Space depends on the gap between subjects as observer and object observed, together with the idea of translation, or simply that the relation between two objects can be understood by projecting the view as if from one of them. If each intentional moment of experience is complete in itself embracing both subject and object then the putative gap is anything but a separation, is rather an element of experience fully as much as the noesis and the noema. There is an arrangement of complementary parts ample enough to embrace oneness and distinction. What is thought of as the witnessing function should therefore not be considered as a perspective generating point of observation. To see it this way is an illusion that is easy to fall into and perhaps as easy to fall out of, while hard or impossible to climb out of. The witnessing is the entire frame, can only be rightly thought of as a spatial consciousness. There is no space (as separation or yawning gulf between things, as the sense of teetering on the brink of a chasm) because there is spatial consciousness (the subject being a weird kind of fullness, pervasive in a dimension free from presence or absence.) And the same logic can be applied to time.