The correlation of space with other spaces is because the spatial and temporal dynamics are marked by topography. For many years translation was viewed as a geography whose aim was to imitate a resemblance to the original, and because of this it was not considered a zone of major importance. Were ever the field of Japanese Translation activities to be studied in relation to time and space, they would be interpreted as turbulent movements whose ridiculous outcome exemplifies the likelihood and the mystification of its concurrence. Translation and theoreticians have been trying to focus on the occurrence of what has happened in-between translation and original but have been unable to do so because of the oxymoronic interpretation of movement, which is firmly and innately opposed to the sense of transition and passage – both spatial and temporal, which in their sense counteract the occurrence of any movement. The movement that erases itself when aiming at being authentic, and is being separated from the tension inherent in something other than itself, when the interstitial zone emerges which in itself means that the notion of movement necessitates reconceptualization. The functionality of the interstitial zone of translation is based on the movement within the dynamically changing interstices, which also determines the process of uniting two languages and cultures. In Bartleby’s words, translation does not aim at being the original, rather it simply would prefer not to.
The unanswered question is – Can humankind regain the unlinear and unchronological, uncalendarical time? Another matter that deserves attention is whether Arabic translation services organizations can supply the satisfaction of inhabiting the in-between, where inauthenticity and authenticity, actuality and potentiality, reality and possibility become indistinguishable. “The Neuter is the literary space that seems to be constantly outdated, ceaseless, and incessant,” according to Thomas Carl Wall. Significantly, this is the space of Pounds’ literature, but also of Blanchot’s and other prolific twentieth-century writers. The list is really long but should include Giorgio Caprioni, an Italian Translation theorist. The space they inhabit is called the interim, which is the interstitial time which suddenly renders insignificant and unrelated the notion of what one is expectant of. Modern art enters into the interstitial space aiming at bringing forward what may be either a presence or an absence, or what is more it could be the inferno of the self or its steady reorganization in the domain of possibility and medianity. The nature of art to give shelter to opposite fundaments is its body and flesh, its fascination but also its unforgivable sin. This is also where the paradox and irony of art lies.
Translation should be considered in regard to its preserving the truth and plausibility of the original, which can be used to regain the creative meaning of art by stressing on, rearranging and clarifying its epiphanic errancy. This means that art should be restored to its status quo of multiculturalism and plurilingualism. The way in which the Russian Translation Services theory assists the contemporary hermeneutic of culture and language is quite obvious. It is also the ideological and existential home for those who are physically living in-between and who for many years have thought and lived their interstitiality as a loss, of home, the self, their traditions. Now is the time to see the “error” of being potential, as the locus of criticism and the geography, where by losing oneself one eventually finds oneself.