John,
>The example of Helmut Jahn's rude remark, seems to confirm my
>point: he answered rhetorically because he had no ready
>architectural answer.
I brought it up as an example of an architect who designs and builds without
enough consideration for the ultimate use of the building, and little concern
for those who will have to negotiate the things.
Beyond that, I don't doubt that Jahn lacks ready answers for a lot of
questions...
>My point is that other disciplines reside in the world of
>architecture, for language, concepts and credibility (as well
>as for shelter), more than we architects choose to see.
I suspect we are talking past each other.
My point was that architecture does not define its own "world", it is a one
activity within the larger scope of human activity. This may be a semantic
disagreement.
The "abstract disciplines" that you cite often share and suffer from their
academic frameworks which, although distinct from the point of view of
academia, all share the burden of attempting to reinterpret social
relationships without thoroughly examining the material conditions for these
relationships. Derrida is an excellent example of this phenomenon.
>I observe that the abstract disciplines often turn to the
>practical ones for metaphors and concrete language to make
>their ideas better understood.
In as much as these disciplines do not begin with a thorough examination of
the basis of the social organization, they cannot help but look elsewhere for
epistemology. To that end, "any metaphor in a storm"...
Analogies may always represent a "stretch", but they also are always
practical examples borrowed to illustrate theoretical concepts. In that
regard, I'm not surprised at the fondness for architectonic references. Or
references from various areas of engineering.
I suppose its not any worse than looking for "artificial intelligence," but I
don't hold it up as an example of deep thinking, either. Sometimes these
analogies actually fit.
The problem with contemporary "philosophy" is that it is a discipline at
least 200 years out of date. The systems of Kant and Augustine served their
pupose in Medieval Europe, when science of any type barely existed and so
much more of the physical world seemed truly mysterious.
That is hardly the case these days and yet we still find people searching for
god inside particle accelerators, or inside of black holes, or within the
structure of words, or wherever... (Let us imagine how Plato might describe
the Apollo 11 mission...)
Why encourage this?
Kevin
PS If list subscribers would like this taken off-list, please drop me a line.
Thanks.
>The example of Helmut Jahn's rude remark, seems to confirm my
>point: he answered rhetorically because he had no ready
>architectural answer.
I brought it up as an example of an architect who designs and builds without
enough consideration for the ultimate use of the building, and little concern
for those who will have to negotiate the things.
Beyond that, I don't doubt that Jahn lacks ready answers for a lot of
questions...
>My point is that other disciplines reside in the world of
>architecture, for language, concepts and credibility (as well
>as for shelter), more than we architects choose to see.
I suspect we are talking past each other.
My point was that architecture does not define its own "world", it is a one
activity within the larger scope of human activity. This may be a semantic
disagreement.
The "abstract disciplines" that you cite often share and suffer from their
academic frameworks which, although distinct from the point of view of
academia, all share the burden of attempting to reinterpret social
relationships without thoroughly examining the material conditions for these
relationships. Derrida is an excellent example of this phenomenon.
>I observe that the abstract disciplines often turn to the
>practical ones for metaphors and concrete language to make
>their ideas better understood.
In as much as these disciplines do not begin with a thorough examination of
the basis of the social organization, they cannot help but look elsewhere for
epistemology. To that end, "any metaphor in a storm"...
Analogies may always represent a "stretch", but they also are always
practical examples borrowed to illustrate theoretical concepts. In that
regard, I'm not surprised at the fondness for architectonic references. Or
references from various areas of engineering.
I suppose its not any worse than looking for "artificial intelligence," but I
don't hold it up as an example of deep thinking, either. Sometimes these
analogies actually fit.
The problem with contemporary "philosophy" is that it is a discipline at
least 200 years out of date. The systems of Kant and Augustine served their
pupose in Medieval Europe, when science of any type barely existed and so
much more of the physical world seemed truly mysterious.
That is hardly the case these days and yet we still find people searching for
god inside particle accelerators, or inside of black holes, or within the
structure of words, or wherever... (Let us imagine how Plato might describe
the Apollo 11 mission...)
Why encourage this?
Kevin
PS If list subscribers would like this taken off-list, please drop me a line.
Thanks.