Space in Situation - Essay Example

SPACE IN SITUATION

Our purpose is to consider space in the situation, as opposed to abstractly. This means identifying what is present spatially (the ‘presence’) to what is present temporally. In other words, to think of the whole space as ‘standing’ solely in the present and explain why this concept has remained counterintuitive.

Three Implications

(1)  The present is no longer a simple temporal limit but an entity, i.e. what takes place (with space seen as the place being taken): this present in the two meanings of the term being a proper common part between space and time.

(2) There is therefore no separation a priori between the two concepts, a separation we always make and that any theory makes implicitly: even the theory of relativity considers space and time as a priori separated concepts. Moreover, it is perhaps because space was not considered in situ that those space-time geometries (which are actually geometries of points of view, made by distance, and light) have burgeoned. And behind these local distortions of points of view, as interesting as they can be, we always find the abstract, traditional separation of concepts which is here proven wrong.

(3) There is, as such, a universal simultaneity (with light at a certain point of its travel, incidentally)

To validate the proposition of space in a situation with its underlying implications must initially require the potential to grasp the traditional understanding of space in an unorthodox presentation where it may be put in a frame of reference capable of projecting or conveying its imperceptible dynamic property. By his findings in the combined queries and discourse of the philosophy of space, Kant states “Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance; nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.” 

Reason for which the model in place is currently privileged

At first sight, it looks surprised to see this identification presence/present being overlooked to this extent: beyond the homonymy, it is difficult to doubt that what is present spatially (what is not absent, what takes place) is actually neither past nor future, and vice versa!

However, this obvious point has remained, at best, counterintuitive. Admittedly some people say “only the present exists”, but in the same breath they admit that it is “uncatchable”. And with good reason: they see it only as a temporal limit!

The reason for all this is simple, fraught with consequences, yet easy to adjust:

The conscience of the past, present, and future, i.e. the conscience of duration, of temporality (and beyond that the one of History) makes us inevitably isolate, and abstract the concept of time, and in return the one of space!

And therefore prevents us from seeing space as it really is: in the situation.

This is why the separation a priori of the concepts of space and time has, until now, always prevailed.

Though time and space are disposed unto each other in forming one whole structure for the purpose of serving perspectives treated in the light of relativity on one hand, and with absolute principle on the other, they seem equivalently disposed to the separatist realm. Since their discovery and evolution through concepts, human perception has been trained to detect time in fluid behavior while space thrives in passivity no matter how it is signified to consist of and encompass conceivable dimensions. Time can be measured and quantified in seconds, minutes, hours, years, and so on so its trait of definitiveness in this regard is an established scientific fact. Space, similarly, can be made quantifiable in volumetric terms considering the size of what can be occupied yet it appears, nevertheless, time is much more concrete for it is sought to be identified with events in dynamic flow along with all the important characters and figures constituting them. It would strip history of its essence in being a field of endeavor designed to exhibit the chronology of such events if time were not to proceed and operate according to the role or duty expected of it. On this ground, time is evidently concretized and hence, situated, imagining how futile it would be to study written historical accounts and hand them down with no readable periods, eras, or ages in numerical form. The function of time, herein, renders the notion of space irrelevant. For how could one speak of space in reference to events when what normally and chiefly matter are ‘rich details in sequence’? This seeming lack of sensible connection between space and occurrences may then be claimed to illustrate the trouble source that is why the failure to situate space emerges.     

So, the major query is brought across – how then can space be possibly perceived as designated in the situation? Based on Kant’s defining statement, space is assumed with a capacity to coordinate everything of physical or tangible worth. To analyze, the term orientation as we apply in the phrase ‘spatially oriented’ could have been the closest or most appropriate in depicting a task in space, however, ‘coordination’ is apparently less static for the goal involves necessitating for space to possess active simultaneity with time. Considering points spread out in space where each point represents a coordinate, it is not without reasonable cause to judge a point in relation to others for there is conspicuous relativity in viewing a set of coordinates in space. As a consequence, such space should gradually be drawn in situ, having figured that space is now to be in charge of comprising positional relationships.       

The attempt at contrapositive proof

To consider the present only as a limit, and not also as an entity, paradoxically implies not being able to locate this present in time, i.e. not being able to regard it as present: if it were not space itself, what makes one present rather than another be the current one?