The fundamental problem of any discussion of Metaphysics is the definition of the subject matter. The generally understood definition of Metaphysics is that it is a branch of Philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of the universe in which we find ourselves. It acquired its name from the collection of works of Aristotle that came after one of his major works called Physics. So, in one sense, Metaphysics is something that comes after Physics. This can be construed that after all the considerations of Physics are exhausted, the realm into which your discourse moves, is Metaphysics. In another sense, the word “meta” means something beyond, or something deeper, than the suffix it is attached to, such as in the term, meta-cognition. When we talk about Metaphysics in Architecture, we should articulate whether we are talking about something beyond the physical existence of the works of Architecture, or the fundamental nature that lies behind the works of Architecture.
Architecture has always been a quest for the conquest of matter by the creations of the mind for the creation of spaces and places to inhabit. The question naturally arises whether the fundamental nature of Architecture is mind, or is it just a collection of matter? Philosophers such as Henri Bergson have postulated that there is a life force, the élan vital, that courses through matter trying to obtain from it what it can. This fuses the matter with vitalism. This complicates the discussion of whether the fundamental entity is matter, or the élan vital. In biological entities that are living, it is conceivable that both these entities are needed for the organism to exist. In the case of an inert construction like a building, the building can exist as a configuration of matter alone. However, this inert construction embodies an idea, or a set of ideas, that can be argued is its fundamental nature. Architecture has been called the constructed counterform of homecoming by the architect Aldo van Eyck. In this definition, the counterform is the fundamental nature of the work of Architecture.
Why are architects constantly seeking something beyond their physical creations to establish meanings for what they have created? The seeking of the “meta” implies that the physical creation of the work of Architecture, which is a composition of building materials configured into a structure, is incomplete and needs something outside itself to justify its existence. The foundation for seeking the “meta” lies in the notion that matter must be infused with spirit in order to give it human significance. Until matter has been transformed in this way, by the infusion of spirit, it does not belong to the human realm but the realm of Nature. This notion implies that the human realm is somehow alien to the realm of Nature, even though humans are part of that realm. In order to appropriate matter into the human realm, the creations of the mind must be infused into the matter using energy. When matter is made to conform to an idea and energy is expended in the transformation by a human being, the human being appropriates the matter into the human realm.
Another aspect of the study of Metaphysics is Ontology. Ontology is concerned with being. Anything that exists, whether it is material or immaterial, is being. Architecture is a complex being that combines in its realization both the material and the immaterial. It exists as an embodiment of the immaterial in the material. Consider this scenario. An architect conceives of the form of a rectangular beam and then proceeds to “realize” that form in a natural building material such as wood. The wood initially exists as a tree. Tools are invented to cut the tree and make the tree conform to the form of the rectangular beam. This has a serendipitous byproduct in that the tools can now be used to shape other forms that the architect did not conceive of initially. In one process, the architect proceeds from an abstract “essence” to a particular entity and gives it existence. In the serendipitous byproduct, the architect proceeds by using a tool to create an “essence” from existing matter. This ontological journey, in both directions, from essence to existence, and from existence to essence, reveals the unique Metaphysics that Architecture embodies.
When you pose the question, what is the fundamental nature of a work of Architecture, the answer can be that it is an idea, or it is a configuration of matter. It is mind-stuff or just matter. If you begin by considering that Architecture is a configuration of matter that points to something beyond itself, which can be the creation of the mind, you imply that it has a meta-existence. What you are trying to establish when you discuss the Metaphysics of Architecture is twofold. The first is that you are trying to establish the fundamental nature of Architecture, whether it is a creation of the mind or it is the transformation of matter. The fact that you can transform matter in silence, using your senses and your hands, or tools you have fashioned with your hands, shows that the mind can be precluded from this fundamental nature. The second is that Architecture always refers to something beyond its physical existence, it always has a meta-existence that often gives meaning to the work of Architecture. In the twofold discussion, you bring to focus the fact that a work of Architecture is an embodiment of both mind and matter. Architecture gives an ontological presence to both of them. Whether the creations of the mind transform the matter, or whether the matter instantiates the creations of the mind, both exist in the being of Architecture.
In the Heideggarian triad of building, dwelling, and thinking, one can construe the ontological journey to existence as an evolutionary process starting with architectural thinking, which is realized in building, thereby enabling the process of dwelling. Alternatively, one can construe the ontological journey as a teleological process beginning with dwelling as the motive force, which leads to architectural thinking and eventually the building that enables one to dwell. The establishment of the being of the work of Architecture depends on this triad of activities. The fundamental nature of the work of Architecture can then be considered as the motive force of dwelling, which starts architectural thinking into motion with the goal of realizing the architectural thoughts in the material form of buildings in order to dwell. The fundamental debate of whether dwelling is the result of an architectural creation or whether it is the motive force that drives the architectural creation remains.
It is tragic that a work of Architecture must seek the “meta” aspect of its existence in order to achieve its meaning. If the work of Architecture could articulate its fundamental nature in just its material existence, which could have been created in total silence, then the motive force of dwelling could be fulfilled in a material ecology. Can the teleological process driven by a motive force of dwelling negotiate the world of matter directly and realize its goal to dwell? No amount of talking about a material creation can infuse it with anything beyond itself! Architecture should not be a prop or a proxy for verbal thinking. An Architecture of Silence is truly possible that reveals its fundamental nature directly, and thereby its metaphysics. Let us seek this Architecture of Silence!
Comments