東方建築的經典歷史中所有論述有關機械思維來自於兩位理論家：Vitruvius和科比意，兩人的論述似乎完成了機械論述從古典到現代建築之間的完整圖像。本文重新檢驗機械主義在東方建築的位階，以Deleuze- Guattari的「場域式論述為理論基礎」，探討建築作為「場域」多元開展的可能。

In the canonic history of Occidental architecture, all discourses concerning the idea of machine lie between two institutionalized definitions of machine’s relation to architecture: Vitruvius and Le Corbusier. Vitruvius defined Architecture as the triangulation of building, machine, and landscape, and thus inaugurated Occidental Architecture’s career in ‘imperium’ whose tyranny continues to dominate globally in the modality of fashion, under the sign of the capital. Le Corbusier is the last in the tradition at whose beginning stands Vitruvius. Le Corbusier’s insignht that “a house is a machine for living in” brings to completion the circle of Classical architecture’s territorialization that began with Vitruvius. So then what is the value of Le Corbusier’s insight? And what was it that was begun with Vitruvius? This study attempts to answer the above questions by re-examining the notion of machine, and its status particularly in Occidental architecture, by taking cue from the Deleuze-Guattarian definition of machines as being “always singular key that open or close an assemblage, a territory.” By redefining machine as the mediating mechanism that synthesizes all heterogeneities that lurk within that infinite nonspace within architecture--the threshold, the border, the boundary between inside and outside--this study is conducted as an act of rumination over the Occident’s territorialization of architecture as the hermetic Theatre of Spectacle/Speculum. The objective of this inquiry, then, would be to trace the origin of the bifurcation that separates so as to link architecture and machine as something inherently monstrous, as well as de-mon-strative. This tracing takes place through the myth of Twins (Romulus and Remus) and the necessary murder that had to precede the foundation of Architecture as the imperial monument to the absence and forgetting of the Other at the fulcrum of their common origin-less: mimetic desire and anamnesis.