Near the end of our discussion yesterday, I believe Professor H offered the possibility that reality doesn’t exist because everything is a representation of something else that exists or existed at some point in time.  Reality is actually a representation of the parts of the past that have been maintained or improvements of pre-existing entities.

If this is the case, could the opposite be true as well? If everything is a representation, are all representations not its own reality?  The European exhibitions that were put on display were meant to mimic the “reality” outside, but in doing so have created their own world that is unique in itself.  For example, Disney World contains representations of the worlds created in their movies, but I would not consider Disney World to be a representation.  Disney World is its own entity, and the fictional settings from the movies don’t exist.  Therefore, I would categorize Disney World as a reality despite it’s attempts at imitating something else.

Although the European exhibitions were meant to be nearly indistinguishable from the world it was attempting to mimic, I don’t believe that it should be categorized as solely a representation of Cairo.  As theorized above, perhaps everything is a representation and everything is a reality.  Rather than a representation of Cairo, which implies that it’s sole existence is to imitate, I would consider the exhibition a “symbolic tribute.” All things are echoes of other things, but some more intentional than others.