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. (shrink)

The article outlines two possible human “responses” to the general situation of today’s world. One, here named “provisional culture”, abandons continuity for momentariness, the other—ecological culture—underscores the benefits of duration. The first derives from the modern thought paradigm, the second from the paradigm of ecological thought.The author points to these two culture models’ relation to different time concepts. She notes that by resigning continuity between the past, present and future, humanity risks losing its sense of responsibility and access to ethics—that (...) what “ought to be”. Also, lost in this case are creative thought and creative activity. Paradoxically, the provisional culture trap, in which there is no room for creativity, can only be escaped by means of the creative updating of time in its entirety. Such updating takes effect in ecological culture grown from thought ordained by the eco-system metaphor. (shrink)

Interesting for the debate on human security is the concept of coexistence of culture and civilization. According to Albert Schweitzer, civilization and culture were not mutually exclusive and did not compete against each other. However, if civilizational growth began to dominate over cultural development, or, in other words, if culture began to lag behind civilization, human life would be reduced to its biological aspect and man would become unable to take the adequate care of his natural and social ecosystems. He/she, (...) dominated by the impersonal forces of nature and economy, would be reduced by them to an object. That is what Schweitzer called the neoprimitive man. Contemporary man is in danger of becoming the neoprimitive man.Culture adapted to contemporary technological civilization grows out of a thought paradigm ordered by a metaphor rooted in the eco-system concept, which replaces the modern machine metaphor. In thinking based on eco-systemic relations the difference between them does not antagonize but enriches, and rivalry is replaced by synergy. In this new paradigm the axiological aspect of the modern-day development concept becomes very complicated and needs the qualifier “sustained,” thanks to which development ceases to threaten the coincidental and ruthless change. The application of the term “sustained development” to the relation between technological civilization and culture forces the discourse on human security to take stock of the human capacity for metanoia and existence within the ethical dimension, and make room for education in formulating creative responses to danger. (shrink)

The article outlines two possible human “responses” to the general situation of today’s world. One, here named “provisional culture”, abandons continuity for momentariness, the other—ecological culture—underscores the benefits of duration. The first derives from the modern thought paradigm, the second from the paradigm of ecological thought.The author points to these two culture models’ relation to different time concepts. She notes that by resigning continuity between the past, present and future, humanity risks losing its sense of responsibility and access to ethics—that (...) what “ought to be”. Also, lost in this case are creative thought and creative activity. Paradoxically, the provisional culture trap, in which there is no room for creativity, can only be escaped by means of the creative updating of time in its entirety. Such updating takes effect in ecological culture grown from thought ordained by the eco-system metaphor. (shrink)

The article refers to the fact that the eco-systemic paradigm of thinking gives new possibilities to understand and evaluate beauty. The paper analyzes the understanding of beauty proposed by a founder of eco-philosophy, Henryk Skolimowski. Moreover, it refers to the conceptions of the relationship between beauty and creative human activity in the writings of Plotinus, Henri Bergson, and Edward Abramowski. Inspired by their reflections on beauty, the paper presents author’s own justification of the value of beauty obeyed the paradigm of (...) eco-systemic thinking. (shrink)