Adl's Contemplations

Pattern Study 4

2012-01-21T09:31:00.000-08:00

Inspired partially by Middle Eastern geometric patterns.

Experimental

2012-01-20T10:47:00.000-08:00

Note on Quantum Physics

2011-04-09T02:15:00.000-07:00

This is not a necessarily groundbreaking thought; I suspect many physicist perhaps toyed with the idea - i wouldn't know. Skipping ahead a few steps, one is usually presented with a quantum reality of probability, which is rather different from strict determinism. At a fundamental level, or better said, at the limit of our window of peeping into the workings of everyday life, things happen in an unexplainable manner, but each event has instead of clear route from cause to manifestation, a probability that it might indeed happen. The basic building blocks of matter both exist and not exist at the same time, sometime are present, and other not, however the ratio between the existence and non-existence part of the single block is fixed. We do not know why.

It might be that the reality of things are this. If we imagine "nothingness" or the precondition of existence, we are usually left baffled that something happened at all - there are no reasons - in deterministic terms - for the universe to have happened. No matter which side of the theological argument you lean towards, there is one point where things cannot be explained by things before them. In Philosophy it was St. Aquinas who, centuries ago, posited this paradox: if you try to explain things in terms of other things you'll end up with an infinitely long explanation - in other words the condition of the first cause is its nonexistence, thus determinism falls apart. Quantum physics tells us that at some point deep down we can only talk about the existence of things in terms of probability - nothing exists for certain at all times.

Perhaps the further you go towards the precondition of existence, the probability gets lower and lower, but also more diverse. Let's suppose that "nothingness" is not a situation in which nothing is possible, but another where everything is possible. If that were to be the case, our universe is that narrow possibility of where events become coherent with one another. For this to work we can posit the following framework:

At all times everything is possible. As we move more towards the reality of our own universe only those things that matter are taken into account in an increasing fashion - in other words, probability increases with every increase in the level of complexity. At some point the probability of occurrence of an event is high enough to allow for determinism.

in other word, there is a mechanism of "filtering out" (and by that we mean "ignoring") events from the condition of "everything is possible" to a condition of "only one thing is possible": the current physical reality of the universe, or what some call Newtonian Physics.

Interestingly enough, the determinism of Newtonian physics, is thought to be able to assemble into superstructures of complex systems which increasingly challenge determinism. The Physicalist stance is that the Mind - the locus of free will - is nothing more than an extremely complex physical system that allows for non-deterministic events to occur, such as free will, understanding and even sensation.

Behavioralists - a good chunk of the psychologists' community - note that there are reason to believe that humans often behave in a predictable, deterministic fashion. Or in other terms, that our free will is not all that "free" but rather constrained. Philosophers call this constraint our "animal" or "instinctive" side, over which we have limited control.

If we care to extrapolate for the sake of it, we can imagine that if there existed a physical system of a higher complexity than that of a human brain (Mind) then that system would be even less deterministic - or in other words, have a higher degree of Free will.

A more Democratic Voting

2011-04-09T00:45:00.000-07:00

All those who live or have at some point in their lives lived in a democratic society knows pretty much the spiel on voting: if you're old enough and are a citizen, you have the choice - when the time comes - to go to the booth and chose a candidate (or in some countries like Brazil it is legally required to vote). This is a very simplistic system, and not yet truly democratic. Why? because its rather restraining, and one is always presented with the scenario of "chose the lesser evil" as opposed to "chose your actual preference".

The Brits are trying to make some progress: the introduction of a ranking system for the contending MPs, where one instead of choosing one over the other, gives a list of preference in descending order. This they call Alternative Voting or AV. And of course there is considerable resistance to introducing this change. Please refer to your search engine for more information on this topic.

My criticism is that AV does not differ fundamentally from the earlier system. Sure it probably a better statistical tool to chose between alternatives, but in the end, the voters are still faced with the scenario of electing the lesser evil. And this is by all means a limitation. One can easily imagine how voting apathy is at the very least encouraged by such a limitation.

Here's a proposed change in the voting system. The ability to say "NO!". Perhaps none of the candidates are good enough. In mathematical terms this would be a negative point. Even in the AV system, one should be able to rank some MP negatively, expressing how deep their disapproval for that certain potential representative is.

Modus Operandi

2011-04-07T02:50:00.000-07:00

For a while now I have maintained that a person has the ability to chose at any moment how to react with the circumstances of that moment. Personality, as a whole, is an intentional construct; a person can chose to behave one way or another throughout life, and an audience can evaluate that person either favorably or negatively. This is oversimplifying the matter, but worth noting is that personality is at least partially a cognitive process, and by being such, is affected by the process of cognition.

At any time, the way our thoughts appear in our heads are organized by the system which our memory recalls values. Memory, being a highly flexible (and somewhat unreliable) part of our cognitive process, can load various values at different times. For example, take person F who at times is very calm, and at others highly irritable. When F is very calm, F's decisions are perhaps regulated by the value of tolerance, which memory is upholding throughout F's cognition in response to external stimuli. When F is highly irritable, perhaps the values of tolerance are not brought fourth to a large degree by memory, and instead some other values such as selfishness and loathing are predominant in F's cognition in response to similar external stimuli. F is not a "different" person in either case, and it is generally accepted that F has some degree of choice over how tolerant the response should be.

In a hasty conclusion: Who am I right now? I am the values I have managed to remember.

Interstitial difference

2011-03-22T13:17:00.000-07:00

Architects are intimately aware of the notion of a field as a condition that precedes architecture. A parcel to be built upon is not generally considered to be more than a small piece the vast surface that wraps the planet, the skin of “nature”. Or what has once been natural. An easy way to describe the field is: “the unenclosed interstitial space in-between building areas” – whatever the scale. Even if this description were to be accurate it would not help us much with deepening our understanding of the subject matter. On the one hand the field cannot and shouldn’t be seen separate from the urbanity that has covered it. However, defining the field vis-a-vis architecture is rather more difficult because the latter is still loosely defined (architecture seems to want to transcend simple descriptions). On the other hand, the field as a mental construct has much deeper implications culturally, socially and economically.
The birth of the field probably coincided with the first shelter. Perhaps it is not that critical figuring out if Ledoux was right, after all, that the primitive shed was in fact planned the way he portrayed it; more important is recognizing that even a shed has a design intention, that it has an “Architect”, if you will. That first voluntary intervention into the virgin natural setting was then the creation of the field, whatever that intervention might have been, shed or some other thing. It turns out that the word “tabula rasa” is in fact a paradox; the earth being the spheroid that it is, requires only one such intervention to be turned not only into a field, a “scape”, but a finite one. After which all other interventions will be relative to the original - they all belong to the same genus of actions upon the natural setting. It is precisely within this relativism that any discussion of the field, which is a signifier of specific category of concepts, can even make sense.
The most interesting things then tend to happen at the boundaries the category. One thing we need to understand is that the act of categorizing is fundamentally artificial and immaterial, thus the categories themselves do not equate what they encompass. The field, being a category itself, cannot be a stable construct, and since subjects and interpretations vary in time and space so does the understanding of the field. This gives it its highly dynamic quality that causes so much perplexity to those who have the pretention of studying it. Even more perplexing are the moral and a ethical “solutions” some try to insert into the discussion. While it makes full sense to insert anything one wants into the conceptual category of the field, more insertion leads to less coherence . This logic is not all that hard to follow. Words and concepts are only useful if they refer to something somewhat specific. If a word has let’s say a thousand synonyms then it wouldn't be pragmatic to use it in verbal or textual formulations, for the sake of clarity. Similarly, the field once it becomes too unstable a mental construct it loses its usefulness. However, one cannot always arrive at a concept so inert and void of ambiguity like Descarte's “I”. Furthermore, it is perhaps not even in the benefit of the discussion to try to clearly define the field to exclude all ambiguity.
More useful then is bringing to consciousness that there can be such a thing as an optimum boundary condition, one that allows for the insertion and exertion of concepts in such a way as to increase the understanding and usefulness of the field. These concepts, each with their own internal logic, need to be unfolded by the logic of the boundary until an acceptable and relevant relativism can be made manifest. It is precisely the reason why the most interesting things happen at boundary. Once you insert a new sub-component, its internal logic alters the way all other concepts unfold; you get a "new" field, and possibly a novel approach to design.
Historically the understanding of architectural work has regularly bounced between objective and subjective paradigms, between self-referentiality and contextuality, without much consciousness on the part of the practitioners. That Sejima's simple idea of "Architecture to meet or avoid meeting people" created such furors at the 12th Venice Biennale in contrast to previous object oriented themes is an attestation that the practice forgets or overlooks too easily. Only a few decades ago we have seen similar thoughts brought forth by urban planners and architects in favour of random interaction brought by density over the isolating sprawl. Of course, both readings of architecture are somewhat correct when considered both by themselves or simultaneously. Perhaps it is not all that important figuring out what is right, or, if we take the postmodernist stance, one could even say it is ethically dubious for all the bad consequences that arrogant attitude had during modernism. The contemporary reality of Architecture is that of parallaleity, where all sorts of ideas and attitudes are maintained and developed side by side; ultra-modern neighbours ultra-post-modern, ultra-sustainable, and so on. The cacophony famously illustrated by Koolhaas in his collage of contemporary iconic buildings is highly disturbing but also informative: when the field is not covered by monotonous and idiosyncratic ideas, there can be no coordination or mutual comprehension. In this manner, Architecture becomes a useless mental construct. When new students start their architectural education they are faced with a profession that has in common only the solution to a human need in a world conditioned and organized by gravity. In other words, architecture is reduced to subdividing, covering and interiorising the field. In essence, the only fundamentally unmovable idea of the field is the raison d’être of the primitive hut - and no wonder that Ledoux wanted to "own" it by his fantastical projection. Anything beyond this raison d’être is superfluous artificiality historically perceived as sacred and utterly essential to humanity. Since it is no longer the case, the doors for discussion are widely open, and the dynamism of architecture is in full vigour, with creativity outdoing itself, helped by multi and inter-disciplinary approaches. In all cases, the field is currently not, by any means, susceptible to even covering, even if the covering is thorough.

When sovereign governments execute their populations

2011-03-02T05:41:00.000-08:00

It is well known the extent of global discussion about the excessive persecution by the Libyan government of its protesting population, prompting some to rightly call it a crime against humanity. But the world has largely just stood by, patiently waiting for the event to finish unfolding and reach a conclusion, whatever that might be; we're well aware that it might mean further killing of protesters and innocent citizens by the thousands until there is no more voice. The question then us bystanders have to ask ourselves is whether to intervene or not. Of course, out of basic empathetic response we, the plebeians of any country, wish to reach out and help the oppressed - if we could, yet our governments seem more reluctant to do more than condemn or impose sanctions. Each nation has a very complex political situation both internally and externally that would reasonably offer many reasons to mind its own business, but I think that there is a fundamental reason that overwhelms both the political class from taking concrete and direct action to help the Libyans, and ourselves from putting significant pressure on it to do so.
Sovereignty, and its sister Nationalism, have historically been concepts that got more and more defined during and after the 18th century. It is generally believed that an ethnic group has the right for autonomy and sovereignty, however, the world filled with examples of the contrary, Catalonia and Kashmir being cases in point. The fundamental premise of democracy is the representation of the will of the governed. Without dwelling on issues of majority vs minority, we can immediately intuit the need for boundaries that establish the spatial extent not only of the property of the governed (the Country) but also the limit beyond which their will should no longer has any real validity (neighboring countries could in theory have dramatically different laws). What happens then when the population of one nation wants to lend a hand to the population of another nation that is being pressed by their government?
In essence, once we get over the superficially of racism and the arbitrariness of cultural differences, we start identifying with each-other at level of the species; we are all humans and largely alike. Take this idea to an extreme and soon we realize that ethnicity, as a concept, starts losing grounds, and consequentially so does boundary. Existing power relationships are nullified and replaced by something more universal. It is not in the interest of those in power to share their authority, or those better off to share their property, due to a perceived downgrading of position in the socio-economic hierarchy, so group identity needs be invoked and reinforced top-down to keep the status quo, and boundaries between jurisdiction need be drawn and kept at all costs.
Governments condemn each-other for oppressing their people, but direct intervention would nullify the basic premises and validity of the power structure between the governing and the governed, and consequentially sovereignty. International affairs are full of "mind your own business". If it wasn't then there would be something that might be termed "international democracy" that basically merges all the existing power hierarchies into one global state - imagine a behemoth European Union. What king or leader would want that? Therefore difference needs to be artificially and actively sustained in order to provide validity to the boundaries of jurisdictions. In many cases from this is from the top down. "Minding our own internal affairs" means "we are not them" but also "they are not us" and thus the power structure's hierarchy remains in place.

Pattern study 3

2011-02-06T05:18:00.001-08:00

The plan view of a ceramic tile system.

Subverting postmodernism

2011-02-06T03:33:00.000-08:00

In Kuwait the typology of a mosque is distilled into a mental image from a set of preservationist and ideological ideas. Heritage, as a concept, has always played a tangible role in Middle Eastern region, which since the golden ages of the Islamic and perhaps Ottoman Empire has experienced an intellectual "retardation", hence looking back to the past for inspiration and identity. However, the notion of Heritage is quite an oddity in a number of ways, the most important of which is that the core ideas that instructed the superficial aspect of things (material and especially pertinent to our discussion, architectural) have not been fully preserved, either in a wide enough intellectual circle or culture, leading to a sort of fascism, where how things look determines how much they abide to this impoverished version of the notion. Those ideas then are not allowed to resurface, evolve and consequentially instruct novel forms or architectural approaches, which might be very interesting. Instead, all the technical expertise of the time needs to bow to the creation of a simplistic function dressed in substance-less aesthetic. The typology of the mosque cannot flourish to keep up with the current architectural trends and theories, and even worst, does not retain the same intellectual quality and rigor on which it was previously defined.
Secondly, the Kuwaiti society is still ,relatively speaking, a "young" society in search of an identity. Sticking to Heritage provides and answer, partially. Aside from the mix of group-specific ideological paradoxes, the modernization of the state of Kuwait saw an unprepared society rapidly immersed into an imported modernity which didn't really resonate with the cultural predisposition at the time to create a richer context. On the contrary, space and form has lost most of its finer and subtler meanings. Half a century later architectural typologies are perceived strictly form a functional perspective; an office is nothing more than an office, a house is nothing more than a house, and a cultural institution is nothing more than a decorated box. It is perhaps not surprising that a conservative society sees "class" as sticking to Heritage, however since the notion is only applied stylistically - where the aesthetics are no longer accompanied by their core values - it produces the comical situation where the referent can be chosen from any time and any place; this is how European classicism has found its way to decorate the houses of some well to do people, alongside Moorish, Ottoman and contemporary international styles. T
Obviously, this version of post-modernism is a step further than what even Venturi proposed. The obvious question, for an architect forced to work in such a contexts, is how can it be subverted. It is part of the designer's obligation to respond to the client's requirements with respect and understanding, even when they are paradoxical or contrary to his or her beliefs. On the other hand it is many times difficult to selectively turn a blind eye to he client's requirements; for example I would agree to make a mosque of these many square meters but I cannot be stylistically predetermined. Right away we can see that subversion is no easy task. Its possible only if one can correctly identify the doors left open by the client's requirements and lack of understanding of the matter.
Take the following example. I am supposed to design a mosque with more or less standard functional requirements, and in a post-modern "Moorish" style, with arches and all the clutter, for no other reason than the clients preference. In this case it is very likely that his taste is only a matter of surface application, which means that the concepts adopted by the Moors is not something he's juggling with in his head. With some historical knowledge it is possible to resurface some core intellectual ideas, update them, re-shape them, and reintroduce them in a novel way that could perhaps lead to innovation.
Even from a functional perspective, it is unlikely that the client would have a deep understanding that would take into account the qualities of each element in the set of functions, and their relationships within themselves and with each-other. For example the qualities of space are shaped and modified by its position, function and connection to all the other spaces, and by introducing an element, even if only a filler, could induce enough change to induce novelty

Hegel's Circle

2011-02-01T23:25:00.000-08:00

You self-reflecting pile of lifeless matter,
What you are, you do not know,
Who you are, you cannot decide,
Where you were, you don't remember...
or where you'll be, you cannot see,
Why you are, you just can't fathom...
even if you heard the words.
You speak of life and love and freedom,
Do you realize you are death throughout,
Frozen inconsequential action,
Despite unrelenting will,
Since where you willed it wasn't yours...
Not then, not now, nor ever,
As for the words you think you've heard...
your dead ear received only silence,
Like ashes unfold unto ashes deaf, in a circle,
Falsely imagining brief moments are substantial,
To life and the history of life,
Enough to differentiate truth from false...
with logic as if it's more than a sensation,
As if lifeless matter can feel or imagine.
You self-reflecting pile of lifeless matter,
You are neither, but a loop of delusion.

Pattern Study 2

2010-07-04T11:45:00.001-07:00

Pattern Study (old)

2010-07-04T10:56:00.002-07:00

Silence

2010-06-22T06:33:00.001-07:00

For those to whom silence speaks,

Of intricate illusions,

Delusional emotions,

Compulsive reactions,

Be still, but never quiet;

Articulating heals the speaker.

The suspicious role of the Architect

2010-06-21T14:58:00.001-07:00

The simplest (and most simplistic) description of an architect's role is that of a designer of the built environment. On the other end of the sophistication spectrum, we find that articulating with exact precision his or her role is elusive, since the definition of "Architecture" as a word or concept in relation to an object that allows subjective experience of itself and/or the consequences of its existence, is still rather vague. However, our simple definition, for the moment being, is sufficient. We can then see an architect as an organizer of a client's ideas and intention, or the innovator bringing forth new ideas and intentions, which in both cases needs to produce a geometric arrangement in space. The manifestation of that arrangement is inherently dependent on all the arbitrary steps made to accommodate for those initials ideas and intentions within the constraints of their external and internal circumstances. As such the starting point is crucial. Whose ideas and intentions were organized have tremendous socio-political implications.

An architect cannot lie outside social circumstances and as such none of his or her actions can avoid having an ethical significance. All design decisions, no matter how insignificant, must carry a moral weight in relation to their consequences – one might say that an unnecessary screw is wasteful therefore morally dubious regardless of its extremely low value (relative to the whole cost of the built project). For this very reason the action of sorting out of ideas and intentions prior to the design process can be scrutinized morally by itself, and somewhat independently of the specific consequences of those ideas and intentions, or their inherent moral value. This sorting decides to what extent an architect's will is "imposed" on the client, or inhabitants. Since spatial organization filters actions and opportunities (it enables some and disallows others), when an architect does not act as merely an organizer of the clients ideas an intentions, but rather as an innovator, then not only a large part of the weight of the consequences build project has on the lives of its inhabitants fall on his or her shoulders, but also that of authoritatively imposing on them a subtle kind of control, which due to the lack of awareness on the client's part (in most cases) starts bordering fraud.

To reinforce the above, a myth must be shattered, namely that innovation necessarily leads to a betterment of the human condition. Furthermore an architect's interest in innovation may or may not involve the human condition. Most times it's innovation for its own sake (or actually for the pleasure derived from it), and sometimes as a means towards fame and material reward. Either way, it is an egotistical pursuit. In other words, the architect's attitude towards creative design is as far as possible from seeking the "truth" concerning the real value of the built object in relation to the human inhabitant. The relationship of between architecture and inhabitant goes (way) beyond the usual formal, structural or aesthetic concerns, yet the real extent of its nature is neither known nor (usually) sought. And the good intended seekers never discovered it. To be fair, it is a poorly formulated question; none of the terms in the architecture-to-human problematic are well defined. What is "Architecture", and more essentially what is "Human"? Our current understanding of the world and subsequently the human constitution is incomplete, and therefore any question about the real meaning and value of a human action (such as constructing) or product (such as a built object) is ill-formulated thus un-answerable. However, suppose blind innovation eventually results in an object (or category of objects) corresponding to that fundamental architecture-human relationship; how would we, in that case, be made aware of it? Obviously we cannot analyze the object(s) using concrete conceptual tools since we don't have them. Perhaps the manifested effects on the socio-political realm would be so obvious that we'd sooner or later learn what we have discovered?

Mind Peace

2010-06-18T06:56:00.000-07:00

Different sounds, different moods; an idealized lounge tune, supposed to easily slip into the background, evading your attention, yet accessible at will.

Thesis: Architecture for the Human Condition

2009-05-11T22:15:00.001-07:00

Introduction.

An Architecture contingent on both the corporal and psychological paradigm of human reality, considered at an individual and plural level. Philosophers such as Arendt hold that the human condition is created and altered by everything that surrounds that human, thus architecture (and the urban setting in this case) as a predominant element the environment of experience acquires a moral status. Psychology has shown in many instances how there is a general pattern in our reaction to visual stimulus, be it color or geometry. Some theoreticians such as Alain de Botton link both happiness and misery to the quality of our environment: the kind of walls, chairs, buildings and streets we're surrounded by. Questions such as the ethical value of beauty, the perfect balance between mood and program, or even a psychological program, surface and gain tremendous weight.

It might turn out that we are conditioned by, and we don't condition, architectural space. However, in Architecture from the Inside Out Karen and Lepori make a compelling argument that space (regardless of its stylistic lineage) is thus impregnated with symbolism projected by the distinct combination between cultural baggage and a certain modus operandi of perception; a blank wall can potentially carry as powerful a symbolic essence as Rodin's La Porte de l'Enfer. Social interaction, which involves a varying number of people, who might or might not form a pattern, spatially, or mentally (when a perceiver understands what is going on), can modify architectural space to such a fundamental level (both subjectively and physically) that the idea of a one-way relationship of conditioner and conditioned is put in doubt.

What exactly does it mean for a human to exist within the confines of an architectural space?

In trying to answer this question there is a hope of discovering a design methodology contingent on a re-establishment of relationships between a numbers of architectural concepts.It doesn't take much of a look into the birth, evolution and refusal of ideas, ideologies and systems of thought, on architecture and otherwise, to acquire the sense that with progress there is a road towards a new paradigm. Architecture has been viewed as the art and science of building, however, the science of building was generally related to methods of construction. This thesis treats the question of science (a particular branch of knowledge about the structure of the human condition) as the predecessor to design. According to theoreticians such as Alexander this approach would have to generate design and allow for a variety of end results.

Din Neant spre Neant

2009-01-08T22:41:00.001-08:00

Din neant spre neant curg gânduri, simțuri bogate,

Trăiri neașteptate, valuri de emoții, tresăriri aparte,

Chipul tău, bogat in vorbe, cuvinte clare, dar mărunte,

Idei simple, străpunzatoare, dar nespuse,

Ochi, nu voci, grăiesc, în șoaptă dulce,

Taine vechi răsună modern, dar noaptea-i rece,

Din neant spre neant stele curg, iar inima se duce,

Să-și întorcă firul vieții, întretimp, în sânge,

Bătălii în suflet, remușcări născând regrete crunte,

Și vocea ta, ca o lună ascunsă de nori,

Privirea ta, ca stele învinse de zori,

Iubirea ta, ca soarele arzător pe obrazul unui orb,

Te înțeleg, dar din neant vin cugete zbierând amețitor,

Curgând spre neant, presând apăsător,

Din neant spre neant, amenințător,

Din flăcări dorințe, arazătoare, ducând spre foc,

Dar eu, ascultând de înțelepciunea liniștii, în tăcere te ador,

Ca un suflet tânjind spre corp, cu sete, privindu-te copleșitor,

Prin filmul timid ce ne desparte lumile, transparent, dăunator,

Distant de gândul tău mă aflu, dar intim te cunosc,

Distante sunt tărâmurile noastre, dar prin noi se ating, fraudulos,

Prin noi se sting, tradiții ce mii de ani a vărsat in vene idealuri, păcătos,

Dorința de a varsa din vene viață, privind sec, nemilos,

Suflete și minți, inimi vii, iubiri precum a noastră sfârșite dureros,

Din neant spre neant, curgând, loialitate, zis lucru frumos.

Ne-am despărțit, un timp, câteva luni,

Te aveam in gând, in inima mea de călător nebun,

Roua dimineții refracta in ochii mei chipul tău, un suflet bun,

In brațe te simțeam, te doream, șoapta ta o ascultam,

Erai un vis, un paradis promis, și cu dor așteptam,

Inumăram apusuri....

Dar soarele nostru s-a stins,

Te-am căutat, adânc, dar lacrima ta umedă, secată de orice compromis,

A curs pe obrazul tău, atunci când buzele-ți grăiau raspunsul liniștit,

In tăcerea nopții zbieram spre neant, fără glas, sau cuvânt grăit,

Priveam frunzele gălbui, umede, rascolite de vant, cu pas de lunatic mut,

Privire oarbă incețosată de umezeala unei a lacrimi ce vroia sa nu mai curgă,

Să inghețe în timp, ca cicatricea albă a unei răni crunte,

Raceala nopții străbatea străzi străine, intunecate, ducându-mă spre neantul corpului fără sulfet.

Less is more?

2008-12-19T09:04:00.001-08:00

One of the most cited phrase in the Architectural world is Mies van der Rohe's "Less is more". Inconspicuously simple, inherently oxymoronic, the simple phrase seems to hold the key to a deep truth that whoever uses it to for a punch-line, a reply to an annoying question, or part of a larger argument. As we write it, less is more, or less=more, it is contradiction, an oxymoron, a perplexing verbal structure, and that is part of charm.

It could be an stripped version of "Less of something is more of something else", which instantly pulls it out of its charming mystery, yet opens up a debate over what is "something" and what is "something else". If we put the phrase in its historical context, we might be compelled to say "Less specificity is more ambiguity", and since architectural perception, and sensation, is based on the subjective, on the verge of being a phenomenological conquest, ambiguity is directly proportional with the number of readings of an architectural space, thus more ambiguity is undoubtedly good. By breaking from the baggage of historical architectural symbolism, which was used to paint somewhat specific, if vague, tableaus, Mies and by extension Modernism opted to create architecture that was deprived of the richness of symbols, yet managed at some points to create canvases on which the perceiver could infuse meaning with his imagination. Thus the less specific an architectural object is the more it becomes similar to a canvas, thus the more ambiguous.

Realism is a luxury

2008-12-19T07:20:00.001-08:00

A luxury that you can't buy with money, it's rare among the rich, or the poor; in fact it's rare among people. It needs an extremely open mind, and costs one's fluffy conception of life and humanity, of oneself and those beloved. Nature is ugly. Human nature is ugly. But we can't see that ugliness behind a smile, behind the image in the mirror, behind beauty, comfort, wellbeing, love; underneath them all lie brutal imperfection and foul desires, dressed up and polished for appearance in front of delusional minds. It is unsafe and perhaps unhealthy to look at the world for what it is, maybe that is why we create this distorted filter that leaves out truths, or maybe we are created with it. Once this filter is gone one is left with nothing, understands nothing, cherishes nothing, however, it gives him the position to see the bright side of nothingness. The truth to real happiness, for example, is nothing. Sadness, by consequence, is irrelevant.

But our delusions are strong, our minds are weak, the influences are strong and truth is frankly undesirable. That is why I call realism a luxury, because true realism is an impossibility.

The Beauty of Time

2008-10-29T00:23:00.001-07:00

Originally version written on December 28^th 2005

It feels like it was only yesterday...It seems that there is no escape from the passage of time...time heals all wounds, yet a wound needs time to be born. All things bad will, eventually turn into good...however, all good things come, with time, to an end. Time flows too fast...suddenly you stop seeing the one you'd love to see first in the morning, last at night...When will you see that smile again? No one knows...yet thinking about it brings uneasiness which resonates and amplifies, shaking and rendering you useless...Does time flow to our advantage? It was needed to bring us to this world, yet it pushes us constantly to an inevitable end...Because I exist in time; it brought me up and soon will erode me. We exist in time; it brought us together and someday will break us apart. We are only given instances; can we savour them, love the people with whom we share them ... do good with them, so that we can say we haven't been wasteful?

The Absolute and Personal Value

2008-10-27T21:57:00.001-07:00

Please read this first.

If when scrutinized by the absolute, nothing has real value, because it is merely a subset of a more essential structure, then where does that put us, as persons on a ranking of values? Consider the following: we live in a deeply subjective reality, within which we can barely control anything. Even our minds and bodies we have limited control over. Try not going to sleep for a week. Better yet, try not feeling tired while doing it. It could be possible, but the chances are you will not be able to do it. Our minds are bodies are systems partially independent of our will. If you think mind and will are the same, try not thinking anything for a minute or two.

The pertinent question is how important are we then? To resolve this issue, we should take a look at what personal importance. We can readily conceive that 1) we are important to ourselves and 2) that we are important to some other people. Both types of importance are equally flimsy structures. First of all, real value does not lie in the subjective realm, so we can easily eliminate number 2. If the importance other people gave us had any real value (note: value is a characteristic an adequate structure) then we would never be confronted with losing that importance. Besides, how many times people became important for no good reason? Think presidents... Similarly, if our own self-importance was a well constructed structure, then nobody would ever have depressive and/or suicidal thoughts. Besides, both types of importance are imposed on our thinking. Most of us didn't go through any thought process to establish their own importance or that of others...it just comes to be. That's another way of saying that the construct hasn't been made for any real good reason.

We are the center of our own universe, since we are the center of our own perception and thought; fortunately we can at least hope to think beyond ourselves. Our existence is flimsy and temporal, our minds are usually erroneous, we do not actually own our bodies or identities, our importance is given or taken by others, and even when it's given to us, it still lacks value. Compared to the world we are insignificant. When we cease to exist the world will just move on as if we never existed. When we're in pain, there aren't many people who actually care, and similarly, there aren't many people we care for their pain. We, and them, are insignificant. If that wasn't true, then we would be living better lives, but we don't. Our minds are subjective. We are tied to a skewed reality, altered both by our perception systems and the interpretation methods, stuck inside a small, tiny body. If our minds were significant, then we would be objective. If we were actually significant, then we would never hurt or cease to exist. But we aren't and we need to come to terms with that.

In any case, compared to the Absolute, nothing has real value. But the question is where do we stand on a rank of values? We are certainly not the second most important thing after the absolute, but we cannot conceive the second most valuable structure without some subjectivity. This creates a relationship between our own construction and that which ranks second. Personal value can't be the second since there can't be any without a society. If i was the only one in existence, there wouldn't be any reason to think of personal value, nor anybody to give me any importance. Being conditioned by our human nature, the second most important thing should be this: The relationships we form with our fellow humans and environment. At this level we still remain insignificant, but at least we can derive some direction into what we can put effort into. The most important thing we can do is treat ourselves, each other and our hosting environment with respect and dignity.

Architectural Insights - Part 1

2008-10-25T08:13:00.001-07:00

It's a very important question: why do we build? While we can come up with a myriad of answers, such as to have a home, or a place to gather, raising the inventory of our property, etc., it still misses the essence to some extent. We build, I think, primarily out of a physical consideration. Bluntly put, main reason for building = shelter. Architecture is necessary because of our physicality, which acts in an environment where it can be threatened by many dangers, and discomforts, from bad weather to wild animals to other humans, therefore we need to create an environment where it is possible to avoid as much as we can the ruining of our own bodies. In this sense architecture is a tool is aimed, or should be, to fulfil the condition of protecting, and somehow caressing, the users. It doesn't take much. However, if that basic condition is not fulfilled in a building, as in the built object does not allow for any level of liveability, as crude as it may be (like a primitive shed), then it cannot be called architecture.

Without its users, architecture is meaningless. This is probably the first thought that should enter a designer's head when drawing the plans for any building. Considerations such as art, economics, style, etc are ultimately less important than the way the users, and their needs, are addressed. From this perspective, ego is the most incompatible characteristic of an architect; their responsibility is to think about the people who will inhabit that building. If someone cannot think further than his ego, cannot have a basic compassion for his fellow humans, and does not care if their building, or part of it, affects the users in a negative matter, but apologises with considerations such as originality, personal style, etc then maybe they should not be professing architecture.

The Absolute. The ranking of Value

2008-10-20T06:52:00.001-07:00

Strangely enough, even though we live in a highly subjective reality, where our perceptions are altered first by our standing point within time-space, the nature of our senses, our own internal interpretation of those sense, and lastly by the semantic environment that attaches meaning to each perception, despite all that we can still think of relativity. We intuit it; "It depends". Our existence, as far as we can prove it, is within a four dimensional (at least) objective framework, a unique unmoving and unchanging background that allows for all the variations of our reality. This background is not necessarily "something", but rather a set of rules that create entities and dictate their interaction. We know for a fact how reliable the laws of our universe (the simplified versions which we discovered so far) are very reliable, and this forms only a primitive proof of the existence of an objective background. In fact, without it I imagine there would be only chaos, randomness.

This is only a glimpse into the nature of Absolute, which I define as a non-relational, non-shifting concept, towards which everything can be refrenced but cannot be referenced to anything. This of course, only a much abbreviated definition, but for clarity and simplicity, we don't need to elaborate further. If the existence of this Absolute is true, then it follows that everything is constructed upon it, meaning the Absolute has ultimate value, since it is the essence of all other things. If we take a deeply essentialist approach, we might say that the Absolute has ultimate value, and no other things have value, which is on its own not a very useful concept. However, once we start playing with degrees of scrutiny, the essentialist approach allows for a ranking of values.

Life’s moods a sinuous wave.

2008-10-19T08:47:00.001-07:00

It's quite odd how we shift from one mood to the other, sometimes instantaneously, some other over a larger period of time. Perhaps even more intriguing are the triggers, the said reasons, of that mood shift, which we don't always realise they have been acting on us, or that they have been gathering into a swarm to for a good reason for the shift. It is always much easier to be neither sad nor happy, in a somewhat a neutral state with a tiny bit of flavour of either, since it requires the least amount of concentration and emotional self-evaluation. Yet that state I find to be rather fragile, and easily overturned, often without much power of protest, into either sadness or happiness. Note that here I use happiness and sadness as categories of emotions.

Personally, I believe there is no real value to emotions, with value understood as a characteristic of an adequately constructed entity, on solid foundations and for good reasons, since they are merely the psycho-physical manifestation of subjectivity. The reasons for our sadness or happiness could be a largely misinterpreted situation, a semantic error, or just a surge of a certain kind of neurotransmitter, which do gives us real experiences, but the nature of that experience lies in the space of our own imagination, without any real concrete existence, thus implying that we are making ourselves, even if involuntarily, feel a certain way, but without a adequate reason. This goes to say that emotions are not either based on solid foundations, nor are constructed for good reasons, therefore they have no real value.

This gives way to the sinuous nature of the shift of moods, from one extreme to the other, first because the previous mood was not adequately constructed, thus flimsy, and second because we do not construct the replacement with much scrutiny. For example, someone is being sad because they broke up with their lover, and while following the news sees how people in another country struggling with some sort of disease or disaster, and suddenly feels lucky to be alive and not in that country at this time, and thinks that it's not worth being sad, because life is too short. Two hours later that person would be sad again thinking of their misfortune with regards to their lover.

I won't argue that there is no use to emotions; clearly they are probably the sole reason the world is spinning.

Pre-Logical Evaluation

2008-10-17T04:08:00.000-07:00

Ideas come and go, but when you focus on one you start linking it to other bits of info and concepts, thus constructing a complex entity of interrelations; the idea itself becomes the system of relations between other ideas. Evaluating such a construct is not always easy, and usually the complexity of the evaluation process is of a higher order than that of the idea. While I do not want to go into detail about the nature of the evaluation process, I wish to forward a type of evaluating criteria: introspection.

Not all ideas, or arguments, can be scrutinized through the rules of logic; there will always be that very human step over the calculable dimension of “if then”. What I’m talking about is the mind’s unique ability to understand and comprehend, a process resulting in a sum that is larger than its parts. There will always be a line of reasoning, but sometimes how you get from one step to the other is not always clear. Until this day we do not know exactly how the mind works. But you can introspect into the workings of your own mind.

Whatever conscious process you use to arrive at a conclusion, or construct an idea, it is possible to trace it, and get a feeling of your own system of reasoning. Of course, the system is not always stable; if at all, only relatively. But when you get somewhat of a good grasp of it, you can then scrutinize and evaluate it. The underlying idea is that if you detect an error in the way your mind works to reason out something, then you can assume that your conclusion might be wrong. It is not always easy to do the above, but it’s possible, and can prove to be an invaluable tool. I personally prefer to use this sort of approach pre logical evaluation, by that I mean before I start using formal logical tools, the ifs and thens, to evaluate the structure of an argument.

Why blog?

2008-10-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

There is always something ephemeral about our thoughts. Our brains seem to work through a system of neural interconnections, and that system is highly vulnerable; drugs, alcohol and like substances alter the way our brain works by impairment, which only goes to show how deeply unreliable our thought process, and mind is. However, the mind is one great tool and has helped us overcome many obstacles, to achieve goals, good or bad, and for that reason, despite its inherent flaws, is worth cherishing.

I suppose a blog could be a sort of tribute to the history of a mental process, something to remind us of what we used to think at a certain point in time; also an introspective analytical tool, allowing us to rediscover ourselves after we forgot how we were, and create a sort of chain-understanding of our own ephemerality. This blog is about recording glimpses of a mental reality that I construct and destroy each day, a process starting when I revitalize after a dream until I succumb to the next, in other words, the result of my own self-awareness, consciousness and knowledge.

While it is implausible to record each thought that occurs throughout the day, it is possible to assign a rank of importance to each, even if it’s a relative ranking. By only focusing on those thoughts of higher importance, this record should become a collection of “wisdom nuggets”, an abbreviated summary of my own knowledge and reality. It is important to have a record of oneself, especially if this record is aimed at the composition of a complex chain of interrelated, internalised thoughts, for the purpose of later introspection, analysis and simplicity of retrieval.

Secondly, using this format, I am exposing my inner thoughts to scrutiny by others, which has a few merits, most important of which is the evaluation of the structure, coherence and validity of those thoughts, and escaping the dangers of getting trapped in a rigid introverted vortex of circular thinking.

Thirdly, if there are any merits to my thoughts, their exposure would at least be an attempt to diffuse those merits into the wider public; nothing is more eternal than a good idea, and if by any chance this mind of mine can come across one such idea, then its diffusion and embracement by the others secures its usefulness beyond the time boundary of my mind and, indeed, body.

This is only a limited list of how I find a blog rather useful, and I have decided to mention these because I feel it is the upper most part on the importance ranking. Of course, it’s a personal belief. Please feel free to add your main arguments for the usefulness of a Blog.