If it seems becoming too personal, or too personally confrontational in some of these considerations is unpleasant, space is offered. It is not for any to assume a position from which one derives a right to be personal or personally confrontational with another; yet we might agree (?) that for things believing themselves to be persons the personal is all but unavoidable. Eventually we discover how much is absolutely person dependent of things/matters coming into and out of us, or flowing through us.
To say it is not unusual for a certain thing to be, surely holds the implication that certain things are usual. And usually we hold to matters imparted by persons based upon what to us we consider their integrity. Or at least give them a more thorough hearing, or fair consideration. And it is not unusual therefore, that once a person’s integrity is shown to not be as once assumed and/or far less than to us was represented, much goes out the window. We no longer esteem them, and hence no longer much esteem what they have had to say. The embezzling accountant or financial advisor once found out guilty rarely has people beating a path to his door for what he has to say in regards to investments. And they may not even like his advice on keeping tropical fish, no matter how expert he may actually be at this. Personal integrity it seems, is a matter that to us, colors all.
How then do we not then probe this with one another…upon which so much is based? Who, or what…is trustworthy?
Of course there is a necessary caveat, warning(?), caution (?), addendum one must not leave out here of: “What does one do when they are proved liars to themselves?” in even misrepresenting themselves…to themselves? What is to be done when one discovers he can’t even trust himself? O! but now this is very personal! (Is it not unavoidable?)
Now who can be trusted if one can’t even trust themselves to be right with themselves?
Oy! Now that’s way too personal!
And it was said space would be, or is being, offered. Was that a lie?
So, let’s consider it.
Space.
We may speak about the material in a sort of opposite way as to the immaterial. Or material versus immaterial. The believer might be inclined to consider such a matter as the material, physical properties of things as versus some spiritual reality. Touchable, see-able, sensible stuff as opposed to some smoky ethereal substance that is there but not quantifiable. And even hardly defined or easily given to defining qualitatively as to its nature. But he’s convinced it’s “there” (or here) and real. He may say or repeat with some convincing “God is spirit” in his assurance that God is indeed real but be very much at some loss when seeking to share “his reality” (the believer’s) with one he sees as caught up and bound by, or in, the constraints of materiality…that is, what is quantifiable, and qualitatively given to defining as to its nature. “It’s a gas, it’s a solid, it’s a liquid” and on and on with as many identities ascribable… an ion, an isotope an element, a molecule…etc…
We’ve even sort of established that people/persons as we can call them or know them…are all and only of this stuff…material.
Or have we? Really? Isn’t there at least a something more we might all agree to than all the compounds, chemicals, elements, minerals, atoms and molecules we call stuff…don’t we agree there’s a bit of something there that differentiates…and makes a person…a person? If “people” as we know them, persons as we know them, are already that hard to define while even “in” the material (Those molecules told me they were late for work because they had a flat tire)…well, how much more is it difficult to establish what is not of some material substance…as not only real, but of real person-hood? And even that which, or whom of, or by…all things we do see, touch, taste etc…have been made.
So, spirit? How do we even begin?
Maybe we needn’t for now. Let’s just go with what we say we know…or at least may have some common agreement about.
Even…space. (Even though we may find we have no agreement actually at all, about it)
Space. How is it described? Understood? Or better, how do you describe it? Is it to you (as is most superficially understood as by someone like me) that where no matter, no material “stuff” is? The absence of “stuff” makes a thing describable as space. But now we have made space a “thing”. Is it a material thing itself? Physicists could plainly argue with me if I tell them I have lots of empty space around my couch that can support the presence of end tables and a coffee table without cluttering the room…the “space”.
“Empty! Did you say empty? It’s filled with atoms/molecules of air, dust of various compounds, and the like. Oh, no, it is far from empty.” So already our imaginations of “what is” (of most common use by us) and true definitions are in conflict. “No”, he might say…”though I do understand what you mean, true space…or “empty” space is entirely something different.”
I might ask, “What then is space as truly defined?” (Physicists feel free to weigh in!)
Were he/she to realize the depths of my ignorance in commonly thinking of how things are in comparison to how they truly are, no doubt they’d have to prepare several books of explanations. They might even, if so disposed, include an analogy to disabuse my conception of an atom. Telling me that if a hydrogen atom’s nucleus (of one proton) were enlarged to the size of a golf ball (43mm) its sole electron (or the electron cloud) would be in motion/orbit around it over 1,200 meters away from it. Making the “whole” atom over 2400 meters (about 4 miles) across, or in diameter as of a sphere. With its one proton at center.
Comparatively…that’s a lot of “empty” space between the nucleus and the electron, and the atom itself must now be envisioned, if true to scale, quite differently than most commonly accepted. There’s a lot of “bigness” to it actually, relative to the sizes and positions of its constituents in their relationship. And we are told these “discrete” things are what make up all of what we call matter…no matter their state (liquid, gas, “solid”) in whatever temperature is ambient. Water in a freezer is different than in your bath. Or over your boiling pot of spaghetti…whose wisps are seen swirling and ascending as vapor (gas).
I can’t even touch upon matters of forces here, it may be enough to just stick to our ideas and conceptions about matter, what it is, and space (what it is) if truly it is an “opposite” so to speak, in some absolute definition as the absence of any matter…or so called “hard stuff”. And it’s not that I can’t make reference to electro magnetic forces, gravity, even such things as antimatter, dark energy (LOL, even degenerate matter), some of which seem more appropriate to some better definition of true opposite(s); but any mention beyond just their terms are all things of which I am more than abysmally ignorant. It’s enough I just be normally ignorant about this stuff we deal with constantly. And on a certain level of understanding (matter and space) as being enough different from our conceptions informed by our senses that what we have in mind when thinking of it, or speaking in certain terms of it, is vastly different as to its real existence.
And it’s not that there is a pitch being made about how, in one sense, what we would describe as just the material universe has so much weirdness about it when first encountering all the stuff going on (and present) in it that most everything about what we think we know in our daily pursuits can, or has to be adjusted. If you doubt that take a look at some scholarly articles about the stuff mentioned above. To say “things ain’t what they seem” is an embarrassing understatement a fool like me might make.
Nor is it to make a pitch that so called spiritual stuff can be drawn as parallel. As though if we are (or were) so far off the mark about the “stuff” of stuff of which we think we know…why not also make room for the spiritual as being something akin to that, also.
But if there is any point to be made it is far more to do with how conceptions of things as opposed to the reality of things is often not merely not understood, but actually in opposition to…”how things are”. My mind tells me I am touching the table and I conceive of things being a certain way according to those perceptions. When in reality (and on a certain level) there’s a huge amount of space between the thing I identify as the “me” and the table.
Now, the physicist might say “well, that is what we call touching the table, it’s always been that way, but again and on a certain level…”
“On a certain level” however is the where of where all the stuff is really taking place. Really…is. What I think of, conceive of as in these matters of touch, sight, etc…are so vastly different in the reality of what is taking place that something has to give. And so with matter of “space” and well, matter…even as to their being (in my mind) somewhat opposing or opposites in nature. Or of their nature…opposites. For if all the matter (or all matter) is made up of these atomic constituents, the atom itself “holds” a lot of space in it. Now my mind gets bent a bit…for the “hard stuff” is made up of stuff in which space is no less a constituent. So on the level at which I once held space and matter as being opposite…something has to give. The matter has actually, mostly space inclusions.
Elsewhere I had written briefly about Lord Rutherford…the so called father of nuclear physics. And how, when discovering just how much space is constituent to things he once assumed (at least) more “solid” he was afraid to get out of bed for fear of falling through the floor. It was a terrifying discovery. Of course things had always “been this way”…but now that he knew it, saw it by experiment, the knowledge of it terrified him…as though knowing it now was enough to remove all previous faith/belief…even experience, in, and of, the floor’s support.
It’s kind of funny in one way, but in another…really not weird at all. For that is how “on a certain level” we all are. Our consciousness rebels at certain matters, and of such, fear is the only right product there, for fear of our being overturned in our consciousness…the very losing of ourselves to ourselves (for what is a man except what he is in his consciousness of himself?) to have himself as manifestly lost to himself…is terrifying. So he has to do something. And resistance to loss always tops the list. When we begin to see how naturally we operate according to this principle we might then ask is there any operating according to true principle of gain?
I said I wouldn’t even touch upon the spiritual or spiritual matters for any explanations for where would one even begin? Looks like I lied.
Suffice it to say…if me writing is “a me”, and you reading are a “you” and all and only is according to the matters of matters of this universe…even matter itself with all attendant properties that may be discovered, calculated to, extrapolated from with all technology (that aid “our” natural senses of detection) and cleverness of theories, theorems, hypothesis and conclusions…et al… and you are the “physical” and only material you that is the you of you…I am content to be found speaking to mostly…empty space. I’ll continue to speak into the space(s) in some hope (my my, where did that come from…this hope?) of their filling.
You are invited to do likewise (could you avoid it, anyway?) with “me”.
You see…in God there is a lot of room.
Even rooms.
Just no space.
Nor spaces.