Audio Essay: Metaphysics of Space

On the ontology of the existing:

Metaphysical – Physical – Metaphysical

This is the template of Existence.

The metaphysical is both the cause and the effect. The physical is the bridge between two metaphysical realms. It is 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 reserved for the “privileged” – historically institutions, churches, or the ruling class – because they were the only ones who could afford it, the truth is that, to a greater or lesser extent, we are all architects. Each of us has an inherent need for aesthetic space. The same can be said of philosophy. While we might argue that not everyone is a chemist, biologist, or physicist, we are all, in some way, philosophers.

Each of us seeks something more from a space than merely pragmatic or utilitarian functions. We look for stimulation, inspiration, a sense of intimacy, a sense of identity, or protection from the “negative” influences of the chaotic outside world. Space tends to be purposeful. However, how does this purposefulness shift in meaning when we move beyond its most banal (initial) functions and approach transcendental interpretations – or at least comparative inquiries.

Architecture and Linguistics

Just like the genesis and evolution of language, architecture has followed a similar path. Language moved from individual terms (Structuralism – de Saussure), through syntax (generative-transformational linguistics – Chomsky), to discourse. From the smallest meaningful unit to the largest interconnected system. Architecture evolves the same way. From simple huts, through ornamental cathedrals – seen as a series of micro-ornaments – to buildings as macro-ornaments. This type of progression appears across many scientific disciplines. It also exists within 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. Through aesthetic symbols, we began to express our ideals, desires, and visions. Eventually, architectural space became an arena for creative play and conceptual exploration. Space ceased to be purely functional. It became a medium of expression. Through its form, we began to think about the world, ourselves, and our place in the universe.

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 that does not lead to a common goal. Recognizing natural connections between subjects is essential for the growth of knowledge. But compartmentalization goes against this, and therefore becomes a major obstacle.

A similar problem has occurred in architecture. By the definition of aesthetic epochs, we have reached the stage of the “macro-ornament” – where the entire object is one ornament, one message, one idea. However, its parts no longer relate through a deeper grammar. They are only stylistically connected into a visual shell. That shell is merely form, not meaning. Aesthetics have become ethics. Form has replaced content.

In the majority of cases, juxtaposition has remained the only rhetorical figure through which architecture is explained.

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 a 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.

The post Metaphysics of Space appeared first on The Architectural Mythologems.

Audio Essay: Squaring the Circle

Translating Potency

Planning often brings anxiety, and that is not unknown. Fears are part of daily life and can be rooted in something we may not always clearly define, but which exists as a constant. This is not a weakness but an opportunity to understand how to deal with something that follows us through time. In this context, we can talk about the concept of potency – something that exists as a possibility but has yet to become reality.

From a first-person perspective, there is no distinction between what is written and what is merely a thought process. However, from the position of the third person (an outside observer), the difference is essential. It represents the line between the potential – between Pleroma and Abraxas – and Helios – the visible (existing). The question is how to make that transition – how to move from potency to realization.

One of the solutions could be to find four points within the circle – four choices within freedom. Squaring the circle, as a mental process, can offer a way out of the chaos of possibilities. The square is structure, rules within freedom.

The four objective choices, aligned diagonally across the central point, show the way to establish balance.

In the middle, the central point has a gravitational nature and a directional path. The path is a symbol of the goal, and the goal is the translation of potency into actualization. But here, it’s important to understand that this doesn’t always happen under the influence of Helios, but sometimes we act under the force of Abraxas (chaotic and amoral), especially when the central point is unknown or undefined.

Helios becomes the key element that connects opposing sets. Through this lens, knowledge (or truthful, holistic understanding) becomes the central point that unites opposites. This dialogue between opposing elements enables the translation of possibility into action and the creation of order out of chaos – the balance of oppositions.

Doubling the Pairs

The number Two has implications of the feminine principle. The entire problem of the square, following Pythagorean mathematics (The Perennial Philosophy – Aldous Huxley), algebraically stands in the symbol of woman, in the number 2.

Four points make a square. A square implies two vertical and two horizontal lines. In the case of a square with a 16:9 ratio, the horizontal lines are closer to the center (the central point) than the vertical ones. The Earth symbol, in relation to the Sky symbol, is closer to Helios in this case. Considering that the lines are representatives of content, we will assume that this is the place where final choices can be made, which are necessary for secure and lasting existence. Choices that do not arise as a result of the “pushing force of the Cosmos” but as entities drawn by the gravitational force of the future.

On Differences:

Horizontal is the field, vertical are the constituents, the participants.

Horizontal is the context, vertical is individuality.

In the horizontal dimension is the community of everything, while in the vertical is only the individual.

The control of choices is divine power. It is the shaping of reality according to inner desire. It is the form-giving language.”

The post Squaring the Circle appeared first on The Architectural Mythologems.