Metaphysics of Space

On the ontology of the existing:

Metaphysical – Physical – Metaphysical

This is the template of Existence.

The metaphysical is the cause; the metaphysical is the effect. The physical is the bridge between two metaphysical realms, an instrument for crossing over.

We can think about these instances of Cause and Effect in the context of two Forces. One that pushes us and the other that pulls us. One that deconstructs and fragments, and the other that distills and reconfigures (conceptualizes).

In a simplified sense, the pushing force can be thought of as negative (in terms of architecture, moving away from external negative influences), while the pulling force is positive (in terms of architecture, the values we aspire to).

Architecture as a Metaphysical Idea

From caves to skyscrapers, from agricultural fields to landscape design, architectural practice has undergone significant transformations. What initially served to protect us from external influences—the Cave—has now become an exponent of our public (or private) Persona—the House—Apartment.

Although the prevailing idea is that architecture is a practice primarily intended for the “privileged” (historically, institutions, churches, or the ruling class), because they are the only ones who can afford it, deep down, we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, architects. Each of us has a need for an aesthetic space. The same can be said for Philosophy. While we can argue that not all of us are chemists, biologists, physicists, etc., on the other hand, we are all, to some degree, philosophers. The same rule applies to architecture.

Each of us seeks something more from a space than just pragmatic and utilitarian functions. We look for stimulation, inspiration, a sense of intimacy, or protection from the “negative” influences of the chaotic outside world. Space tends to be purposeful. However, how does this purposefulness change its definition when we take it out of the most banal (initial) purposes and move towards transcendental explanations, or at least comparative investigations?

Architecture and Linguistics

Like the genesis and evolution of language, which went from terms (structuralism—de Saussure), through syntax (generative-transformational linguistics—Chomsky), to discourse, i.e., from the smallest meaningful unit to the largest interconnected system, so too with architecture. From simple huts, through ornamental cathedrals (a series of micro-ornaments), to objects as macro-ornaments. This type of progression can be found in many scientific disciplines, but also in artistic movements. Architecture simply follows the natural spirit of development.

Claude Lévi-Strauss explained the development of language as follows:

First, we linguistically label what is dangerous to us. After that, what is useful to us, and finally, what has no significance to us.

A similar development can be observed in architecture: In the beginning, we built simple shelters (as basic protection from the elements), then we introduced decorative elements into these shelters (expressing our ideals, desires, and visions through aesthetic symbols), and finally, architectural space becomes an arena for creative play and conceptual exploration. Space ceases to be purely functional and becomes a medium of expression, allowing us to think about the world, ourselves, and our place in the universe through its form.

Architecture and the Psyche

Compartmentalization is a term that originally emerged from architectural practice. Separated parts of a larger system that can function autonomously without mutual influences. If one part collapses, the other remains intact. This is a defense mechanism that, in its ontological definition, is conservative, not progressive. Although the term is architectural, it found greater application in psychological practice, particularly Freudian. What problems does this approach create?

When parts become separated from the whole, they begin to oppose each other as a result of the desire for sovereignty. This is most visible in education. In many schools, especially universities, we can observe how subjects stand almost opposed to each other. Professors will defend their department as the most important to the point of denying others. This creates an inner conflict in students that does not lead to a common goal. The visibility of potentially unifying particulars (pairing natural pairs) is something that is necessary for the progression of knowledge. Compartmentalization, by definition, opposes this idea, ergo it stands as a strong inhibition.

A similar problem has occurred in architecture. Although we have, by the definition of aesthetic epochs, reached the “macro-ornament” (the whole object is one ornament—one message—one idea), its parts do not relate through “deeper grammar” but are only stylistically (aesthetically) linked into a visual shell, which is, in itself, just a stylization, not meaning. Aesthetics have become Ethics, Form has replaced Content.

Room Analysis and Their Metaphysical Causes

Every room, every space we occupy, carries a certain metaphysical meaning far beyond its physical functions. It’s no wonder that in the psychoanalysis of dreams, rooms-spaces are taken as representatives of parts of the psyche. Rooms are reflections of internal states and symbolic messages that people unconsciously or consciously embed into the space. They function as physical forms of our thoughts, needs, and emotions, and their configurations can have deep consequences on our psychological state and inner world.

For example, the living room may symbolize social interaction, gathering, and sharing experiences. But it is also a place that projects our image to the outside world—how we want others to see us. In that sense, the living room is the space through which our public Persona is expressed, while the bedroom, in contrast, represents the inner self, a place of intimacy, regeneration, and introspection. Symbolically, the bedroom can be associated with retreating into the unconscious, similar to returning to the state of sleep and inner dialogue.

The kitchen, as the center of daily activities, becomes a space of transformation—a place where raw materials become something new, where physical food symbolizes the creative process. The kitchen is a metaphorical space of alchemy, the transformation of ideas into action. Similarly, hallways and passages can be seen as transitional phases of life, connecting different aspects of our being and moving from one state of consciousness to another. Hallways are bridges.

In conclusion:

Architecture is not just a physical space but a deep metaphysical mirror. Just as rooms reflect our inner worlds, so too is every architectural object a result of the evolution of society, culture, and the individual. Space becomes not just a physical shelter but a medium for expressing (exploring) our philosophy of life, our relationship to the world, and ourselves. In this synthesis of the material and immaterial lies the true power of architecture—not only to shape our world but to guide us through it, connecting us to the deeper layers of existence.