constant hospitality law

The real generosity of a host is not to invite someone or something to occupy a space, but to invite a transformation of the space.

___________

via: https://strelkamag.com/en/article/mark-wigley-new-babylon

NEW BABYLON: RADICAL HOSPITALITY IN A WORLD BEYOND LABOR

rp ness..  iwan baan ness and .. an oikos ness.. fractaling earth as oikos.. hospitality

An excerpt from Mark Wigley’s essay about an architectural paradigm of free space and time afforded by automation.

mark.. constant.. new babylon

Real hospitality is a radical act. This invitation and embrace of the unknown guest necessarily undermines the designer and the design itself. In other words, a genuinely hospitable architecture that would welcome the other would welcome its own destruction. It would welcome the dissolution and blurring of the figure of the designer. The real generosity of a host is not to invite someone or something to occupy a space, but to invite a transformation of the space..t

hosting ie: a campfire et al

New Babylon is the most extreme and invaluable example of extreme hospitality. Here, hospitality is extended to the whole species. It is a genuinely popular architecture for a world in which no one would be considered either ordinary or strange. This would be, to put it crudely, an architecture for the people, and nothing less.

2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Babylon_(Constant_Nieuwenhuys)

Constant really tries to ask the question: how could we live together? What does it mean to be suspended within a networked world beyond labor? ..t

bishop freedom law: how do i have to be in order for you to be free – Orland Bishop

But the question Constant could not answer remains, this brutally important question: how will we live together when it would seem that one of the key characteristics of our species is its murderous relationship to itself?..t..  Our insensitivity and brutality towards others, our ability to anesthetize ourselves to the suffering of others, even to our own pains and pleasures. The repressive default setting reinforced by the new brains and body that we have become through the *technological adjustments to our own organism..t..  forces again a new generation of architects to ask, what is it that we could offer? What could hospitality be?

thurman interconnectedness lawwhen you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying – Robert Thurman (@BobThurman)

*ie: supposed to’s.. of school/work

___________

from bonnie et al here: https://teachcom.myblog.arts.ac.uk/inclusive/

b: i try to design not like.. hey come into my space where i’m comfortable.. that may not be making the space inclusive

contant hospitality lawThe real generosity of a host is not to invite someone or something to occupy a space, but to invite a transformation of the space.

one response:

@monk51295 @bonstewart Though different this reminds me of Derrida’s notion of ‘radical hospitality’.

Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/slewth/status/1103007786512932864

googled derrida rad hosp to this: http://www.frenchphilosophy.gr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Kakoliris-G.-Jacques-Derrida-on-the-Ethics-of-Hospitality-2015.pdf

Derrida installs, at an initial level, between “unconditional” and “conditional” hospitality contradicts the work which he had undertaken during the 1960s and the 1970s of deconstructing basic conceptual hierarchical binary oppositions that govern Western metaphysical thought. Against the rather problematic guiding concept of “unconditional” hospitality, I then propose a continuous, incessant effort of limiting violence towards the arriving stranger. My argument draws from the particularly insightful remarks of Derrida regarding the violence that inescapably resides in every act of hospitality as a result of the host’s exercise of sovereignty over his/her home..t

on unconditional ness and the cancer of sovereignty ness

As he explains in Of Hospitality: … absolute hospitality requires that I open up my home and that I give not only to the foreigner (provided with a family name, with the social status of being a foreigner, etc.), but to the absolute, unknown, anonymous other, and that I give place to them, that I let them come, that I let them arrive, and take place in the place I offer them, without asking of them either reciprocity (entering into a pact) or even their names. t

the cancer of reciprocity ness

Derrida reminds us that, even though hospitality begins with the question that someone addresses to the person that comes (something that appears very human and occasionally expresses love: “tell me your name, what should I call you, I who am call ing on you, I who want to call you by your name?”),8 nevertheless, the foreigner, according to the laws of conditional hospitality, is somebody to whom, in order to receive him or her, someone begins by placing the question about his or her name: he or she ordains him or her to declare his or her identity and to give guarantees about it.

guarantees.. validation as cancerous

To ask, however – to learn who the other is, to ask for the other to be identified before I accept or reject my obligation to welcome him or her – means to render my moral obligation conditional on me and my knowledge of the other. Hospitality, nevertheless, in order to be “real,” “true” hospitality, should not discriminate. It should be open to indiscriminate otherness even if it risks always opening the door to its own undoing. In this sense, “pure” hospitality is a risk, .. t.. because we cannot determine who will be our guest or how he or she will behave as a guest. 

Thus, there is always a certain hostility in every act of hospitality..t: that is, hospitality always brings within itself its opposite, a certain “hostipit.lity.”This is also reflected in its etymology: The word “hospitality” stems from the Latin hospes, which is formed from the word hostis, initially meaning a “stranger/’ and afterwards received the meaning of enemy or “hostile” stranger (hostilis), plus the word pets (potis, pates, potentia)­ to have power. J I Therefore, excluSion, unfairness, a certain violence, or even “perjury” towards the absolute law of hospitality, begins immediately, from the threshold of the right to hospitality..t.. Nevertheless, Derrida recognizes that, without the possession of a home (which, indeed, limits hospitality) there is in reality no door to hospitality – no right and no subsequent debt. The exercise of possession over one’s /t home” is not ultimately negative since it yields the possibility of hospitality – though not in an absolute, unconditional form. ..Whatever decision we make in relation to the arrival of a stranger, the infinite obligation to welcome the other, whoever he or she is, will always exist, and will exceed the apparently justified restrictions and conditions that we place on the other in his or her arrival and stay. .. The laws of hospitality – through the determination of limits, powers, rights and duties – defy and violate the law of unconditional hospitality..t

rights et al as cancerous

The decision of hospitality, according to Derrida, asks me each time to invent my own rule..t If I want to appear hospitable to a guest or an unexpected visitor, my behavior – and this is a condition of any moral responsibility – should not be dictated, programed or arranged by nothing, which would be used as a rule that is applied mechanically..t

Otherwise, I can appear hospitable even when I have not chosen to be. According to Derrida’s anti-normative ethics, only when somebody starts from nothing – that is, from no previous rule or norm – does the “inventive” or “poetic” event of hospitality have some possibility of occuring. In order for a real event of hospitality to take place, it is necessary to make the “impossible” possible. 

Against the rather problematic gUiding concept of “unconditiona1” hospitality, I would prefer to concentrate on the particular instructive analyzes of Derrida concerning the various kinds of violence that necessarily condition every action of hospitality. This violence stems from the host’s exercise of power and sovereignty over his or her house or country. My counter-position would be, therefore, a continuous, incessant effort of limiting violence towards the arriving foreigner.

__________

from derrida’s of hospitality:

54

left hand column – from anne dufourmantelle

this is why ‘the border, the limit, the threshold, the step beyond this threshold’ return so often in derrida’s language as though the impossibility of marking out a stable territory where thought could be established was provocative of thought itself. ‘to offer hospitality’ he wonders ‘is it necessary to start from the certain existence of a dwelling, or is it rather only starting from the dislocation of the shelterless the homeless that the authenticity of hospitality can open up? perhaps only the one who endures the experience of being deprived of a home can offer hospitality?

home less ness

home

135

right hand column – derrida

shouldn’t we also submit to a sort of holding back of the temptation to ask the other who he is, what her name is, where he comes form , etc..? questions which herald so many required conditions, and thus limits, to a hospitality thereby constrained and thereby confined in to a law and a duty..  and so into the economy of a circle.. *‘come, enter, stop at my place, i don’t ask your name, nor even to be responsible nor where you come form or where you are going’.. seems more worthy of the absolute hospitality that offers the gift w/o reservations;

yeah.. *that.. no assumed reciprocation/responsibility/label.. which we tend to assume when we way gift today..  we have to get back/to unconditional ness

just skimmed the book

_____________

constant line law

____________

laws\ish

Advertisements