowledge:
- Gödel and Turing: Mathematical theorems and the halting problem highlight intrinsic limits within formal systems.
- Quantum Mechanics: Measurement outcomes sometimes reveal that the system is inherently uncertain, not just uncertain in what we know.
- Psychoanalysis: The unconscious is not simply “unknown”; it may be “unknowable” in principle—introducing a permanent dimension of non-transparency in the subject.
Complementarity in Mind and Meaning:
- Psychoanalytic Split Subject: Our desires and drives can be contradictory, existing in a push-and-pull of repression and expression.
- Deconstructive Différance: Meaning is never fully present but always differed or deferred.
- Quantum Observation: A system may “show up” differently depending on how it is observed, suggesting that the observer is part of the phenomenon.

Here, Plotnitsky underscores that these are not simply metaphors; they are real structures, real features of how matter and mind behave. Hence, attempts to build AI or cognitive models that rely solely on classical principles may be ignoring fundamental aspects of reality—exactly those aspects that quantum physics, psychoanalysis, and deconstruction each bring to light.

Lacan’s Four Discourses and Institutional Blind Spots

To understand how these disruptive insights get pushed to the margins, Jacques Lacan’s four discourses—Master, University, Hysteric, and Analyst—are instructive:

Discourse of the Master: Seeks to impose order, avoiding contradictions that threaten authority.
Discourse of the University: Institutionalizes knowledge, emphasizing systematic completeness while often excluding what it cannot integrate.
Discourse of the Hysteric: Voices contradictions or demands that puncture the Master’s or University’s complacent frameworks.
Discourse of the Analyst: Aims to transform the subject’s relation to knowledge but can also slip into trying to “master” what is ultimately unmasterable.

Within SFI’s “university-like” setting, quantum paradoxes, deconstructive complexities, or psychoanalytic insights about the unconscious might appear as a “hysteric’s discourse”: they disrupt neat computational or empirical models. Rather than allow these disruptions to reshape foundational assumptions, many institutions relegate them to peripheral status. Thus, the fundamental non-classical reality that Plotnitsky highlights can become a repressed element—one that reemerges, ironically, when AI and complexity theories encounter inexplicable anomalies or contradictory findings.

Toward an Anti-Epistemology of Mind (and Reality)

Plotnitsky’s work invites us to adopt what we might call an anti-epistemology: not an outright rejection of knowledge, but a recognition that certain dimensions of mind, matter, and language exceed formal, rational frameworks. This perspective acknowledges that unthinkability is not just a lack or gap in our knowledge but a constitutive feature of reality itself. Embracing that dimension can have significant implications:

Challenging Kurzweil’s SingularityThe notion that human cognition can be replicated or overtaken by AI presupposes full computability. If mind is entangled with fundamentally non-classical processes, the “singularity” concept appears naive.
Rethinking Behavioral ScienceIf cognition includes an irreducible unpredictability akin to quantum phenomena, conventional models that treat mind as an information-processing machine will inevitably come up short.
Ethical DimensionsRecognizing structural incompleteness fosters humility, care, and respect for difference—echoing what I explored in my blog posts “Incompleteness, the Unconscious, and the Supplement: Toward an Ethics of Cyborgian Care” and “When Philosophy and Psychology Seek a Rational-Calculable Mind—and Why Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis Resist.” When we acknowledge the unthinkable, we become more attentive to those elements—human or otherwise—that cannot be seamlessly integrated into systematic frameworks.

The Santa Fe Institute’s Crossroads

For an institution at the forefront of complexity science, the Santa Fe Institute faces a critical crossroads. It can continue to engage quantum theory and psychoanalysis merely as fascinating side notes—treating them as tangential to its core computational or emergentist models. Or it can seize the opportunity to reconfigure its approach by recognizing non-classical realities that defy assimilation into classical frameworks.

If SFI were to integrate Plotnitsky’s insights, it might:

Reevaluate AI Assumptions: Move beyond strictly algorithmic views of cognition, acknowledging that mind may encompass irreducible elements that no finite program can capture.
Incorporate Psychoanalysis and Deconstruction: Recognize that the “unthinkable” dimension is as much a part of human cognition as it is of quantum reality, demanding new modes of exploration beyond standard behaviorist or strictly cognitive-scientific models.
Foster Deeper Interdisciplinarity: Truly welcome theories and practices (from Lacanian psychoanalysis to Derridean deconstruction) that are often shunted aside in mainstream American psychology or analytic philosophy circles.

Without this recalibration, SFI risks enshrining a reductionist-exclusionist approach—one that inadvertently perpetuates the classical worldview that quantum mechanics, psychoanalysis, and deconstruction have already disrupted.

Conclusion: An Invitation to Embrace the Unthinkable

At bottom, Arkady Plotnitsky’s concept of complementarity does more than highlight a theoretical gap in rationalist accounts of cognition. It points to a deeper reality in which contradictions, paradoxes, and irreducible complexities are woven into the fabric of both matter and mind. Where quantum mechanics defies classical determinism, psychoanalysis reveals unconscious processes that defy full rationalization, and deconstruction exposes deferrals of meaning that defy closure.

Taken together, these insights pose a profound challenge to any institution—like the Santa Fe Institute—that positions itself at the cutting edge of exploring “complexity.” A purely rational-calculable model of intelligence or cognition cannot accommodate the genuinely non-classical dimensions that Plotnitsky insists are part of the real. If SFI (and similar research programs) ignore these dimensions, they might inadvertently reconstruct a narrow, deterministic vantage on mind and meaning.

By contrast, acknowledging the unthinkable could open a far richer landscape of inquiry. It would mean treating quantum phenomena, psychoanalytic insights, and deconstructive paradoxes not as anomalies but as indications of how the world—and the mind—actually are. This would demand a willingness to question cherished assumptions, to accept that complementary perspectives on intelligence may be irreconcilable yet equally valid. And it would compel a transformation in how we conduct research—ethically, methodologically, and philosophically.

In short, Plotnitsky’s work stands as a catalyst for reimagining what “complexity science” can become. If the Santa Fe Institute or other centers of interdisciplinary study truly embrace these lessons, they may find themselves going beyond the limits of rationalist science—toward an understanding of mind, matter, and meaning that fully honors the unthinkable realities that quantum mechanics, psychoanalysis, and deconstruction each insist can never be fully contained.

Originally posted on The Undecidable Unconscious:“The Thinkable and the Unthinkable II: How Arkady Plotnitsky’s Complementarity Intersects with Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, and Complexity—Confronting the Santa Fe Institute’s Epistemic Blind Spots.”

References:

Arkady Plotnitsky, The Thinkable and the Unthinkable in Psychoanalysis and Philosophy, From Sophocles to Freud to Derrida, in The Undecidable Unconscious: A Journal of Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis, Vol. 1, Issue 1 (2014).
Eric Anders, Let Us Not Forget the Clinic (companion essay in the same issue).
Eric Anders’s blog posts:
- Incompleteness, the Unconscious, and the Supplement: Toward an Ethics of Cyborgian Care
- When Philosophy and Psychology Seek a Rational-Calculable Mind—and Why Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis Resist

Contact:For more on The Undecidable Unconscious, my blog, or additional writings, please visit the site or leave a comment.