Paper short abstract:

Philosophy can contribute several key insights to the notion of how a sense of place takes shape. More in particular, it allows illustrating the genuine difference between sense and meaning and the inherently ambiguous roles that history, culture or other meaningful forms can play.

Paper long abstract:

Can a philosophical perspective contribute to the discussion on 'place sensing?'

Theoretical analysis shows that, for a place to make sense, two inseparably related elements play a role: 1. meaning/form; and 2. sense or intimacy as a happening.

Meaning or form is that aspect of a place that is tangible. Examples are social-historical remains and oral and written narratives. Strictly speaking, meaning and form reveal only the external side of a place. Sense and intimacy are interwoven with this, but they are different. When we feel that a place makes sense in a strong way, we will be touched by it. We will feel privileged, as if partaking of its soul, its intimacy. We need the form or meaning of the place to be touched by it; its 'freewheeling' sense can be passed on through its form. We cannot manipulate if and when meaning is accompanied by sense.

Yet, while these dynamics need a static form for their transmission, the form can be a hindrance and prevent us from sensing its freewheeling sense. Why? Because we can mistake the form/meaning (accessible through our mind) for the sense (not accessible through our mind). Petrified forms hardly allow freewheeling. Hence, whilst we cannot manipulate if and when sense occurs (if and when the intimacy of a place touches us), we can facilitate or hinder its occurrence.

This distinction between meaning and sense needs further elaboration. The congress is expected to be a fertile environment for further reflection on its implications.