DOCSLIB.ORG

World Enough and Space-Time Absolute Versus Relational Theories of Space and Time

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
World Enough and Space-Time Absolute Versus Relational Theories of Space and Time World Enough and Space-Time Absolute versus Relational Theories of Space and Time John Barman A Bradford Book The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © 1989 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. This book was set in Times New Roman by Asco Trade Typesetting Ltd., Hong Kong and printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Earman, John. World enough and space-time. "Bradford book." Includes index. 1. Space and time. 2. Absolute, The. 3. Relationism. 4. Science-Methodology-Philosophy. 5. Science-Philosophy. I. Title. QC173.59.S65E17 1989 530.1'1 88-36404 ISBN 0-262-05040-4 And tear our pleasures with rough strife, Thorough the iron grates of life. For Frances, whose love passeth all understanding Contents Preface xi Notation Xlll In troduction 1 The Origins of the Absolute-Relational Controversy 6 1 Newton on Absolute Space and Time 7 2 Senses of Absoluteness 11 3 Relationism 12 4 Leibniz and the Ideality of Space 1 5 5 Other Relationisms 16 6 The Vacuum 18 7 Conclusion 20 Appendix: Newton's Scholium on Absolute Space and Time 20 2 Classical Space-Times 27 1 Machian Space-Time 27 2 Leibnizian Space-Time 30 3 Maxwellian Space-Time 31 4 Neo-Newtonian or Galilean Space-Time 33 5 Full Newtonian Space-Time 33 6 Aristotelian Space-Time 34 7 Other Classical Space-Times 35 8 Review and Quiz 36 Appendix: Absolute Objects 38 3 Choosing a Classical Space-Time 41 1 Arguments from the Meaning of 'Motion' 41 2 Arguments from Epistemology 42 3 Arguments from ScientificTheorizing 43 4 Symmetry Principles 45 5 Absolute Space 48 6 Symmetries, the Structure of Space-Time, and Substantivalism 55 viii Contents 7 Conclusion 57 Appendix: Comments on Symmetry, Invariance, and Dynamics 57 4 Rotation 61 1 Newton's Argument from Rotation 61 2 The Huygens-Leibniz Correspondence 66 3 Huygens's Response 67 4 Leibniz's Response 71 5 Berkeley's Response 73 6 Kant's Response 76 7 Maxwell's Response 78 8 Mach's Response 81 9 Poincare's Response 84 10 Instrumentalism 87 1 1 Conclusion 89 5 Relational Theories of Motion: A Twentieth-Century Perspective 91 1 Relational Theories of Motion in a Classical Setting 91 2 The Relational Theories of Barbour and Bertotti 92 3 Einstein on Rotation 96 4 Rotation and Relativity 97 5 Relativistic Rigid Motion 98 6 Relativity, Relationism, and Rotation 101 7 Einstein's Critique Revisited 102 8 Mach's Principle 105 9 Conclusion 108 Appendix: Rigid Motion in Relativistic Space-Times 108 6 Substantivalism: Newton versus Leibniz 111 Space and Space-Time as Substances 111 2 Leibniz's Argument 116 Contents ix 3 The Structure of Leibniz's Argument 118 4 Leibniz's Weapons 118 5 The Reach and Implications of Leibniz's Argument 120 6 Limitations (?) on Leibniz's Argument 121 7 Responses to Leibniz's Argument 122 8 The Absolutist Counterattack 125 9 Sklar's Maneuver 126 10 Another Relationist Maneuver 128 11 Leibniz on Force 130 12 Possibilia and Relationism 134 13 Conclusion 136 7 Kant, Incongruent Counterparts, and Absolute Space 137 Kant's Argument against Relationism 137 2 A Relationist Account of the Distinction between Right and Left 143 3 Parity Nonconservation 147 4 Incongruent Counterparts and the Intuitive Nature of Space 150 5 Conclusion 152 8 Modern Treatments of Substantivalism and Relationism 154 1 Field's View 154 2 Relativity and Fields 155 3 Fields and Manifold Substantivalism 158 4 The FirsLHCileConstruction 159 5 Friedmancon Relationism: Model-Submodel versus Model EmbeddiIJ.g 163 6 Mundy on Relational Theories of Euclidean Space and Minkowski Space-Time 166 7 What the Antisubstarttivalist Must Do 170 8 Conclusion 173 x Contents 9 General Relativity and Substantivalism: A Very Holey Story 175 Einstein's Hole Argument 175 2 Perils of Determinism 177 3 Space-Time Substantivalism and the Possibility of Determinism 179 4 Taking the Possibility of Determinism Seriously 180 5 The Role of the Mutability of Space-Time Structure 183 6 The Leibnizian Reaction 185 7 Einstein's Reaction 186 8 A Catalog of Responses to Einstein's Hole Construction 1 89 9 Trying to Do without Space-Time Points 191 10 Another Relationist Approach 194 11 An Absolutist Counterattack 195 12 Predication and Identity 196 13 Essentialism 199 14 Counterpart Theory 202 15 Conclusion 207 Notes 209 References 220 Index 229 Preface I was pleased and flattered when Larry Sklar and Mike Friedman chose to mention me in the acknowledgments to their respective books Space, Time, and Space-Time and Foundations of Space-Time Theories. I return the compliment by stating that these are still the best available texts on a wide range of topics in the philosophy of space and time. My work may also be seen as a more substantive compliment. Sklar's and Friedman's books were especially notable for the insights and the much-needed rigor and precision they brought to the never ending struggle between absolute and relational conceptions of space and time. Now the time is ripe for achieving a fuller understanding of the dimensions and ramificationsof the issues framed by Sklar and Friedman. Building on their contributions, I hope to make philosophical progress of various kinds: some of the issues can be settled; others can be sharpened; still others can be pushed aside as irrelevant; and some can be shown to break down or dissolve into the metaphysical ether. Regardless of the specifics of particular issues, the overarching goal here is to foster a better appreciation of how the absolute­ relational controversy connects to problems in mathematics, physics, metaphysics, and the philosophy of scientific methodology. Foundation problems in physics, especially the general theory of relativity, are used both to advance the discussion of philosophical problems and to demon­ strate that the absolute-relational controversy is not merely philosophical: it cannot be confined to the back pages of philosophy journals. Although the treatment of some topics is necessarily technical, the organization and level of presentation of this work make it appropriate for use in an upper-level undergraduate or beginning graduate course in the philosophy of science. The bibliography, while making no pretense at completeness, is extensive enough to guide the reader into both the classic and the more up-to-date literature. I have made no attempt to disguise my own predilections and prejudices, but at important junctions I have tried to indicate the alternative paths and the arguments pro and con for each. To some extent this may be a mistake, for philosophy might be better served if we chose simply to ignore various positions. I harbor no illusion that the considerations I marshal here achieve anything approaching closure. Indeed, I hope that this work will be judged by one of the most reliable yardsticks of fruitful philosophiz­ ing, namely, How many discussions does it engender? How many disserta­ tion topics does it spin off? Xll Preface I am grateful to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and to the National Science Foundation (grant no. SES-8701534) fo r their support of this project. Many colleagues unselfishly offered their advice on earlier drafts of this book; to one and all I offer in return my sincere appreciation, but I must especially thank Mike Friedman, Al Janis, David Malament, Tim Maudlin, John Norton, Robert Rynasiewicz, and Paul Teller. Thanks are also due to Michael Wright, whose generous support of the �-Club made it possible to travel to England, where I received both encouragement and helpful criticism from Harvey Brown, Jeremy Butterfield, Michael Redhead, Simon Saunders, and other members of the Oxbridge mob. Other colleagues could have, but didn't, offerhelp; here I would like especially to mention Larry Sklar. However, his superb selec­ tions in Chinese restaurants more than make up for this lapse. Section 5.1 relies on "Remarks on Relational Theories of Motion," Canadian Journal of Philosophy 19 (1989): 83-87. Section 8.1 relies on "Locality, Non-locality, and Action at a Distance: A Skeptical Review of Some Philosophical Dogmas," in Kelvin's Baltimore Lectures and Modern Theoretical Physics, edited by P. Achinstein and R. Kargon (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987). Chapter 9 relies on "What Price Space-Time Subs tan­ tivalism? The Hole Story," British Journal fo r the Philosophy of Science 38 (1987): 515-525; and "Why Space Is Not a Substance (at Least Not to First Degree)," Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67 (1986): 225-244. I am grateful to the editors and publishers concerned for their permissions to reuse the material here. Notation To make the symbolism familiar to the greatest number of readers, I have adopted the component notation for vectors and tensors instead of the newer abstract index notation. Thus, �:j�2.::j� stands for the coordinate components of a tensor of type (r, s). The Einstein summation convention j j on repeated indices is in effect; e.g., gijV == LjgijV . Round and square brackets around indices are used to denote, respectively, symmetrization and antisymmetrization; e.g., 1[iJl == t(1;j - �i) and 1(ij) == tCf;j + T;J Logic (x) Universal quantifier (3x) Existential quantifier P --+ Q if P then Q I P not P Sets u A u B the union of A and B n A n B the intersection of A and B c A c B A is a subset of B E X E A x is an element of A o Null set Maps tPmaps x E A to tP(x) E B Inverse map of tP Composition t/I followed by tP The dragging along induced by the map tP of the geometric object 0 xiv Notation Manifolds M An n-dimensional differentiable manifold (usually CO) !R Real line IEn An n-dimensional Euclidean space A local coordinate chart for M determining the local coordinates Xi, i.e., Va c M and ifJa: M --.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Here’S No Speed of Light, So What the Heck Did Michelson Measure?” “What the Humean Should Say About Quantities: a Reply to Bricker”
    Hellems Building, Office 282 [email protected] CU Boulder, Dept of Philosophy (215)-262-3126 Boulder, CO 80309 www.zrperry.com Zee R. Perry curriculum vitae Employment 2018–present Center Visiting Scholar Center for the Study of Origins, University of Colorado, Boulder 2018–present Visiting Instructor Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, Boulder 2016–2018 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Postdoctoral Associate Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick Education 2009–2016 Ph.D. in Philosophy, New York University. Dissertation: Physical Quantities: Mereology and Dynamics Committee: Tim Maudlin (chair), Cian Dorr, Hartry Field, Shamik Dasgupta (ex- ternal, Princeton) 2007–2009 B.A. in Philosophy, Rutgers University Summa Cum Laude. 2005–2007 Moravian College Areas of Specialization Metaphysics, Philosophy of Physics Areas of Competence Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Art, Logic Fellowships and Awards Summer Early Career Researcher Visiting Fellowship, ANU School of Philosophy and Centre 2019 for the Philosophy of the Sciences 2018–present Visiting Scholarship Award (Project: Origins of Measurement), Center for the Study of Origins, CU Boulder 2015–2016 Mellon Dissertation Fellowship, NYU 2015 Student Senator’s Council Conference Funding Travel Award, NYU 2015 Outstanding Teaching Award, NYU 2014 Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Dean’s Student Travel Grant, NYU 2009–2014 MacCracken Fellowship, NYU 1 Publications 2017 “How to be a Substantivalist Without Getting Shifty About It”. Philosophical Issues: Metaphysics. 27, (1). (2017). http://philpapers.org/rec/PERHTB 2017 “What the Humean Should Say about Entanglement” (with Harjit Bhogal). Noûs. 51, (1). (2017). http://philpapers.org/rec/BHOWTH 2015 “Properly Extensive Quantities”. Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2103.15570V2 [Physics.Hist-Ph] 22 Jun 2021 to This Article in Its Purpose and Content
    An Analysis of the Concept of Inertial Frame Boris Čulina Department of Mathematics University of Applied Sciences Velika Gorica Zagrebačka cesta 5, 10410 Velika Gorica, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The concept of inertial frame of reference is analysed. It has been shown that this fundamental concept of physics is not clear enough. A definition of inertial frame of reference is proposed which expresses its key inherent property. The definition is operational and powerful. Many other properties of inertial frames follow from the definition or it makes them plausible. In particular, the definition shows why physical laws obey space and time symmetries and the principle of relativity, it resolves the problem of clock synchronization and the role of light in it, as well as the problem of the geometry of inertial frames. keywords: inertial frame of reference, space and time symmetries, the principle of relativity, clock synchronization, physical geometry The concept of inertial frame is a fundamental concept of physics. The opinion of the author is that not enough attention has been paid to such a significant concept, not only in textbooks, but also in the scientific literature. In the scientific literature, many particular issues related to the concept of inertial frame have been addressed, but, as far as the author is aware, a sys- tematic analysis of this concept has not been made. DiSalle’s article [DiS20] in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives an overview of the histori- cal development of the concept of an inertial frame as an essential part of the historical development of physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Architectural Theory and Practice, and the Question of Phenomenology
    Architectural Theory and Practice, and the Question of Phenomenology (The Contribution of Tadao Ando to the Phenomenological Discourse) Von der Fakultät Architektur, Bauingenieurwesen und Stadtplanung der Brandenburgischen Technischen Universität Cottbus zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktor-Ingenieurs genehmigte Dissertation vorgelegt von Mohammadreza Shirazi aus Tabriz, Iran Gutachter: : Prof. Dr. Eduard Führ Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Karsten Harries Gutachter: Gastprofessor. Dr. Riklef Rambow Tag der Verteidigung: 02. Juni 2009 Acknowledgment My first words of gratitude go to my supervisor Prof. Führ for giving me direction and support. He fully supported me during my research, and created a welcoming and inspiring atmosphere in which I had the pleasure of writing this dissertation. I am indepted to his teachings and instructions in more ways than I can state here. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Karsten Harries. His texts taught me how to think on architecture deeply, how to challenge whatever is ‘taken for granted’ and ‘remain on the way, in search of home’. I am also grateful to other colleagues in L.S. Theorie der Architektur. I want to express my thanks to Dr. Riklef Rambow who considered my ideas and texts deeply and helped me with his advice at different stages. I am thankful for the comments and kind helps I received from Dr. Katharina Fleischmann. I also want to thank Prof. Hahn from TU Dresden and other PhD students who attended in Doktorandentag meetings and criticized my presentations. I would like to express my appreciation to the staff of Langen Foundation Museum for their kind helps during my visit of that complex, and to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • On High Order Finite-Difference Metric Discretizations Satisfying GCL On
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln NASA Publications National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2014 On high order finite-difference metric discretizations satisfying GCL on moving and deforming grids Bjorn Sjögreen Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, [email protected] Helen C. Yee NASA Ames Research Center, [email protected] Marcel Vinokur NASA Ames Research Center Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nasapub Sjögreen, Bjorn; Yee, Helen C.; and Vinokur, Marcel, "On high order finite-difference metric discretizations satisfying GCL on moving and deforming grids" (2014). NASA Publications. 272. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nasapub/272 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in NASA Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Journal of Computational Physics 265 (2014) 211–220 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Computational Physics www.elsevier.com/locate/jcp Short note On high order finite-difference metric discretizations ✩ satisfying GCL on moving and deforming grids , Björn Sjögreen a 1, H.C. Yee b, Marcel Vinokur b a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551, United States b NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, United States article info abstract Article history: In this note we generalize our previous treatment of the discretizations of geometric Received 25 July 2013 conservation laws on steady grids (Vinokur and Yee, 2000) to general time dependent grids. Accepted 28 January 2014 The commutative property of mixed difference operators is generalized to apply to time Available online 12 February 2014 metrics and Jacobians.
    [Show full text]
  • Paradox Regained? a Brief Comment on Maudlin on Black Hole Information Loss
    (Information) Paradox Regained? A Brief Comment on Maudlin on Black Hole Information Loss JB Manchak, James Owen Weatherall Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of California, Irvine Abstract We discuss some recent work by Tim Maudlin concerning Black Hole Information Loss. We argue, contra Maudlin, that there is a paradox, in the straightforward sense that there are propositions that appear true, but which are incompatible with one another. We discuss the significance of the paradox and Maudlin's response to it. Keywords: Black holes; Information loss paradox; Kodama-Wald theorem; evaporation event; Global hyperbolicity The black hole information loss paradox (Hawking, 1976) is a widely discussed (putative) puzzle that arises when one attempts to make sense of physicists' expectation that global quantum dynamics will be unitary in light of the postulated phenomenon of black hole evaporation (Hawking, 1974, 1975; Unruh, 1976), which is apparently a consequence of Hawking radiation.1 In a provocative recent manuscript, Tim Maudlin (2017) forcefully argues that \There is no `information loss' paradox." The \solution" to the \paradox", he claims, requires no new physics and indeed, was already available, though not appreciated, in 1975. The appearance of paradox arises only because of persistent errors, both mathematical and conceptual in character, by prominent members of the physics community. There is much to admire in Maudlin's treatment of the subject. We agree, for instance, with his discussion of the (non-)role of \information" in the putative paradox. What is really at issue is predictability, or even better, retrodictability, and not information (at least in the sense of information theory): as we will describe in more detail below, the puzzle concerns whether any specification of data on a particular surface is sufficient to retrodict the physical process by which that data came about.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution of the Ehrenfest Paradox in the Dynamic Interpretation of Lorentz Invariance F
    Resolution of the Ehrenfest Paradox in the Dynamic Interpretation of Lorentz Invariance F. Winterberg University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557-0058, USA Z. Naturforsch. 53a, 751-754 (1998); received July 14, 1998 In the dynamic Lorentz-Poincare interpretation of Lorentz invariance, clocks in absolute motion through a preferred reference system (resp. aether) suffer a true contraction and clocks, as a result of this contraction, go slower by the same amount. With the one-way velocity of light unobservable, there is no way this older pre-Einstein interpretation of special relativity can be tested, except in cases involv- ing rotational motion, where in the Lorentz-Poincare interpretation the interaction symmetry with the aether is broken. In this communication it is shown that Ehrenfest's paradox, the Lorentz contraction of a rotating disk, has a simple resolution in the dynamic Lorentz-Poincare interpretation of Lorentz invariance and can perhaps be tested against the prediction of special relativity. One of the oldest and least understood paradoxes of contraction. With all clocks understood as light clocks special relativity is the Ehrenfest paradox [ 1 ], the Lorentz made up of Lorentz-contraded rods, clocks in absolute contraction of a rotating disk, whereby the ratio of cir- motion go slower by the same amount. For an observer cumference of the disk to its diameter should become less in absolute motion against the preferred reference than n. The paradox gave Einstein the idea that in accel- system, the contraction and time dilation observed on an erated frames of reference the metric is non-euclidean object at rest in this reference system is there explained and that by reason of his principle of equivalence the as an illusion caused by the Lorentz contraction and time same should be true in the presence of gravitational fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Principle of Relativity in Physics and in Epistemology Guang-Jiong
    Principle of Relativity in Physics and in Epistemology Guang-jiong Ni Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433,China Department of Physics , Portland State University, Portland,OR97207,USA (Email: [email protected]) Abstract: The conceptual evolution of principle of relativity in the theory of special relativity is discussed in detail . It is intimately related to a series of difficulties in quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory as well as to new predictions about antigravity and tachyonic neutrinos etc. I. Introduction: Two Postulates of Einstein As is well known, the theory of special relativity(SR) was established by Einstein in 1905 on two postulates (see,e.g.,[1]): Postulate 1: All inertial frames are equivalent with respect to all the laws of physics. Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same value c. The postulate 1 , usually called as the “principle of relativity” , was accepted by all physicists in 1905 without suspicion whereas the postulate 2 aroused a great surprise among many physicists at that time. The surprise was inevitable and even necessary since SR is a totally new theory out broken from the classical physics. Both postulates are relativistic in essence and intimately related. This is because a law of physics is expressed by certain equation. When we compare its form from one inertial frame to another, a coordinate transformation is needed to check if its form remains invariant. And this Lorentz transformation must be established by the postulate 2 before postulate 1 can have quantitative meaning. Hence, as a metaphor, to propose postulate 1 was just like “ to paint a dragon on the wall” and Einstein brought it to life “by putting in the pupils of its eyes”(before the dragon could fly out of the wall) via the postulate 2[2].
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstructing William Craig Explanation of Absolute Time Based on Islamic Philosophy
    Reconstructing William Craig Explanation of Absolute Time Based on Islamic Philosophy M. S. Kavyani (1), H. Parsania (2), and H. Razmi (3) Department of Philosophy of Physics, Baqir al Olum University, 37185-787, Qom, I. R. Iran. (2) Permanent Address: Department of Social Sciences, Tehran University, Tehran, I. R. Iran. (3) Permanent Address: Department of Physics, University of Qom, Qom, I. R. Iran. (1) [email protected] (2) [email protected] (3) [email protected] Abstract After the advent of the theory of special relativity, the existence of an absolute time in nature was rejected in physics society. In recent decades, William Craig has endeavored to offer an interpretation of empirical evidences corresponding to theory of relativity with the preservation of an absolute time. His strategy is based on two viewpoints including dynamical theory of time and the Eminent God’s temporal being. After considering and criticizing these two viewpoints, using the well-known overall substantial motion of nature in Islamic philosophy and thus the realization of a general time for all the nature, we have tried to reconstruct Craig argument for an absolute time. Although Craig has considered some evidences from modern physics reasoning on an absolute time, the special advantage of the approach considered here is in this fact that it connects better the existing gap between the metaphysics and the physics of the argument. Keywords: Absolute time; Theory of relativity; William Craig; The dynamical time theory; Islamic Philosophy; Nature overall substantial motion; General time Introduction In classical mechanics, the absolute universal time was considered as the measure of the events chronology and a parameter for determining their priority, posteriority, and simultaneity.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Ontology of Space for GFO
    Formal Ontology in Information Systems 53 R. Ferrario and W. Kuhn (Eds.) © 2016 The authors and IOS Press. This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-660-6-53 Towards an Ontology of Space for GFO Ringo BAUMANN a, Frank LOEBE a,1 and Heinrich HERRE b a Computer Science Institute, University of Leipzig, Germany b IMISE, University of Leipzig, Germany Abstract. Space and time are basic categories of any top-level ontology. They ac- count for fundamental assumptions of the modes of existence of those individuals that are said to be in space and time. The present paper is devoted to GFO-Space, the ontology of space in the General Formal Ontology (GFO). This ontology is in- troduced by a set of axioms formalized in first-order logic and further elucidated by consequences of the axiomatization. The theory is based on four primitives: the category of space regions, the rela- tions of being a spatial part and being a spatial boundary, as well as the relation of spatial coincidence. The presence of boundaries and the notion of coincidence witness an inspiration of the ontology by well-motivated ideas of Franz Brentano on space, time and the continuum. Taking up a line of prior investigations of his ap- proach, the present work contributes a further step in establishing a corresponding ontology of space, employing rigorous logical methods. Keywords. top-level ontology, theory of space, theory of boundaries 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening up Bodyspace: Perspectives from Posthuman and Feminist Theory Xenia Kokoula
    11 Opening up Bodyspace: Perspectives from Posthuman and Feminist Theory Xenia Kokoula Introduction bodily formations, entanglements and alliances The field of architecture has long been dominated by are we confronted with? As our powers of shaping the human body as the measure of things.1 Situated and transforming all spatial scales – from the scale in the single room, the home, the neighborhood, of the body to that of the planet – become clear the city and moving on to larger and larger scales, in what has been called the Anthropocene, these the human body takes centre stage in the design questions become all the more urgent even if they process. Αs several scholars have critically noted, far exceed the scope of this essay.5 this is the normalised and normative white male body, as exemplified in Le Corbusier’s Modulor or Confronted with emerging spatio-corporeal para- in Ernst Neufert’s still routinely used handbook.2 digms, architects can no longer solely rely on a It is a whole and closed body surrounded by and theoretical canon that has historically ‘been defi- enclosed in spatial spheres that are firmly placed in cient in the very tools of self-criticism’.6 They must a pre-existing Cartesian universe. therefore seek inspiration in related discourses in the humanities and social sciences. The main Recent theoretical discussions have questioned purpose of this essay is, thus, to suggest possible this implicit understanding of the body as a closed starting points, and speculatively explore a range and impenetrable unity, along with the wider rejec- of conceptual paradigms and their implications for tion of anthropocentricism, and the role and limits design.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Mesa Preliminary Executive Budget Plan
    Preliminary Executive Budget Plan City of Mesa, Arizona for the Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mayor Scott Smith Councilmembers Scott Somers – Vice Mayor Dave Richins District 6 District 1 Alex Finter Dennis Kavanaugh District 2 District 3 Christopher Glover Dina Higgins District 4 District 5 City Manager Christopher J. Brady Table of Contents Budget Highlights ................................................................................................................................... 1 Operations ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Capital Improvement Program .................................................................................................................... 3 FY2012/13 Budget Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4 FY12/13 General Fund Overview ................................................................................................................. 8 Budget and Financial Summaries ...........................................................................................................11 Summary of Revenue by Source ................................................................................................................................11 Appropriations by Department ..................................................................................................................................12 Revenues
    [Show full text]
  • Putting Space in Place: Philosophical Topography and Relational
    Putting Space in Place: Philosophical Topography and Relational Geography 1. Introduction: Space and Geography Although a discipline often characterized as essentially spatial in its orientation, geography seems only very seldom to have devoted significant attention to exploring the concept of space itself. Indeed, the shift in geographical thinking over the last fifty years or so towards a mode of thinking that takes space as bound up with social and political process actually serves to reinforce, rather than rectify, the neglect of space itself within geographical theorizing. A similar point could also be made with respect to many of the theorists on whom geography draws. Both Foucault and Lefebvre, for instance, while they emphasize the inextricability of the spatial and the socio-political, nevertheless rely upon a notion of space that remains essentially unarticulated and largely unexplored. Just what the phenomenon of space might be that is at issue in the various spatialities and spatializations that appear in their work thus remains obscure (in spite of Lefebvre’s own claims) – and it is no less so in most of the other thinkers who have been taken up within recent geographic discourse or in the geographical appropriations of their thought. Thus from Deleuze through to Sloterdijk spatial ideas and images are constantly in play, and yet what is at issue in the very idea of space and the spatial is almost never directly addressed. In this latter respect, any criticism of geographical theory for its relative neglect of space cannot be restricted to geography alone – with some notable exceptions, very few thinkers, no matter what the discipline, have given serious attention to the phenomenon of space, any more than to the phenomena of time and of place, but have tended instead to deal with various forms or modes of space – to spatialities rather than to space as such.
    [Show full text]