Two isolated farmsteads [..] separated by an hour’s walk across the fields, can be the best of neighbours, while two townhouses, facing each other across the street or even sharing a common wall, know no neighbourhood. Neighbouring nearness, then, does not depend on spatial-temporal relation (Heidegger)
Thoughts on Neighbourhood:
A neighbourhood can of course be defined in terms of parametrical distance (square miles) or whatever, but what constitutes it as neighbourhood is not empty physical space but a network of relations. This network of relations comes first and is then calculated using metre or miles etc. One might say: okay, this neighbourhood is four square miles, it extends as far as the lake in the southwest. And one says this as though one has now precisely fixed and defined that neighbourhood, whereas of course the neighbourhood is not and cannot be defined by these terms. We might say there is a confusion of measuring and defining. It is if the question of what defined the neighbourhood could be referred to a ‘boundary commission’ . Too often, philosophers are simply boundary commissioners. And philosophical questions are treated as boundary disputes
All objectifying knowledge [...] is preceded by a relation of belonging upon which we can never entirely reflect. (Riceour)
If I understand it aright, objective (scientific) calculation and measurement take their cue from - and ultimately serve - circumspective involvement in the world. They re-present mathematically spaces (or whatever) already ‘mapped out’ through concern. A road map, for example, is the bare calibration, the empty ‘x-ray’ of our concernful dealings with a region.