From Aristotle to\u00a0Kant, Western philosophy approached space and time primarily as\u00a0conditions of\u00a0the possibility of\u00a0experience or\u00a0as\u00a0properties of\u00a0reality. In\u00a0the Aristotelian tradition, space is\u00a0defined topologically\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0the place of\u00a0bodies\u00a0\u2014 and time arithmetically\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0‘the number of\u00a0motions with respect to\u00a0before and after’. In\u00a0Kantian critical philosophy, space and time become a\u00a0priori forms of\u00a0intuition, transcendental conditions of\u00a0all phenomenal experience. Yet in\u00a0both traditions a\u00a0common assumption is\u00a0preserved: space and time are structures that organise phenomena from a\u00a0\u2014 however implicit\u00a0\u2014 centre of\u00a0reference. Alexis Karpouzos radically challenges this assumption. The Spherical Spacetime he\u00a0introduces is\u00a0neither place nor intuition; it\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0dynamic ontological structure that refuses every privileged point of\u00a0reference, every external centre, every principle that precedes the very movement of\u00a0the world. The question posed from the outset is\u00a0this: what does it\u00a0mean to\u00a0think a\u00a0spacetime that does not ‘contain’ beings but is\u00a0the very manner in\u00a0which beings\u00a0are? And what ontological consequences does this displacement carry for the understanding of\u00a0existence, consciousness, and truth?<\/p>\n
Western metaphysics was shaped in\u00a0large measure as\u00a0a\u00a0search for a\u00a0first principle\u00a0\u2014 a\u00a0privileged point of\u00a0departure that explains and grounds all others. Thales declared water to\u00a0be\u00a0the arch\u00e9, Anaximander the apeiron, Pythagoras number. In\u00a0the great metaphysical tradition that followed, this principle assumed different names\u00a0\u2014 God, Logos, Subject, Spirit, Will\u00a0\u2014 but always preserved the structure of\u00a0a\u00a0privileged centre from which meaning radiates outward. Even where Western philosophy appears to\u00a0abandon this model\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0in\u00a0Nietzsche\u2019s ‘death of\u00a0God’\u00a0\u2014 it\u00a0continues to\u00a0define itself negatively in\u00a0relation to\u00a0it: the absence of\u00a0a\u00a0centre is\u00a0experienced as\u00a0loss, as\u00a0nihilism, as\u00a0a\u00a0crisis of\u00a0meaning. Karpouzos takes a\u00a0different step: he\u00a0does not mourn the absence of\u00a0a\u00a0centre, nor does he\u00a0seek a\u00a0new centre to\u00a0replace the lost one\u00a0\u2014 he\u00a0proposes that the very structure of\u00a0existence is\u00a0pan-centric.<\/p>\n
For there to\u00a0be\u00a0no\u00a0privileged centre does not mean there is\u00a0no\u00a0structure at\u00a0all. It\u00a0means that every point of\u00a0existence is\u00a0simultaneously centre and periphery\u00a0\u2014 that every being, in\u00a0its singularity, expresses a\u00a0relation to\u00a0the whole that cannot be\u00a0reduced to\u00a0any common denominator. This position appears, on\u00a0first reading, paradoxical: how can every point be\u00a0a\u00a0centre if\u00a0there is\u00a0no\u00a0centre? Karpouzos\u2019s answer is\u00a0that the paradox arises from the insistence on\u00a0the geometric image of\u00a0the centre\u00a0\u2014 a\u00a0unique point from which all others are defined. If\u00a0we\u00a0relinquish this image, pan-centricity becomes intelligible as\u00a0mutual constitution: each being is\u00a0defined by\u00a0its relation to\u00a0every other, and none precedes ontologically the relations that constitute it.<\/p>\n
The closest parallel position in\u00a0the Western tradition is\u00a0found in\u00a0Spinoza: the Substantia as\u00a0absolute totality expressing itself in\u00a0infinite attributes and infinite modi, each of\u00a0which expresses the single substance in\u00a0its own manner. Yet in\u00a0Spinoza the Substantia remains\u00a0\u2014 at\u00a0least stylistically\u00a0\u2014 a\u00a0privileged foundation. In\u00a0Karpouzos there is\u00a0no\u00a0such foundation: the totality does not precede the relations, but is\u00a0precisely those relations in\u00a0their dynamic mutual constitution. The Heraclitean tradition offers a\u00a0fertile convergence here. For Heraclitus, ‘everything flows’\u00a0\u2014 reality is\u00a0flux, and flux has no\u00a0fixed point of\u00a0departure. The One that emerges through the Many is\u00a0not a\u00a0separate principle standing apart from the Many, but the very manner in\u00a0which the Many sustain one another in\u00a0their opposition. Spherical Spacetime takes up\u00a0this intuition and gives it\u00a0systematic ontological articulation.<\/p>\n
The dominant conception of\u00a0time in\u00a0Western philosophy is\u00a0linear: past, present, and future succeed one another in\u00a0an\u00a0irreversible sequence. This conception rests on\u00a0a\u00a0model of\u00a0flow\u00a0\u2014 time ‘flows’ from the past towards the future, and the present is\u00a0the thin boundary between them. The Aristotelian view of\u00a0time as\u00a0the measure of\u00a0motion, and the modern understanding that inherits it, both underwrite this model. Yet the linear conception faces profound philosophical difficulties. Augustine was the first to\u00a0articulate them with sharpness: if\u00a0the past no\u00a0longer exists and the future does not yet exist, what exactly ‘exists’ in\u00a0time? His answer\u00a0\u2014 that time is\u00a0‘distentio animi’, a\u00a0stretching of\u00a0the soul, and that the present encompasses a\u00a0‘present of\u00a0the past’, a\u00a0‘present of\u00a0the present’, and a\u00a0‘present of\u00a0the future’\u00a0\u2014 reveals that temporal experience is\u00a0never a\u00a0momentary presence, but always a\u00a0synthesis. To\u00a0be\u00a0in\u00a0time is\u00a0always already to\u00a0hold together what was and what is\u00a0coming.<\/p>\n
Karpouzos moves far beyond this phenomenological observation. Omni-temporality does not concern only the structure of\u00a0human experience, but the ontological structure of\u00a0the world itself: all moments of\u00a0time coexist, not successively, but as\u00a0a\u00a0web of\u00a0mutual references. Each present ‘carries’ within itself the totality of\u00a0time\u00a0\u2014 not as\u00a0memory or\u00a0anticipation, but as\u00a0ontological structure. This position brings Karpouzos close to\u00a0Heidegger\u2019s analysis of\u00a0temporality, but with a\u00a0significant difference. Heidegger, in\u00a0Being and Time, analyses the temporality of\u00a0Dasein as\u00a0‘ecstatic’: human existence is\u00a0always already ‘extended’ towards the past (as\u00a0thrownness) and towards the future (as\u00a0projection), and this ecstatic structure is\u00a0the horizon within which Being discloses itself. Yet for Heidegger this temporality is\u00a0primarily the structure of\u00a0human existence\u00a0\u2014 ‘primordial temporality’ is\u00a0the temporality of\u00a0Dasein.<\/p>\n
Karpouzos detaches omni-temporality from its exclusive connection to\u00a0human existence. The world is\u00a0not temporal because a\u00a0temporal being experiences it\u00a0\u2014 it\u00a0is\u00a0temporal in\u00a0the manner of\u00a0omni-temporality, as\u00a0the coexistence of\u00a0all modes of\u00a0time at\u00a0every point of\u00a0existence. This does not mean eternity in\u00a0the theological sense\u00a0\u2014 the atemporal presence of\u00a0a\u00a0God\u00a0\u2014 but a\u00a0temporality so\u00a0dense that linearity proves to\u00a0be\u00a0a\u00a0simplification, an\u00a0abstraction from a\u00a0richer, more interwoven reality. Plotinus, in\u00a0the Enneads, offered an\u00a0analogous intuition: for him, time is\u00a0‘the life of\u00a0the soul in\u00a0its movement from one state to\u00a0another’, but the Intellect\u00a0\u2014 the second hypostasis\u00a0\u2014 simultaneously holds all modes of\u00a0being. Karpouzos distances himself from the Neoplatonic hierarchical schema, yet retains the intuition that deeper reality does not ‘move’ linearly but holds simultaneously what surface perception experiences as\u00a0sequence.<\/p>\n
The dominant ontology of\u00a0modernity is\u00a0an\u00a0ontology of\u00a0exteriority: beings are defined primarily through their spatial distance, their self-sufficiency, their capacity to\u00a0exist independently of\u00a0others. This model, which reaches its fullest philosophical expression in\u00a0Locke and Hume, treats relations between beings as\u00a0external\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0bonds contracted between pre-existing, self-contained entities. Karpouzos counters this with an\u00a0ontology of\u00a0interiority and interconnectedness: beings do\u00a0not first exist and then relate\u00a0\u2014 rather, relation is\u00a0constitutive of\u00a0their very existence. This does not mean that beings lose their singularity; it\u00a0means that their singularity is\u00a0itself the expression of\u00a0their relation to\u00a0the whole. To\u00a0be\u00a0is\u00a0always already to\u00a0be\u00a0in\u00a0relation\u00a0\u2014 not as\u00a0an\u00a0accidental feature, but as\u00a0the very mode of\u00a0ontological constitution.<\/p>\n
The concept of\u00a0holomerism\u00a0\u2014 that every part carries information about the whole and expresses it\u00a0\u2014 has deep roots in\u00a0the philosophical tradition. In\u00a0Plato\u2019s Timaeus, the Demiurge fashions the world as\u00a0a\u00a0living organism in\u00a0which every part reflects the structure of\u00a0the whole. The Neoplatonic tradition deepened this intuition: in\u00a0Plotinus, every level of\u00a0reality ‘proceeds’ from the higher and reflects it\u00a0\u2014 the One is\u00a0present in\u00a0every being. Karpouzos detaches this intuition from the hierarchical framework of\u00a0Neoplatonic procession. There is\u00a0no\u00a0‘higher’ from which a\u00a0‘lower’ proceeds; there is\u00a0only the whole that expresses itself\u00a0\u2014 in\u00a0different ways, but with equal dignity\u00a0\u2014 in\u00a0each of\u00a0its constituents. This recalls certain aspects of\u00a0the Hegelian dialectic\u00a0\u2014 particularly the idea that the Absolute is\u00a0not something separate from the finite but expresses itself through it\u00a0\u2014 yet without the teleological schema of\u00a0development towards an\u00a0End. The whole is\u00a0not a\u00a0destination reached at\u00a0the close of\u00a0a\u00a0process; it\u00a0is\u00a0present, in\u00a0its entirety, at\u00a0every point of\u00a0the process itself.<\/p>\n
A\u00a0possible philosophical objection to\u00a0Karpouzos\u2019s non-local, relational ontology concerns the problem of\u00a0identity: if\u00a0each being is\u00a0defined entirely by\u00a0its relations, how does it\u00a0retain any identity at\u00a0all? Does it\u00a0not dissolve into an\u00a0undifferentiated whole? Karpouzos meets this objection with a\u00a0careful ontological distinction: relational constitution does not amount to\u00a0identification. Each being expresses the whole from a\u00a0specific and irreplaceable point of\u00a0view\u00a0\u2014 its own unique position within the pan-centric structure. Its identity is\u00a0not something behind or\u00a0beyond its relations, but the very particular and concentrating manner of\u00a0its expression. It\u00a0is, one might say, the unique way in\u00a0which the whole folds itself into a\u00a0singular point\u00a0\u2014 gathering the entirety of\u00a0relations into a\u00a0specific, unrepeatable mode of\u00a0being.<\/p>\n
The analytical presentation of\u00a0the three ontological properties of\u00a0Spherical Spacetime now permits a\u00a0synthetic understanding of\u00a0the philosophical innovation it\u00a0represents. All three properties\u00a0\u2014 pan-centricity, omni-temporality, non-locality\u00a0\u2014 systematically overcome a\u00a0foundational metaphysical opposition. Pan-centricity overcomes the opposition of\u00a0centre and periphery, which always implies hierarchy\u00a0\u2014 certain beings, certain principles, certain truths are ‘more central’ than others. With pan-centricity, every being is\u00a0equally central\u00a0\u2014 not because it\u00a0is\u00a0equated with others, but because the very structure of\u00a0centricity now receives universal application. The centre is\u00a0everywhere, and therefore nowhere in\u00a0particular.<\/p>\n
Omni-temporality overcomes the opposition of\u00a0the permanent and the transient, which has dominated the history of\u00a0metaphysics from Parmenides to\u00a0Hegel. Parmenides set the eternal, unchanging Being against the flux of\u00a0becoming. Hegel consummated the permanent at\u00a0the conclusion of\u00a0dialectical movement. Karpouzos does not choose between them: movement and permanence are not opposed categories but mutually interwoven dimensions of\u00a0the same ontological structure. The flux does not tend towards a\u00a0permanent terminus; permanence is\u00a0not a\u00a0refuge from flux. Both are aspects of\u00a0a\u00a0single, irreducible dynamism. Non-locality overcomes the opposition of\u00a0identity and relation\u00a0\u2014 the assumption that beings first ‘are’ and subsequently ‘relate’. Relation is\u00a0not external to\u00a0beings\u00a0\u2014 it\u00a0is\u00a0what constitutes them as\u00a0what they\u00a0are. And yet, precisely because every being expresses the whole from its singular vantage point, differentiation is\u00a0not abolished but deepened: the more fully a\u00a0being is\u00a0what it\u00a0is, the more fully it\u00a0expresses the whole from which it\u00a0is\u00a0inseparable. These three overcomings do\u00a0not merely accumulate\u00a0\u2014 together they constitute a\u00a0new ontological paradigm that Karpouzos calls, or\u00a0that may be\u00a0called, meta-ontology: a\u00a0mode of\u00a0thought that does not ask ‘what are beings’ but ‘what is\u00a0the manner of\u00a0Being’\u00a0\u2014 in\u00a0a\u00a0way that surpasses every prior ontological framework without abolishing the questions those frameworks raised.<\/p>\n
The philosophy of\u00a0Alexis Karpouzos, and in\u00a0particular the concept of\u00a0Spherical Spacetime, represents a\u00a0rare philosophical undertaking: the attempt to\u00a0think the totality of\u00a0existence\u00a0\u2014 space, time, consciousness, nothingness\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0a\u00a0unified dynamic structure, without reducing it\u00a0to\u00a0any partial principle and without surrendering philosophical rigour. This undertaking does not move in\u00a0a\u00a0vacuum: it\u00a0enters into critical dialogue with the entire history of\u00a0Western philosophy\u00a0\u2014 from Heraclitean flux to\u00a0Heideggerian temporality, from Plotinian holomerism to\u00a0Spinozian Substantia. Yet it\u00a0is\u00a0neither eclectic synthesis nor comparative compilation\u00a0\u2014 it\u00a0is\u00a0original philosophical thought that uses these traditions as\u00a0launching points from which to\u00a0move beyond them.<\/p>\n
The philosophical stakes are not abstract. Our age is\u00a0characterised by\u00a0a\u00a0profound fragmentation\u00a0\u2014 of\u00a0knowledge into impenetrable specialisations, of\u00a0society into incommensurable fragments, of\u00a0human existence into disconnected instants. Spherical Spacetime does not offer a\u00a0solution\u00a0\u2014 it\u00a0is\u00a0not a\u00a0prescription. It\u00a0offers a\u00a0philosophical framework within which this fragmentation becomes visible for what it\u00a0is: not the ‘natural’ condition of\u00a0things, but the consequence of\u00a0a\u00a0partial, abstractive mode of\u00a0thought that has forgotten the whole. Philosophy, for Karpouzos, does not resolve these problems\u00a0\u2014 it\u00a0confronts them radically, opening space for a\u00a0different understanding of\u00a0existence. And this, in\u00a0the end, may be\u00a0the most authentic vocation of\u00a0philosophy: not to\u00a0answer, but to\u00a0question in\u00a0a\u00a0manner that transforms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I. The Question of\u00a0a\u00a0Spacetime without Centre From Aristotle to\u00a0Kant, Western philosophy approached space and time primarily as\u00a0conditions of\u00a0the possibility of\u00a0experience or\u00a0as\u00a0properties of\u00a0reality. In\u00a0the Aristotelian tradition, space is\u00a0defined topologically\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0the place of\u00a0bodies\u00a0\u2014 and time arithmetically\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0‘the number of\u00a0motions with respect to\u00a0before and after’. In\u00a0Kantian critical philosophy, space and time become a\u00a0priori forms of\u00a0intuition, transcendental conditions of\u00a0all […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2085,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2134"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2135,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134\/revisions\/2135"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}