ingj, permits any picture of relationships to emerge anil to be played out within a given space. A limit divides what is felt as internal from external space. Further, the type of relationships consubstantial to any space will also significantly change at that limit, distinguishing its central vs. peripheral sectors. This immediately introduces, besides symmetric, the possibility of unsymmetric spatial subdivisions [e.g. triadic, cf. Levi-Strauss "Organisations"]. It means that many—most— spaces will be not only heterogeneous but also contradictory rather than simon-pure. They will be merely the field where a given quality predominates [cf. Wolfflin 20ff] over other qualities pressing upon it; thus, the specific, "singular" quality of many a space will be analyzable into an interaction of several elements vying for dominance. We need therefore a second axiom, which logically follows but also builds upon the first: no space exists in isolation : spaces are delimited yet interactive. The types of limitation are thus highly important ways to define the presentations of space. We can distinguish, first, 'one-camera' or monophonic presentation vs. a polyphonic presentation from various [agential and/or narratorialj points of view. Not identical but cognate to this is, in dramaturgy in particular, the distinction between a relatively closed form [Wolfflin, Eco "Poetics," Klotz, Suvin Brecht 56ff.] limited by explicit frames, such as the 19th-century wallpaper cube with one wall missing, and a relatively open form limited from within, by "polar" reference to one or more foci or pivots, such ^Mother Courage and Her Children's waggon or WaitingforGodot's falsely flowering tree in a blankness, which readily passes into the multiple spaces of a Mnouchkine or Ronconi. Second, the wide-ness vs. narrowness of the imaginatively delimited space, such as Mrs. Alving's attempt at moral spaciousness thwarted by the stifling physics of the scenic picture and signified by the large glass window clouded by gloomy fog (cf. also Bachelard]. Third, the relative density a/relationships within the same unit of space, making for its fulness or emptiness, for condensation vs. rarefaction of events. Fourth, the degree of heterogeneity of the spatial limits : does a given space border on or more other spaces.by sea or by land, on friends or enemies, on very similar or very dissimiar qualities : e.g., just what does Nora exit into ?, or, the castles and the heath mKingLeqr. At this point limits give way to traffic between discrete spaces, most notably to the chronotope of the protagonists inner and outer way [Bakhtin "Formy" 271 et passim}. This Dao, iter vitae or quest is susceptible to infinite variations according to the qualities of the two [or more] spaces and the Road itself: good dynamics can be opposed to bad [e.g voyage of discovery to wandering in the desert] and the same holds for statics (e.g. idyll vs. prison). Further investigations could add to and systematize such first approaches. In the homogeneous/heterogeneous opposition, only homogeneous space can be quantified [measured]. However, only heterogeneous space is always indispensable for cultural analysis [in painting, e.g., various colours, with other sense-impressions synaesthetically suggested, e.g. hard vs. soft tactility]. No Journal of Arts and Ideas 7