It was in Søren Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscripts to Philosophical Fragments that I discovered the term “dialectical intrepidity.” I may have extrapolated from this turn of phrase more of what I wanted to hear than what Kierkegaard himself intended; I may have ran with it, emblazoning it in the margins of countless notebooks, raising it as the symbolic emblem of the imminent and glorious revolution that I felt sure I would foment; I may have ran with this standard, rallying my spineless and aimless notions with a cry of “dialectical intrepidity!”, investing them with structure, purpose, and strategy; I may have abandoned myself to these two words (it made little difference in what order or with what grammatical syntax they appeared - dialectical intrepidity, intrepidly dialectic, dialectically intrepid, intrepid dialectics - whether dialectic took the adjective intrepid or intrepid was modified by dialectic - whether these words were adverbial, adjectival, or nominal was a point of little real substance); I may have embraced the ideal of a philosophical-conversational bravery, imbuing my every pursuit with the nobility afforded by such lofty, inscrutably esoteric philosophy, without even understanding what the author in question intended to convey. The question, perhaps, warrants research.
The substance of the issue at hand is not so much original authorial intent, however, but the nuanced implications of the brand of existential intrepidity which has come to drive my productive process. It is dialectic between subjective self and objective society and space. It lies behind my pursuit of adaptive systems for living, behind my love for the modular. This alleged intrepidity may not be so, however, for intrepidity is bravery, and bravery is meaningless without fear, and against what fearsome antagonist does the dialectically/sociologically/philosophically intrepid individual strive? Social convention is so accustomed to being challenged that the challenge itself has ironically become the convention; when convention is subversion, what good can art do? Revert to archaic conventions which were displaced in their own time? To be intrepid, one must fear. To be truly dialectical, one must be intrepid.
Intrepidity is the ideal, and cowardice is par. Intrepidity must be intentional, and must be defining. To live with intention - thorough intention - is to dialectically engage the objective realities of space, society, culture, fashion. The intrepid individual engages the objective with intention, and responds with intention.
As I strive to develop objective spatial systems, I strive for subjective intrepidity.