Seamon - Concretizing Heidegger's Notion of Dwelling

7/24/2019 Seamon - Concretizing Heidegger's Notion of Dwelling

1/19

Home

Back to "articles"

[Originally published as inBuilding and Dwelling[Bauen und Wohnen],

edited by Eduard Fhr. Munich, Germany: Waxmann Verlag GmbH; New

York: Waxmann, 2000, pp. 189-202; to see other articles in this collection,which originally appeared on the Web, go to: http://www.theo.tu-cottbus.de

/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Seamon/seamon_t.html

Concretizing Heidegger's Notion of

Dwelling:

The Contributions of Thomas Thiis-

Evensen And

Christopher Alexander

David Seamon

In Building Dwelling Thinking, phenomenological philosopher Martin

Heidegger discusses the notion of dwelling and contends that only if we

are capable of dwelling, only then can we build (Heidegger, 1971, p. 160).A major problem with dwelling as an idea is its lack of specificity,

particularly in terms of design significance. This article argues that the

work of two architects--Thomas Thiis-Evensen and Christopher Alexander

indicates important but different ways in which Heideggers dwelling

can be translated into more grounded architectural meaning. Thiis-Evensen

and Alexander's ideas, placed in a Heideggerian framework, point toward a

New Page 0 http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/heidegger.htm

1 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42


2/19

1 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42

way of thinking that might lead to the kind of dwellingbuilding

relationship suggested by Heidegger when he writes that "to build is

already to dwell" (ibid., p. 146).

DWELLING AND BUILDING

In Building Dwelling Thinking, Heidegger's major means of

investigation is etymological: what is the word history of "to build"(bauen) and its links to dwelling? Bauen, says Heidegger, relates to

nearness and neighborliness and also implies "to cherish and protect, to

preserve and care for" (ibid., p. 147). Bauen also relates to the old High

German word for building, baun, which means to dwell in the sense of

remaining or staying in place.

In emphasizing this link to place, Heidegger suggests that building relates

to dwelling, which therefore can be said to involve a sense of continuity,

community, and at-homeness (Harries, 1983). The crux of dwelling,Heidegger argues, issparing and preserving--the kindly concern for land,

things, creatures, and people as they are and as they can become (ibid., p.

149; Zimmerman, 1983). As human beings, we cannot fail to dwell, for

dwelling, ultimately, is the essential existential core of human being-

in-the-world from which there is no escape.

At the same time, dwelling is just as much a means as an end. There will

always be a certain tension, a kind of imperfection, between what we wish,

do, and make. The significant questions are how do we dwell in our ownparticular situations and how can we shape the quality of our dwelling for

better or worse? Heidegger links the quality of our dwelling to the quality

of our building, since an effective building arises from a genuine sense of

sparing and preserving (see Foltz, 1995, pp. 159-63).

Heidegger also argues that, in practical terms, dwelling involves the


2 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42


3/19

gathering of thefourfold--the coming together of earth, sky, people, and a

sense of spiritual reverence, or "the gods," as he signifies higher realities

(ibid.). In this sense, dwelling is no mere extension of existential space or

place; rather, "it becomes itself the fundamental human activity, in the light

of which both place and space find their first clarification" (Jager, 1983,

p. 154). As Heidegger interprets dwelling, the built environment is crucial

because it supports and reflects a person and group's way of being-in-the-world. The built environment is a certain embodied grasp of the world, a

particular way of taking up the body and the world, a specific orientation

disclosing certain aspects of a worldly horizon (ibid., pp. 154155). The

world in which we find ourselves completes us in what we are, and

therefore the specific nature of the built environment becomes crucial.

In other words, people are immersed in their world, and this immersion is

qualitative, subtlein many ways, ineffable. Thus a walk through a

welltended garden evokes a different state of being than a similar walk

through an uncaredfor garden or an unsightly vacant lot. Similarly,

entering a church evokes a different human stance than entering a nightclub

or a shopping mall or an empty street or a street filled with human activity.

One aim for aim for architects is to become sensitive to these experiences

and to become more aware of how specific qualities of the built

environment enhance or stymie particular human experiences.

Heidegger argues that, in our modern age, human dwelling is reduced and

so, therefore, is building. His explication of why we dwell less fully todayis complicated; he suggests that, in part, it is because we manipulate and

demand from our world rather than meet it an attitude of sparing and

preservingi.e., allowing it to be and become. In this sense, a key to

dwelling is letting ourselves and the world be, and this lettingbe includes

the ways we build, see, understand, and think.


3 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42


4/19

It is this need for lettingbe in designing and understanding that marks the

value of Thiis-Evensen and Alexander's work for a deeper, more grounded,

understanding of dwelling. Both architects seek concrete means for

identifying and describing built qualities that sustain and strengthen the

quality of dwelling. Through evoking one style of sparing and preserving,

Thiis-Evensen and Alexander provide ways to see and think more clearly,

which, in turn, might lead to better designing and building.

A PHENOMENOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM

Norwegian architect Thomas Thiis-Evensen's Archetypes in Architecture

goes far in developing a language of architectural elements as they have

relation to dwelling (Thiis-Evensen 1987).1 Thiis-Evensen's aim is to

understand "the universality of architectural expression" (ibid., 8). His

vehicle is what he calls architectural archetypesthe most basic elements

of architecture," which for Thiis-Evensen can be identified as the floor,

wall, and roof(ibid.). Thiis-Evensen argues that these three architecturalelements are not arbitrary but, rather, are common to all historical and

cultural traditions. The essential existential ground of floor, wall, and roof,

he argues, is the relationship between inside and outside. Just by being

what they are, the floor, wall, and roof automatically create an inside in the

midst of an outside, though in different ways: the floor, through aboveand

beneath; the wall, through withinand around; and the roof, through over

and below.

Using examples from architectural history as evidence, Thiis-Evensenargues that any building can be interpreted experientially in terms of these

three archetypes. His main purpose is to describe the kinds of

environmental and architectural experience that different variations of

floor, wall, and roof sustain and presuppose. The result, he claims, is "a

common language of [architectural] form which we can immediately

understand, regardless of individual or culture" (ibid., 17).


4 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42


5/19

Thiis-Evensen demonstrates that a buildings relative degree of insideness

or outsideness in regard to floor, wall, and roof can be clarified through

motion, weight, and substancethe three existential expressions of

architecture (ibid., p. 21). By motion, he means the architectural element's

sense of dynamism or inertia--that is, whether the element seems to

expand, to contract, or to rest in balance. Weight involves the sense ofheaviness or lightness of the element and how it relates to gravity. Last,

substancerelates to the material sense of the element--whether it is soft or

hard, coarse or fine, warm or cold, and so forth.

In broadest terms, the central question Thiis-Evensen asks inArchetypesis,

How do floor, wall, and roof express insideness and outsideness through

motion, weight, and substance? The relationship between insideness and

outsideness has, in fact, received considerable attention in

phenomenological research on environmental and architectural experience(e.g., Chaffin 1989, Dovey 1985, Mugerauer 1991, Mugerauer, 1994,

Seamon 1991, Silverstein 1991), especially in geographer Edward Relph's

phenomenology of place (Relph 1976), which demonstrates that insideness

is the hallmark quality transforming space into place and sustaining the

deepest sense of dwelling. One of Thiis-Evensen's contributions is to

illustrate ways in which architecture contributes to insideness and

outsideness and therefore grounds a sense of dwelling.

Thiis-Evensen emphasizes that different architectural styles and culturaltraditions may interpret the inside-outside dialectic through different

degrees of openness and closure (for example, the medieval fortress's

impenetrable walls versus the Renaissance palace's walls of many

windows). Regardless of the particular stylistic or cultural expression,

however, floors, walls, and roofs provide related results in that they shape

an insideness in the midst of outsideness so that the individual and group


5 di 19 16/11/2015 09:420 h // h k d / /h id h


6/19

can dwell. In addition, varying physical qualities of floors, walls, and roofs

lead to different experiences of motion, weight, and substance. The result is

an intricate set of tensions between architectural elements and architectural

experience:

What is it that the roof, the floor and the wall do? As a motion, the

roof rises or falls. The walls stand up or sink, the floor spreads out,climbs or descends. In this way, weight is also implied. That which

rises is light, that which falls is heavy. And if the roof is bright and

soft as a sail, it is open. If it is dark and of stone, it is closed. If the

openings in a wall are tall and narrow, they ascend, if they are short

and wide, they sink. A soft and fine floor is warm and open, but if it

is hard and coarse, it closes and is heavy ( ibid., 23).

THE WALL AND WINDOW AS EXAMPLES

In the three main sections ofArchetypes, Thiis-Evensen examines the waysthrough motion, weight, and substance that floors, walls, and roofs express

insideness and outsideness. This work marks the start toward a descriptive

language delineating the invariant elements of the built environment that

have significance for human experience and dwelling.

One example is Thiis-Evensen's explication of the wall, which, of the three

archetypes, he shows to reconcile most potently the relationship between

inside and outside, since it is by way of the wall that one "passes through"

between exterior and interior, either physically or visually through doorsand windows. The wall resolves the existential tension between inside and

outside in two ways: either the wall draws exterior space inside, or the wall

draws interior space outside. In turn, this degree of penetration from inside

to outside or vice versa can vary: on one hand, there can be complete

openness and invitation; on the other hand, there can be complete closure

and rejection.


6 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42N P 0 htt // h k d / /h id ht


7/19

One way in which the wall expresses this dialectic between openness and

closure is through its windows, which are said by Thiis-Evensen to

contribute to a building's sense of inside and outside in that they announce

the mode of life within the building. Windows are "always an expression of

the interior to the world at large" (ibid., 251):

While the door is determined by its relation to what is outside, the

window is the symbol of what is inside. Just like the eye, it

expresses the interior's outlook over exterior space.... (ibid.).

Thiis-Evensen points out that a window is much more than a wall opening:

a window that is only a gaping hole makes the wall "a lifeless skin around

a dead and empty interior" (ibid., 259). In clarifying how windows actually

give life to a building, he examines the parts of a window-the opening, the

facein the opening, and the framearound the opening. He then considershow each of these components contributes to a sense of insideness and

outsideness.

For example, the frame of a window is important because it makes a setting

for the inside space and brings it toward the viewer on the outside. If the

window has no frame, the outside forces its way in. The frame is important,

therefore, because it leads the inside out. This "leading out" occurs in

varying ways, depending on what parts of the frame-sill, lintel, and

jambs-are emphasized or deemphasized (figure 1). If all its parts are

emphasized (a in figure 1), then the entire interior space seems to reach

outward. On the other hand, if only the lintel is highlighted, then an upward

movement and roofs take precedence (b); or, if only the sill is highlighted,

a sinking movement and floors take precedence (c). In addition, the sense

of movement for a wall as a whole can be affected by the arrangement of

window frames (figures 2 & 3).


7 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42 N P 0 htt // h k d / /h id ht


8/19

Figures 1, 2 & 3


8 di 19 16/11/2015 09:42 New Page 0 http://www arch ksu edu/seamon/heidegger htm


9/19




10/19

Another important quality that relates to the window's sense of insideness

and outsideness is the shape of its opening for which Thiis-Evensen

identifies three variations-vertical (a in figure 4), horizontal (b), and

central (c). These different forms lead to different inside-outside

relationships, thus both vertical (a in figure 5) and central (b) windows

suggest a movement coming from inside out, while a horizontal window

(c) suggests an inside lateral movement that is separate from the person

outside.

Figures 4 & 5




11/19

In his explication of the floor, wall, and roof, Thiis-Evensen assumes that

there are various shared existential qualities-insideness-outsideness,

gravity-levity, coldness-warmth, and so forth-that mark the foundation of

architecture. Thus, a wall with windows whose lintels are emphasized

suggests a sense of upward movement and levity, just as a wall with

windows whose sills are emphasized will feel heavier and in relationship tothe ground. Or, if one studies the experienced qualities of stairs, one

realizes that narrow stairs typically relate to privacy and a faster ascent,

whereas wide stairs often relate to publicness, ceremony, and a slower

pace. Similarly, steep stairs express struggle and strength, isolation and

survival--experienced qualities that frequently lead to steep stairs' use as a

sacred symbol, as in Mayan temples or Rome's Scala Santa. On the other

hand, shallow stairs encourage a calm, comfortable pace and typically

involve secular use, as, for example, Michelangelo's steps leading up to the

Campidoglio of Rome's Capitoline Hill (ibid., 89-103).

Thiis-Evensen argues that his work has direct design implications. He

claims, that, too often, an architect's aesthetic sense is subjective because

he or she has not thoughtfully considered how architectural forms arise

from and translate themselves back into shared existential qualities like

motion, weight, substance, insideness, outsideness, permeability, closure,

and so forth. Thiis-Evensen believes that understanding the archetypes

and their expressive potentialities is essential when [a design] vision is to

be turned into a realization" (ibid., 387). The result might be a buildingwhose formal qualities resonate with its practical needs. The possibility

becomes greater that human beings and their built world are reconciled and

the quality of dwelling strengthened.

CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER AND PATTERN LANGUAGE

This reconciliation between people and their built world is also a major aim




12/19

in the research and design of American architect Christopher Alexander,

though he works at a different experiential scale than Thiis-Evensen, who

largely emphasizes lived qualities of individual buildings. Alexander is

more concerned with architecture in its larger environmental context. In

other words, how can activities, buildings, spaces, and landscapes be

designed in an integrated, coherent way to create places that are coherent,

beautiful, and alive for their residents and users? In short, the aim is placemaking that sustains dwelling.

Like Thiis-Evensen, Alexander believes that architecture today often fails

both practically and aesthetically. He also believes that many built

environments of the past--for example, a city like Venice or Oxford, or a

building like Chartres Cathedral or a Japanese farmhouse--generally had a

sense of togetherness and harmony (Alexander, 1979). An important focus

of Alexander's work is how architectural parts belong togetherin a larger

environmental whole (Alexander, 1993). Alexander argues that, if anenvironmental whole is made rightly, it has a powerful sense of place,

which may help people who live in and use that place to have more

satisfactory, vibrant lives.

In his work, Alexander seeks a way to return a sense of wholeness to the

buildings and environments of modern Western society. He emphasizes

that the crucial process is healing. Every new construction, whether

building or square or street furniture or window detail, must be made in

such a way as to heal the environment, where heal especially meansmake whole. The obligation is that the thing built must work to create a

continuous structure of wholes around itself (Alexander 1987, p. 22).

The practical tool that Alexander develops to foster environmental wholes

and healing is "pattern language"--a conceptual method whereby the

layperson or designer can identify and visualize the underlying elements


12 di 19 16/11/2015 09 42 New Page 0 http://www arch ksu edu/seamon/heidegger htm


13/19

and relationships in a built environment that foster a sense of place

(Alexander et al. 1977). In his master volume, Pattern Language (ibid.),

Alexander and colleagues identify 253 of these elements, or patterns, as

the are called. A pattern is both interpretive and prescriptive: first, it is a

description of a particular element of the built environment that contributes

to a sense of place (for example, "identifiable neighborhood" [no. 14],

"degrees of publicness " [36], "main gateways" [53], "high places" [62],and "window place" [180]); second, it is a practical instruction that

suggests how to design the particular element effectively (for example, in

regard to "main gateways," "Mark every boundary in the city which has

important human meaning-the boundary of a building cluster, a

neighborhood, a precinct-by great gateways where the major entering

paths cross the boundary" [Alexander et al. 1977, p. 278]).

Alexander emphasizes, however, that successful places are always

composed of many interrelated patterns that work synergistically to createa whole greater than the individual parts. To incorporate this wholeness in

pattern language, Alexander organizes the 253 patterns from larger to

smaller in three groups:

1. Patterns that describe larger-scale environments that cannot be

designed or built all at once (e.g., "community of 7,000," [12],

"shopping street" [32], "housing cluster" [37]);

2. Patterns that describe buildings and groups of buildings (e.g., "main

building" [99], "family of entrances" [102], "positive outdoor space"[106]);

3. Patterns that describe individual building details (e.g., "structure

follows social spaces [205], columns at the corners [212], front

door bench [242]).

Alexander argues that, for any new design problem, it is important to write


13 di 19 16/11/2015 09 42 New Page 0 http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/heidegger.htm


14/19

a pattern language that begins with larger patterns and then incorporates

smaller patterns. In this way, the larger qualities of environmental

wholeness are held in sight as smaller qualities are fitted around them. He

also emphasizes that the 253 patterns in Pattern Language are illustrative

and far from complete. New design problems and environments may

require revised patterns or even entirely new patterns that the architect will

need to create from scratch (e.g., Coates and Seamon, 1993). In the end,pattern language is not a finished product but an on-going process of

dialogue among architect, client, user, builder, and site. Pattern language is

not a master list of unchangeable design principles that must be

incorporated in all buildings and places. Instead, it is a way of looking at

and thinking about buildings and environments so that one can better

understand how their parts might work together to create a whole. As

Alexander (1987, p. 16) explains,

Design must be premised on a process that has the creation ofwholeness as its overriding purpose, and in which every increment

of construction, no matter how small, is devoted to this purpose.

ASPECTS OF AN ARCHITECTURE OF DWELLING

Like Heidegger, both Thiis-Evensen and Alexander believe that the built

world can help illuminate and sustain essential qualities of human

understanding, life, and experience, though the two architects thinking is

somewhat different as to what these essential qualities are. Alexander

would no doubt appreciate Thiis-Evensen's effort to understandarchitectural elements existentially, but he might ask that Thiis-Evensen

give more attention to how individual archetypes join together into a larger

sense of human meaning, environment, and place. For example, Alexander

would probably accept Thiis-Evensen's interpretation of the way that

architectural qualities support a sense of insideness and outsideness, but he

would also emphasize that these architectural qualities are of little use if




15/19

they do not contribute to the building's wider sense of place.

To understand more clearly this difference between Alexander and Thiis-

Evensen, we can consider one example-windows, to which both writers

devote considerable attention but in different ways. In Pattern Language,

Alexander includes several patterns dealing with windows and, in each,

they work in such as way as to involve people more directly with theirplace. For example, the pattern "windows overlooking life" (no. 192)

insists that the building, through its windows, have direct visual or physical

relationship with the surroundings so that there will be a connection

between inside and outside. Similarly, the pattern "window place" (no. 180)

says that:

Everyone loves window seats, bay windows, and big windows with

low sills and comfortable chairs drawn up to them....Therefore, in

every room where you spend any length of time during the day,make at least one window into a "window place" (Alexander 1977,

p. 834, p. 837).

This pattern particularly well illustrates Alexander's emphasis on how

buildings work as networks of behaviors and experiences. When people

enter a room with a window, Alexander argues, they typically experience

two forces: first, they are drawn toward the light; second, they want to rest

and be comfortable. A window seat automatically resolves these two

forces, and a space is transformed into a place where one can both sitcomfortably and enjoy the light.

In pattern language, Alexander uses the term density to describe the

multivalent meaning of the built environment. He explains that "many

patterns overlap in the same physical space: the building is very dense; it

has many meanings captured in a small space; and through this density it




16/19

becomes profound" (ibid., p. xli). A simple example of density is the

"window place" pattern, which, in terms of Thiis-Evensens motion,

weight, and substance, could be said to gather and reconcile darkness-light

and movement-rest. By incorporating a "lighted place to be comfortable," a

room becomes more meaningful and dense than if it included either a

"lighted place" or "place to rest" alone.

Unlike Alexander, Thiis-Evensen does not consider how windows work as

a significant locus of activity. Instead, he speaks of the window largely in

terms of its formalexistential expression. In other words, how, by its

specific size, shape, and physical arrangement, does a window allow the

interior and exterior of a building to speak or not to speak to the world

beyond?

Thiis-Evensens emphasis on how formal architectural qualities are

experienced does not mean that Alexander is more complete in hisexistential understanding of architecture than Thiis-Evensen. Rather, these

differences in approach and scale point toward the considerable variety of

ways in which the built environment can contribute order and pattern to

human life. One can imagine a continuum of architectural and

environmental meaning that runs, on one end, from the pure architectural

element to, on the other end, complex aggregations of buildings, spaces

and environments that evoke a powerful sense of place. A thorough

architectural and environmental phenomenology would delineates this full

range of architectural and environmental experience and considers howqualities of the natural, built, and human worlds contribute to a sense of

place and environmental wholeness.

In this sense, both Thiis-Evensen and Alexanders theories of architecture

and place are a major contribution to clarifying Heideggers cryptic

statement cited at the start of this articleOnly if we are capable of

g p gg



17/19

dwelling, only then can we build. The work of both architects helps us

better to dwell because they help us better to see one part of our

worldthe way that architecture can contribute to human being-in-the-

world. In different ways, both architects seek a virtuous circle in which

people and world, thinking and designing, designing and building are all

mutually supportive. In this sense, Heidegger would no doubt cheer these

works, seeing them as a pragmatic complement to the larger philosophicalquestions that he reopens in his own writings.

NOTE

1. Thiis-Evensen's book is a rewritten version of his 1982 doctoral

dissertation done under the direction of Norwegian architect and

architectural theorist Christian Norberg-Schulz, one of the major figures in

developing a phenomenology of architecture and environment. Though not

discussed here, Norberg-Schulz's work also draws centrally on Heideggers

thinking and is another major contribution to grounding Heideggers notionof dwelling practically. See Norberg-Schulz, 1971, 1980, 1985, 1988.

REFERENCES

Alexander, C., 1987. A New Theory of Urban Design. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Alexander, C., 1993.A Foreshadowing of 21stCentury Art: The Color and

Geometry of Very Early Turkish Carpets. NY: Oxford University

Press.Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. 1977. A Pattern Language.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Chaffin, V. F. 1989. Dwelling and Rhythm: The Isle Brevelle as a

Landscape of Home. Landscape Journal, 7: 96-106.

Coates, G. J., and Seamon, D., 1993. Promoting a Foundational Ecology

Practically Through Christopher Alexanders Pattern Language: The

g p gg



18/19

Example of Meadowcreek. In D. Seamon, ed., Dwelling, Seeing, and

Designing. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 331-54.

Dovey, K. l985. Home and homelessness. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner

eds.,Home Environments. New York: Plenum, pp. 33-64.

Foltz, B. V., 1995.Inhabiting the Earth: Heidegger, Environmental Ethics,

and the Metaphysics of Nature. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities

Press.Harries, K. 1983. Thoughts on a NonArbitrary Architecture. Perspecta,

20, 920; reprinted inDwelling, Seeing, and Designing, D. Seamon,

ed. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 41-59.

Heidegger, Martin, 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper

and

Row.

Jager, Bernd, 1983. Theorizing and the Elaboration of Place: Inquiry into

Galileo and Freud, in A. Giorgi, A. Barton, and C. Maes, eds.,

Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology, vol. 4.Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, pp. 153180.

Mugerauer, R. 1993. Toward an Architectural Vocabulary: The Porch as a

Between. In D. Seamon, ed., Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 103-28.

Mugerauer, R., 1994. Interpretations on Behalf of Place. Albany, NY:

SUNY Press.

Norberg-Schulz, C. 1971. Existence, Space, and Architecture. New York:

Praeger.

NorbergSchulz, C. 1980. Genius Loci: Toward a Phenomenology of

Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.

NorbergSchulz, C. 1985. The Concept of Dwelling: On the Way to a

Figurative Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.

Norberg-Schulz, C. 1988. Architecture: Meaning and Place. New York:

Rizzoli.

Relph, E., 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.

g p gg



19/19

Seamon, D., 1979. A Geography of the Lifeworld. New York:

St. Martin's.

Seamon, D., 1982. The Phenomenological Contribution to Environmental

Psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 119140.

Seamon, D., l987. Phenomenology and Environmentbehavior Research.

In G. T. Moore and E. Zube (Eds.), Advances in Environment,

Behavior and Design, vol. l. New York: Plenum, pp. 3-27.Seamon, D., 1989. Humanistic and Phenomenological Advances in

Environmental Design. The Humanistic Psychologist 17(Autumn),

280-293.

Seamon, D., 1991. Awareness and Reunion: A Phenomenology of the

Person-Environment Relationship as Portrayed in the New York

Photographs of Andr Kertsz, in Place Images in the Media, L.

Zonn (ed.). Totowa, New Jersey: Roman and Littlefield, pp. 87-107.

Seamon, D., ed., 1993. Dwelling, Seeing and Building: Toward a

Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Seamon, D. & Mugerauer, R., eds., 1985. Dwelling, Place and

Environment: Towards a Phenomenology of Person and World.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Silverstein, M., 1993. The First Roof: Interpreting a Spatial Pattern. In D.

Seamon, ed., Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a

Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 77-101.

Thiis-Evensen, T., 1987. Archetypes in Architecture. Oslo: Norwegian

University Press.

Zimmerman, M. 1983. Toward a Heideggerian Ethos for RationalEnvironmentalism. Environmental Ethics, 5, 99131.

Back to top

g gg

Seamon - Concretizing Heidegger's Notion of Dwelling

Documents

Transcript of Seamon - Concretizing Heidegger's Notion of Dwelling