Thus, not only from the physical point of view, but also even from the geometrical point of view, as has been shown, ‘qualified’ space is actually the real space; indeed homogeneous space has properly speaking no existence at all, being nothing more than a mere virtuality. In order that it may be measured — and this means, according to the explanations given, in order to be effectively realized — space must necessarily be related to an assemblage of defined directions. These directions moreover present themselves to us as radii emanating from a center, which thus becomes the center of a three-dimensional cross, and it is unnecessary again to call attention to the important part played by these radii in the symbolism of all traditional forms.[21] It may not perhaps be too much to suggest that if the study of the directions of space could be restored to its rightful position of importance, it might become possible to restore to geometry at least a considerable part of the profound meaning that it has lost; but it is of no use to pretend that the work involved might not have to be spread over a very wide field; this will be apparent to anyone who reflects on the extent of the real influence exerted by such considerations on every aspect of the constitution of traditional societies.[22]
Space, as well as time, is one of the conditions defining corporeal existence, but these conditions are not themselves ‘matter’, or rather, not themselves quantity, though they accommodate themselves naturally to quantity; they are less ‘substantial’ than it and so nearer to essence, which implies the existence in them of a qualitative aspect; we have seen that such is the case with space, and will shortly see that it is so with time as well. Before passing on to consider time, however, it may be pointed out that the inexistence of an ‘empty space’ is enough to expose the absurdity of one of Kant’s too famous cosmological antinomies: to ask ‘whether the world is infinite or whether it is limited within space’ is a question that has absolutely, no meaning. Space cannot possibly extend beyond the world in order to contain it, because an empty space would then be in question, and emptiness cannot contain anything: on the contrary, it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation, and if consideration be confined to the domain of corporeal manifestation alone, it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions; but this world is no more infinite than is space itself, for, like space, it does not contain every possibility, but only represents a certain particular order of possibilities, and it is limited by the determinations that constitute its very nature. Similarly, in order to avoid having to return to the point, it is worth saying here that it is no less absurd to wonder ‘whether the world is eternal or whether it had a beginning in time’; for closely comparable reasons the truth is that time began in the world, whenever universal manifestation is concerned, or with the world, when corporeal manifestation alone is concerned. But the world is not therefore eternal, for there are beginnings outside time; the world is not eternal because it is contingent, in other words, it has a beginning as well as an end because it is not itself its own principle, or because it does not contain its principle in itself, that principle being necessarily transcendent with respect to it. There is no difficulty whatever in all this, but it implies that a considerable part of the speculations of modern philosophers arises out of questions wrongly posed and therefore insoluble and liable to give rise to indefinite discussion; the questions themselves evaporate entirely the moment they are examined without prejudice, and so are reduced to what they really are — mere products of the confusion characteristic of the mentality of today. The strange part of it is that this very confusion seems to have its own ‘logic’, since for several centuries, during which it has assumed many different forms, it has always tended in the same direction; but this ‘logic’ really resides in a conformity with the development of the human cycle, itself in turn the result of current cosmic conditions. This leads directly to considerations connected with the nature of time, and with what may be called, in opposition to the purely quantitative conceptions of the ‘mechanists’, the qualitative determinations of time.
5
The Qualitative Determinations of Time
If space is not pure quantity, time appears to be still less so: temporal magnitudes as well as spatial magnitudes can be spoken of, and in both cases continuous quantity is involved (for there is no occasion to pause to consider the strange conception of Descartes, according to which time is constituted of a series of discontinuous instants, so that it becomes necessary to assume a constant repetition of the act of ‘creation’, the world otherwise always vanishing away during the intervals of temporal discontinuity); nevertheless, there is a big distinction to be made between the two cases, arising from a fact to which attention has already been called, namely that space can be measured directly, whereas time can only be measured by relating it back in some way to space. What is measured is never really a duration, it is the space covered in a certain length of time in the course of a movement of which the law is known; and as any such law expresses a relation between time and space, it is possible, when the amount of the space covered is known, to deduce therefrom the amount of time occupied in covering it; and whatever may be the artifices employed, there is actually no other way than this whereby temporal magnitudes can be determined.
Another observation leading to the same conclusion is the following: the only phenomena that are situated in space as well as in time are those that are properly called corporeal; phenomena belonging to the mental order, such as are studied by ‘psychology’ in the ordinary sense of the word, have no spatial character, though, like other phenomena, they are developed in time; and the mental, since it belongs to subtle manifestation, is, within the individual domain, necessarily nearer to essence than is the corporeal; the nature of time thus being such that it can reach into the subtle domain and therein condition mental manifestations, the conclusion must be that the nature of time is more qualitative than that of space. While on the subject of mental phenomena, it may be added that, once they are seen to be akin to that which represents essence in the individual, it is quite useless to look for quantitative elements in them, and it is still more useless to try to reduce them to quantity; the things which the ‘psycho-physiologists’ determine quantitatively are not really in themselves mental phenomena, as is imagined, but only some of their corporeal concomitants; in such investigations there is nothing that comes anywhere near to contact with the intrinsic nature of the mental, and so nothing that can explain it in the smallest degree; the absurd idea of a quantitative psychology surely represents the fullest development of the modern ‘scientistic’ aberration.
21
For a full treatment of this theme, reference may be made to the considerations set out, and fully developed, in
22
Attention may be directed in particular to all questions of ritual related to ‘orientation’; this cannot be dwelt on here, and it need only be mentioned that not only are the conditions for the construction of buildings traditionally determined in this way, whether they be temples or houses, but also those for the foundation of cities. The orientation of churches is the last vestige of this that has persisted in the West up to the beginning of modern times, the last vestige, at least, from an ‘exterior’ point of view, for within the symbolism of initiatic forms considerations of this order, though not generally understood today, have always kept their place, even when the present degenerate condition of affairs has led to a belief that the maintenance of the effective realization of the implied conditions can be dispensed with, and that a purely ‘speculative’ representation of them is enough.