多林·斯蒂芬/Dorin Stefan

徐知蘭 譯/Translated by XU Zhilan

1 城市

我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，歷史上曾出現(xiàn)過(guò)許多對(duì)城市進(jìn)行研究、組織和發(fā)展的不同模式?？傮w而言，人們通過(guò)原型，從文化和建筑兩個(gè)層面對(duì)歐洲城市進(jìn)行解讀。因此，人類進(jìn)行城市建設(shè)的第一個(gè)原型就是以網(wǎng)格狀結(jié)構(gòu)為基礎(chǔ)的古希臘城市。古希臘人在對(duì)星辰和蒼穹的凝望中，找到了他們想要的和諧，他們通過(guò)理性秩序在人間實(shí)現(xiàn)了和諧。緊隨其后的第二種城市建設(shè)原型是古羅馬城市，由相互垂直的南北大道和東西大道兩條軸線在中點(diǎn)相交構(gòu)成，在交點(diǎn)處形成城市中心，并在那里建有各種象征權(quán)力的標(biāo)志性建筑。而每一座新建成羅馬城市聚落都不斷重復(fù)這個(gè)原型。之后，中世紀(jì)時(shí)期出現(xiàn)了理想城市的基礎(chǔ)模型。進(jìn)入現(xiàn)代，我們可以討論的是現(xiàn)代主義運(yùn)動(dòng)時(shí)期的城市原型，也就是勒·柯布西耶設(shè)計(jì)的線性城市。

網(wǎng)格狀的城市模型、南北大道和東西大道形成的正交軸線城市模型和線性城市都反映了人類理性的頭腦和概念。這些概念和它們產(chǎn)生的現(xiàn)實(shí)往往彼此沖突，在我們的頭腦中，它們不斷消除、重疊、限制或建設(shè)了我們想象中的虛構(gòu)空間，讓它不斷擴(kuò)張，直至蔓延全球。概念一個(gè)接著一個(gè)，虛假緊隨虛構(gòu)而來(lái)。全球化的虛構(gòu)空間越來(lái)越成為可供消費(fèi)的產(chǎn)品。也許，這就是我們永遠(yuǎn)被過(guò)去的歷史糾纏不清的原因，那段歷史形成于我們闖進(jìn)概念的迷宮之前。古希臘人出于對(duì)擁有非世俗世界的渴望，通過(guò)神話人物代達(dá)羅斯i把平凡的人世間變得規(guī)劃有序，來(lái)映射天堂之美。他們通過(guò)理性秩序的方式建立起（超越塵世的）和諧天堂。我們無(wú)法理解超凡脫俗的事物。但我們可以通過(guò)理性秩序建成平凡之物，讓它們反映超越平凡的特征。

勒·柯布西耶把現(xiàn)代城市安置在多層建筑里，為了實(shí)現(xiàn)坐落在花園里的街區(qū)，為了把工廠從住宅區(qū)里搬走，也為了實(shí)現(xiàn)人車分流，分隔開(kāi)不同的城市功能。勒·柯布西耶的這座現(xiàn)代城市——也就是線性城市，和過(guò)去由“毛驢小道”界定的歷史城市截然相反。毛驢的雙目緊盯地面，四蹄不停前行，時(shí)而需要翻山越嶺，它的主人緊跟其后，這幅場(chǎng)景描繪了天然的古代城市[1]。勒·柯布西耶就這樣用理性的現(xiàn)代城市來(lái)對(duì)抗這種只能一味因循“毛驢小道”向前發(fā)展的、非理性的歷史城市。當(dāng)然，勒·柯布西耶對(duì)城市原型的概括和簡(jiǎn)化也體現(xiàn)了部分真理的偉大象征意義。只是，重點(diǎn)并不在于歷史城市和現(xiàn)代城市之間的差別，而在于天然城市和理性城市之間的不同。因?yàn)槲野l(fā)現(xiàn)歷史城市在本質(zhì)上有其自身的理性基礎(chǔ)，而其差異卻在于理性和直覺(jué)之間。在藝術(shù)研究領(lǐng)域，畫(huà)家和理論家索林·杜米雷斯庫(kù)[2]曾比較了“思想雕塑”和“意識(shí)雕塑”之間的異同。這位畫(huà)家把康斯坦丁·布朗庫(kù)西ii的作品分為兩組，一組是發(fā)自內(nèi)心的作品，如《祈禱者》《地球的智慧》《吻》；另一組則是產(chǎn)生自概念、“對(duì)形式進(jìn)行升華”的作品，包括《空中之鳥(niǎo)》《魚(yú)》《雄雞》等等。

回到有關(guān)城市主題的探討，耶穌基督從未繪制過(guò)任何城市的藍(lán)圖。他只是在天堂等待人們到來(lái)——在那個(gè)超越塵俗的地方。而人類則借助思想的概念在塵世中建造出天堂的固定形式。歷史城市是人工雕琢的結(jié)果，它是人類頭腦的產(chǎn)物。最早的建設(shè)者表達(dá)了他的概念——網(wǎng)格形式；第二位則持有另一種概念——兩條正交的軸線；第三個(gè)概念是單一的線性空間。那些人們?cè)?jīng)建立和規(guī)劃的歷史城市，體現(xiàn)了這些思想觀念變成意識(shí)形態(tài)的過(guò)程。它們借助意識(shí)形態(tài)的力量代代相傳，長(zhǎng)盛不衰。它們?cè)粔m俗中的強(qiáng)權(quán)利用，被思想的力量驅(qū)使，在那些強(qiáng)權(quán)者的人類同胞面前為他們代言。歷史城市的形象是一副后來(lái)形成的面具，此前只有最初的人類聚落隨意地彼此共存。因此不拘一格的聚落形式才是最原始的形式，然后才通過(guò)這副面具（固定的形式） 變得正式起來(lái)。現(xiàn)在就回到隨意的形態(tài)如何？那就是，丟掉面具的生活，在去除了意識(shí)形態(tài)面具的城市中生活。我們哀嘆著歷史城市的消逝失落，其實(shí)我們此刻也仍在迷宮中茫然失措。我們陷入了概念的迷宮而無(wú)力逃脫。所以現(xiàn)在是否正應(yīng)丟掉面具（也就是理想的歷史城市的概念），離開(kāi)這座迷宮？是不是放棄了這個(gè)理念，我們就會(huì)因此看起來(lái)迷失了方向？我們?cè)?jīng)帶著開(kāi)放的心靈走進(jìn)迷宮，不知不覺(jué)地變成了概念的囚徒，而我們現(xiàn)在是否重新找到了心靈的思維——也就是直覺(jué)了？

也許，如果我們能找到那個(gè)在彈指一瞬間、理念剛好偏離了直覺(jué)的位置，我們就能走出這座迷宮。

2 建筑學(xué)

一般來(lái)說(shuō)，我們覺(jué)得自己知道建筑是什么，也知道它是如何建成的，我們通過(guò)專業(yè)訓(xùn)練和執(zhí)業(yè)實(shí)踐[3]來(lái)掌握建筑學(xué)的技能。而我目前關(guān)心的是（考慮到自己在建筑學(xué)教育領(lǐng)域多年來(lái)的持續(xù)投入），借助在設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程中采用計(jì)算機(jī)和人工智能技術(shù)的便捷性能，在未來(lái)，建筑師是否還能發(fā)揮同樣的作用？或者說(shuō)，他們會(huì)越來(lái)越多地被人工智所能替代；又或者……被其他什么要素所替代嗎？毋庸置疑的是，計(jì)算機(jī)目前為我們提供了巨大的幫助，尤其是在提高設(shè)計(jì)效率方面，在完成項(xiàng)目建設(shè)方面也同樣如此。計(jì)算機(jī)能更快地運(yùn)作，而對(duì)投資者來(lái)說(shuō)，速度非常重要。那么，從今往后，機(jī)器能取代一切嗎？答案仍未可知。在這樣的情景下，我懷疑人類建筑師還有什么方面是不能被機(jī)器建筑師所取代的。如果一切都轉(zhuǎn)化為知識(shí)和程序性的決策，那么，還有什么要素是不可替代的？為了找到答案，我回溯到起點(diǎn)，回到人工建成環(huán)境還只有簡(jiǎn)單的形式、只是人類庇護(hù)場(chǎng)所的時(shí)代。我在思考，曾經(jīng)帶領(lǐng)我們離開(kāi)庇護(hù)空間的出口是否也曾引領(lǐng)我們走向建筑學(xué)？建筑學(xué)是否曾為我們打開(kāi)了新的領(lǐng)域？一處建成空間的領(lǐng)域不僅是技術(shù)上十分有效的具有物質(zhì)形態(tài)的庇護(hù)所，同時(shí)也是各種思想和與物質(zhì)空間保持一致的精神空間的“庇護(hù)所”。

1 The city

We find in the history different models of tracing, organising and developing of cities. In general, the European city is read culturally and architecturally, through archetypes. Thus the first archetype of the founded city would have been that of ancient Greece based on the grid. The ancient Greeks, looking in the stars and at the sky, found a harmony they were trying to bring to earth through the rational order. It followed the second archetype of the founded city - the Roman city, marked by two axes, cardo and decumanus, perpendicular to each other, intersected at the middle, thus defining a centre equipped with the marks of power, in a process of permanent re-founding with each new Roman settlement. It followed in the Middle Ages a founding model of the ideal city and in Modernity we can talk about the city of the Modern Movement,the linear city drawn by Le Corbusier.

The grid model, cardo & decumanus, the linear city, was established as a reflection of the rational mind, of the idea. Ideas, their deeds, fought against each other, annihilated, overlapped, imposed, and produced in our minds a fictional space that expanded until it became global. Idea by idea. Fictitious after fictional. A globalised fictional becoming a consumer product. Perhaps this is why we are permanently haunted by a past that could only be the one before entering the labyrinth of the idea. The ancient Greeks,through the legendary Dedalus, began, ordering the earthly world as a reflection of heavenly beauty, in the desire to have a non-earthy earth. Establishing heavenly harmony (beyond the earth) through the gesture of rational order. What we cannot understand is extraordinary. What we can implement as a reflex of the extra-ordinary is an ordinary one, coming from the rational order.

Le Corbusier places the modern city on levels,segregates the functions of the city for the sake of the blocks in the park, of the factories separated from the houses and of devided traffic: pedestrian and cars. The modern city, the linear city, opposite to the historical city defined by the "donkey road". With his eyes on the ground, the donkey climbed the hill or followed its course as its feet carried and the man followed it, defining the historical, organic city[1].Thus Le Corbusier opposes to the irrational historical city, which would follow only the "donkey road"the modern, rational city. Of course, Le Corbusier generalises and simplifies but also has a great symbol of truth. Only that the difference won't be between the historical and the modern city but between the organic and the rational city. Because I saw that the historical foundation has a rational idea at its base. The distinction would be between reason and instinct. And in art we have the distinction that Sorin Dumitrescu[2], the painter and theoretician, makes between thought sculpture and mind sculpture. The painter distinguishes between the achievements of Constantin Brancusi, those of the heart, The Prayer,Wisdom of the Earth (Cumintenia Pamantului), the Kiss and those of the idea, those of the "sublimation of form": Bird in Space, The Fish, The Rooster etc.

Returning to the city, Jesus Christ did not draw any city. He is waiting for people in heaven. In that extra-ordinary. People, through the idea of mind,have formalised a heaven on earth. The historic city is an artifact, a product of the mind. The first founder had an idea of representation, the grid. The second one had another idea, two perpendicular axes, and the third one linear. The historical cities,founded, organised, are ideas becoming ideologies.They have been perpetuated from generation to generation by the ideology power. Imposed by the power of the powerful on earth, imposed by the force of the mind, to represent them in front of their peers. The image of the historically city is a mask, which appeared late, after the first human settlements began to coexist informally. It was first the informal, who were formalised with a mask(form). Let us go back to informal now? That is, to live without a mask, in a city deprived of the mask of ideology. We deplore the historic city we lost when we were actually lost in the maze. We went into the maze led by ideas and could not get out. Is it now this loss of the mask (the idea of the ideal historical city) coming out of the maze? Do we seem disoriented because we no longer have the idea?We entered the labyrinth with an open heart, as we lived informally captives of the idea, and now we find again the thoughts of the heart, the instinct?

Maybe we could get out of the maze if we found the point where the click occurred, where the sense of instinct deviated from the idea.

2 Architecture

Generally, we consider that we know what architecture is or how it is made, in the sense that we practice it by the virtue of the specialised training and experience[3]; what concerns me now(given my constant involvement for many years in architecture education) is - by virtue of the beneficial presence of the computer and artificial intelligence in the design process - if the architect in the future will have the same role or artificial intelligence replace us more and more? Or... what will replace it? Without discussion, the computer helps us now enormously, especially in terms of efficiency of design, but also of realisation; the computer can operate faster; for an investor, speed meant a lot; and then the machine will take over everything? We don't know yet; and in this context I wonder where the architect-being could not be replaced by the architect-machine; if everything becomes knowledge and procedural decision, where will be the irreplaceable being? Looking for answers,I thought back to the beginning, to those times when the artificial built space was a simple gesture,a shelter; and I was wondering - did the exit from the shelter lead us to architecture? Has architecture opened a new horizon for us? The horizon of a space built not only technically efficient physical shelter but at the same time a "shelter" of thoughts, of a mental space in solidarity with physical space.

我從建筑師因德拉·卡吉斯·麥克尤恩精彩紛呈的書(shū)中了解到，似乎建筑始于希臘神廟外圍廊的空間[4]。那是一處既非圍合也非開(kāi)敞的空間。神廟的墻體引起的心靈震動(dòng)既不屬于洞穴的黑暗，也不屬于室外的陽(yáng)光。這是一處新的空間，是為了讓努力奮斗的物種能夠見(jiàn)諸光明。建筑是新的空間嗎？因德拉·卡吉斯·麥克尤恩告訴我們，建筑如何作為一種意象而不是一處庇護(hù)空間緩慢形成的過(guò)程。建筑師一直以來(lái)都被稱為照亮想象和建成物理環(huán)境的人。而早在建筑學(xué)、哲學(xué)、數(shù)學(xué)和戲劇之前就出現(xiàn)的，是手工藝。它是對(duì)塵世中創(chuàng)造性的天才所具備知識(shí)的欣賞和崇敬，也是對(duì)想把天堂里的宇宙和平與和諧帶到人間的匠人的欣賞和崇敬。代達(dá)羅斯、西奧多羅斯iii、羅伊克斯iv、厄帕俄斯v、伽爾瑟夫農(nóng)vi、梅塔杰納斯vii等神話中的建筑師和工匠把想象變?yōu)楝F(xiàn)實(shí)，然后又從現(xiàn)實(shí)變?yōu)橄胂?，形成了所謂的建筑。他們“建造”了神廟——一處祭拜的空間，其四周圍繞著廊柱，這些廊柱在他們的想象中猶如飛行與陶罐，也仿佛神話和現(xiàn)實(shí)1）[4]。

工匠、藝術(shù)家和建筑師用手工藝的方式，模仿了我們?cè)谧匀唤缰幸?jiàn)到的景象，其目的卻是為了獲得我們需要為之賦予意義的人工制品。讓我們來(lái)闡釋一下。

建筑空間通過(guò)某種意義，或帶著某種意義，圍合了周圍的環(huán)境。直到人工建造的場(chǎng)所被賦予意義以前，它只是出于生存需要的空間。洞穴本身作為未知的象征，也作為假想中的宇宙，人類在其中描繪了許多符號(hào)，由此來(lái)加強(qiáng)心理上的內(nèi)化過(guò)程2）[5]，這一過(guò)程始于人類對(duì)自身在世界中所處的位置進(jìn)行探索的行為。出于生存需要的空間見(jiàn)諸光明[6]，并在人們面對(duì)外界現(xiàn)實(shí)感到震驚的時(shí)候得以建成；此后，又在人類對(duì)自己在有形現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中耀武揚(yáng)威的姿態(tài)感到驚訝的情形中建成。建筑像一只翻轉(zhuǎn)的手套，揭示了居住的涵義。意識(shí)在洞穴中留下痕跡，又指向了室外的現(xiàn)實(shí)事物——如一只陶罐、一匹紡織的帆布、一艘木船。這意味著給予者的出現(xiàn)。他走出洞穴，做了一只陶罐，織了一匹布，鑿了一艘木船，穿了一身布衣。他用帆布遮蔽自己的身體。他登上了船。他欣賞那個(gè)陶罐、那艘船，以及繪有各種符號(hào)的帆布。內(nèi)在的符號(hào)見(jiàn)諸光明，就像離開(kāi)“黑房間”的過(guò)程，光賦予了反面以意義，由此產(chǎn)生了圖像，并完成了外化的過(guò)程。反面變成了正面，并取而代之。建筑成為建造自身的人工建成空間。反面取而代之的過(guò)程正是建筑的意義所在。人工構(gòu)建的意義留下了印跡。它標(biāo)記了道路。我們能擦掉這些意義的印跡嗎？我們能毫無(wú)痛苦地?cái)[脫它們嗎？我不知道。但它們還在這里，我們也仍帶著這些印跡。

建筑自有神話起就體現(xiàn)了同樣多的功能必要和內(nèi)心渴望。它具有功能的必要性，因?yàn)楸幼o(hù)空間和食物是人類生存的必需品。人類對(duì)精神空間的渴望則來(lái)源于他想完成物理空間的建設(shè)，進(jìn)而拓展它，賦予它確定性，賦予它美感，以便享受生命的樂(lè)趣。精神空間和物理空間共同形成了人造的建成環(huán)境。

我不知道出于關(guān)心（或也許是恐懼）的立場(chǎng)，建筑是否會(huì)成為人工智能主導(dǎo)的排他性領(lǐng)域（并帶來(lái)建筑師的失業(yè)）。我更樂(lè)于認(rèn)為，我們作為人類，在我們所從事的創(chuàng)造性活動(dòng)中，不僅需要算法，也需要直覺(jué) （也就是非程序性的思考）。有人也許會(huì)說(shuō)，我們正在用頭腦和意識(shí)進(jìn)行創(chuàng)造，抑或稱為理性和心靈，又或是概念和思想。

為了實(shí)現(xiàn)建筑設(shè)計(jì)，我們?cè)诠ぷ髦型瑫r(shí)使用概念和直覺(jué)，同時(shí)依靠頭腦和心靈，也同時(shí)信賴?yán)硇院鸵庾R(shí)。如果我們承認(rèn)，理念或概念是能夠用數(shù)學(xué)（也就因此能用人工智能）的方式進(jìn)行“解讀”、無(wú)需意識(shí)參與的算法，那么思想、直覺(jué)和意識(shí)就是很難用算法來(lái)駕馭的東西。這也就是在今天，當(dāng)一切事物都向著“提供支持”的路徑發(fā)展的同時(shí)，它們也更接近人工智能的危險(xiǎn)的原因，因?yàn)橹庇X(jué)和意識(shí)可能是人類獨(dú)有的品質(zhì)。創(chuàng)造力也同樣來(lái)自熱情，熱情恰恰是意識(shí)，而非理念?！?/p>

譯注/Notes from translator

i 代達(dá)羅斯是古希臘神話中的建筑師和雕刻家，相傳曾為克里特國(guó)王建造迷宮。

ii 康斯坦丁·布朗庫(kù)西（1876-1957）生于羅馬尼亞，法國(guó)雕塑家和現(xiàn)代攝影家。他是繼奧古斯特·羅丹之后，20世紀(jì)最具影響力的雕塑家，被譽(yù)為現(xiàn)代主義雕塑先驅(qū)。

iii 西奧多羅斯，公元前6世紀(jì)的薩米亞雕塑家羅伊科斯的兒子。

iv 羅伊科斯是公元前6世紀(jì)的薩米亞雕塑家。他和他的兒子西奧多羅斯的青銅作品尤為引人注目；據(jù)希羅多德說(shuō)，羅伊科斯曾在薩摩斯島上建造了赫拉神廟，后來(lái)被大火燒毀。

v 厄帕俄斯是希臘神話中的英雄，特洛伊戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中參加希臘聯(lián)軍，不僅是有名的拳擊手，也是一位能工巧匠，在雅典娜幫助下建造了特洛伊木馬。

vi 伽爾瑟夫農(nóng)是克諾索斯古克里特島的建筑師，是以弗所的阿耳忒彌斯神廟的建造者。

vii 梅塔杰納斯是克諾索斯古克里特島的建筑師伽爾瑟夫農(nóng)的兒子，他跟隨父親參與了以弗所的阿耳忒彌斯神廟的建造。

I found in a book, a fascinating story told by an architect, Indra Kagis McEwen[4], as if the architecture had begun in that space of the peripter porch of the Greek temple. A space neither closed nor open. A vibration of the wall that was given neither to the darkness of the cave neither to the sunlight. A new space for a struggling being to come to light. Architecture a new space? Indra Kagis McEwen tells us how the architecture started slowly and was not intended as a shelter but as an image. Architects have since been called those who put the light on the imagination and give the built substance. Before architecture, before philosophy,before mathematics, before drama, there was the craftsmanship. It was the admiration and veneration for the knowledge of the earth's creative genius. Of the man who wanted to bring to earth the peace and harmony of the cosmos seen in heaven. Dedal,Theodorus, Rhoikos, Epeius, Chersifron, Metagenes,mythical architects and craftsmen made possible that transfer from the imaginary to the real and then from the real to the imaginary, that the people called architecture. They "built" the temple - the space of veneration, surrounded by columns, columns that embodied in their imagination flight and pottery,myths and realities1)[4].

Craftsmen, artists, architects through our artefacts we copy what we see in nature but in order to acquire our artifact we need to give it meaning.Let us interpret it.

In/by significance the architectural space closes round. Until it has been filled with significance the artificially constructed space is emptyness-lived-byneed. The cave, itself, a symbol of an unknown but assumed cosmos, is signed by man to strengthen his psychological internalisation2)[5]started with the investigation of the positioning in the world.Emptyness-lived-by-need comes to light[6]and is established in the architecture by the astonishment of the man in front of the reality-from outside and then, by the astonishment at his own gestures flaunting tangible realities. Like a glove turned on its back, the architecture brought to light the significance of the dwelling. Consciousness was signed in the cave and it was designated outside, in the reality of the things: a clay pot, a woven canvas,a wooden boat. Meaning givers. He came out of the cave, he made a pot of clay, he wove a canvas, he made a boat, he put a canvas on him. He covered himself with the canvas. He boarded on the ship.He adorned the clay pot, the ship and the canvas with signs. The inner sign came to light. Like the process from the "dark room", the light gave the negative meaning, it generate the image, it was externalised. The negative got positive. It has taken over. Architecture is an artificial space built itself.The process of taking over is the meaning of the architecture. The established meaning has left signs.It kept the road signs. Can we erase the signs of significance? Can we be deprived of them without suffering? I do not know. They are still present. We still carry these signs.

Starting from the myth, the architecture is in equal measure necessity and desire. Necessity because shelter along with food is vital to life. The desire for the mental space comes to complete the physical space,expand it, give it certainty, give it beauty, participate in the joy of life. The metal and the physical space form altogether the artificial built environment.

I do not know if from the concern (perhaps fear)that architecture will become the exclusive privilege of artificial intelligence (and the architect will lose his job) I like to believe that we, the people, in our creative works operate not only with algorithms but also with intuition (non-procedural thinking).Some would say that we operate concurrently with the brain and the consciousness. Or with reason and heart. Or with the idea and the thought.

For its realisation we work with ideas and intuitions, with the brain and the heart, with the reason and with the conscience. If we admit that ideas are non-conscious algorithms, which can be"read" mathematically (so by artificial intelligence),then thought, intuition, consciousness, are conscious algorithms that are hard to be gouverned by algorithms.That is why today, when everything is on the way to the"support", but also the danger of artificial intelligence,the intuition and the consciousness, could be those particularities specific to the human being. Creativity also comes from enthusiasm, enthusiasm which is consciousness, not idea.□

注釋/Notes

1）“那些神話人物之間獨(dú)具創(chuàng)造性的相互影響更進(jìn)一步暗示，周圍神廟的翼廊和早期把建筑同時(shí)闡釋為對(duì)飛行和航海的表達(dá)有很大的關(guān)系?！眮?lái)源：參考文獻(xiàn)[4]/"The ingenious correspondences between the mythical figures further suggest that the pteron of the peripterous temple had much to do with an early interpretation of architecture both as embodied flight and as navigation..." Sources: Reference [4]

2）“洞穴是歸屬地的象征，是心理學(xué)的內(nèi)化過(guò)程。這一過(guò)程結(jié)束后，人類才成為他自己，變得成熟起來(lái)。因此他不得不仿造出他留下過(guò)印記的整個(gè)世界，同時(shí)冒著擾亂它的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，把這些影響接納為構(gòu)成自身力量的一部分，由此整合他自己的個(gè)性和他為了適應(yīng)周遭世界而發(fā)展出來(lái)的個(gè)性。內(nèi)在自我的組織及其與外部世界的聯(lián)系同步發(fā)生。而洞穴，從這個(gè)角度來(lái)看，因其包容性而成為人類主體性的象征，與此同時(shí)，它也仍然有許多差異性的問(wèn)題?！?/p>

來(lái)源：參考文獻(xiàn)[5]/"The cave symbolises the place of identification, that is the process of psychological internalisation, after which the individual becomes himself and reaches maturity. He will therefore have to assimilate the whole collective world that puts his stamp on it, at the risk of disturbing it, and to integrate these contributions into his own powers, so as to constitute his own personality and a personality adapted to the world around him. The organisation of the inner self and its relation with the outer world is concurrent. The cave symbolises, from this point of view, the subjectivity, in its inclusion with the problems of its differentiation."Sources: Reference [5]

參考文獻(xiàn)/References

[1] LE CORBUSIER. Essential Joys. Bucharest:Meridiane Publishing House, 1971.

[2] DUMITRESCU S. Gorduz, from Ideas to "Showing", 7 Lessons to Make Art. Anastasia Publishing House, 2010.

[3] STEFAN D. Captives in the Labyrinth//Designing the Profile of The Future Architect. ROBU-MOVILA A,TIGANAS S, MINDIRIGIU E, eds. Igloo, 2019.

[4] MCEWEN I K. Socrates' Ancestor: An Essay on Architectural Beginnings. CambridgeMass:The MIT Press, 1993.

[5] CHEVALIER J, GHEERBRANT A, BUCHANANBROWN J. Dictionary of Symbols: myths, dreams,customs, gestures, forms, figures, colours, numbers.Penguin Books, 2009: 718.

[6] STEFAN D. Is light the poetry of the life of architecture?. IGLOO Magazine, 2019.