In Authentic Space: The Epistemology and Ontology of Relationships

As above so below and everywhere else in between…

	In this paper I wish to explore the general nature of relationships. 

Just over twenty years ago I was working on my “Ethics”, a book predicated on the notion that the philosophical study of the ethical was primarily based on a theoretical investigation of the general nature of relationships and how they came to be enriched and promoted, or, impoverished and demoted, in their particular circumstances, in this world. In this phenomenological research various techniques were sought that could assist us in the promotion of our relationships, or rather, allow relationships themselves to existentially promote themselves. This existentialization of the relational process being seen as a progressive realization of the authenticity of that relationship. Once more this theme of authenticity will be here re-examined.

For many years I have also had an interest in particle physics and astrophysics and will use these two fields as a distant backdrop towards which, and between, I will steer the direction of this paper. In theoretical physics, for most of the last century, we have had to confront this great problem, this great chasm gouged right through the center of this discipline, namely, how is it possible to unify on one hand the force of gravitation, and, on the other, the realms of the other three known fundamental forces in nature that currently appear to be integrated along the lines of a quantum mechanical type of descriptive calculus. 

Consensus seems to suggest that at the very beginning of the so call ‘big bang’ all forces were unified in one form but that when the temperature dropped successively and progressively all four forces, through phase changes, metaphorically precipitated out to lead their apparently separate and quite different lives. Having more or less integrated three of these forces on one hand and, apparently, having adequately described gravitation, the fourth and weakest fundamental force, there has been a desperation in physics to find the theoretical means for their total integration in a grand theory of the universe or Theory of Everything, or TOE, as would seem reasonable to believe from work done on a theoretical extrapolation back to the big bang. Einstein, himself, apparently spent over thirty years, unsuccessfully, on this task of trying to link the electromagnetic world of quantum mechanics with the gravitationally curved world of special relativity.

	In this paper I allude to concepts developed on both sides of this divide and from this frisson hope to further illuminate this field that looks at the general nature of relationships especially from the human, experiential point of view. From their mutual entanglement, hopefully, I will be able to unravel a few insights on this path towards unification, albeit from a more experiential, ethical, human perspective. These tasks will not be completed in this paper and as a work in progress it can only be evaluated by what merit can be gleaned by the way and I am hopeful readers of this paper will be able to help me to salvage what I can through the kind auspices of their criticism in this regard. 

	To begin let me briefly discuss an amorphous set of truisms that state, more or less, “that everything is related to everything else,” “that there is only one world” and that “there is only the One,” etc. In astrophysics we have the ‘problem of the horizon.’ The further we see back in space the further back in time we see at the same time. How could the universe see itself as ‘one entity’ if it takes billions of years for that information to cross from one side to the other and then only permits that information to travel no faster than the speed of light! Indeed, if the universe were to accelerate in this expansion, as I believe it does, with respect to everything else, then the horizon around any one part of the universe actually shrinks and less and less of the universe is actually beheld (even if retrospectively). Moreover, the continual(-ly accelerated) expansion of the universe accepted, there comes a time when the rest of the surrounding universe itself cannot be observed. Under these conditions how could the universe see, or act, or function, etc., as if an integrated entity? 

Now, I do not wish to discuss this type of problem at this juncture other than to note this related type of problem – how can we talk about a specific relationship if everything was related to everything else? I would like to propose the following solution, but, first, let us conduct this thought-experiment:

Imagine, as they do, that  the moon rotates around the earth and the earth rotates around the sun and the sun is moving through space on the edge of a rotating spiral galaxy with one of its nearest neighbours being Alpha Centauri, over four million light years away. What would happen if we found the moon suddenly shifted 1km from its present position? In re-establishing its relationship in this contre-temp the earth would no doubt be severely shaken, tides would get out of synchronization with each other, earthquakes would be triggered along with volcanic eruptions and a host of other catastrophes. With regard to the sun, solar prominences might be more in number and greater in magnitude. As far as Alpha Centauri is concerned, for all relevant purposes, it would not have noticed such a dislocation in the orbit of our humble moon. 

Hence from this thought-experiment we might like to state “that a particular relationship is entered into by a specific set of participants when small changes in the relative state of any one of those true participants results in greater or noticeable changes in the other participants in that relationship by virtue of their interaction with that changed party.” In other words, put more simply, participating ‘participants’ in a relationship can be seen interacting with each other and influencing the expression of that relationship.

What else can we conclude from this thought-experiment? 

	That a relationship is subject to change by virtue of the change of its participating parties, and, that this differential in the rate of that change establishes, if only potentially, the relevant parties participating in that relationship. That this change, and all differential changes in that change, are shared among those parties in that relationship as ‘information.’ That this sharing of information in effect establishes the integrity of that relationship because changes in that relationship are experienced through out the relevant ‘space’ of that relationship.

	How is this information exchanged? How is this information shared? How is the integrity of the relationship re-integrated through this mechanism of exchange?

	Through a number of thought-experiments let me outline my solution to this type of problem:

	Imagine we have just left our car parked out on the street in the city. We point our car-alarm activating device, the car goes, “beep, beep,” and we assume that it is now electronically ‘alarmed.’ What exactly has happened, in lay-person terms?

	Photons are emitted by our device and received and registered by the car alarm, activating that alarm or de-activating that alarm. That alarm essentially has two states – the alarm activated and the alarm not activated. Photons are transmitted switching that alarm between those two states. It is our intention to switch between these two states of that alarm and by the transmission of those photons this intention is put into effect.

	Now shining a torch at this car does not put this change of state into play. Nor, hopefully, the use of someone else’s remote control. Those photons, as a type of ‘key’ have to be correctly patterned in such a manner that they can be recognized by that electronic alarm. In a sense information is carried by those photons because the alarm has been preset to recognize that pattern of information and that pattern of information only. Moreover, that information cannot be reduced to the mere presence of photons as the emission of other remote controls do not usually put this change of state into play. The presence of photons per se being a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of this relational change in state.

	In a sense we might like to say that the ‘textual’ key is matched in its preset meta-textual ‘lock,’ and, that only in this match between the ‘material nature’ of the text and the meta-textual ‘field’ is this information registered. In a sense the material nature of the transmitted text is patterned and this pattern is registered and ‘recognized’ by the meta-textual nature of that field. In previous papers by ‘meta-text’ was meant ‘those genre rules for reading a specific style of text,’ ‘those sections of text in the text which primarily comment on the text’ and ‘a certain field (higher in meta-status by one degree) where the relevant text can be registered or appreciated.’ And by ‘text’ has been meant, in the broadest sense, ‘an intentional inscription upon the fabric of the world.’

	Some philosophers, self included, would argue that all phenomenal interaction in a relationship is a two-way process, i.e., reciprocated, and, multi-modal, asymmetric, non-commutative (in the sense that the original state of the relationship cannot be re-realized through a reversal of those relational processes).

	We activate the alarm and the car signals, through the simultaneous activation of its horn and turning its lights on and off, that this process has ostensively been put into effect. Even if that horn doesn’t beep and those lights don’t blink we can test our belief that the car’s alarm has been most probably activated, if we believe it has been activated, by interfering with that car in such a manner as to trigger that alarm.

	In this thought experiment we can also recognize the fact that a reciprocity of information is not in an equivalent format. We activate the car alarm, and the car tells us that this is the case by beeping its horn and blinking its lights.

	Let us envisage the following thought-experiment to check, reinforce and further our understanding into the nature of reciprocity in the transfer of information, the nature of exchange mechanisms in general.

	Let us say we have two tennis players and they have just finished a game together. The winner comes across to the loser and shakes their hand. What has taken place here?

	The winner extends their hand and the looser, understanding the nature of the gesture, extends their hand too (unless for some reason or other they do not wish to participate in this ritual). They grasp. The handshake would not be a ‘handshake’ if the second party did not know what was meta-textually expected of them. By convention we extend our hand when we recognize someone else is extending their hand to us in the (expected) exercise of this gesture. Even a senile person, in our culture, will shake your hand if you extend a hand towards them, but, it may well be the case that they do not know why this was being done. This element of reciprocity could be analyzed to say that in the context of the tennis game information is being exchanged to this effect that both parties now see a change in their relationship; that they are no longer playing a game of tennis; a winner (or draw) has been declared and this fact is also being accepted by both parties; that it is also considered sportsmanlike for the looser to congratulate the winner and for the winner to appear gracious in their victory (unless they are of such a nature so as to use the occasion to lord/laud it over the other person for some reason or other). 

	Essentially a change in the nature of the relationship has occurred and this is signaled through the use of the handshake. There has been an exchange of information, but nothing physical itself has been exchanged. Although contact has been made that need not necessarily be the case as in some cultures, e.g, Indian and Chinese, other forms of signaling have been adopted where physical contact is not made but which serve the same purpose. Hence we might conclude that in the reciprocity of a relationship exchange mechanisms, gift-giving (in the interpersonal context) need not be conducted in relatively textual terms of reference but that the transformation of the relationship is expressed and recognized through a transfer of information. Indeed, moreover, these reputed transfers of information should not be presented as identical or equivalent unless an end of the relationship is being signaled. Let me explain this through the use of the next thought-experiment.

	The plumber has just fixed a leaking tap and the kitchen is now no longer being flooded. As far as the plumber is concerned it is now time to leave. They expect to be paid. The bill is presented and you give them some monopoly money, or a piece of fruit, or anything else other than what is expected by the plumber. Your relationship with the plumber will not now come to an end under these circumstances! When equal or equivalent gifts, services and/or obligations are traded the end of the relationship is then signaled and then put into effect. And in this case the plumber would then leave. If you like the way they did the task and/or the trouble taken in order to quickly attend to this problem of the tap, a tip might be proffered. We could read this re-introduced inequality in the balance sheet of this relationship to imply, on one hand, that in some sense the plumber’s service has been especially appreciated, and on the other, that he may have been put under some form of a new obligation, an obligation to remember this particular customer should that customer need to avail themselves of the services of the plumber once again. In a sense leaving the relationship as ‘open’ and ‘alive or dormant’ rather than ‘closed’ and ‘dead.’

	What can we conclude from this thought-experiment? Two things I believe, namely, that exchange mechanisms can not involve the reciprocal transfer of the same type of information-transfer, and, an ongoing relationship necessarily involves an ongoing inequality in equivalent informational transfers between the parties of that relationship whilst that relationship is effectively in existence. We can also conclude that the transfer of information is also symbolic of the transformation of that relationship, in many ways the exchange mechanism adopted is symbolic of the very nature of that relationship. To put it metaphorically I would say the nature of the reciprocity between the parties is an ‘essential snap shot’ of that relationship at that moment in time. So when our tennis players trade a tennis ball over the net they are playing tennis and when one proffers a hand in the gesture of a handshake they are no longer playing tennis, etc.

	Let me now look more closely at this concept of ‘the exchange mechanism.’

	In the following thought-experiment let us look more closely at our use of metaphor. 

	Imagine a soccer ball has been placed on the flat top of a brick fence half-way up a steep street by some kids. Gravity is acting on the ball but because of its position it cannot for the moment roll down the street. Now, let us say a breeze knocks that ball off that fence and it now rolls down the hill. All very simple. How do we explain that phenomenon of the ball rolling down that street? I guess that is not so simple!

	Metaphorically we might like to say, following ideas promoted by Einstein, that, through the curvature of space-time, gravity has hollowed that space-time fabric and the nature of the ball is such that when it can it falls into that hollow. So instead of falling down a hill in a literal sense we might like to say instead, in terms of the gravitational curvature on the space-time continuum, the ball merely falls into a hollow in that curvature of space-time. Have we merely traded a literal frame of reference for a metaphorical one? Do we stand to gain in this transformation of our understanding?

	In this metaphorical frame of reference we might like to say that in some sense lines of gravitational force cancel and in the process create a hollow that attracts the falling of that ball into its more deeper recesses. On the other hand, repulsion, e.g., between similar magnetic poles, can be seen as the addition of these lines of force in such a manner as to create a metaphorical hill which ensures the appropriate objects placed thereupon are more inclined to roll down that hill away from its metaphorical summit. In a certain sense we are asking that that object ‘read’ those ‘contours’ and ‘realize’ that there is a certain differential that inclines that object to ‘roll’ in a certain direction. Now it stands to reason, I believe, that for an object to experience that differential across the surface of that object it must be limited in extent but not infinitely small, i.e., without volume (as a ‘simple’ in some form or other). In its relational space it must be able to read that differential across the metaphorical ‘face’ of itself as an object or subject forced to move therein. You might object that the field in its ‘flowing’ effectively establishes that differential for us but we must realize that for the field to be there in the first place we must not divide the (meta-textual) nature of that field from what (textually) instantiates that field in the first place. So, if there is a flow in that field it is because there is this differential across the entire face of that object experiencing that differential or flow because the interaction of that object being in that field (of objects) establishes the specific nature of that field in the first place. Implied in such an understanding is that the presence of an object cannot be absolutely point-like with the consequence that strings, rings, membranes and skins, etc., have a part to play in the metaphorical description of those fleeting phantasms of the microcosmic world and upon which, in order to be ‘seen,’ huge sums of money have been spent, and in my opinion, well spent.

	One conclusion I would like to derive from the above analysis is that each relationship has its own ‘space’ (defined by those exchanged mechanisms in operation therein) and that each participant shares in some of that ‘space’ regardless of the nature of that space and whether that space is virtual or non-virtual, etc. Hence this special sense attached to this world ‘space’ as entailed, e.g., in the title of this paper. Although the use of this word is clearly context dependent I will continue to surround it with inverted commas.

	I shall now offer this provisional observation: that both simple and complex relationships involve a complexity in their exchange mechanisms. In human interaction, e.g., there is often a complexity of interaction occurring and it behooves us to note this complexity and respond authentically in that type of situation. But first, before I examine this concept of authenticity, let me look at this multi-modal complexity exchanged in a relationship from the perspective of a human relationship.

	Although gift-giving is a prominent form of reciprocity in a human relationship the exchange of gifts is always accompanied by a trade in obligations and these processes of transfer themselves are embedded in a complex framework of exchange. Basically, how does this multi-modal complexity work?

	When human beings interact they use their bodies; their facial expressions; their voices; miscellaneous conventionally understood gestures; they trade gifts, services and obligations, etc. All these modes are, in a sense, each individually given a value by these parties, individually or collectively, before, during or after these transactions. Then these modal values are interpreted collectively as either reinforcing or deconstructing the overall understanding of the information being traded; this information itself, more or less, expressing shifts in the meaning and nature of that current relationship (in turn reflecting, directly or indirectly, transformational changes in the fabric of the space-time conituum). These modes of value being embraced by various systems of meta-textual genre expectations which collate these otherwise disparate types of information. E.g., when I say “I like you” and I am found ‘smiling at you’ you would more likely believe me than if I were to say the same and ‘glared at you with my teeth clenched.’ So, in a sense, there is some form of a calculus at work that can compute the total effect of that information despite the complexity in the nature of its modal presentation. Similarly, in the confines of conversation we find the same rules at work. In a sense conversation is traded in keeping with the current nature of that relationship. To begin with the desire by one or other of the parties to enter into converse is signaled. That desire is noted and permission is then granted or not granted. If we are allowed to continue bits of information are shared. Usually, moment to moment, more information is traded than just given – otherwise in a state of equality the conversation slows down, and, in reaching a state where no more information is being traded the relationship in that current state comes to an end. Normally, disengagement is signaled though. And the parties then disengage mutually.

	It is as if transformational rules, embedded in a calculus, are in place that allow the interpreter of this information to come to some form of an overall understanding of what is being apparently entertained by those parties. I believe this type of task operates in a harmonic field wherein the dissonance of an introduced ‘text’ is inserted into it’s relatively consonant meta-textual(-like) field and in a process of harmonization or resolution that information finds some degree of appreciation, that in turn, as a consequence of this recognition, some form of a response can then be entered into with the relevant parties. Let me put this another way. Engagement is initiated. Genre(s) are indicated through the meta-textual nature of the engaged field. Dissonant textual content is registered in such a manner through processes of attempted resolution so as to reinforce those genre expectations or otherwise. Normally, expectations are met and the otherwise bewildering adoption of a number of informational channels are found merely to reinforce those expectations. It is a fact, despite this multi-modal complexity in each human relationship, that human interactions are usually read without too much difficulty by members with the same cultural background or of a similar cultural background. Later, when I examine the concept of interpersonal authenticity I will argue along the same lines that our overall relationship with our individual relationships is also entertained in a similar fashion and that, in turn, this greater complexity is managed and integrated through the same type of harmonic calculus. Let me now examine this concept of ‘interpersonal authenticity.’ Let us entertain the following thought-experiment.

	When we say a certain painting is authentic what do we usually mean? Assuming it is signed we presume that the signature is, in fact, an indicator of the artist that painted that picture. In a sense meta-textual expectations in this regard are met, namely, in the convention of a signature on a painting, that a signature is authentically that of the artist when it is of that artist, that that person was basically instrumental in the creation of that work of art. But what happens when a well-known and a well-respected artist merely paints a white surface and then applies their signature to it – is that equally an authentic work of art? Authenticity in the art-world is more than just the artist applying a signature to something ‘crafted’ by themselves, there is also the expectation that the artist is indeed ‘being an artist’ in the execution of their artwork and that that artwork is indeed a work of art (in what ever fashion that might be defined or re-defined). This is not to knock a minimalist artist who sincerely composes a work in one particular colour but enriches it by other devices such as texture, text, etc.

	In a sense interpersonal authenticity could be provisionally defined (in the context of the last thought-experiment) as when a state is in conformity with itself, and, its textual deposition equally reflects this state of coincidence (in its actualized potentiality). Basically, when someone is in conformity with their deepest intentional nature. In the light of this last example, we might say authenticity is expressed and can be read when the painter creatively engages in the act of painting a picture, and, that picture’s signature or apparent provenance truly reflects its actual authorship. How is authenticity engaged and how can it be adequately appreciated? To address these issues let me introduce another thought-experiment.

	Two people are observed courting each other and a third party is watching. The first two parties are in a relationship with each other. The third party is, obviously, not a participant in this relationship, but, as an observer of this couple, is, at the same time, in some form of a relationship with them. Whether the couple may have seen this person watching them or not the third party only has an indirect relationship with the first relationship. 

Here we have two quite different types of relationship. In the first relationship the two people have an internal-like understanding of ‘their’ relationship by virtue of their participating in it along with all its processes of exchange, etc. On the other hand although in an act of relation with this couple this third party is not directly privy to the internality of that first relationship and to this extent has a relatively external appreciation of it. They can see that the first two parties are courting and so knows to some extent the nature of their relationship so this dichotomy between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ is not an absolute one. But such knowledge is indirect. For all we know this couple might be posing as ‘a couple in order to spy on a nearby military complex’ or ‘so acting’ for some other reason. If their relationship is a mutual one, and both parties are therefore in conformity with the apparent nature of their engagment in this relationship, then they, and only they, must truly know directly the nature of their relationship; a knowing quite different in nature and in manner to that had by the external observer of their relationship. 

I am now going to argue that in being authentic we must metaphorically ‘stand’ within this inner sense of relational ‘space’ and in the process at the same time also purport ourselves in a certain manner within that shared world from an ‘external’ point of view.

Let me continue with this last thought experiment and ask ourselves what would happen if we interpreted this advice short-sightedly in the following fashion. What would happen if our courting couple decided to devote themselves purely and simply to their loving relationship and their loving relationship alone? Their absolute devotion to their relationship would, undoubtedly, be at the expense of all other relationships both necessary and incidental for their adequate survival and fruitful functioning within this complex world of life. So, obviously, centering ourselves within the ambit of a particular relationship, or even a set of relationships, by itself cannot be sufficient a condition for being authentic and being able to survive to tell the tale. Hence my rider ‘and in the process at the same time also purport ourselves in a certain manner within that shared world…’ needs to be properly unpacked in order to expose what also needs to be meant in order to understand what it means to be entering realistically into our relationships authentically.

	For a start some sort of balance between a particular relationship (or set of relationships) and all our other relationships needs to be adequately and appropriately entertained. And a mechanism to handle this type of complexity is already to hand if we can accept and understand that the same mechanism that reads the complexity of our multi-modal exchange interactions could also be used to read the complex interactive nature entertained between our relationships. That granted what would need to be entailed in such a mechanism that would allow us to be authentic and whose appreciation might allow us to become more authentic in the manner of how we purport ourselves in this world of life. In essence what would assist us in realizing our conformity with our potential integrity in the interplay of our current relationships?

	To some extent we must already be in some degree of conformity with the nature of our current relationships in order to be able to navigate such territory. Therefore, the nature of this task is more a matter of degree, a matter of the metaphorical purification, enrichment and development of the overall nature, and natures, of these relationships considered from a collective and integrated point of view. Moreover, most of this work has already been done for us in the pre-establishment of our (meta-)meta-textual genre expectations in regard to how we are meant to function within and between our relationships. Recognition of the various ‘types’ of relationships we have already entered into means that we are already privy to a degree of information that will assist us in our functioning within and between those relationships. What is to be sought here is essentially a refinement of what is already in place. Otherwise, our ethical passage through the world would be in a complete state of chaos, an existential nightmare, whereas the apparent chaos in our lives is considerably patterned and successfully pre-ordered in its expected responses available for adoption by us. For all purposes, normally, we need only re-arbitrate the current unknown ‘edges’ of our moral universe rather than its more central, fundamental ‘ground’ although paradigm shifts, etc., do cause the odd earthquake for us from time to time. But then this ‘shifting of the ground beneath us’ is still rather superficial in this overall scheme of things.

	How do we go about this process of conforming more authentically within and between our relationships? I believe this process is facilitated by our better understanding the essential nature of those relationships, and, by developing and placing ourselves in a state of balance within and between the same, in effect, entertaining them in and through the auspices of a transcendental suspension. In a transcendental suspension through a transcendental reduction we come to an appreciation of the essence of that under examination. Through the transcendental suspension an act of balance is naturally entered into. And through acts of transcendental reconstitution an overall appreciation of the complexities of the phenomenon or phenomena under review become better appreciated from a holistic point of view.
	
	Philosophically, there is a great deal of difficulty that needs to be met here as different schools of interpretation try to batter and knock over each others’ interpretations and arguments on this subject and other topics. Different ways of coming to a phenomenon, different forms of appreciation or prejudice (as forms of pre-judgment), are necessary in order to come to the examination of a certain phenomenon but that examination itself is then furthered by transcendental methods (centered in the suspension of those pre-judices). I not arguing for something mysterious or religious here (although the fact that we can do such complex acts of reflection is truly amazing in itself)! Neither am I insisting that all layfolk should become philosophers! Heavens forbid! Rather, I would like people to understand me when I say that these types of transcendental manoeuvres are conducted every second of the day by the very consciousness of an individual whenever they enter into acts of judgment, appear to make decisions and respond within this world of life. In this light philosophical appreciation and/or an intuitive appreciation of this matter should assist us merely in a refinement in the exercise of our transcendental powers!

	Fundamentally, in our transcendental reflection upon our relationships we need to maintain and exercise a balanced transcendental perspective on those relationships. To do that we need to immanently enter our relationships metaphorically and then at the same time transcendently ‘stand outside’ them; and that all relevant relationships essentially influenced by that relationship under focus also need to be entertained in a similar fashion with this complexity itself subjected likewise to the same balanced sense of a transcendental perspective. Therein this complexity resolves itself for us and in this sense of harmonic resolution, hopefully, this integrity can then ‘speak to us,’ find itself self-organized to that extent that appropriate responses then spontaneously, and relatively effortlessly, flow from that ‘integrated act of calculus.’ It being our desire that this intuitive act of synthesis itself, hopefully, be in an adequate degree of conformity with the very nature of that under examination.

	What do I mean by ‘self-organization?’ Let us entertain the following thought-experiment.

	Imagine a bucket full of sand is slowly poured onto the very top of a small but growing mound of sand. Every so often various chunks on the sides of that mound suddenly collapse. Each time the sand is re-added the walls of that mound appear to re-gain that same degree of inclination and, unpredictably in time and in extent, chunks on those sides suddenly ‘decide’ to collectively collapse in turn. The simultaneous collapse of more than just a few individual grains of sand down the sides of that mound appears to be a self-organizing phenomenon. I would like to argue that in a similar fashion the phenomenon of harmonic resolution effects a similar state of affairs (both ontologically {from a textual perspective} and epistemologically {from a meta-textual perspective}). That in essence the intentional integrity of feelings, perceptions, thoughts judgments and responses, in their appreciation of the life-world, is self-organized in complexion and the result of self-organizing processes.

	This concept of self-organization also gives us a way of overcoming, to some extent, the ‘problem of the horizon,’ previously alluded to, wherein the universe’s apparent integrity can be theoretically undermined by the vast extent of that relational ‘space’ as ‘expressed’ within or ‘impressed’ upon that space-time continuum. By no means of the imagination, merely given the speed of light as a limiting condition, could the universe appear to engage itself simultaneously over vast distances non-locally. On the other hand, given that the essential nature of the universe is already in play then acts of apparently simultaneous self-organization could come into existence without the flow of information to that effect having to cross the vast ‘face’ of that relational ‘space’ in ‘real’ time. The fractal-like re-emergence, repetition and linking of common recurring structures throughout the observable space of the physical universe would appear to indicate that the universe itself can overcome this ‘problem of the horizon’ and from every point within its inner self-relationship, though processes of self-organization, find a simulated re-expression of itself; if only from an essentially self-organized perspective or appearance?

	Does this perspective of self-organization have any theological ramifications if only theoretically and philosophically? On balance I do believe that we have here some grounds for a fruitful examination of this type of topic. Suffice to say, that, whereas in the past I would have said “the relationship of all relationships is the World” and the ‘World’ could be given a theological-like complexion, I would now be more inclined to say that “the world of the relationship of the relationship of all relationships is the World (with a large ‘W’) and leave open how this sense of the ‘World’ is to be interpreted (and whether the self-organized integrity of the world is merely being ‘simulated’ rather than ‘instantiated’ from a more integrated point of view). But I mention this by the way for those who might be interested in following up this avenue of philosophical research.

	To conclude I would like to say the following:

1.	Relationships are entered into through processes of exchange that are normally multi-modal, asymmetric and non-commutative during the apparent extent of those relationships.
2.	Those processes of exchange involve the transfer of information between all relevant parties, those transfers representing transformations in the nature of those relevant parties and the overall relationship itself which, in turn, is reflected, directly or indirectly, in the transformational changes in the space-time fabric.
3.	Purporting ourselves in conformity with the representative nature of those relationships (appropriately prioritized) is to increasingly authenticate the nature of our involvement therein. 
4.	That through the transcendental clarification of our transcendental reflections we authentically arbitrate our complex hierarchy of relationships in this world of life.
5.	That relational change is brought about through the harmonic resolution and self-organizing nature of relationships themselves.
6.	That in principle the nature of all relationships, regardless of whether they are ontologically oriented phenomenally or epistemologically oriented phenomenologically, operates with the same type of fundamental nature regardless of the specific nature of a particular relationship.

Lastly, I mentioned in the introduction that this paper was steered against and between the distant backdrop of the microcosmic and the macrocosmic, between this chasm of the quantum-like descriptions given to the electromagnetic, the weak and strong forces, on one hand, and the very weak nature of gravity, on the other. I would argue that the integration of these four fundamental forces should be facilitated through a deeper understanding of the nature of relationships, and, that that in turn will cause us to profoundly re-evaluate the nature of our world and our place within this world-of-life. No doubt, I suspect, new forms of mathematical representation will have to be called into being in order for us mere mortals to adequately grasp the significance of this new way of seeing the world, a method, however, that cannot be used to reduce the meaning and meaningfulness of the richness and diversity of the lifeworld in all its manifold variety!

	The title of this paper alludes to the fact that all relationships are to some extent ‘in conformity with their own nature’ and hence to that degree are in authentic ‘space.’ But the cultivation of our relationships demands an existentialization of our relationships lest through a loss of transcendental perspective they move us into a relatively ‘inauthentic space.’ I would like to suggest that this ‘cultivation’ is done for us by our relationships when we are receptive enough to hear what they have to say and we are able enough to let them blossom in the fullness of their own time and in their own manner, in a sense our being merely gardeners in this world. Ourselves only being able to give to these ‘plants’ what they need and taking away from them what prevents them from flourishing. Hopefully, through such insightfulness, we will find the ways and means to help ourselves to live more successfully and more authentically with each other in this one world-of-life -this harmonically self-organized, beautiful life-world that simultaneously embraces us as both spectators and actors in our-being-in-this-world….

						           Noël Tointon, Sydney, 6.4.00.