Why is it important to use an architectural metaphor for the understanding of cyberspace? It could be said that since cyberspace is itself a metaphorical term, to understand what is implied we need to contract the service of a similar metaphorical term and allow the discourse between them.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
What if someone were to ask ‘what is cyberspace’? In our society we seek understanding through an investigation of the examinable parts. When we understand the physical make-up of something; the sum of the observable parts, our conclusion is an understanding of the whole; we know its ‘architecture’. Questioning our assumptions within a traditional examination process has lead to the development of phenomenology (as derived from the philosophy of Martin Heidegger) which is a keystone to many post-modern theorists. The problem arises when we realize a phenomenological interpretation, such as those occurring within architecture and other disciplines, is difficult because cyberspace is essentially without form. When architecture, seen as the art of building which is an inherently physical practice, is compared to cyberspace, seen as imaginary space due to its non-physicality, they become opposite and rival entities. The problem of the ‘architecture of cyberspace’ takes on entirely new meaning. I bring the two together in an attempt to understand cyberspace utilizing the architectural metaphor, inasmuch as architectural metaphor is always spatial (cyberspace itself being a spatial metaphor). The result may lead to a better understanding of our relation to cyberspace, as well, may point architectural theory in a different direction.