In popular, material terms, everything is suspended between two-spatially determined ultimacies:

1. The “universe” – approaching one in number, approaching infinite in size. The universe comprises all space, material and energy.
2. The “atomic” unit (meaning literally a– ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’) – approaching infinite in number, approaching infinitesimal in size. Everything within the universe is composed of nothing but this one unit.

You can visualize this idea as an inverted cone, where the width is determined by the size of the unit, so that the universe, occupying the most space is at the top, and the “atom” (physic’s tiniest du jour) at the bottom. Or, alternatively, we can define the cone by the number of units and set the cone on its broad base and define the width by number of units, the (approximately) singular universe set on the top, and the (approximately) infinite atomic units at the base.

*

How can the universe approach one in number? Because it is less than one as long as some thing that exists has not actually been subsumed in it. The universe is conceptually one, but actually perpetually falls short of one in number.

How can the universe approach infinite size? Because as long as some thing has not been subsumed by the universe, the universe is not the universe. The universe is conceptually infinitely large, but actually perpetually falls short of infinite size.

How can an atomic unit approach infinite number? Two ways: 1) Until the universe is actually one, the unit count remains actually incomplete. 2) Each atomic unit candidate multiplies the number of actual atomic units. The number of atomic units is conceptually infinite in number, but actually perpetually falls short of infinite in number.

How can an atomic unit approach infinitessimal smallness? Because as long as any thing occupies space, it remains zenoically suspicious. The atomic unit is conceptually infinitessimal, but actually perpetually occupies divisible space.

*

I know physics has moved on from this conception of space, but I’m curious whether physicists have.

*

Lately, I’ve been pondering the significance of my Unitarian-Universalist upbringing. I needed to sketch out a meaning of that designation.

*
* REALLY CHANGING THE SUBJECT HERE *
*

Speaking of designations, I’ve also been interested in design as a practice of concrete design-ation. When you think about it this way, taxonomies are almost the essence of design, not an expansion of its scope.

Design – ORIGIN late Middle English (as a verb in the sense of to designate): from Latin designare ‘to designate,’ reinforced by French désigner. The noun is via French from Italian.

Of course, designation is a complex concept. A designation can assign many different kinds of significance, from a manner of existence (what is this entity? what do we call it?), to a use (what is its use?), to its status or value.