Inspired partially by Middle Eastern geometric patterns.
Note on Quantum Physics
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)