Already men are beginning to see a new light. Already they are beginning to take a new view of space in general. The departure is especially noticeable in the attitude assumed by Hiram M. Stanley.[13] He says:
"If we seek the most satisfactory understanding of space we shall look neither to mathematics nor Psychology but to Physics. The trend of Physics, say with such a representative as Ostwald, is to make things the expression of force; the constitution and appearance of things are determined by dynamism; and we may best interpret space as a mode of this dynamic appearance."
Space, as a mode of dynamic appearance is a slight improvement upon the old idea of a pure vacuity; for in the light of what we now know about space content much of the dignity of that view has been lost. Men now know that space is not an empty void. They know that the atmosphere fills a great deal of space. They also have extended their conception in this direction to include the ether and occultism goes further and postulates four kinds of ether—the chemical, life, light and psychographic ethers. But it does not stop here. It postulates a series of grades of finer matter than the physical which fills space and permeates its entire extent even to identification with its essential nature.
Stanley continues:
"Everything does not, as commonly conceived, fall into some pre-existent space convenient for it; but everything makes its own spaciousness by its own defensive and offensive force, and the totality of all appearance is space in general."
According to Stanley, not only do physical, perceptual objects, by their "offensive and defensive force" make their own space but the appearance of that in which no physical object is makes room for itself by its own dynamic force. In other words, that which we call "pure extensity" is by virtue of its dynamism the cause of its own existence.
At first hand there appears to be little worthy of serious consideration in this view of Stanley; yet, if carried to its logical conclusion, the merit of the hypothesis becomes apparent. Accordingly, interstellar distances which are commonly said to be even without air or life of any kind are really an appearance possessed of a dynamism peculiar to itself. And this very force-appearance, constituting space, is that which makes it perceivable. For instance, let us say the space that exists between the earth and the moon, is not really empty nor does it have an existence prior to itself, but is a mode of dynamic appearance which is the cause of its own existence. Its dynamic character makes it to appear perceptible to our senses. Logically, if the dynamism were removed there would remain neither space nor the appearance of space. If this were true, and it is worthy of serious thought, then space is certainly finite, as in its totality, according to Stanley's view, it would have to be regarded as a "phenomenon of the inner and finite life of the infinite."
It is believed that we may go a step further and unqualifiedly assert that space is finite, even denying its infinity as a "general mode of the activity of the whole." Yet it is transfinite in the sense that it transcends the comprehension of finite minds or processes. It is finite because it is in manifestation. Everything that is in manifestation is finite. The infinite is not in manifestation. Infinity has to be limited always to become manifest. The Deity has limited His being in order that there may be a manifested universe. All things, all appearances are finite; because they are phenomena connected with manifestation.
This question may be viewed from another standpoint. All things in manifestation or existence are polar in their constitution. For instance: there cannot be a "here" without a "there." There cannot be an "upper" without a "lower." Right is copolar with wrong; good is copolar with evil; night with day; manifestation with non-manifestation; truth with falsity; infinity with finity and so on, throughout the whole gamut of the pairs of opposites. What is the logical inference? Space is paired with a lack of space. There cannot be what we call space without there being at the same time the possibility, at least, of the lack of space or spacelessness. This is a conclusion that is rigorously logical and incontrovertible.
But it has been urged that it is impossible for the mind to imagine a condition where there is no space. It even has been asserted that it is contrary to the constitution of the mind itself to imagine "no space." But whether imaginable or not has no effect whatever upon the validity of the conception. Neither, it is said, can we imagine a fourth dimension but the mind has come dangerously near to imagining it. The distance from excogitating upon, discussing and describing the properties of four-space to imagining it is not so great after all. Truly it is difficult indeed, it seems, to be able to describe a thing yet not be able to imagine or make a mental image of it. There is an evident fallacy here. Either the description of four-space is no description at all or it is a true delineation of an idealized construction which is well within the mind's powers of imagination. Indeed the question of imaginability is not determinative in itself; for what the mind may now be unable to imagine, because of its more or less nebulous character, and owing to its infancy may in the course of time be easily accomplished.