The first was that I was having trouble clearly outlining actions and reactions.
Our need to dwell is the force, building is the reaction.
But what creates our need to Dwell? Our desire to be true to our own nature?
So human nature is the force and creating the fourfold, or the oneness between the fourfold, is the reaction.
But then what forces act upon us to desire to exist in any particular way? Is that an ethical question? Maybe? Or maybe it is like defining a point for the purposes of geometry where "We can describe intuitively their characteristics, but there is no set definition for them: they, along with the plane, are the undefined terms of geometry. All other geometric definitions and concepts are built on the undefined ideas of the point, line and plane." Maybe those forces and desires just are what they are? Maybe we just are what we are?
Heidegger would argue that we are defined by our nature. Since to be Mortal is to Dwell, those are not forces, it is just, in essence, what we are.
We are defined by Dwelling in itself.
The second issue I was having was what differentiates a genuine dwelling from a building?
If I understand what it is to dwell, at least according to Heidegger, and I am not sure that I completely do yet, shouldn't I also understand what defines a Dwelling?
This is about the time I started going back through his essay, again, and pulling those excerpts. This told me that:
1. Only if we are capable of dwelling, can we build.
2. That we search again and again for the nature of dwelling
3. Most importantly that "This they accomplish [building dwellings] when they build out of dwelling, and think for the sake of dwelling"
So, all buildings belong to dwelling, but not all buildings are dwellings. A dwelling can only be created by someone who is capable of dwelling [which implies that we are not all capable of it and, despite that it defines us as mortals, have lost the ability to?] and by someone who builds in order to dwell and thinks for the sake of dwelling. Basically, Heidegger is arguing that it is all a matter of intention. If you intend to dwell, if you understand and have a desire to dwell [consciously or not may or may not matter] and allow yourself to do so, and then desire to create a dwelling and do so, it is a dwelling? I don't buy it.
Perhaps breaking down the fourfold will help me understand what creates a dwelling. In the reading he talks about the farmhouse, which is very good and all, but it seems very simple. And maybe it is very simple, but I think breaking down the fourfold and then applying it to the bridge and the farm house might bring a little more clarity?
My computer is dying. All for now. Hope this helps.
Alright, I'm back from Chicago.
ReplyDeleteYou need, most importantly, to get over this roadblock that you have encountered in the "Four-fold." I am going to challenge you to no longer reference either "Four-fold" or "oneness." Both of these terms are becoming crutches for you and are hindering your own progress.
As you said in your last paragraph, you must breakdown the "Four-fold." Also, you must describe "Oneness" in clear terms - terms that do not rely upon interpretation. That will help you re-cast your ideas in an effort to find greater resolution.
As for your understanding of Heideggar, I agree with you. I don't buy it either. In many ways, the farm house is a good point of departure because it is simple. And, one thing that you will need to do is to develop a taxonomy of forces. For instance, I think you would agree that the act of dwelling has both physical and social forces that act upon it, influence it, and direct our architectural rsponses to it. In this instance, the social and the physical become categories of a taxonomy of dwelling. Are there other? What are they? MAke a list. Accompanying that list should be sets of responses. How do those responses contribute to the formation/invention/DESIGN of space or architecture. I think that this taxonomy will aid in your understanding of the spatial operators of Serres. I think that Serres will help you define response, where Auge may help you define force (at least from the socio-cultural vantage).
I think your list of qualiifications for dwelling is vry helpful, both for me and for you. I also think though that it may be too inclusive. Almost everything (and maybe truly EVERYTHING) could be dwelling as outlined in this list. I would ask not that you filter this with limiting factors, or maybe it is fragmented into types of dwelling (again a reference to a possible taxonomy).
I am advising you in this way becasue I have to wonder if everything you have researched and written so far expresses, or culminates in, a "desire to dwell." Surely it is more.