• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.149-162
• /
• 2003

Schulz accepted the existentialist view based on Heidegger's thought and at the same time the objectivist view making fixed this living world, evoking controversies for discussion. He could not see various presentations of the meaning of place because he perceived elements of this world individually. Thus Schulz's mixed system of understanding is sternly different from Heidegger's thought. First, Heidegger suggests that place as existential space represents the occasion revelation of incidents in Dasein. While Schulz recognizes that place is a systematic space predetermined for Dasein. Second, Heidegger interprets the placeness as creative openness in which elements comprising this world face and interact with each other into one. In contrast, Schulz defines each of the elements through signification and regards it as invariable and static. Third, Heidegger perceives that the placeness is expressed with sustainable, complex images through "rift-design" which seeks dynamic interactions between the ground and the world. While Schulz attempts to take "Genius Loci" or "habituated scene" through "gathering" as a concept he regards static and then visualize such structural two factors, producing certain internal images of place. However, limits of Schulz's theory prevent us from exerting complete imagination and discovering the inner creative world of the object. Thus the ultimate goal of paying attention to the placeness, that is, the recovery of individual identity, fails due to the prevalence and abstraction of objectified thinking. In contrast, Heidegger's thought about "openness" is a useful means of realizing the placeness. Openness may be referred to a dynamic coordination in which the earth and the world sustain each other under incessant mutual tensions, but not sticking o each other. "Rift-design" is an openness strategy to cause tense relations by preventing structuralization intentively. This is a creative design that allows seeing original seams of the object.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.408-422
• /
• 2000

Multiple geophysical methods were applied over the Manjang cave area in Cheju Island to compare and contrast the effectiveness of each method for exploration of underground cavities. The used methods are gravity, magnetic, electrical resistivity and GPR(Ground Pentrating Radar) survey, of which instruments are portable and operations are relatively economical. We have chosen seven survey lines and applied appropriate multiple surveys depending on the field conditions. In the case of magnetic method. two-dimensional grid-type surveys were carried out to cover the survey area. The geophysical survey results reveal the characteristic responses of each method relatively well. Among the applied methods, the electric resistivity methods appeared to be the most effective ones in detecting the Manjang Cave and surrounding miscellaneous cavities. Especially, on the inverted resistivity section obtained from the dipole-dipole array data, the two-dimensional distribution of high resistivity cavities are revealed well. The gravity and magnetic data are contaminated easily by various noises and do not show the definitive responses enough to locate and delineate the Manjang cave. But they provide useful information in verifying the dipole-dipole resistivity survey results. The grid-type 2-D magnetic survey data show the trend of cave development well, and it may be used as a reconnaissance regional survey for determining survey lines for further detailed explorations. The GPR data show very sensitive response to the various shallow volcanic structures such as thin spaces between lava flows and small cavities, so we cannot identify the response of the main cave. Although each geophysical method provides its own useful information, the integrated interpretation of multiple survey data is most effective for investigation of the underground caves.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.146
• /
• pp.307-328
• /
• 2018

The use of thought experiments has a long history in many disciplines including science. In the field of philosophy, thought experiments have frequently appeared in the pre-existing literature on the contemporary Analytic Philosophy. A thought experiment refers to a synthetic environment where the designer of the experiment-with his or her intuition and imagination-tests common-sense knowledge. It can be understood as a conceptual tool for testing the validity of the common understanding of an issue or a phenomenon. However, we are not certain about the usefulness or efficacy of a thought experiment in knowledge production. The design of a thought experiment is meant to lure readers into believing as intended by the experiment itself. Thus, regardless of the purpose of a thought experiment, many readers who encounter the experiment could feel deceived. In this paper, to analyze the logic of thought experiments and to seek the source of uneasiness the readers and critics may feel about thought experiments, I draw lessons from three renowned thought-experiments: Thomson's 'ailing violinist', Putnam's 'brain in a vat', and Searle's 'Chinese room'. Imaginative thought experiments are usually constructed around a gap between the reality and the knowledge/information at hand. From the three experiments, several lessons can be learned. First, the evidence of the existence of a gap provided via thought experiments can serve as arguments for counterfactual situations. At the same time, the credibility and efficacy of the thought experiments can be damaged as soon as the thought-experiments are carried out with inappropriate and/or murky directions regarding the procedures of the experiment or the background of the study. According to D. R. Hofstadter and D. C. Dennett(1981), the 'knob setting' in a thought experiment can be altered in the middle of a simulation of the experimental condition, and then the implications of the thought experiment change altogether, indicating that an entirely different conclusion can be deduced from thought experiment. Lastly, some pre-suppositions and bias of the experiment designers play a considerable role in the validity and the chances of success of a thought experiment; thus, it is recommended that the experiment-designers refrain from exercising too much of their imagination in order to avoid contaminating the design of the experiment and/or wrongly accepting preconceived/misguided conclusions.