sently usable work may be Freud's two principles of Verdichtung and Verschiebung (condensation and displacement), readily transportable as technical tools outside the —already largely visualized—interpretation of dreams. The first significant attempts at systematic discussion seem then to have occurred parallel to Freud's opus and also in the German sphere at the hands ofSimmel, March, Minkowski, Carnap, and others. Without pretending to give a survey of their approaches, I shall use some of their insights paraphrased in a present-day terminology and as springboards for further approaches of my own. My first epistemic postulate or axiom is thai space is not neutral. A given type of space colours all relationships within its limits. True, Newton's famous definition of space says otherwise : Absolute [true, and mathematical] space, in its own nature and without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces: which our senses determine by its position -(with respect to other] bodies; and which is commonly taken for immovable [absolute] space.... [Newton 1 : 6] However, this supposedly neutral space of Newtonian physics (and individualist aesthetics] pre-existing to matter [and human relationships] is merely a particular ideological construct or literally Weltanschauung [world-view], which for historically important and limited reasons of its own, assigned a zero-quality to space, uniform whiteness [or greyness ?] to the colouring. This could be developed at length by a discussion of Newton's interest in optics, or of the privileging of geometric, indeed often two-dimensional constellations within Individualist aesthetics—from the Renaissance perspectivism and the proscenium stage to, e.g., the "eternal triangle" in erotics or the basic axis of individual vs. environment, transposed into dramaturgy as foreground vs. background (cf. Lukacs "Soziologie"]. If space is not neutral, it follows necessarily that it is not homogeneous but heterogeneous. Thus, the limits where various spaces meet and clash are of crucial importance. It might suffice to mention that limits in politics mean frontiers, in warfare front-lines, in aesthetics form (Bakhtin "Avtor" '76 and 81) in philosophy horizons, in mathematics lines, etc. Conversely and concurrently, only a limited space can be surveyed as a unity and therefore discussed at all. this quality ofsynopticity (Uebersichtlichkeit) or cognizability, understandability, is so necessary that, in order for change of position (Le. motion) to be discussed, even Newtonian or Cartesian—quantitative and infinite—space had to be delimited into bodies, relating by way of mysterious forces [cf. Newton's introduction of "relative space" in 1.1}. For qualitative space [equally in societal practice, human sciences, and in post-Einstcinian physics], limits are constitutive and essential [Lotman Structure 229-30 et passim}. Only a physical or imaginary delimitation, e.g. of aesthetic space in a framed painting, mural, or a book with beginning and end (which in this case indicate time-limits of read-July-September 1984