I start to write – I had already spoken – about the regulating “line” through a circumlocution. Or, in Lacoue-Labarthe’s terms, through a manoeuvre. I continue the arguments of a discussion we’ve reasoned in order to re-orient, in order to re-lay the ideas, in order to continue what otherwise remains unsaid; not only in order to emphasize the relation between some ideas, but also because architecture is first of all writing, spatial integration, a manner of building associations. Yet I continue in a different order, I disorder the discussion, I rebuild a space of discussion. I add motifs. I raise many questions. And perhaps not accidentally, more than I did within the discussion, I emphasize not so much the idea of a line, of a desirable and unfulfilled itinerance, but the idea of rhythm, as an essential motif in our attempt to reclaim a gesture whereby writing and architecture can avenge the space by means of a typography understood as political gesture. A rhythm in order to deconstruct “both the hegemony of the visual, of the image and of the specular, and the hegemony of discursivity (…)”. If I have chosen, then as well as now, to take a stand as “the enemy of the regulating line”, this is first of all due to the intention of “saving” architecture from what it shares with man himself, that is “the existential anxiety of being creator of order”, the same which seems to have brought us here today. Not because the regulating line would not define, essentially, a vision upon living, but because the space of such a line is almost impossible today. In other words, in order to emphasize what I had said back then as well – the regulating line has become “non-functional”, in what it traces from a characteriological and visionary point of view, for the current living space, non-functional for the contemporary city; and because I believe its symbolic re-investiture seems impossible today. What, essentially, falls back upon denouncing its historical journey, and assuming a certain nostalgia afore its irretrievability.
The structure of order has become political hierarchy
What the regulating line meant « structure of order », in fact the settlement of a vision upon the world, of a certain substratum of the unconscious, becomes today, in a broad interpretation, a spatial hierarchy that is being economically and politically dictated. The simple drift from « structure » to « hierarchy » already points out a certain trade of significance. The manifestation of « the model », along with the gradual extension of man in the territory, already loses from its initial symbolism in proportion as man reaches the realism of his representations. What the abstract art of the beginnings was isolating and re-assembling in order to compose the mythograms, the incipient schematizations and geometrizations underlying the constitution of a line eventually, marking the itinerance of life, become today the idle geometrizations of a space that no longer allows for the itinerance. The contemporary space is no longer the space of a line, but the space of a disposal. The old geometrizations, marking many times the institution of difference within the in-different, within the non-differentiation of the territory, become today the simple forms and figures that only rarely reclaim the full progression inside the space of the city.
The rest of the article can be foun in issue no 5/2011 of Arhitext
 This text represents the written version of a debate that took place at Dealu Frumos, Sibiu, on July 29, 2011, occasioned by the Regulating Lines 5 o’clock organized by Arhitext Design Foundation.
 Jacques Derrida – „Introduction: Desistance”, in Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe – Typography: mimesis, philosophy, politics, edited and translated by Christopher Fynsk, coll. «Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics», Stanford University Press, 1998, p. 32.
 This formula belongs to André Leroi-Gourhan and I shall get back to it below.