Philosophies of Non-Space: Laws of Non-Space.
Well in the last entry we hit a sticking point in that we struggled to define a black hole as space or non-space due to a lack of any “rules” on the definition of the terms. This must be remedied to formulate coherent criticism.
Let us start with our key terminology on the subject. Non-Space; A place/space without purpose where purpose once was, this phrase has been my grounding so far so we will use it as a grounding now. I think the other discrepancy is how black and white the theory should be. In many ways it lends itself to a very monochromatic stand point but that always leads you to having subjects where the formula doesn’t apply.
OK, a place as defined by Auge is “encrusted with historical monuments and creative social life” (Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity (1995)) which in my view is small minded and fairly class bias in many ways, however this is not to say that this isn’t a starting point. I agree with Auge in so far as areas of social and cultural value are defiantly space/place; I think we need to define the difference between space and place before we go further.
I think I would suggest that the most logical differentiation between the two would be that space be an area of concept or matter of ephemeral or intangible qualities. A place on the other hand would be a more certain tangible “thing” a building person or object perhaps. A black hole, for example, or an idea of cultural nuance would fall more comfortably into the space category; an opera house or Bob Marley or a pair of spectacles would be easier defined as a place. However that does lead us to a minor gray area and contradiction of our foundation, a space if being used as a definition of a concept. Does a concept have purpose/ did it ever have purpose, one could take somewhat of a Cartesian line and suggest that the very fact that it was thought gave it purpose; you validate it with your cognition.
So back to Auge. Socio and cultural value as a concept would be space, where as the material and structures that aid the concepts continuation would be place. What I was saying however, was that it is a very class bias view, it takes into account a very middle to upper class stand point and discredits working class ideals to a large extent. I would probably struggle to agree with him on the discreditation of public spaces of non-cultural value (bus stations, motorways, hotels etc.) and non-place. Under my definition they have purpose up until the discontinuation of said purpose, particularly when defined by said purpose. A disused bus stop for example would be forced into the category of non-place due to the fact that its defined purpose has ended.
I think in that ramble I more or less defined that, non-place at least, is a black and white issue; so let us move on to space. Concepts by their very definition are not black and white issues. They tend to be wobbly things driven by opinion and fashion, however to create some sort of grey scale would mean the creation of exactly that, a scale of definition. Rationally it would become more of a valid concept and therefore space the more provable it is on scientific basis. Gravity for example would be more a space than the existence of an omnipotent being of higher power. That does cause a problem in that definition becomes impossible to a large extent as any concept has the potential for some validity, particularly as we have discussed the idea of validation through cognition. And a concept by definition is conceived of and that would require cognition therefore validating any concept.
That leaves us in a corner a little bit. Would it be too easy to just say that space is always space and only place can be non-place? Yes I think it would. Logical you would alter the goal posts slightly and say that a concept is space until proven otherwise. For example the ancient idea of the earth being flat, that concept “took up” space until proved wrong, consequently becoming non-space. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
So let’s sum up what we have.
+Place- certain and tangible material that aids and supports concepts. Something defined by purpose where the purpose is in effect.
+Non-Place- a “place” that has ceased to support its concept. Something defined by a purpose where the purpose is no longer in effect.
+Space- any concept that has not been disproved/ discredited.
+Non-Space- a concept that has been disproved/ discredited.
I will now use my new rules to decide on weather black holes are space/non-space/place/non-place.
They are physical entities; to have the gravitational pull they do they require a physical density of some sort, even if it is an all absorbing core of particle matter. That would qualify it as place, unless you make an argument that it has no purpose. I however don’t see why destruction isn’t a purpose if that is indeed what they do. It is possible that they are integral to the “life cycle” of the universe. And in speculating about such things I have just defined them as space also.
However having done that, I now feel compelled to re-examine space. Is it that it is defined as space through the individual’s cognition or through academic cognition?
So as we wonder the mountain range of space time we happen across beautiful vistas of deep crevasses in the fabric of the universe with floating balls of gas, foreign worlds and shiftingnebulae of particles. Looking down from our vantage point we see the valley seems to plunge to unfathomable depths, looking like a peak inverted, burrowing into the ground, this would be a black hole. Whilst considerably smaller than say a galaxy its density and thus the gravity produced by it’s immense and ultimately all consuming.
