individual work; Spatial ambiguity creates habitable opportunity

i'll attempt to elaborate a bit. the premise for this exercise was to address the topic of man's relationship between an 'active' life and the 'contemplative' life. while i agree there is a dialect relationship between the methods of thought and action, i took a stance asserting a proposition that provided opportunities for the inhabitant to adapt and grow (?) into their surroundings without prescriptive measures. i believe while it is true that certain spaces allow one greater ease of contemplation or facilitate more active participation these recognitions, or resonances, are based on deep personal convictions (possibly bordering on unconscious) that cannot be necessarily specifically designed for. daily life is a constant oscillation between the interiors of our minds; thinking, and the participation in the outside environment; making. this design/build space offers no labeling of spaces, merely opportunity.
formally, the plan of this space consists of four conceptual rectangles and four regulating lines arranged in an a-b-a rhythm along a underlying grid. while the framework to set up composition is strict and regimented the relationship between these two formal deployments reveal an overlapping adjacency of spaces. the deconstruction of the four boxes creates apertures and thresholds for interaction between the constructed, inhabited microcosm, and the exterior world; within and without; between the mind and the body. equally relevant, the adjacency of spaces begin to define areas with overlapping, ambiguous relation. the layering of space offers opportunity for habitation based on personal (subjective?) interpretations of space.
I might be trying to get at something like this; thought and action are in a constant symbiotic flow. however, at times, a heightened focus in which one (thought or action) may overshadow the other, but this is temporary and we are drawn back towards the opposite end of the spectrum to maintain a harmony….

my question; do we need defined areas of work or thought to be labeled for us, with defined separation or will we adapt and interpret regardless of any conceptual imposition?

mankind inhabits nature, nature inhabits mankind

Since the diagrams don't show up too well, I'll describe my intentions for this project a little bit. As the title suggests, I believe there is a dual or symbiotic relationship between man and nature - but only to a degree. Man can gain a great deal studying nature in part or in whole, and the more contact man has with nature the more he understands nature and has the properties of the natural world influencing his thoughts - and actions toward the natural world. Likewise, nature can be made more suitable for human inhabitation, and in this sense improved as far as its suitability for human habitability is concerned. Mankind ultimately determines the nature of this relationship since he possesses a will, and nature is subject to the rules that govern its growth and propogation. Ultimately, mankind can gain an understanding of the physical properties of nature, and a clue to the greater governing laws of the universe, but cannot sharpen his will merely by this study. He must understand that the will dwells above nature, and is governed only by a will greater than his own. This project seeks to give mankind an opportunity to see nature in these different ways. First, on the ground level, is a necessary and intriguing element of shelter and study. Lessons are there for distilling as nature dominates. As mankind progresses to the upper level, he takes a route that gives glimpses of nature in a more exposes fashion, in this case mankind is pushing his limits of comfort, as he sees nature in a more direct way. The uppel level allows mankind and nature to cohabitate the same space in a way beneficial to both. Mankind realizes both the benefit of his natural surroundings, and the dominance of his will over it, but also ultimately his need to utilize nature in a wat that preserves it for his, and its, benefit.

Whew, maybe that makes some sense? Anyway, my question is wide open, but related to this topic: Where does mankind fit in the relationship between the governed and governor? Feel free to answer in any way you feel is appropriate.

Individual work : Maintain concentration as task changes. Distinct spaces with path continuity.

Question: What do you see as the role of the space between the shop and the quiet space? How does this space support or contradict my title?

A balance of action and contemplation creates a higher degree of meaning in one's actiones

Curiosity and imagination drives a person to explore new and innovative ideas in the active life while needing the ability to detach physically to reflect upon one's actions.

A partial visual connection is established on the exterior while a slow transition into the space beneath the contemplative sanctuary creates a heightened degree of curiosity allowing a person to imagine what may lie ahead.

Yellow depicts the active life while red depicts the contemplative...blue shows visual curiosity.

Question: Does the separation of these two states of being create a heightened sense of free will or does it decrease it because they are both vital to a person's view of the world.

Work:Individual - Multiple Discrete Actions Form Larger Interactions

What are the implications of making the small spaces more parametric. Would it change the meaning of the space if they varied in size and location?

mankind and nature: nature as a scaffolding for human free will

This model attempts to describe mankind's relationship to nature through a gradient in which the occupant gradually becomes less reliant on nature. The procession starts in a densely wooded area and ultimately releases the occupant to a grassy clearing.

Question: What meaning might be derived from this model without any explanation?

Individual & Group : Interaction is Voluntary, Comfort = Control, Control = Spatial Gradient

Question: I'm questioning the strength of my base argument. Am I simply trying to please everyone, or is there validity to the notion that a well defined privacy gradient provides for the ultimate expression of free will?

INDIVIDUAL WORK: progression fueled by drive

Here are my raw thoughts at the moment:
Filters(?): thresholds, obstacles
-organize ideas/thought
-diminish distractions
-emphasis drive (only go to core if you really want to)

Challenge an individual's commitment to their work by dramatizing effort, resistance, seclusion...

Man & Nature: Humility before earth's wonders through direct engagement

Question: All building materials come from the earth. If we take a stance of being humble before earth's wonders, is it better to push the possibilities of the earth's resources (translucent concrete) or stick with the simplest materials (adobe brick)?

Individual vs. Group: separation of unique individual(s) thought to enhance the group

What might be seen as a more "hallowed" space here: the exalted pods or the sacred ground occupied below the pods? (clarification: this is an enclosed space- rear, side, and front walls that attach to floor plate are not installed to show off interior.)

Individual & Group: The Individual Must Always Be One With The Group

In previous versions of the "individual and the group", most students have developed strongly isolated spaces for individual refuge. I feel individual refuge is important, but not at a collaborative workplace--refuge is for home.

Question: How will removing places of individual refuge in a design studio affect collaboration and creativity?