25tic “dwelling”—a mode of dwelling that would express the cherishing of the four-
fold—exists any longer. Perhaps we are dealing with a concept of dwelling that has
become superseded because it depends on an unqualified experience of a tradition.
In the absence of any tradition, it can only function on an imaginary level; it is no more
than an image. Therefore, a discourse that appeals to this idea of dwelling in order to
create a theory of architecture chooses to ignore the moments of fissure that are
inherent in modernity. If, on the other hand, architecture opts for revealing the void,
for silence and fragmentation, it is bound to repudiate the deep-rooted needs and
desires that are basic to dwelling and that have to do with the need for security and
shelter.
These dilemmas are fundamental and cannot be ignored. They oblige one to
adopt a mode of thought that deals with the tensions that are peculiar to modernity
so that they become an integral part of any discourse about architecture and
dwelling. I see it as absolutely essential that this discourse be explored. This is also
crucial within the context of recent debates such as those on postmodernism or on
deconstructivist architecture. What I have in mind is a mode of thought that moves
dialectically without denying the dilemmas and which acknowledges the conflicts
and ambiguities that are peculiar to modernity without watering down their implica-
tions with noncommittal answers.24