It was the Juin 2016 that I was thinking about “duplication of nature” by following the thoughts of Virginia Woolf. In fact, the question that I am trying to figure out is very complicated although the response is simply “yes, nature can duplicate itself”. While thinking of multiplication of everything, the question that I am asking seems to be a little bit meaningless, especially in the 20th century where everything can be easily multiplied itself as shown by the film entitled “Matrix”. Meanwhile, I do not think it is so simple… The important thing is based on maybe the meaning of “nature”: how can we [familier – inconnu] evaluate the meaning of “nature”?
According to the thoughts of Virginia Woolf, nature refers to being singular beyond the representation of the simple life that can be reproduced easily, if we are considering the human. In other way to elucidate it, the question relies on the difference between mimesis and copy of nature although the nature looks like similar one and another by physically, the content is different one and another.
So, co – existence of the singularity of nature does not refer to copy but mimesis…
wonderland 