Commonplace

Resumo: O objetivo deste artigo é, a partir de exemplos extraídos da correspondência de quatro escritores brasileiros do século XX (Monteiro Lobato, Mário de Andrade, Graciliano Ramos e Fernando Sabino), proceder ao levantamento de algumas considerações esparsas sobre o ato de escrever cartas, que compreendem não só comentários sobre a materialidade do ato em si (por exemplo, o papel ou a tinta empregados, o uso da máquina de escrever), mas também sobre as possibilidades e impossibilidades proporcionadas pelo próprio gênero epistolar (a ideia da carta como uma " conversa por escrito " , os lugares-comuns e as limitações do gênero). Pretende-se, assim, entender como a escrita de cartas se construiu ao longo do século passado, a despeito da praticamente inexistente produção de obras teóricas para a orientação da escrita de cartas, ao contrário do que se viu nos séculos anteriores. Palavras-chave: cartas brasileiras; século XX; correspondência; escrita de cartas; epistolografia. Abstract: The aim of this article is, by drawing on the correspondence exchanged among four Brazilian writers of the twentieth century (Monteiro Lobato, Mário de Andrade, Graciliano Ramos and Fernando Sabino), to survey some scant considerations about the act of writing letters, which include not only comments on the materiality of the act itself (e.g. the paper or ink employed and the use of the typewriter), but also on the possibilities and impossibilities provided by the epistolary genre (the idea of the letter as a " written conversation " , the commonplaces and limitations of the genre). It is intended, therefore, to understand how the writing of letters was built during the

Thomas Hobbes’s use of the metaphor of the state as a body, or, in its lexicalised form, the body politic, in Leviathan (1651) has been described variously as marking the final phase of the classical commonplace metaphor of the state as a human body or as the start of a new tradition in the history of thought, reflecting the change from the ancient humoral model of disease to a more ‘modern’ one.  Such periodisations, based as they are on presupposed ‘grand narratives’ of historical progression, tend to gloss over the textual and pragmatic details of the metaphor use in question. This paper will instead concentrate on the way Hobbes employed the argumentative potential of the body politic metaphor to advance a new perspective on politics. In focusing on this discursive function of what was by Hobbes’s time an already established metaphor, I hope to elucidate some of the mechanisms of subverting a commonplace’s traditional mainstream meaning. As Moss (this volume) highlights, the method of compiling and using commonplaces as developed over the course of the 16th century appealed to and often claimed for itself traditional authority.  Although the initial “conservative” bias of commonplace-based argumentation had been thoroughly eroded in the moral and political disputes during the reformation , the technique of arguing against established authorities by way of commonplace still required the existence of a ‘common’ frame of reference and established knowledge so that its more or less radical modification could be identified and understood.

The title: “Architecture: The Making of Metaphors”
is the exact title, including the colon, of the 1967 Yale lecture series
Benefit of “Architecture: The Making of Metaphors” is that after learning the contents of “Architecture: The Making of Metaphors” readers should be able to mange the design process and better enjoy the built environment.
Phenomenology:
For any one individual “Architecture: The Making of Metaphors” is predicated by a personal encounter of both sense and mind.  Kant’s phenomenon philosophy and [34] Berleant’s approach to aesthetics-view object as it is perceived by the senses. So after having derived and developed the ideas of architecture as the making of metaphors it still behooves readers to realize the phenomenon and epiphany to enjoying both the process and read of design and the environment.  Architecture:the making of metaphors is more than an idea but  phenomena and as such is the immediate object of awareness in experience. In earlier monographs I quoted [6] Husserl and others noting the Dasein of the metaphor and the epiphany of the revelation that architecture:the making of metaphors.  However, without the combination of life experience of perception and design that transforms; where neither time, space nor substance matters except the sanctified and set apart aesthetic experience of creation. It is that special awareness during design and inhabiting buildings where the phenomenon of the architecture and metaphors lives. When you get it you know that you know, when there is an  eclipse of the process with a  product that achieves program.


Acknowledgements and scope
To better understand metaphor as a key to the built environment we explore what shapes and forms the built environment and why one building seems better than the next.  As a key to the built-environment (technology and context) metaphor is the answer which not only shapes the built environment but is the means by which we read what is formed.  With metaphor as the gestalt, design embraces the whole. Current design practices are enhanced by considering metaphors in both the programming and design process. To some this monograph will be a confirmation of current practice while to others a check- list. Many will discover how other scientific disciplines can be brought into the design conversation. For me it was  my wife, Christina Fez-Barringten (philosopher, theologian, writer, and artist) who introduced me to metaphors, their meanings and applications which in-turn prepared me to be receptive to [1] Irving Kriesberg’s announcement that [2]art was the making of metaphors from which I inferred from years of being initiated that architecture was an art. It was a metaphor, I saw a relationship and knew I had to connect them so I visited my mentor [3] Dr. Paul Weiss to find the commonality. Coincidently, at the time in 1967, I was one of the editors of Yale’s Architectural Journal; “Perspecta”. I then needed to know exactly what was a metaphor .
Dr. Weiss suggested that I first had to visit the world’s leading linguistic scholars who all just happened to be at Yale.
He made the arrangements,  but after so many interviews I came up empty. He and I were both astounded. Still,  needing the information we decided to bring together scholars and design professionals to form a symposium which could then be transcribed and published by Perspecta.  “Architecture as the Making of Metaphors” was organized near the Art and Architecture building at the Museum of Fine Arts Yale University 11/02/67 until 12/04/67. The guest speakers were: Paul Weiss, [4] William J.J. Gordon, Christopher Tunnard, Vincent Scully, Turan Onat, Kent Bloomer, Peter Millard, Robert Venturi, Charles Moore, Forrest Wilson, and John Cage.
Background of my research
The Yale lectures were transcribed,  but instead of being published by Perspecta part of the proceedings were published in 1971 by [5] “Main Currents in Modern Thought”. In 1991, after twenty years of professional practice designing and applying this approach to design I wrote [6] many monographs, nine of which were then published by various learned journals (see references). Six were not and remain unpublished.
In Manhattan, from 1969 to 1973 we formed and operated [7] LME;” Laboratories for Metaphoric Environments” to bring together scholars, practitioners to further study metaphors.  Out of this came a plethora of drawings now published in a book called [6] “Gibe”.  Many of my studies were also complemented by my visit to all of Europe where I made hundreds of pen and ink drawings which put into a book and are now hanging in art galleries in Florida.  Recently in 2009, and as part of the conversations with scholars on the internet site called Academia.com I again researched [8] Andrew Ortony’s (located at Northwestern University)  book titled “Metaphor and Thought”  which thankfully and finally had a compendium (anthology) of linguistic, psychologist, philosophical, educational and communication scientist on metaphors.  From this and my notes from [3] Paul Weiss and [9] William J.J. Gordon I wrote 21 monographs two of which have been published while the other 19 are submitted and being peer reviewed. 
“Architecture: The Making of Metaphors” and several of my recent monographs were informed by my daily study of [10] David Zarefsky’s (also, coincidently located at Northwestern University) lectures and book titled [10] “Argumentation: the study of effective Reasoning” published by The Teaching Company (see footnotes) . There are many others which are documented in my references and footnotes as I am their grateful and passionate student.  All of this has been driven by my childhood quest which has persisted in my studies, teaching and practice where I have learned that ultimately it is the individual talent within each designer, artist, writer, and scholar that finally shape the works that surround us. The answer was there all the time, I just had to be “educated” a process which I look forward to continuing for along time as led by Paul Weiss passed away at 103 years of age  just after completing his last book, “Surrogates”.