Dear Alan and Professor Seamon,

Many thanks for the wonderful discussion. Professor Seamon would probably
remember me. In the first years of my PhD at the Bartlett, I was very excited
to see that there were actually many parallels between phenomenological
approaches to space (particularly the perspectives of Relph and Prof Seamon)
and believed that a critical dialogue between them could be much productive -
to me SS has much to do with the human experience of space and it provides us
with many tools to get closer analytically to notions like the 'habitus',
'embodiment' and 'belonging', even if these notions do not belong to its
well-established terminology. I couldn't continue my studies in that 
direction,
but I am very excited that there is a dialogue now, finally.

May I suggest to have a special keynote/discussion session in the next 
symposium
in Istanbul where we could have Prof Seamon along with Alan, and Bill and
Julienne? I believe this would be exciting for everybody and could open a new
path for researchers on both sides - if, of course, it is not too late to find
a lot for this within the programme of the symposium.

Yours,
Didem Kilickiran




Quoting Alan Penn <[log in to unmask]>:

> I still like the social =91equipment=92 idea, from my reading of it this =
> is
> directly related to =91readiness to hand=92 and is what provides the =
> possibility
> of the latter. The example of equipment as in the hammer that breaks and
> then comes to our conscious awareness after being ready to hand seems to =
> me
> to mirror failures in the environment (as well as our unconscious use of
> well working environments). My thinking about this tends then to go down =
> the
> extended mind route =96 the physical world (out there) is actually =
> recruited
> in as part of our cognitive equipment =96 all part of a whole. Thus for =
> the
> designer the sketchpad, pencil and the sketch itself is cognitive =
> equipment.
> The process of sketching is a process of thinking, and the pad becomes =
> part
> of our memory =96 we go back and remind ourselves of thoughts we had =
> earlier
> in a design process. It is also part of our communication infrastructure =
> =96
> we use it in conversations with others around the design table =96 it is =
> how
> others get to see our thoughts, as much as they read these from our =
> postures
> and expressions. The built environment, if it is intelligible, is the
> cognitive map =96 or at least a key component of it. If we design
> unintelligible places we remove autonomy (the ability to make meaningful
> decisions) from users of those places as surely as if we gave them a
> lobotomy. This is not to deny that the intelligibility of the =
> environment is
> inseparable from the human brain function and bodily mobility in =
> considering
> that whole system. It must all be considered together.=20
>
> =20
>
> Having said that, I take issue with the =91carcass=92 characterisation. =
> It
> implies that something like =91the essence of life=92 exists in the =
> absence of
> the carcass =96 this seems like a dualist position if ever I saw one =
> :-).
> Skeleton and musculature might be more appropriate =96 analytically =
> separable
> but each needs the other for anything to be functionally meaningful.
>
> =20
>
> Abstracts? Well mine only got accepted in the most grudging way =
> imaginable.
>
> =20
>
> Alan
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> David, Alan
>
> Thanks for the reference on 'wholeness' David, and is there any chance =
> of
> seeing your paper? I love your ideas for a phenomenological research and
> will look up the people you mention. We have included a Situationist =
> derive
> element in all our student projects and call on the Stalker group from =
> Rome
> to help us out =96 not exactly phenomenological maybe but trying to get =
> closer
> to structures of experience. I wonder also whether we ought not to look =
> more
> closely at the phenomenological 'carcass' of the city in relation to =
> space
> syntax and ask ourselves what exactly space syntax is pointing to. I =
> think
> the answer may be more interesting than a 'visibility model' of the
> street-plan and the axial map may mislead us into thinking that we can
> somehow reduce the logic of what is happening to a logic of the local or =
> the
> local plus 3 steps - after all, I know from right where I am sitting =
> where
> China is and how to get there. By the way I intended to write a paper on =
> the
> urban 'carcass' you mention in your point 3 but my abstract was =
> considered
> not to answer any question relevant to space syntax.
>
> As far as the wholeness thing is concerned, I like Jacob von Uexkull's
> little book 'Streifz=FCge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen' =
> (Strolls
> through the worlds (Umwelten) of animals and people). It is available in
> German and there are plenty of secondary references around.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On 8/12/06 19:03, "David Seamon" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Alan and Stephen,
> =20
> Some more reactions:
> =20
> 1. Alan, I don=92t think the =93deformed grid=94 should be thought of as =
> =93social
> equipment. Rather, in Heidegger=92s phrasing, it would be better =
> associated
> with one aspect of what might be called =93environmental
> readiness-to-hand=94=97i.e., the situation where, just by a particular =
> pathway=92s
> being what it is, a particular pattern of movements, co-presence, and
> co-awareness unfold. As we know, very often traditionally, there was a =
> kind
> of unselfconscious environmental readiness-to-hand of settlement pathway
> structure that fit that settlement=92s lifeworld like the intimate fit =
> between
> hand and glove. To me, one of the biggest questions of our time is =
> whether
> that place/people intimacy of the past can be recreated =
> self-consciously. As
> we know, space syntax offers a huge amount in finding practical answers =
> to
> that question.
> =20
> 2. I have no problem with your breaking apart social and physical =
> worlds,
> though, phenomenologically, there are alternative phrasings that I think
> better respect the actual agent/world situation. As I said in the last =
> note,
> one of the most remarkable aspects of space syntax is, even though it
> largely reduces the =93living flesh=94 of a place  to the static spatial =
> through
> the various space syntax measures, the wholeness of the place still =
> appears
> to be kept together (though, admittedly, that wholeness is largely =
> reduced
> to various integration measures that then become various-colored axial
> lines=97in other words, the living flesh of the lifeworld has been =
> reduced to
> various numerical and graphic =93carcasses=94).
> =20
> 3. Phenomenologically, a major question becomes whether there might be
> developed a complementary conceptual language grounded in lived =
> experience
> whereby we might keep together the =93life=94 of the =93carcass=94 and =
> the
> person/world immersion.
>
> 4. Thus, for example, one phenomenological project might be an =
> exhaustive
> study and understanding of the lived fabric of a particular place with a
> well-working =93deformed grid=94 (say, a robust London neighborhood or =
> portion
> of such a neighborhood). I can picture a =93guide=94 who has carried out =
> this
> study (what a wonderful PhD topic!) and thus knows the place so =
> thoroughly
> that he or she who would then be able to introduce interested =
> individuals to
> the everyday dynamics of this place through actually being =
> there=97walking,
> looking, talking with, being familiar with the regularities of the =
> place,
> etc. etc. Let me just say that a space syntax picture would be only one =
> part
> of the full portrait=97for example, one would have to deal with issues =
> like
> Oldenburg=92s =93third places=94 and an understanding of the lived =
> aesthetics of
> the place (Thiis-Evensen=92s work on archetypes of the city is one
> possibility).
>
> 5. This is a major problem with our architectural training today. We =
> have no
> language or means for getting students to understand that in their =
> designing
> they are actually creating lifeworlds. How do we introduce students to =
> the
> built environment in such a way that they really begin to understand =
> that
> what they make is how people will live? To me, one of the most potent =
> ways
> would be introducing students to real-world places that work and don=92t =
> work
> by actually bringing them into the places, but providing conceptual =
> themes
> that allow the students to move beyond the lifeworld (and natural =
> attitude)
> into a conscious understanding of the ingredients making a place work.
>
> 6. In this regard, I can imagine a kind of digital =93place game=94 =
> whereby the
> integration map of a robust neighborhood or place rapidly transforms =
> itself
> into abstract human bodies moving along the most integrated pathways, =
> then
> zooming down into the streetscape with its computerized people some of =
> whom
> then become a real person who talks about his or her connections, =
> routines,
> fondness, experiences with the place. This might be one means of =93jump
> starting=94 would-be architects, designers, and policy makers into =
> really
> seeing and understanding what they are responsible for making=97places =
> that
> sustain and evoke life.
> =20
> 7. Moving on to Stephen=92s point about the relationship between agents =
> and
> world, this is another problem with a so-called =93analytic=94 approach, =
> since,
> phenomenologically, the lifeworld is an integral whole whereby the =
> separated
> two (agent/world) are always one. This leads to a much larger =
> phenomenology
> of WHOLENESS, in terms of which I see phenomenology of place as only one
> small (but central) part. In other words, is there a way of exploring,
> seeing, and understanding wholes without reducing the wholeness into =
> parts.
> I just finished an article on this topic, for which one of the great
> unheralded works is physicist Henri Bortoft=92s THE WHOLNESS OF NATURE =
> (1996),
> which provides a remarkable phenomenological answer to this question,
> drawing on Goethe=92s way of science, which was a very early =
> phenomenology of
> the natural world (but can also be used to explore =93human worlds=94 =
> and other
> phenomena that are wholes).
> =20
> The fascinating question for me is how the deformed-grid =
> structure=97somehow
> the deep tissue of place (at least one kind of place)=97can be seen and
> portrayed phenomenologically. As I said above, space syntax lays out its
> carcass but making it alive, vivid, living =93flesh=94=97that=92s where =
> a
> phenomenological perspective has its place in space syntax.
> =20
> David Seamon
> =20
>
> =20
> Dr. David Seamon
>
> Architecture Department, Kansas State University
>
> 211 Seaton Hall
>
> Manhattan, KS 66506-2901
>
> 785-532-1121
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/  <http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/>
> <http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/>=20
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =20
>
>