LostGuy and unFaith
A bit of a ramble. . .
The pair of you seem to agree there is a difference between enclosed space and unenclosed space. . . ? I know what you mean, but I’m not so sure. I see space, ‘itself,’ as an idea, a construct, almost an intelligence, (in the sense that it obeys laws and as part of the material universal system displays intelligent characteristics, as it were,) thus, certainly a predictable constant, but ultimately perhaps a, ‘stuff,’ (hyle,) a matter unknown, (materiel-inconnu,) one that is opposed to mind in the sense that it exists first only in that mind, i.e., human consciousness, and is constructed out of whatever this thing consciousness is. Because, quite frankly, it is my certain belief that a universe without any intelligence does not exist, cannot exist, has never existed.Thus, without, ‘inner space,’ there can be no, ‘outer space.’
We are able to observe, (and do,) some quite extraordinary things within the, ‘confines,’ of space, i.e., the universe. I mean we can navigate space, we can find our way in it, through it, with the aid of stars, the compass, atomic clocks, gyroscopes, homing devices, etc… We are able to split atoms on the one hand, perform heart surgery on another, and on a further, send rockets to Jupiter and beyond. How do we do this? What is the shape of space?
And not only we humans but also other creatures are able to operate in space in ways some of which we can really only speculate on. Look at pigeons, or bees, or albatrosses, or whales, or ants. (Hosts of other examples spring to mind.)
What I am curious to know is what this space-stuff/non-stuff actually is. Isn’t it curved according to Einstein? Why and how? Large gravitational masses, etc., etc… But is there some other form or structure of space? One that we don’t know of, one that cannot be measured, one awaiting discovery? I would say, most certainly, yes.
But is space then nothing more than a theoretical?
I know gravity has been a primary cause of life forms being the way they are. Also, such things as centrifugal and other forces have an effect on the evolution of organic form. And then there is the effect of light on plants, etc., etc., etc… But, ‘within,’ space, (if there can be a, ‘within,’ or a ‘without,’) is there some force that holds it all together?
I can remember some theory or other of art which discussed what it was that made certain paintings aesthetically attractive and others aesthetically repulsive. One modern theory had to do with the little curly bits of form, what are they called. . . oh yeah, fractals? The suggestion was that fractals, (disguised or otherwise, implied or explicit,) somehow made or transformed an ordinary work of art into something more profound. . . but I’m rambling, what I was thinking about was fractals and space. . .
Yep, I can remember seeing some computer-generated imagery a couple of decades back in which fractals featured prominent. There was an article about it in the art magazine, Modern Painters. I wondered perhaps, might somehow the structure of space be composed of these curious structures within structures within structures that go on to infinity? For these fractals are something like what the French call, mise-en-abime, that curious optical effect that occurs when you point a video camera at a video monitor.
Might then space be neither enclosed nor unenclosurable? Might that which is enclosed in fact be no different from that which is open?
Again, the inner space of my mind seems without limits and yet it is may well be absolutely defined as a thing occupied with distraction, trivia and the provision of bare necessities, pleasure, externals, and so on. Then the outer space world while appearing to be boundless may well in fact be constrained by subtle limits.
On art again, I can recall creating a series of paintings, large black and white and gray abstractions, all of them framed so that part of the painting was no longer contained within the enclosure of the picture frame. Part of the work existed in the, ‘plinth-ine,’ fantasy world of art and the imagination; and the part that refused to sit within the plinth existed as a reality in the world-at-large. Thus I had created simultaneously, a work of art that was both concrete and without substance, at once substantial and insubstantial. A kind of philosophical painting pun. I realised that the picture frame encloses at once the picture and the entire universe.
So to return to your subject of enclosed space and unenclosed space, is there perhaps a space that transcends, (or that is immanent in,) these categories? Is this space a, ‘god-space,’ an unknowable space, a space beyond human understanding, a space waiting to be discovered, even? Both enclosed and unenclosed still possess, ‘quality.’ And isn’t it, surely, quality not quantity that is what god is about?
It is then perhaps also the quality of space not the amount that makes the difference. For god is of no size, both microcosmically and macrocosmically, and he is also every conceivable size. God exists within and without the enclosure. Might then god be this waiting to be discovered fractal-like structure that fills the interstices of space?
Concepts of god may be constructed out of basic logical concepts; and if you conjoin enough of these concepts you may well have sufficient reason to call the result god, but is that what you’re saying? How many of these ideas do you need to create god? It seems to me that you need an infinity of attributes if you are to create more than just a cardboard cut-out of the creator of existence. . .
On another note. . .One might well cite man’s condition as a kind of thraldom for his desire and attachment to objects imprisons him in bondage to material things. . . his release from such slavery can only come from some sort of realisation that he is better off in this life by attaching himself to his master in heaven, i.e., becoming the slave of god. This servitude to the master and maker of the universe is surely tantamount to non-attachment? If a man attaches himself to objects he is condemned to death. But if he attaches himself to that to which attachment is impossible except in mind he is saved.
Is it perhaps that men become also the slaves of ideas?
Anyway, we have to be careful with thinking and especially with putting things down on paper. There are so many traps and paradoxes.
I think it is true that story-telling has been a central means of passing on the wisdom of the species. It is something that can be found all over the planet, whether it was stories about real living characters, based on their lives or teaching, or legends built around a name, describing a development or creating a history or myth.