The firmness of relations between individuals cannot be represented by family portraits. The immobility of ordering individuals together is not specific to human relations, but it is rather a feature of the space determined by humans.
The neuter space compounded by things that are indifferent to any significance becomes ‘that’ space by attributing to it the power of encompassing human individuals or activities.
By such attribution, the space is not humanized, but it is put to take on its behalf all that is non-human in human beings. Such is the human indifference to the other members of the same collectivity. Its inconvenient lack of humanity is covered by naming places of work, of dwelling, of meeting.
Different from this static conception of human relations, there is the view of men as traveling to each other. When one individual goes to another, the space he goes through is carried on and looses its neutrality to human individuals. A particular space cannot be called as ‘that’ space, but rather as one of ‘those’ spaces necessary to be passed by for coming to a certain individual.
When one individual inspires to another a repeated traveling to him, we have reasons to point to such reiterative movement as a sign of a firm relation between humans. Nonetheless, many gods and prophets require for their veneration processions and pilgrimages.
Certainly, each travel of one to another implies an unavoidable distance.