What Is Place? What Is Space?

The traditional and well-established meaning of a concept crystallized into a specific word should be the starting point for any investigation that aims at questioning that concept. In this article, I will list all of the different entries and the different senses that the noun place and the noun space have according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Right after the presentation, I’ll provide a concise definition of the renewed senses of place and space I’ll be discussing on this website, and I invite readers to explore the upcoming articles for a more comprehensive understanding and explanations behind my choices, which cannot be fully conveyed by a brief definition alone. Beyond their well-established meanings in popular dictionaries, I believe it’s crucial to delve into the etymological histories of ‘place’ and ‘space’ to fully understand their intersecting paths. Through linguistic analysis, we can appreciate not only the general sense of each term but also their connotations and potential mutual dependencies. In forthcoming articles, I will delve into the diverse and interconnected histories of the two concepts. Given the richness, complexity, and interest of these histories, they demand more specific information and space than a single article or the limited linguistic perspective typically provided by dictionaries.

1. The senses of the term ‘place’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary

With respect to the noun ‘place’, the Oxford English Dictionary says that the senses are ‘very numerous and difficult to arrange’. What follows in this paragraph is an abridged literal reproduction of the senses of the noun ‘place’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary. ^[1]

Image 1: Entry ‘place’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition, 1989.

place (pleis), substantive:

I) An open space in a city; a square, a market place. 1a) Used in Old English to render Latin 1b) In modern use, forming the second element in the name of a group of houses (and hence of a street) in a town or city, now or formerly possessing some of the characters (positive or negative) of a square, chiefly that of not being properly a street. Often used in the name of a small area … (e.g., Ely Place in London.)

II) A material space. 2a) Space; extension in two (or three) directions; ‘room’. Archaic to offer place, to make way, give way, give place: see 23. 2b) In generalized sense: Space, extension (chiefly rhetorical, and in antithesis to time). 3a) A particular part of space, of defined or undefined extent, but of definite situation (Latin locus, Old English stow). Sometimes applied to a region or part of the earth’s surface. 3b) The portion of space actually occupied by a person or thing; the position of a body in space, or with reference to other bodies; locality; situation. 3c) short for ‘place of battle’, ‘field’ (Obsolete). 3d) to leave or win place: to lose or gain ground, to retreat or advance (Obsolete). 3e) Colloquial phrase – all over the place: disordered, irregular, muddled. 4) A piece or plot of land (Obsolete). 5a) A portion of space in which people dwell together; a general designation for a city, town, village, hamlet, etc. 5b) A residence, dwelling, house; a seat, mansion, palace; formerly sometimes, a religious house, a convent; also specifically the chief residence on an estate; a manor-house; a country-house with its surroundings. Also place-house (see 29). 5c) A fortress, citadel, ‘strong place’; a fortified city. Obsolete. 5d) A building, apartment, or spot devoted to a specified purpose. (Usually with specification, as place of amusement, of resort, bathing-place, etc.). 5e) slang. A lavatory. 6a) A particular part or spot in a body or surface. 6b) Chess. A square on the board (obsolete, rare). 7a) A particular part, page, or other point in a book or writing. 7b) A (short) passage in a book or writing, separately considered, or bearing upon some particular subject; a text, extract (obsolete). 7c) A subject, a topic: especially in Logic and Rhetoric: LOCUS. 8) In technical uses: 8a) Astronomy. The apparent position of a heavenly body on a celestial sphere. 8b) Geometry = LOCUS. 8c) Falconry. The point or pitch attained by a falcon or similar bird of prey before swooping down on its quarry (obsolete). 8d) Mining. A drift or level driven from side to side of a wide lode as a beginning of a slide.

III) Position in some scale, order, or series. 9a) Position or standing in the social scale, or in any order of estimation of merit; rank, station, whether high or low. 9b) High rank or position; dignity (obsolete). 9c) Racing, etc.: A position among the placed competitors. 9d) Phrases: to know one’s place: to know how to behave in a manner befitting one’s rank, situation, etc.; it is not my place: outside my duties or customary rights; to put (someone) in his, her etc., place: to remind someone of his or her rank or situation; to rebuff or rebuke. 10) Arithmetic. The position of a figure in a series, in decimal or similar notation, as indicating its value or denomination: in plural with numeral, often used merely to express the number of figures, especially after the decimal point in a decimal fraction. 11) A step or point in the order of progression. Mostly with ordinal numeral or its equivalent (first, next, last, etc.) preceded by in: in the first place = firstly, first in order; etc.

IV) Position or situation with reference to its occupation or occupant. 12a) A proper, appropriate, or natural place (for the person or thing in question to be in or occupy); sometimes in an ideal or imaginary region. (See also 19c, d.). 12b) figurative. A fitting time, point in order of events; occasion, opportunity 12c) figurative. ‘Room’; reasonable occasion or ground. 12d) Phrase – a place for everything and everything in its place. 13a) The space which one person occupies by usage, allotment, or right; a seat or accommodation engaged in a public building, conveyance, or the like, a space at table; seat, station, quarters. 13b) With possessive or of: The space previously or customarily occupied by some other person or thing; room, stead, lieu; often in phrases in (the) place of, instead of, in the room or lieu of, in exchange or substitution for; to take the place of, to be substituted for, to stand instead of. 13c) Phrase – a place in the sun. 14a) An office, employment, situation; sometimes, specifically, a government appointment, an office in the service of the crown state. (confront 14b) 14b) Without a or plural: Official position, especially of a minister of state: = OFFICE 14c) The duties of any office or position; (one’s) duty or business. Hence to perform one’s place (obsolete)

V) Phrases.

*With other substantives: 15a) place of arms: an open space for the assembling of troops 15b) A strongly fortified city or fortress, used as an arsenal or magazine, or as a place of retreat; also a tent at the head of each company where the arms were stored (obsolete). 16) place of worship: a place where religious worship is performed; specifically, a building (or part of one) appropriated to assemblies or meetings for religious worship: a general term comprehending churches, chapels, meeting-houses, synagogues, and other places in which people assemble to worship God. 17) One’s heart (lies) in the right place; to have a soft place in one’s heart for, to regard affectionately, be well-disposed towards, be fond of.

**With propositions: 18) from place to place. From one place to another, and so on in succession 19a) in place, etc. Before or without moving away; on the spot; then and there, immediately. So in the place, on or upon the place. Obsolete. 19b) In presence, present, at hand, on the spot. So upon the place. Obsolete. 19c) In its original or proper position; in position; in situ; specifically in Geology; in Mining, applied to a vein or lode situated between fixed rocks. 19d) figurative. In his or its proper or fitting position; in one’s element, at home; in harmony, timely. (The opposite of out of place, 20). 19e) in (some one’s) place: in (his) position, or circumstances; situated as (he) is. 19f) in (the) place of, instead of: see 13b in the first, second, next, etc. place: see 11). 20) out of place. Out of, or not situated in the natural or appropriate position; misplaced. Figuratively: unsuitable, unseasonable.

***With verbs: 21a) come in place. To come to be, come forth, originate, turn up; to come into notice, appear; to appear, present itself for consideration. Also become in (to, etc.) place. Obsolete.  21b) To occur, take place. 21c) To come into a position (to do something). 22) find place. To find room, to dwell or exist, to have being (in something). 23) give place. To make room, make a way, get out of the way; to yield to, give way to; to be succeeded by. 24a) have place. To have room to exist; to have being or existence (in, among, etc. something); to exist; to be situated, have lodgement. 24b) To have or to take precedence (also to have the place): = 27c. Obsolete. 25) hold place. To obtain regard, to prevail; = 27b. (see also 9.)  26a) make place. To make room or space for; to give a position, station, or office to. Obsolete. 26b) to make places (Change-ringing): said of two bells which shift their position in successive changes so as to make room, as it were, for another bell which is struck successively before, between and after them. 27a) to take place. To take effect, to succeed; to be accomplished or realized. 27b) To find acceptance; to have weight or influence. Obsolete. 27c) To take precedence of; to go before (Cf. 9). Obsolete. 27d) To take up or have a position; to be present. 27e) To come into existence, come to pass, happen; to occur (in place or time). 27f) to take the place of: see 13b.

VI. 28) Short for PLACE BRICK.

VII. 29) attributive, verbal and in combination as in: place-description, -disease, -illustration, -name, hence place-namer, –naming; place-ordering, place-ordered; (sense 2b) place-logic, -time; (sense 9c) place-getter; (sense 14) place-broker, -monger, -mongering, -seeker, seeking; place-begging, -loving, -proud, -seeking; place act; place-being;  place betting; place-bill; place-book; place-card; place horse; place-house; placelike; place-making; place-mat; place-money; place-setting; place-skating; place-value; place-woman

Place (plas), substantive. In France, or occasionally in other countries, a square. Frequently used in proper names.

Place (pleis) verb – past tense and participle placed (pleist): 1a) transitive, to put or set in a particular place, position, or situation; to station; to posit; figurative to set in some condition, or relation to other things. Often a mere synonym of put, set. 1b) To put or set (a number of things) in the proper relative places, i.e., in order or position; to arrange, dispose, adjust. 1c) Cricket, Baseball, and other ball games. To control and guide (the ball) in making a stroke or hit. 2a) To appoint (a person) to a place or post; to put in office; specifically, to induct a pastorate. 2b) To find a place or situation for; to arrange for the employment, living, or marriage of; to settle. Sometimes construed with forth (obsolete), out. 3) To put (a thing) into a suitable or desirable place for some purpose. Specifically 3a) To put out (money, funds) at interest; to invest. Often with out. 3b) To put into the hands of a particular (selected) person or firm (an order for something to be supplied). 3c) To dispose of to a customer. 3d) To arrange for the performance or publication of: a play, literary production, or the like. 4) figurative To put, set, fix, repose (faith, confidence, esteem, etc.) in or on a particular person or thing. 5) To determine or indicate the place of; to assign a place to. 5a) To assign or refer to a particular locality or set of circumstances; to locate. 5b) To assign a certain rank or station to; to rank, class. 5c) To fix the chronological position of; to date; to fix, determine (a date). 5d) Racing. To state the place or position of (a horse, etc.) among the competitors when passing the winning post, which is usually done officially of the first three only; to be placed, to obtain a place among the first three. 5e) To determine who or what a particular person (or thing) is; to assign to a particular class or category; to determine the importance of; to identify or recognize. Origin U.S.  5f) intransitive, Racing, Athletics, etc. To achieve a certain place or position (in a race, etc.); to be placed, specifically among the first three (U.S. the first two). Also transferred sense. 6) to assign, attribute, impute, ascribe. 6a) To hold (a quality or attribute) to reside or consist in something. 6b) to refer (a fact or circumstance) to something as a cause; to ‘put down’ to. Obsolete. 7) Football (Rugby). To get (a goal) from a place-kick.

2. Rethinking the concept of place: place as system of processes

Here, I’ll define the renewed sense of place I want to discuss, allowing readers to explore the reasons behind this shift and its full implications in upcoming articles. This is the way I understand the concept of place:

I-R. a) Place is any real entity emerging from inorganic, organic, social, and symbolic – or intellectual – processes.

Place is any real entity emerging from inorganic, organic, social, and symbolic – or intellectual – processes.

For example, a photon is the place of physical processes; a carbon atom is the place of chemical processes; an amoeba is the place of biological processes; a termite’s nest is the place of social processes; New York City is the place of symbolic processes. I also refer to the latter kind of processes as intellectual processes, which are highly abstract and unique to humans: while animals can modify their environments to meet their biological and social needs (e.g., a termite’s nest or a beehive), humans alone intervene in and modify places to fulfill their symbolic needs and aspirations. It’s important to note that higher-order processes arise from and incorporate lower-order processes. For instance, New York City is not only a place for sociocultural processes but also a place where basic physicochemical and biological processes occur. This means that every existing thing can be considered as a place: a place of processes. In other words, reality is a complex system, a whole with emergent properties that cannot be reduced to the simple sum of its individual parts. This is also my view of ‘nature’, as an entangled system of processes. Place is this natural system of processes. According to this definition, the natural encompasses the artificial, or human-made, as a constituent part, and mankind is, therefore, a part of nature (see also On the Structure of Reality). Therefore, I define place as a system of processes, which leads us to the reality that everything exists contemporarily as a place and within a place—a place shaped by processes (Places Everywhere—Everything Is Place).

What’s peculiar about this definition is that the traditional distinction between matter, which occupies a place, and place (or space, according to substantivalist interpretations), which is occupied, should be understood in the context of language constraints—language, a symbolic process of knowledge. In fact, I believe the distinction between place and matter is primarily conceptual. Things are places (matter is place). Although this definition does not exactly align with Aristotle’s fundamental definition of place (Aristotle rejects the idea that matter and place are identical, even though place is closely tied to and defined by visible matter), I traditionally interpret Aristotle’s concept of place as boundedness, which helps me understand reality as a contrast between the bounded and the unbounded or limitless.^[2] Ultimately, I understand place as the unifying force that brings reality together and orders it, linking not only the actual with the actual, but also the actual with the potential, the concrete with the abstract, the physical with the ideal, being with becoming, the present with the past and the future. This concept is reminiscent of the classical Greek vision, as Martin Heidegger astutely noted, where ‘a boundary is not that at which something stops, but that from which something begins its essential unfolding.’^[3]

a boundary is not that at which something stops, but that from which something begins its essential unfolding

Martin Heidegger

We can only experience the world of objects or other subjects as something bounded—a place—even though from this perspective, we can also think about the unbounded; in other words, the concrete reality we experience as a place can give rise to abstract concepts (such as the concept of space). The fact suggests that whenever we discuss place or places, multiple dimensions are always at play, including ontological, phenomenological, and epistemological dimensions, especially when human beings are involved in the event-place.^[4] Some important implications derive from this perspective.

Firstly, as the very definition above suggests, place has a fundamental processual structure or dimension, which can be understood as a happening or event. In fact, place is the continuously actualized where, in which and out of which, past, present, and future dimensions converge in the form of duration, appropriating matter to define the concrete existence of any entity-as-place. Different entities, such as physicochemical, biological, social, and symbolic ones may emerge depending on the processes involved (just to name the four fundamental categories of existence—things, life, societies, thoughts—emerging from those processes). Then, in its basic state, place encompasses within itself, as a single structure, the spatial, the temporal, and the material as characteristic aspects of the physical; while in its most advanced (symbolic) states, it may also embrace the immaterial as the characteristic aspect of the ideal, or conceptual, and spiritual.

Second: no independent background — call it place, space, spacetime, void, ether, or otherwise — really exists; instead, actual entities emerge from their corresponding processes, and each entity serves as the background for others, and vice versa, in a relational understanding of reality-as-place or place-as-reality. Such entities are places.

Third: a multilevel ontology can be hypothesized based on the relational behavior of entities acting at different levels of reality, including physicochemical, biological, social, cultural, and symbolic, or intellectual levels; this perspective requires a systemic or organic understanding of the various processes and events that shape reality, and naturally rejects classical mechanistic worldviews. Reality can be viewed as a complex system of interconnected places, with places within places, within places, and so on, much like an organism composed of interacting cells at various levels of complexity (for a discussion on the contiguity between systemic and organic conceptions of nature, see the article Place, Space and the Philosophy of Nature where I examine the notions of ‘organism’ and ‘system’).

Fourth: as a direct consequence of the preceding points, since actual entities are places and reality is a place as well (reality is the encompassing realm where entities are ‘implaced’),^[5] then place — and reality as well, given that reality is place — should be thought of as the historical result of concrescent and entangled physicochemical, biological, social, and symbolic — or intellectual — evolutionary forces (evolutionary understanding of reality-as-place).^[6] In agreement with the aforementioned systemic understanding of reality, no priority of physical over symbolic (or intellectual) dimensions — or vice versa — can be assigned to place. Analyzing the correlation between the various dimensions of place is a prerequisite for investigating place as a direct subject. This perspective on place naturally rejects reductionism and classical physical (or material) determinism.

Finally—and we reconnect with our initial point—it’s only because place has boundaries that we can reason about the limitless or unbounded. In other words, it’s from the actual standpoint of concrete places that abstraction originates, allowing us to imagine abstract realms or domains, including space and abstract places. Therefore, a place, as a concrete and actual mode of existence, contains both abstract and potential aspects — which can be seen as ideal or conceptual — alongside its material dimensions, gathering both within its boundaries. Drawing on this possibility, the concept of space and the concept of place, separated from matter, originated as abstract modes of understanding reality; such abstract modes are complementary to concrete modes and both modes are necessary to understand reality (complementary or choral understanding of reality-as-place). The circle of reality is closed. This takes us to the possibility of envisioning the following extended meaning of place:

I-R. b) In a broader sense, place refers to any aspect of reality that is conceived of as the realm of existence emerging from that which is concrete, or from the correlation between the concrete and the abstract (that is, from the correlation between the object and the modes through which the subject knows the object). This also means that reality is the place comprised between the actual and the potential, the physical and the ideal, being and becoming; and when I say ‘comprised between’ I mean something emerging from two extremes understood as active epicentres in mutual relation (correlation or co-relation) giving rise to a new, encompassing level.^[7] This understanding of place (final point of the list above), which I will elaborate on in the following articles and which bears some resemblance to Plato’s concept of chōra (that’s why I have spoken of ‘choral understanding of reality’), suggests that reality emerges from the encounter between the object and the subject. Since objects — being inorganic entities — and subjects — being at least biological entities — are the place of processes, that which results from their encounter, as well as that which transcend them (ecological, social and symbolic entities) is a place, and this reconnects to def. I-R. a. To put it another way, place is where ‘the material [Matter] and the mental [Mind] are inextricably intertangled’.^[8] Given that the perspective of place-as-reality I argue for is historical — evolutionary, I have said, properly (point four) — before biological minds could intervene on nature, place existed in more basic natural forms or states (this is place in its primordial sense or state). And, I believe that place still exists in such basic forms or states — exclusively physical or material states — whenever a mind is absent.

The attentive reader will have already understood that the renewed sense of place I wish to discuss is partly reflected in the Oxford English Dictionary definitions 21a), 21b), 21c), 22), 23), 24a), 27a), 27d), and clearly in 27e). This means that place should preferably be conceived as active ‘implacement’, with the remarkable difference that it is that which occurs or appears that creates place and places. In other words, the entity actualized or concretized after certain processes is simultaneously figure and background, and no place exists independently of the entity to which it intrinsically belongs. This perspective turns the traditional view upside-down. Furthermore, with this renewed sense of place, I also aim to shed light on the generic definition of place as that which ‘comes in place’ (21a), ‘takes place’ (21b), ‘have place’ (24a), etc. This fact implies that any discourse on place is inevitably intertwined with a pragmatic view of the reality of facts, happenings, events, or processes from which entities emerge, including physical, chemical, biological, social, cultural, and symbolic ones. Therefore, the renewed sense of place I wish to discuss is a working concept that can be explored from multiple perspectives, including physics, philosophy, biology, ecology, social sciences, art, architecture, politics, and even religion. Above all, the processual, relational, systemic, evolutionary, and choral aspects I associate with a renewed sense of place — or reality as a place of processes — require us to examine the hybrid territories where disciplines intersect and overlap, forcing us to reevaluate the traditional boundaries and divisions we have imposed on knowledge. A transdisciplinary approach to knowledge is not only welcomed but also necessary to envision new meanings for old concepts.

3. The senses of the term ‘space’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary

What follows in this paragraph is an abridged literal reproduction of the senses of the noun ‘space’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary. ^[9]

Image 2: Entry ‘space’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition, 1989.

space (speis), substantive:

I) Denoting time or duration. 1a) Without article: lapse or extent of time between two definite points, events, etc. Chiefly with adjectives, as little, long, short, small. 1b) Delay, deferment. Obsolete. 1c) in space, after a time or while. Obsolete. 2) Time, leisure, or opportunity for doing something. Chiefly to have (or give) space. Obsolete. 2a) Construed with to (usually with infinitive). 2b) Without construction. 2c) Coupled with other substantives denoting time, ability, etc.; especially in time and space, space and time. 3) With the (that, etc.): 3a) The amount or extent of time comprised or contained in a specified period. Constructed with of, or with preceding genitive. 3b) The amount of time already specified or indicated, or otherwise determined. 3c) in the mean space, meantime, meanwhile. Obsolete. 4a) With a and plural. A period or interval of time. 4b) With of (frequently a space of time). 4c) In the adverbial phrase (for) a space. 4d) A period of delay. Obsolete. 4e) A spell of writing or narration. Obsolete.

II). Denoting area or extension

*Without article in a generalized sense: 5a) Linear distance; interval between two or more points or objects. 5b) Proper place or relationship. Obsolete. 6a) Superficial extent or area; also, extent in three dimensions. 6b) Extent or area sufficient fo some purpose; room. Also construed with to with infinitive.  6c) Extent or room in a letter, periodical, book, etc., available for, or occupied by, written or printed matter. 6d) on space, paid according to the extent occupied by accepted contributions (origin U.S.). 6e) Room in a newspaper, periodical, etc., or on some other medium, which may be acquired for a specific purpose, especially advertising. 7) Metaphysics. Continuous, unbounded, or unlimited extension in every direction regarded as void of matter, or without reference to this. Frequently coupled with time. 8) Astronomy, etc. 8a) The immeasurable expanse in which the solar and stellar systems, nebulae, etc., are situated; the stellar depths. 8b) In the phrase into space. Also figuratively. 8c) In more limited sense: Extension in all directions, especially from a given point.

**In particularized or limited senses: 9a) A certain stretch, extent, or area of ground, surface, sky, etc.; an expanse. 9b) Construed with of (ground, sea, etc.). 9c) With possessive pronoun. The place where on takes up a position, residence, etc. Obsolete. 9d) elliptical, in plural (Confront sense 8). 9e) = living space (chiefly North American). 10a) A more or less limited area or extent; a small portion of space (in sense 6a or 8c). 10b) A part or portion marked off in some way; a division, section. 10c) A void or empty place or part. 10d) A portion of a page (in a newspaper, etc.) available for specific purpose, especially advertising; a period or interval of broadcasting time available to or occupied by a particular programme or advertising slot. Especially in injunction: watch this space!  Compare sense 6e above. 11a) An interval; a length of way; a distance. 11b) Construed with of (the precise distance). 11c) from space to space at (regular) intervals. 11d) A short distance. 12) Course, custom, procedure. Obsolete; rare. 13) The dimensional extent occupied by a body or lying within certain limits. 14) Music. One or other of the degrees or intervals between the lines of a staff. 15a) An interval or blank between words, or lines, in printed or written matter. 15b) Typography. One or other of certain small pieces of cast metal, of various thickness and shorter than a type, used to separate words (or letter in a word), and also justify the line. 15c) Telecommunications. An interval between consecutive marks in a mark-space signalling system such as telegraphy. 16) In specific uses. 17) Math. An instance of any various mathematical concepts, usually regarded as a set of points having some specified structure; compare metric space, topological space, vector space.

III) attributive and (in) combination. 18) Simple attributive. 18a) In the sense of ‘used for spacing (in printing, typing, etc.)’, as space-band, -bar, -gauge, -key, -line, -rule; also ‘used for holding spaces’, as space-barge, -box, -paper. 18b) relating to space as a general concept or relation, as space-consciousness, continuum, -effect, -element, -harmony, -image, music, -occupancy, -perception, -relation, -sensation, -sense, -symmetry, -value, ect. 18c) In applied mathematics, as space-centrode, -coordinate, -derivative, -integral, -inversion, -locus, -path, -point, etc. 18d) origin U.S. In the sense ‘paid by, or calculated upon the extent of space occupied’, as space-artist, -writer; space-bill, rate, writing; relating to the purchase of (advertising, etc.) space, as space-buyer, salesman.  18e) In sense 8a, outer space regarded as a field for human activity (many of these formations are modelled on analogous uses of air, air-): space agency, biology, bus, conquest, -crew, doctor, exploration, explorer, journey, law, lifeboat, liner, museum, navigation, etc. 18f) Applied to sprays, designed to produce droplets that will remain suspended in the air for a long period. 19) (in) combination: 19a) with adjectives and participial adjectives, as space-based, -cramped, -dependent, –embosomed, -spanned, -spread, -thick. 19b) with participial adjectives, as space-devouring, -filling, -occupying, -penetrating, -travelling, -wasting, etc. Also with (formally identical) verbal substantives. 19c) In adjectival phrases, as space-to-ground. 20) Special combinations: space age; space colony; space frame; space industry; space lattice; space programme; space vehicle; spacewalk; space warp, etc.

Space, substantive, Scottish, obsolete, rare: A species or kind (of money, etc.)

Space (speis), verb. Also spase, to space, etc: 1) transitive: to pave or lay. Obsolete. 2) To limit or bound in respect of space; to make of a certain extent. 3a) To divide into spaces or sections. Also construed with by or with. Obsolete, rare. 3b) dialect, To measure (ground, etc.) by pacing. 4a) To set or place, to arrange or put, at determinate intervals or distances. 4b) Similarly with out. 4c) reflexive (Also with out). 4d) Intransitive, with out. To experience a drug-induced state of euphoria; to become disoriented by the use of narcotic stimulus. 5) Typography: 5a) with out: to extend to a required length by inserting additional space between the words (or lines). 5b) To separate (words, letters, or lines) by means of a space or spaces. 6) Intransitive: to walk, ramble, or roam. Obsolete.

4. Rethinking the concept of space

Regarding the renewed sense of the concept of space, which I will discuss on this website, there is no need to speculate on a new definition, unlike the concept of place, since taking an explicit stance on the traditional senses of the term will suffice. Despite that, there are a couple of important points I need to highlight from the beginning. First, since concepts of place and space are historically and semantically related, I consider them as circularly related and necessary to describe reality as a unique realm emerging from the interplay between the actual or concrete (place) and the ideal or abstract (space); consequently, we cannot fully grasp the meaning of one concept without clarifying the sense of the other, as I previously discussed in paragraph 2, where I introduced the concept of ‘choral understanding’ of reality. Since, to begin with, I understand place as a notion that refers to the actual realm, I reject any sense of space that is not figurative or metaphorical; specifically, I reject space as physical—I reject the notion ‘physical space’ interpreted as the actual continuum of reality containing all of the events and physical bodies, as it directly refers to the realm of that which is concrete. Therefore, for me, ‘the arena of things’ is a place, not space. This leads us to the second point: the modern concept of space, denoting a three-dimensional extent (or even tetra-dimensional if we refer to the notion of spacetime), is an ideal entity of mathematical origin, and its connection to the actual continuum where events occur can only be understood in a figurative, ideal, or conceptual sense. Accordingly, place and space, one concrete and the other abstract or ideal, are correlated concepts that enable us to understand the placial and spatial aspects of reality, which I see as the realm that emerges from the interplay between the concrete, or actual, and the abstract, or potential and possible. Then, when I define space as the dimensionality inherent to any place, this attribution is conceptual and a posteriori, serving a linguistic or symbolic function that needs careful epistemological examination; we do not have to intend space as the hypothetical pre-existing extensive character of reality that precedes place or the things in place. Place is the origin of all things, or the first principle – archē (ἀρχή) -, as the ancient Greeks would say.

place, not space, is the origin of all things, or the first principle – archē (ἀρχή)

First of all, space has a similar nominal function to the terms ‘dimension’ or ‘extension’, which is precisely its original etymological sense, derived from the Greek spadion or stadion, a standard unit of length in ancient Greek and Roman worlds (for a more detailed discussion, see the article Back to the Origins of Space and Place). To fully grasp how the concept of space evolved into the complex and ambiguous notion of these days, it’s essential to explore its philosophical and scientific histories, in addition to its etymological origins. Today, space is commonly understood as a three-dimensional concept, or four-dimensional when combined with time, with a meaning that far surpasses its original association with simple extension and the Greek unit of measurement, or distance (diastēma).

To summarize, the term ‘space’ can refer to either spatial or temporal extension, as commonly understood and listed in the OED. However, in my view, this extension, as conveyed by the noun‘space’, is always an ideal, figurative, or conceptual abstraction derived from the only reality we know, which is a unified, all-encompassing place. As a result, space is not a concrete entity but an ideal or abstract one. This means our bodies or any concrete objects do not occupy space but rather stand in and move between places. In fact, we can regard things and bodies as places themselves. Ultimately, whether space is considered absolute, relative, or having a certain number of dimensions is merely a matter of linguistic convention, depending on the theoretical model used to explain the world’s phenomena. For instance, Newton saw space as absolute, Leibniz as relative, Descartes’s geometry as three-dimensional, and string theorists as having multiple dimensions. This flexibility is acceptable and useful. However, to be valid and viable, any theoretical model, including spatial models, must ultimately be grounded in the reality of facts, events, and happenings, which is to say, it must return to the material or concrete reality of place. Ultimately, the real challenge is to define the true essence of place, starting with its concrete aspects, and its relationship with space, which is abstract or ideal; this brings us back to where we started—the concept of place and the necessity to elucidate the intersection of ontological and epistemological dimensions of reality. I believe that any theory of space or place is inherently flawed if it doesn’t take into account those preliminary dimensions, regardless of whether it’s rooted in physics, mathematics, philosophy, biology, social science, architecture, or any other field.

Given the ideal status of space and related notions, I disagree with usual narrations by physicists who attribute the trajectory of a planet around its sun to the warping of spacetime structure, as if spacetime were an actual, material entity rather than an abstract, ideal manifold. How something immaterial, such as an idea, can have a direct effect on actual physical processes, is not clear to me, unless we misplace the abstract for the concrete, the mathematical for the physical. However, to avoid misunderstanding, it’s essential to clarify that the real issue, here, is whether a substantivalist interpretation of space can be more fruitful than others in explaining reality’s complex phenomena; this question remains unsettled, with different viewpoints deserving equal attention and consideration. On this website, I will take a clear stance on that question, but I want to emphasize that answering it requires considering multiple perspectives, not just those of physicists or philosophers. Reality is currently understood as a complex system that cannot be reduced to physical processes alone; therefore, our understanding of space and place should reflect this new worldview.

Of course, not only do I find the traditional expressions used by many physicists perplexing, but I also become suspicious whenever I hear or read someone, regardless of their profession — physicists, philosophers, social scientists, architects, artists, etc. — refer to ‘physical space’, as I believe space is not physical. The modern mantra that ‘bodies cross, traverse, or exist in space’, which has been repeated for centuries, oversimplifies the complex relationship between bodies and places, reducing it to mere abstract dimensional information (such is the nature of space, after all). When discussing actual processes and phenomena, we risk losing valuable information if we refer to space rather than place. This is a pitfall inherent in abstract thinking. We lose a great deal of information if we speak of space rather than of place when we refer to actual processes and phenomena: this is, after all, a danger behind the modes of abstraction. ‘Physical space’ is just a figurative expression, an ambiguous expression (an unwarranted oxymoron), which, in my opinion, covers up complex epistemological and ontological questions. In our discussions of perception, psychology, phenomenology, physics, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology, art, architecture, urbanism… we often overlook the ambiguous concept of ‘physical space’, which raises important epistemological and ontological questions about the intersection of the actual and the potential, and the physical and the ideal. These questions need to be fully evaluated by those who professionally deal with questions of space and place and not merely left to the attention of philosophers or physicists.

5. Modern modes of thought and the senses of place and space

As an architect, I have personally experienced that simply adopting the senses of space as if they relate to real-world phenomena — thinking of space as the arena of things and events, or as a container for physical objects that exist, move, or roam — can lead our thinking astray in various ways. Fallacies of thinking pose a significant threat to our existence, as the concepts we express through language ultimately shape our practical approach and behaviors towards reality, influencing how we interact with and transform it. If we confuse the abstract with the concrete, or space with place, or if we do not ponder the Archytian (and to some extent Aristotelian) notion that ‘everything is in place but place is in nothing’,^[10] or again, if we use those concepts interchangeably across different domains without considering their full epistemological and ontological range, I believe we risk misunderstanding the distinct yet interconnected aspects of reality (the concrete and the abstract, the physical and the ideal or mathematical, the actual and the potential) that these concepts represent. Ultimately, this fact can impact us in many different ways.

Like other disciplines, architecture inherently spans both the concrete and abstract, the physical and ideal, and the actual and potential; thus, it is particularly concerned with the senses of place and space, which I will explore throughout this website. Architects overlook the true essence of their discipline when they focus primarily on space (space is a recent paradigm in architecture — see my two articles Mind, Space, Architecture: On The International Style and On the Ambiguous Language of Space); they also miss the point if they confuse space with a part of place, fail to explain the relationship between the two, or treat them as separate entities without clarifying their meanings (that is, if they use them as unclarified notions).^[11] Despite traditional forms of mechanic and reductionist thinking, and despite misleading disciplinary expectations, if we really want our efforts to be directed towards overcoming the many difficult challenges in the dawning of a new era^[12] — I’m referring to cultural, technological, economic, political, social, religious and environmental challenges, primarily —, everybody, not just architects, should strive to reveal the circular relationship between place and space, that is, the interconnectedness of physical and ideal or conceptual, actual and potential, concrete and abstract aspects as complementary parts of a single, all-encompassing reality, which is, first and foremost, a place.

Image 3: Between Mind and Matter – risks behind fallacious interpretation of the concepts of space and place at the dawning of a New Era.

Notes

[1] The Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition, prepared by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), Volume XI, 937- 942.

[2] In Physics (212a 20-21) Aristotle defines place — ‘topos’ in Greek – ‘the innermost motionless boundary of the container’ (W.D. Ross, Aristotle’s Physics. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, p. 376), or, in Edward Casey’s words: ‘the first unchangeable limit – ‘peras’ in Greek – of that which surrounds’ (Edward S. Casey, The Fate of Place, p. 55). I rely on a revised interpretation of Aristotle’s definition of place to give complementary ontological and epistemological foundations to reality-as-place: then, for me, an entity becomes actual as soon as a boundary, or limit, is formed. It is because of such funding boundary (the meeting point of ontological and epistemological interrelated dimensions) that reality emerges as a place under the guise of matter, that is: place-and-matter appears all at once, since — out of any epistemological distinction — they are ultimately the same. Unlike Aristotle, I argue that the distinction between matter and place is primarily a linguistic, conceptual, or epistemological division, rather than an actual difference (things are places). By saying that reality is a place (of processes in which and out of which entities exist and emerge), I’m attempting to overcome the original dualism that has plagued Western thinking since its inception.

[3] Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993), 356. This is the extended quotation: ‘A boundary is not that at which something stops but, as the Greeks recognized, the boundary is that from which something begins its essential unfolding.’

[4] Ultimately, it is the immanent, gathering quality of place that enables us to speak of ontological, epistemological and phenomenological dimensions explicitly; this position, inevitably modern, separates us from past theories of place and space.

[5] I will often use the terms ‘implaced’, instead of emplaced or even placed, and ‘implacement’, instead of emplacement or even placement, since – as Edward Casey acutely observed – the prefix ‘im’ stresses the action of ‘getting in’ or ‘getting into’, which is adequate to describe the active agency that I ascribe to the correlation between matter and place: from an ontological perspective, it is the emergence of matter that creates its own place as well as – from a correlate epistemological perspective – it is place that allows the appearance/existence of matter within its boundary. The prefix ‘im’ is the linguistic signal of the active process that is intrinsic to the creation of matter-as-place, or to use Edward Casey’s words ‘it carries connotations of immanence that are appropriate to the inhabitation of places’. See, Edward S. Casey, Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), xiii, 315. See also the note 10 in the article – Preliminary Notes.

[6] The systems emerging from the actualization of their respective processes are organized according to an evolutionary order with each higher system ‘more recent and more Dynamic than the lower ones’ — see Table 1, in the article From Space to Place. The phrase in italics is taken from Robert M. Pirsig, American novelist and philosopher, to whom I’m indebted for having offered me, with his works, a first accessible glimpse into a novel theoretical framework through which seeing the phenomena of the world. In, Robert M. Pirsig, “Subjects, Objects, Data and Values”, in Einstein meets Magritte: An Interdisciplinary Reflection, eds. D. Aerts, J. Brokaert and E. Mathijs (Dorrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 1999), 92.

[7] The term ‘reality’ comes from ‘res’, a Latin word, which means ‘thing’. Now, according to Aristotle ‘actuality’ and ‘potentiality’ are modalities through which a substance can be; substance is the logical and metaphysical premise for a thing to be, and I interpret the ‘potential’ state of things as an ‘ideal’ or even ‘possible’ state, or realm, which has a reciprocal character with respect to that which is ‘actual’. We are moving in between a series of dyadic relations: the encounter between the concrete and the abstract, or, otherwise said, between the actual and the ideal, or, again, between the bounded (topos) and the unbounded or limitless (apeiron), and, in the end, the encounter between the object and the subject, allow us to have a full grasp of the reality of any entities that emerge from certain processes (entities are the place of processes).

[8] This is a quotation from Edward Casey’s book The Fate of Place (p. 181). The quotation is relative to the alternative view of Leibniz with respect to the Cartesian dualism between Matter and Mind. Even if Leibniz concurred to the adumbration of concept of place reducing it to position, situs or even point (for a more extended treatment of the argument, see my article Place and Space: A Philosophical History, in which I examine Casey’s book) in his philosophy, and especially in the Monadology, there are vast possibilities for the concept of place to regain its ancient power, animation and dynamism (the reference is to the ‘power’ that the concept of place had in the ancient past with thinkers like Aristotle, Archytas, or the Neo-Platonists Iamblicus, Proclus, and Simplicius): in fact, as Casey underlines, the organic body of the monad is intimately tied to place and this opens up the possibility of ‘a middle region were the material and the mental are inextricably intertangled’. This argument will be the subject of many forthcoming articles where I will try to elucidate the legacy that my understanding of place has with respect to different thinkers that, in the past or even in more recent times, elaborated theories of place and/or space. In the same page in which Casey speaks about the philosophy of Leibniz and its possible influence with respect to Whitehead’s Philosophy of Organism, we also read: ‘in its role as mediatrix and carried to a biological limit, place would become something like a bioregion, or ecological niche’. I see a concordance between this conceptualization of place Casey speaks about and the way I understand place: specifically, according to my definition of place, such ‘bioregion’ would be the emergent place of physicochemical and biological processes, primarily.

[9] The Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition, prepared by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), Volume XVI, 87-92.

[10] For the extended explanation of what could be termed  ‘Archytian axiom‘ – ‘everything is in place but place is in nothing’ – I redirect you to Casey’s The Fate of Place (4, 43, 52, 82, 204, 289, 336), and to the articles The Place of a Thing and Body, Place, Existence.

[11] I have taken the expression ‘unclarified notions’ from Edward Casey, who used it with specific reference to the concept of place, for which, in the present historical moment – Casey says -, there is a ‘burgeoning interest’ within different contexts – especially in architecture, anthropology and ecology – but such interest ‘leaves place itself an unclarified notion’. I believe the same can be said of space (at least this is certainly true within my direct field of competence – architecture), that’s why I’ve used the plural form ‘unclarified notions’. Edward S. Casey, The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), xii.

[12] Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Crutzen, declared the Anthropocene to be the dawn of a new human-influenced geologic Era following the Holocene; see: J. Paul Crutzen, “The Anthropocene“, in Earth System Science in the Anthropocene, eds. Ehlers and Krafft (New York: Springer, 2006). Scientists are currently collecting data to propose a start date for the new Era, which should be comprised between the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the beginning of the nuclear tests in 1945. Regardless of this peculiar, technical, issue, questions of space and place are deeply entangled with the development of the scientific mind and this, in turn, is what ultimately changed our modes of thought and behaviours (ecological, social, political, economic, technological, cultural, intellectual, religious, etc.) with respect to our ancestors. That’s why concepts of space and place have such capital importance: behind their conceptualization, we may find an unexpected way to think about what we are, where do we come from, and most of all, where we’re going.

Works Cited

Casey, Edward S. Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

—. The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Crutzen, J. Paul. “The Anthropocene“, in Earth System Science in the Anthropocene, edited by Ehlers and Krafft. New York: Springer, 2006.

Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, Volume XI, prepared by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, Volume XVI, prepared by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Pirsig Robert M. “Subjects, Objects, Data and Values”. In Einstein meets Magritte: An Interdisciplinary Reflection, edited by D. Aerts,  J. Brokaert and E. Mathijs. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 1999.

Ross, William David. Aristotle’s Physics. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.

Image Credits

Featured Image by Ghinzo on pixabay.com

All other images by Alessandro Calvi Rollino, CC BY-NC-SA