Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 195–200 | Cite as

Technology as In-Between

  • Stephen ReadEmail author
Commentary

Abstract

This commentary on Søren Riis’s paper “Dwelling in-between walls” starts from a position of solidarity with its attempt to build a postphenomenological perspective on architecture and the built environment. It proposes however that a clearer view of a technological structure of experience may be obtained by finding technological-perceptual wholes that incorporate perceiver and perceived as well as the mediating apparatus. Parts and wholes may be formed as nested human-technological interiorities that have structured relations with what is outside—so that the outside constitutes an interiority in its turn which contextualises and situates the first. This nested structure raises questions about the way architects and urbanists see the built environment and understand inhabitation. It is hoped that this effort continues with conceptual and empirical work to research ways to make the human places of our built environment.

Keywords

Architecture Postphenomenology Perception Embodiment  Relationality Space 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arendt H. (1970) The human condition. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowker G. C., Star S. L. (1999) Categorical work and boundary infrastructures: Enriching theories of classification. In sorting things out. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartwright N. (1999) The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Harman G. (2010) Technology, objects and things in Heidegger. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1): 17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lefebvre, H. (2003). The urban revolution (R. Bononno, Ed. Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Oosterling, H. (2007). Dasein as design, or: Must design save the world? (L. Martz, Trans.). Transcript of the Premsela Lecture 1st April 2007 given at the Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Amsterdam. Downloaded from http://www.premsela.org/_images/2007/01230.pdf.
  7. Raffestin, C. (2007). Could Foucault have revolutionized geography? (G. Moore, Trans.). In J. W. Crampton & S. Elden (Eds.) Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Read S. (2009) Another form: From the ‘informational’ to the ‘infrastructural’ city. Footprint 5: 5–22Google Scholar
  9. Riis S (2011) Dwelling in-between walls: The architectural surround. Foundations of Scinece 16(2–3): 285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sloterdijk, P. (2009). Spheres theory: Talking to myself about the poetics of space. In Harvard Design Magazine 30. Cambridge, MA: Graduate School of Design, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations