Further Investigations into Space and Place
Introducing the Ideas of Something and Nothing
In continuation on searching for how i relate to my surroundings, it is crucial to extend my research on what once was how to define space and place. conclusively it seemed that there were three main definitions which need to be restated before moving forward in this exploration; space. place, and location.
space can be defined as the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur.
This means everything we experience happens in space. Place, however, is defined as a particular portion of space, whether of definite or indefinite extent. Therefore, place exists in space.
Further focusing on this idea of space, it brings up curious questions of how we can know what is outside of space, or how can we be sure of space. Everything we know exists in space. Everything we know is something. Space is something, everything is space is something. So is there a border to space? When does something become nothing. If space exists, in space, then what is outside of space? What is where there is no space, and can there be no space?
On Nothingness
There comes a point in the research of space and place, when you start catagorizing everything as something. Trees are something, environments are something, and spaces and places. Every person and thought is something, but it begins to naturally progress to what isn't something. The idea of nothingness comes hand in hand with the ideas of spaces and something. While perhaps obviating the obvious for existentialist thinking, it is an area in which I haven't spent much time. Being aware of existentialism, and key philosophers in this area (Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre), it becomes less interesting in their theories and realizations, as to free thinking and independently researching, and comparing to see how our ideas line up.
So, to establish our start, space and time are occurring. Space because everything we know exists in it, and time, because if there was none, everything would happen at once. These ideas are relevant to the question "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to see it, does it exist?"
In my researching, the answer is an obvious, yes!
Visualizing and Seeing Something
People, much like the Missouri catch-phrase "Show-Me," have a real need for see to believe. Seeing adds to an experience that they couldn't visually connect to before. This is the same with current day media. We have become desensitized to experience of some kind. In the media we see natural disasters, death, and for some, aspects of war. When the media reiterates the same stories, day in and out, (although the people and locations change names) there is a complete desensitization which happens to the fact that the event is real/ We know there was an earth quake, but we feel no emotional charge about it. There are two ways in which we can be brought back to sensitivity to these situations.
One way is through the experience of the event hitting close to home. The closer the event is to effecting us individually, and the more likely it will impact us for a longer period of time, the more emotionally sensitive we become to the event. The second way in which we can become re-sensitized to the media, is to see something which we have no seen before. This is a common tactic for the media to use, "never before seen footage!", "you will only see this here on yada yada news station." Lets say for instance, you see a pile of dead bodies on the news, you have never seen this before, and you feel emotionally charged from the situation, and sensitive to it as well. After you see the same image repeated through time, we become less sensitized, until it virtually doesn't affect us on a human level.
If we take away the tv though, and alter the experience of the image, we will again be effected. It is the experience of physically being in a place which brings the emotion back to the person. Another example wouldbe horror movies. Say you have seen the entire gore-filled collection of Saw movies. The idea of a woman getting her head smashed in by some metal structure with teeth would seem grotesque, and would rile the nerves, but not as much as if you were with your friend, and they had a metal machine crushing their skull next to you. The reality of experiencing this could be so intense, it could actually send you into PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).
So it seems the media can effectively get an emotional experience across to the viewer, but it must be 1.) something which is presented in a new way 2.)something which we haven't seen before, "can't believe it with your own eyes experience or 3.) an issue which hits close to home (home being personal to each individual.
So the question, when the tree falls, and no one is there to see it, it doesn't necessarily exist in the space of our minds, yet it may exist in physical space. We have no knowledge of that tree, so how could we come to know anything that it is doing. If we were made aware of that tree before it fell, then it would be real to us. Yet, the tree does fall whether we know of it at the same time or not. It seems that we have found many a fallen tree. We cannot know ABOUT something, if we do not know OF something. So this idea of nothingness is quite obvious in the inquisition of space.
So this idea of NOTHINGNESS is quite obvious in the inquisition of space.
While reading on nothingness, it came to my thoughts that I had established this idea for myself that everything is something, and we cannot know nothing if we are something. This may appear confusing, but it is quite simple. Every object, thing, person, place, and idea is something, and we cannot comprehend what nothing is, if we only know something. Then what is nothing? Well, if we could give nothing descriptive words such as a void, blank space, or vast emptiness, then we would be assuming that we know nothing. But if we are something, we cannot possibly comprehend something that we have never experienced, or will consciously be able to. (Nothingness is quite closely related to emptiness, but it is important not to confuse these two.
What can we know about nothing?
"Nothingness, is not "nowhere". To be in the middle of nowhere is somewhere, and that's important to know. To put a motion light in the middle of nowhere creates a place, does it then become somewhere when it becomes illuminated? Does that light create "somewhere" and what happens when, in day, it is lit with sunlight, but no one experiences it. There is something interesting in existence and experiencing existence when people are not present. But to be with lack of presence, and to fully understand existence when no one is watching, one would have to become nothing somewhere. But one cannot become nothing because they have no knowledge of what is not something. For the blackest hole one can imagine is something, somewhere, and its contents, while unidentifiable, are contents And that is something.In talking about nothing, I can offer no answers, just arguments, agreements, and ideas.
