Dialogue and Universalism

The inquiry into the nature of megaspaces is a great challenge for Regional Studies of the XXI century. This challenge has three dimensions: a cognitive, an empirical, a pragmatic dimension. This note is an invitation for a brainstorming discussion on the problem of megaspaces.

The author suggests to view the architectural planning of the human environment as „directing” the phenomena and events that occur in human surroundings. In her reflections on human existence she juxtaposes the concepts “environment” and “space”, which both accentuate different aspects of the human environment. The author views “environment” as the objective existence of human surroundings, and “space” as the effect of environmental envisionment and experiencing the environment by means of rationality and valuation.The author also focuses on interactions between the paradigm of thought and the paradigm of the order which humans bring into the space they design, and describes related examples. She notes that the links between architecture and the “how” and “what” of our thinking are visible not only in accounts of bygone eras, but also in the influence on architecture of two contemporary thought trends—post-modernism and ecologism. She goes on to suggest that ecological architecture should be understood as spatial design patterned on the structure of eco-systems. Thus understood, ecological architecture is neither structuralistic, nor “atomic”, nor collectivistic. The author also sees the difference between post-modern and ecological architecture in the ability of making use of the opportunities provided by difference.

Doubtless that which strongly links Karol Wojtyła’s Laborem exercens encyclical with Karl Marx’s Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 is not so much philosophy of work as the personalistic anti-feudalism that is equally alive in both works. The personalistic trait, in Marxism merely an (unpursued) option mentioned in the Manuscripts, was taken further—philosophically, and not just ethically—in Laborem exercens, where the person becomes an ontological category (in light both of the transcendent existence of a tri-personal God and the transcendence of the communities created by human beings, who are only able to live in communities). Also, the person acquired an ontological-social dimension by determining the boundaries of humanity’s co-creative (also in the world-creating sense) communion with God as the ideal of community-based material and social existence. And this is also the guiding perspective of my initial analysis of the personalization process underway in Polish society and the post-Vatican-II Church. Both are gradually—if not without some difficulty—learning to part with the non-personalistic models characteristic for the previous, still considerably feudalism-influenced era, which manifested themselves as much in the institutionalismof official Marxism as the socially (not religiously!) motivated doctrines of the Church.

1. The birth of dialogue from the spirit of the Polish October political uprising: From social civil war and simple exclusions (even physical) to negotiations andcomplicated “Dialogue of Contradictions” within national entity. Almost 25 years before the much later birth and international triumph of the Solidarity Union, the “Polish October” of 1956, history’s first victorious anti-Stalinist political uprising and most certainly a historical milestone for Poland—if not all of Europe—was the main harbinger of change in all fundamental spheres of life.2. Secularism in the place of atheism or the acceptance of pluralism at the price of indifference :the “our little stability” ideology3. International cooperation as a fundamental inspiration and “umbrella”4. Patriotism as a “civic religion” mainly for unbelievers and even mediatisation of materialism and Christianity5. Towards a new complementarity/synergy-founded universalism6. New names, new problems7. Synopsis, updates8. The next stage: Dialogue and Universalism Virtual University experimental project