This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
2009, p 126-137 Humans are themselves an effect of the space that they create. Human evolution can only be understood if we bear in mind the mystery of Island-making/insulation: humans are pets that have domesticated themselves in the incubators of early cultures. We are simply not capable of continuing the old cosmology of ancient Europe that rested on equating the house and the home with the world. Classical metaphysics is a phantasm on the implicit motif (highlighted by Hegel and Heidegger) that world must itself be constructed as having the character of a house and that people in western culture should be grasoped not only as mortals but also as house residents. Why should we bid goodbye to this Equation of world and house? Why do we need a new image to designate how modern man lives in social and architectural containers? Why do I propose the concept of foams? Because since Enlightenment we have no longer needed a universal house in order to find the world a place worthy of inhabiting. What suffices is a unite d’habitation, a stackable number of inhabitable cells…which no longer generate the classical world/house entity but an architectural foam, a multichambered system made up of relatively stabilized personal worlds. Jakob von Uexkull: “it was an error to believe that the human world constituted a shared stage for all living creatures. Each living creature has his own special stage that is just as real as the special stage that the humans have…this insight offers usa completely new view of the universe as something that does not consists of a single soap bubble that we have blown up so large as to go well beyond our horizons and assume infinite proportions, and is instead made up of millions of closely demarcacted soap bubbles that overlap and intersect everywhere”. Vital space can only be explained in terms of the priority of the inside. Modernity renders the issue of residence explicit: Benjamin in the arcades project starts from the anthropological assumption that people in all epochs dedicate themselves to creating interiors. The capitalist man in the 19th century expresses this need by using the most cutting-edge technology in order to immunize existence by constructing protective islands: he thus uses glass, iron and other prefabricated parts in order to build the largest possible interior (Paxton’s Crystal Palace, London, 1951: the first hyper-interior that offers a perfect idea of psychedelic capitalism). The arcade heralds the abolition of the outside world. It abolishes outdoor markets and brings them indoor, into a closed sphere…this sparks a trend that is perfected in the 20th century apartment design as well as in shopping mall and sport-stadium design. 4 stages o explication of the phenomenon of residence -The house as a place of waiting: Compulsion to wait: houses are initially machines to kill time. In fact in a primitive farmhouse people wait for a silent event out in the fields, one they cannot influence but which, thank God, happens regularlynamely the moment when the planted seeds bear fruit. -The house a s a place of reception This kind of being in the house has been challenged in the course of the middle ages, with the raise of the urban culture o, since then a growing proportion of European population has been seized by a culture of impatience, of not being able to wait… In the city things do not mature, things are produced. -the house, architecture means that men lock men into manmade works -the house as an atmospheric setting which provides a spatialised immune system. Especially as regard the designed atmosphere, the air one breathe in a building the apartment: a studio for self-relationship existence in architectural theory con be defined as successful phase of the one-person household. Everything is drawn into the apartment, world and household blend. today if one person existence can succeed at all, its only because there’s architectural support that turns the apartment itself into an entire world prosthetic. How much of the psychosocial constitution of space remains in the metaphor of foam, and what remains of the constructivist side to constructing space? Foam: is a very useful expression for what architects call density. Density can be expressed in psychological terms by a coefficient of mutual irritation. People generate atmosphere by mutually exerting pressure on one another, crowding one another. We must not forget that what we term “society” implies the phenomenon of unwelcome neighbours. Thus density is also an expression for our excessively communicative state, and incidentally, the dominant ideology of communication is repeatedly prompting us to expand it further. Anyone taking density seriously will by contrast, end up praising walls. This remark is no longer compatible
with classic Modernism, which established the idea of the transparent dwelling, the ideal that inside relationships should be reflected on the outside and vice versa. Today we are again foregrounding the way a building can isolate, although this should not be confused with its massiveness. Seen as an independent phenomenon, isolation is one form of explication of the condition of living with neighbours. Someone should write a book in praise of isolation, describing a dimension of human coexistence that recognizes that people also have an infinite need for non communication. Modernity’s dictatorial traits all stem from an excessively communicative anthropology : for all too long , the dogmatic notion of an excessively communicative image of man was naively adopted. By means of the image o foam you can show that the small forms protect us against fusion with the mass and the corresponding hypersociologies. In this sense, foam theory is a polycosmology. So each soap bubble is a cosmos unto itself? No that would be an overly autistic construction. In truth, we have to do here with a discrete theory of coexistence. All being-in-the –world possess the traits of coexistence. The question of being so hotly debated by philosophers can be asked here in terms of coexistence of people and things in connective spaces. That implies a quadruple relationship: being means someone(1) being together with someone else(2) and with something else (3) in something (4). This formula describes the minimum complexity you need to construct in order to arrive at an appropriate concept of world. Architects are involved in this consideration since for them being-in-the-world means dwelling in a building. A house is a three-dimensional answer to the question of how someone can be together with someone and something in something. In their own way , architects interpret this most enigmatic of all spatial prepositions, namely the “in”. It highlights both being-contained-in and being-outside. People are ecstatic beings. They are, to use Heigegger’s terms forever held outside in the open…in the ontological sense, they are “ouside” in the world, but they can only be outside to the degree that they are stabilized from within, from something that gives them full support. This aspectneeds to be empasized today in constrast to the current romanticism of openness. It is spatial immune systems that enable us to give being-outside a tolerable form. Buildings are thus systems to compensate for ecstasy… ”language is the house of being” postulated Heidegger…language it is a staunch fortress in which we can ward off the open. Nonetheless we occasionally let visitors in. in human relationships, speaking and building usually create sufficient security that you can now and then permit ecstasy. For this reason from my viewpoint the architect is someone who philosophizes in and through material. Someone who builds a dwelling or erects a building for an institution makes a statement on the relationship between the ecstatic and the enstatic, or, if you will, between the world as apartment and the world as agorò
imagine on what conditions the world, at the time o globalization, could be made habitable… Spheres and networks might not have much in common, but they have both been elaborated against the same sort of enemy: an ancient and constantly deeper apparent divide between nature and society. … reversal of depth and superficiality: For Sloterdijk there’s not the slightest chance of understanding Being once it has been cut of from the vast numbers of apparently trifling and superficial little beings that make it exist from moment to moment-what Peter came to call “life supports”. As Gabriel Tarde had anticipated a century ago, philosophers had chosen the wrong verb: to be instead than to have. if you understand what Peter did to Dasein in abandoning Heidegger and philosophy more generally, it means that you have confused the plug in of life support with the invasion of “nature”. It is as if he had said: “enough phenomenology. Let’s naturalize the whole goddamn human by using the most recent results of the hard sciences: neurology, biology, chemistry, physics, technology, you name them!” The same reversal of depth and superficiality was achieved when science studies began to “embed” the practice of science and- until then science had been able to meander freely through the vast expanses of time and space without paying any special price or being embodied in any specific human. By situating science with a capital S inside the tiny loci of disseminated laboratories, we, the science students, have made it hostage of human vagaries, it means that you have confused our enterprise with an appeal to “society” as if we had been saying “enough belief in the objective view from nowhere. Let’s deconstruct science and make it a narrative among narratives inside a flow of narratives”. The opposite strategies of naturalization and socialization are able to stupefy the mind only because they are
always thought of separately. But as soon as you combine the two moves, you realize that nature and society are two perfectly happy bedfellows whose opposition is a farce. ..Spheres and Network allow us, in our view (Latour and Sloterdijk) , a reclaiming of the little beings that make up the life supports without the superficial gloss Ibis London city…02074228400 code prenotazione132311328 code pin 3149 , 5 commercial street
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.