Thoughts on Dwelling [Heidegger] :
PART II
[More conclusive thoughts to come soon, these are notes I typed while reading]
The banks emerge as banks only as the bridge crosses the stream… It brings stream and bank and land into each other's neighborhood.
Thus the bridge does not first come to a location to stand in it; rather, a location comes into existence only by virtue of the bridge.
The bridge is a thing; it gathers the fourfold, but in such a way that it allows a site for the fourfold.
A boundary is not that at which something stops but, as the Greeks recognized, the boundary is that from which something begins its presencing. [Horizon is the boundry at which space starts]
[So Heidegger is arguing that because to dwell is to preserve and to free, to be in ones own presenceing, and because as mortals we are meant to die, to be on the earth and under the sky, we are also before the divinities. That is the conection? So to dwell is to be in ones own natural space… and as a mortal ours is the fourfold. So dwelling is the fourfold. The fourfold is harmony.]
I don’t know if I agree…? How?: The bridge is a location. As such a thing, it allows a space into which earth and heaven, divinities and mortals are admitted.
Basically he is arguing that a location does not exist until a ‘thing’ allows it to come into existence. You must have a location in order to gather the fourfold.. but wouldn’t the fourfold exist anyways? This is like arguing that a if a tree falls and no one is there to experience it, then it doesn’t make a sound. But sound is not subjective. . . sound is an existing reaction. . . can a location not be determined by a tree that is enjoyed for its shade? Or a raspberry bush that can be enjoyed for its berries? Or a large rock that can be sat on? Do these not give virtue to a location? It is not a location until it is experienced, acknowledged, and therefore man would have to make note of that location for it to exist.. a rock can be under the sky, before the divinities, and of the earth, but without man it is not a dwelling. Can it not be called a location because it is of the earth and therefore can not be third party to the fourfold? Is that the issue? But we build with materials from the earth… so is it the process of making it our own that makes it a thing? That virtues a location? That gathers the fourfold?
Space V.S Location:
What these relations make room for is the possibility of the construction of manifolds with an arbitrary number of dimensions. [Totally lost on this entire thought process]
Spaces are determined by location.
By thinking of a space you are actually experiencing the space itself. Not merely a representation within your conscious but persisting to the location itself. Not an experience in the present, here, but an experience that belongs to the nature of thinking of the thing/location.
What does “belong to the nature of thinking of the thing” mean? How is it different that a representational experience within the mind. I am thinking of a place, I am not in that place.. I owe those thoughts to that place? Maybe. I am somehow existentially connected to that place? Is that the argument? He says that “The thinking gets though to the distance of that location”. So, my mind travels to the location I am thinking of? In essence. I suppose without the location existing you could have no thought of that location but I don’t know if I quite understand his full argument or not..
“When I go toward the door of the lecture hall, I am already there, and I could not go to it at all if I were not such that I am there. I am never here only, as this encapsulated body; rather, I am there, that is, I already pervade the room, and only thus can I go through it.”
[I suppose you could argue that is what is true in your mind is as true as anything can be. When he is talking about the lecture hall he says that he could not go to it if he were not there. Mentally, if you did not see or understand the nature of the door you would not experience it or be able to go to it. So by thinking of it you are experiencing it and therefore there. . . I think it is a battle of semantics more than anything but I am not sure.]
"Man's relation to locations, and through locations to spaces, inheres in bis dwelling. The relationship between man and space is none other than dwelling, strictly thought and spoken."
"To the Greeks techne means neither art nor handicraft but rather: to make something appear, within what is present, as this or that, in this way or that way."
The erecting of buildings would not be suitably defined even if we were to think of it in the sense of the original Greek techne as solely a letting-appear, which brings something made, as something present, among the things that are already present.
The nature of building is letting dwell. Building accomplishes its nature in the raising of locations by the joining of their spaces. Only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build.
Here the self-sufficiency of the power to let earth and heaven, divinities and mortals enter in simple oneness into things, ordered the house. It placed the farm on the wind-sheltered mountain slope looking south, among the meadows close to the spring. It gave it the wide overhanging shingle roof whose proper slope bears up under the burden of snow, and which, reaching deep down, shields the chambers against the storms of the long winter nights. It did not forget the altar corner behind the community table; it made room in its chamber for the hallowed places of childbed and the "tree of the dead"-for that is what they call a coffin there: the Totenbaum-and in this way it designed for the different generations under one roof the character of their journey through time. A craft which, itself sprung from dwelling, still uses its tools and frames as things, built the farmhouse
Need both thinking and building to belong to dwelling. Both limited. Singularly they are insufficient.
[More conclusive thoughts to come soon, these are notes I typed while reading]
This is the response to the first portion of your post.
ReplyDeleteI am going ot post multiple responses to this as I break your post up into parts to which I can more easily respond. So, look to this one first.
You speak about the bridge as both object and function (i'd say operation, but for now let's stick with function).
Is the bridge the only object/function that you have identified in this reading? Can you find more?
I know that when I was going through some of this - which was a while ago - I used the spatial operators outlined by a person whom I have forgotten. That individual identified seven spatial operators, and the bridge was one. The others were: hotel, prison, well, labrynth, tower (inverse well?) and death. Each of these is considered as a function (operation) given form. It is a way of decoding some of the ideas. Each has a different way of engaging the four-fold. (I never really bought into the death one - it never made sense to me).
What I am trying to say is that I am not sure you will be able to assign a definition to the four-fold so simply. If Heideggar intended to use the four-fold as a symbol for harmony, he would have just used the word "harmony."
I would go back and review this a little more. Begin with the idea of Bridge as a connector of the distant and the facilitator of a particula r kind of relationship. What implications does this have for the "four-fold?" What architectural gleenings can come from those implications?
You don't have t use the spatial operators I outlined earlier, but I would find some other references besides the bridge to help you coplete an understanding of the "four-fold." What other means of interaction, relationship, operations might occur, and what formal construct would embody that function?
This response is to the second part of your post.
ReplyDeleteYour tree, your bushes, your rocks are the kinds of spatial operators I was speaking of before, but they deserve more thought. Each will engage the human and the four-fold differently. It think that it is at this point that your understanding of "dwell" is going to evolve. To dwell is something that is exclusively human in that we define both identity and ownership through place. (therefore I think that your post immediately following this is more a question of place vs. location rather than space vs. location even though Heidegger may present it that way... but more to come on that later).
To clarify this last statement. I am saying that it doesn't matter if a place existed prior to after human occupation or experience any more than it maters if the tree makes a sound. who cares (I know a lot of people care, but for you it seems to be outside the scope of your exploration and an easy vehicle for distraction). Instead, I would focus upon the various qualities of dwelling, the relationship between those qualities and the four-fold, and the possible spatial/formal/architectural possibilities that exist as facilitators.
With that said, do not focus on when a place is to be considered a place, but rather what makes it a place (or use location if you wish).
This is in response to the third part of your post.
ReplyDeleteYou are skirting very close to existentialist philosophy which I would regard as being somewhat removed from your subject of study. I would caution against this for its potential for sending you in circles and ultimately distracting you from what you want to do.
Whe n you speak of nature, are you sure that you are speaking od nature: the physical quality of being not something not influenced by man, or are you (should you?) be speaking of the nature of things. The nature of a place, a function, a behavior? A collection of drivers, catalysts, motivators, and the responses they elicit? This avenue of thought may help you better understand what it means TO dwell rather than understanding the existence of dwellings. I think it hits closer to your intentions for understanding the motivation and temporality of camping.
I would advise you to not look at the representation of place or dwelling, but at actions and reactions. When you look at representation (mental or otherwise) you are introducing an idea of a memory driven understanding of place and a memory driven response in architecture. This is an INCREDIBLY fascinating topic - but I see it as mutually exclusive to the one you already have, or at least subordinate to the one you already have.
See my post from a later post of yours. There I detail the idea of behavior and spatial operation as a focus for the understanding of dwelling and place. That portion of your study is very sound - I would keep pushing in that vein for now.
The most interesting aspect of this last part is when you are making comparisons to the Greek idea of techne. This is GREAT - keep going with this. From these notes I am observing a beginning of an architectural position. The architecture of dwelling is a response to the need to dwell. A nearly direct rip-off of sullivan's Form follows function adage, but never-the-less profound. The act of making something, creating, making appear is driven by a need to have it. In the case of architecture that need is derived from the event or the action. In your case, the need to dwell causes the architectural response of dwelling. Fantastic. But now you have to get into the gritty details (and don't get me wrong - you have been getting into the gritty details all along). What are the possible drivers behind the act of dwelling? How do those variably impact architecture and the making of place? Within the tent city, the ruined settlements, theme-park urbanism of Vegas what are the physical, spatial, experiential manifestations of those drivers?
Now what do the Four-fold mean to you? Are they the drivers or the response? Are the something else entirely?
I hope all of this helps, and you aren't too confused by my ordering of responses here. Again, I apologize for taken entirely too long to give you direction and comment. LEt me know if you are considering these issues differently. It is possible that I have misread, or misinterpreted your ideas as these are primarily outlined notes.
Again, have a great trip. And, I cannot emphasize this enough... your trip, your research, your ideas must be in lage part recorded graphically! Sketch your ideas as you have them! Take pictures of your ideas as you find them! Every idea you write down should be coupled with images that support it and expand upon it. This is the only way you will be able to use all of this wonderful information as a generator for design, and design thinking. I am sure you are already doing this, but wouldn't feel responsible if I didn't tell you to do it anyway. I want to see these images when you get back to Cincy by the way.
JE