On Sat, 03 Dec 1994 15:36:01 -0500,
Lebbeus Woods <medo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>At this point, I think you need to question your own use of
>words like 'objective' and 'certain.' They really don't hold up
>anymore. Not since the Observer got mixed up with the Observed.
If we agree that this Edge of Objectivity, being Science and the
Scientific Method, has changed the Nature of how We, meaning our
civilization, view ourselves, then as you say, this objective and
subjective question has long since passed. The Sciences have also
examined nature, and human nature, under these objective terms.
My point is that the "idea" of architecture and what architecture
proposes itself to be, as a continuing of history and ideas, has yet
to reconcile itself with this new universe of objective truth.
The example of the switch in our world view of nature, and its
unfolding of elements with science, this change has never affected
the architects idea of what nature is; that is, it has not permeated
into the literature or the evaluations of this changed landscape.
Now, when the terminology arrises of objective and subjective there
are some anomolies as to how these relate within architecture, or so
it seems. And it is the subjective understanding of architecture
which never allows itself to recognize the "other" nature, the nature
that Science has made its objective understanding and ordering.
When architecture talks about nature, in the subjective sense, it at
present may speak of a nature that no longer exists, nor has existed
for hundreds of years. Instead, this subjective idea of what nature
is exists "inside" this objective nature of science, with this force
being of a rational ordering and objectifying of unknowns and truths.
Then, as this "idea" of nature continues, and this belief system of
architecture, that this "old" nature exists and is predominant and
contains those elements allowing for a relationship between humanity
and nature as a direct experience, then this is a notion of subjective
interpretation of nature and not a scientific one.
So, if this "idea" of architecture proposes itself to be capable of
the triumph of ideas in the most solid form in the name of humanity,
it must be able to discuss the objective "nature" as the predominant
nature, the nature of science.
___________________________________
The idea of architecture exists | Science |
within the nature of science. | ____________ |
This nature is objective, yet the | / \ |
history of architectural ideas | | Architecture | |
have never rationalized this new | \____________/ |
nature. The idea of architecture | |
still exists in the xxth century. |_________________________________|
___________________________________
If the idea of architecture can | Architecture |
address the human condition, and | __________ |
become a historical continuation | / \ |
of identity of the present, then | | Science | |
architecture would realize itself | \__________/ |
in an objective nature of science,| |
where the human is only an object.|_________________________________|
___________________________________
This relation between science and | Architecture |
the idea of architecture is easier| ____________ |
to realize through the presence of| / \ |
technology. If architecture can | | Technology | |
realize the scientific nature then| \____________/ |
the object of technology also can | |
be realized as this nature. |_________________________________|
>And please, don't get too entranced by the scientific method --
>its dependent on the Aristotelian/Newtonian/Cartesian, which is
>all right for mechanical engineers, but not for electric
>architects.
The objective method of science, the Scientific Method, allows one
to have a hypothesis, experiment, and proof that is developed with
the objective laws of nature, the scientific understanding of nature.
One can prove an idea true or false with respect to this nature.
One can even prove a hypothesis true by what is not there, missing.
If the scientific nature of true and false is the world of science,
and if this nature has yet to be realized as existing within the
idea of architecture, how is it that architecture can recognize itself
as an idea as great as science? Surely it is, for the humanities are
the guardians of our consciousness, and our ability to percieve
ourselfs as more than objects of science. The humanities must be
able to realize themselves as in a foreign landscape, a museum of
whimsy and the unknown, when the unknown is really that of this
scientific nature, which as you say has definite history. This
relationship between science and the humanities is uneven. The
humanities are a subset of science, as is architecture, because this
objective landscape has yet to be realized as the real nature of
things. Thus, as a piece of history it is notable, but as a
conscious awareness it is not. It is not in the text. It exists as
yet undefined, the idea of architecture (the grand notion of what it
is) exists within the nature of science, without a language to
describe it or discuss it, for it is science and not architecture.
But if this nature really exists, this objective scientific nature,
then the idea of architecture has the ability, within its chartering
of what is, to define and rationalize and order this objective
universe of science and technology and give it a name, and a place
for humans to realize themselves within this, and in this way to
make this an objective for the subjective quality of architecture.
again...
>And please, don't get too entranced by the scientific method --
>its dependent on the Aristotelian/Newtonian/Cartesian, which is
>all right for mechanical engineers, but not for electric
>architects.
This is the line that is drawn between the two natures.
Architecture exists within this science of nature, and yet pretends
that "nature" is something separate from this objective world.
An example would be an electric light bulb. In every sense, this
light is as "natural" as the light from the sun. The only
distinction being that it is a scientific "nature" and that the
subjective qualities are different. Architecture compares the two
lights and always prefers the meaning of the sun over the meaning
of this new nature. Thus, innovation in thinking is also contained
within this "old" nature, and the nature of science goes undiscussed
for its absolute quality and brilliance, and its presence and even
influence into the ways of sensing. Instead, architecture deals
with this new nature only under the name of science, and objective
concerns prevail as the artists make their objects.
It is only the irrational that prevails in this view of history,
for architecture is determined to exist outside of the sciences,
as you state, when in fact, architecture exists within the framework
of the scientific nature. The architectural idea is confined.
Yet, and given that someone could make a proof of such an idea, any
definition of architecture and any connection between the relations
of science/technology/electricity/un are all judged upon an arbitrary
nature which has only subjective judgement, called convincing of
personal interpretation of the real experience, out of touch.
If architecture were to realize the true/false of the scientific
nature, proving truth by absence of ideas, etcetera, it would at
present be possible through the scientific method. Today, with the
scientific method, it would be possible for one or more to prove
the reality of the A/E and then A/UN, and yet this is not possible
only because this idea of science "is outside of the realm of
architecture" and this means that the reality of the scientific
nature steadily increasing since the xx00s has yet to change the
"idea" of what architecture is, what human senses are, or even that
we exist as objects of science.
A perspective is possible, but for the academic of architecture,
objective proof is not good enough. (?) Meaning that the scientific
method of what is true and what is false is inadequate in the terms
of the idea of architecture. What is needed is human experience.
This is where the "old" nature and the scientific nature of objects
come in contact. Architecture, history, has yet to realize the
ability to sense and experience this other nature in a subjective
way. It has no framework for experience, and so it has never been.
The architectural _Process_, being the equivalent for the idea of
architecture as the _scientific method_ is for the idea of science,
instead has no truth or falsity, or if it does, it is on a personal
subjective level of interpretation, and this architectural idea is
presented in a courtroom with jurors with their own ideas of nature.
Here great things happen, many revealing the personal beliefs systems
of students and teachers and professional peoples. The discourse of
this idea of what is architecture is confined in this "old" nature.
Religion and belief systems clash over ideas of buildings, dystopia
and utopias erupt, people even cry, for they are humans. Here it is
safe to see the value of the objective/subjective discourse in
regards to a nature that is objective. ie. the teacher declaring
the physcology of one student fitting, and another unfitting.
This act is an act of science, except without any rules, nor any
truth or falsity. Instead this architectural _process_ is the idea
that architecture exists within the market as a prodcut (object)
to buy and sell, and that somewhere in there, the assumption that
the idea of architecture maintains, is the lessening of its ability
to survive in a shrinking ideology of dogma that are so disconnected
from the real as to make the teachers priests and the students their
congregation which pays homage to a history of thinking which has
now passed. And as it is the University, this idea of architecture
is stored away as dewey decimal in the Museum of ideas. And then,
the administration police this condition, so as to ensure the
continuation of the market forces. This is also part of the process.
>Lebbeus
>
>Responding to msg by "carr0023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
><carr0023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> () on
>
>> I think the process/method assumes value in the
>>objective sense of things.
Meaning that _process_ in architecture gives an idea an objective
value separate from the idea, as m.carr stated.
Thus, if one idea is more revealing than another it will be proven
through its concrete manifestations, and then this will judge the
subjective experience of the intent. Meaning even that the object
is more important than the subject (a/e a/un), and then judgement
occurs from a subjective personal standpoint depending on ones
relation to the present, such as (a/e) being judged from the 18th
century architectural ideal of "nature" or "buildings and nature."
Because of such absurdity, topics and ideas and thinking are held
in check through arbitrary definitions of what is subjectively
true and false, and each teacher has their own rules for this.
This subjective checks and balances then makes a median of any
larger thinking or development of the idea of architecture, and
instead relies upon the production and consumption of ideas through
this thing called _process_, which is itself arbitrary and is with-
out universal truth or falsity, as is the subjective.
>> Thus, anyone using this process/method is guaranteed
>>of certain value.
Exactly here, the differing idea is valued the same. In the most
objective sense, the idea through the process or method becomes
a product (in keeping with science), and in an empirical sense each
piece is of equal value, {for who knows what the market wants~}
Awareness and Blindness are equalized through this _process_ and
then are judged together by indistinct rule systems, being both
subjective and objective. The subjective idea is restrained by
the judge, and their nature, and in the same way, the object is
the successful realization as to the intent of the research.
There being no true/false, and also no experience in this "new"
objective nature, this idea of architecture finds itself confined
within the subjective declaration: that is not architecture!
Heretic. How can it be that if the A/E and A/UN can be proven
true by the method of scientific reasoning of what is
true and false ( even by its absense ) and yet, this
is not good enough for the architectural process ?
Again, it is the relationship between science and the nature
of science being objective. Architecture, and today the idea of,
exists within science. Architecture is no less an idea.
Architecture can make science, technology, united nations,
energy, transporation, communication part of its discourse and
knowledge, but unfortunatley any attempt is quelched with this
antiquated belief system of what human experience is, and what
nature is. Undoubtably these have changed and been influenced by
Sci/Tech and architecture is one idea that can realize these, and
with some objective empirical architectural evidence, such as the
electric hardwiring of the modern world.
The Grand Inquisitor by Dostoyevsky (30pgs) outlines this question.
appreciate the response,
bc
Lebbeus Woods <medo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>At this point, I think you need to question your own use of
>words like 'objective' and 'certain.' They really don't hold up
>anymore. Not since the Observer got mixed up with the Observed.
If we agree that this Edge of Objectivity, being Science and the
Scientific Method, has changed the Nature of how We, meaning our
civilization, view ourselves, then as you say, this objective and
subjective question has long since passed. The Sciences have also
examined nature, and human nature, under these objective terms.
My point is that the "idea" of architecture and what architecture
proposes itself to be, as a continuing of history and ideas, has yet
to reconcile itself with this new universe of objective truth.
The example of the switch in our world view of nature, and its
unfolding of elements with science, this change has never affected
the architects idea of what nature is; that is, it has not permeated
into the literature or the evaluations of this changed landscape.
Now, when the terminology arrises of objective and subjective there
are some anomolies as to how these relate within architecture, or so
it seems. And it is the subjective understanding of architecture
which never allows itself to recognize the "other" nature, the nature
that Science has made its objective understanding and ordering.
When architecture talks about nature, in the subjective sense, it at
present may speak of a nature that no longer exists, nor has existed
for hundreds of years. Instead, this subjective idea of what nature
is exists "inside" this objective nature of science, with this force
being of a rational ordering and objectifying of unknowns and truths.
Then, as this "idea" of nature continues, and this belief system of
architecture, that this "old" nature exists and is predominant and
contains those elements allowing for a relationship between humanity
and nature as a direct experience, then this is a notion of subjective
interpretation of nature and not a scientific one.
So, if this "idea" of architecture proposes itself to be capable of
the triumph of ideas in the most solid form in the name of humanity,
it must be able to discuss the objective "nature" as the predominant
nature, the nature of science.
___________________________________
The idea of architecture exists | Science |
within the nature of science. | ____________ |
This nature is objective, yet the | / \ |
history of architectural ideas | | Architecture | |
have never rationalized this new | \____________/ |
nature. The idea of architecture | |
still exists in the xxth century. |_________________________________|
___________________________________
If the idea of architecture can | Architecture |
address the human condition, and | __________ |
become a historical continuation | / \ |
of identity of the present, then | | Science | |
architecture would realize itself | \__________/ |
in an objective nature of science,| |
where the human is only an object.|_________________________________|
___________________________________
This relation between science and | Architecture |
the idea of architecture is easier| ____________ |
to realize through the presence of| / \ |
technology. If architecture can | | Technology | |
realize the scientific nature then| \____________/ |
the object of technology also can | |
be realized as this nature. |_________________________________|
>And please, don't get too entranced by the scientific method --
>its dependent on the Aristotelian/Newtonian/Cartesian, which is
>all right for mechanical engineers, but not for electric
>architects.
The objective method of science, the Scientific Method, allows one
to have a hypothesis, experiment, and proof that is developed with
the objective laws of nature, the scientific understanding of nature.
One can prove an idea true or false with respect to this nature.
One can even prove a hypothesis true by what is not there, missing.
If the scientific nature of true and false is the world of science,
and if this nature has yet to be realized as existing within the
idea of architecture, how is it that architecture can recognize itself
as an idea as great as science? Surely it is, for the humanities are
the guardians of our consciousness, and our ability to percieve
ourselfs as more than objects of science. The humanities must be
able to realize themselves as in a foreign landscape, a museum of
whimsy and the unknown, when the unknown is really that of this
scientific nature, which as you say has definite history. This
relationship between science and the humanities is uneven. The
humanities are a subset of science, as is architecture, because this
objective landscape has yet to be realized as the real nature of
things. Thus, as a piece of history it is notable, but as a
conscious awareness it is not. It is not in the text. It exists as
yet undefined, the idea of architecture (the grand notion of what it
is) exists within the nature of science, without a language to
describe it or discuss it, for it is science and not architecture.
But if this nature really exists, this objective scientific nature,
then the idea of architecture has the ability, within its chartering
of what is, to define and rationalize and order this objective
universe of science and technology and give it a name, and a place
for humans to realize themselves within this, and in this way to
make this an objective for the subjective quality of architecture.
again...
>And please, don't get too entranced by the scientific method --
>its dependent on the Aristotelian/Newtonian/Cartesian, which is
>all right for mechanical engineers, but not for electric
>architects.
This is the line that is drawn between the two natures.
Architecture exists within this science of nature, and yet pretends
that "nature" is something separate from this objective world.
An example would be an electric light bulb. In every sense, this
light is as "natural" as the light from the sun. The only
distinction being that it is a scientific "nature" and that the
subjective qualities are different. Architecture compares the two
lights and always prefers the meaning of the sun over the meaning
of this new nature. Thus, innovation in thinking is also contained
within this "old" nature, and the nature of science goes undiscussed
for its absolute quality and brilliance, and its presence and even
influence into the ways of sensing. Instead, architecture deals
with this new nature only under the name of science, and objective
concerns prevail as the artists make their objects.
It is only the irrational that prevails in this view of history,
for architecture is determined to exist outside of the sciences,
as you state, when in fact, architecture exists within the framework
of the scientific nature. The architectural idea is confined.
Yet, and given that someone could make a proof of such an idea, any
definition of architecture and any connection between the relations
of science/technology/electricity/un are all judged upon an arbitrary
nature which has only subjective judgement, called convincing of
personal interpretation of the real experience, out of touch.
If architecture were to realize the true/false of the scientific
nature, proving truth by absence of ideas, etcetera, it would at
present be possible through the scientific method. Today, with the
scientific method, it would be possible for one or more to prove
the reality of the A/E and then A/UN, and yet this is not possible
only because this idea of science "is outside of the realm of
architecture" and this means that the reality of the scientific
nature steadily increasing since the xx00s has yet to change the
"idea" of what architecture is, what human senses are, or even that
we exist as objects of science.
A perspective is possible, but for the academic of architecture,
objective proof is not good enough. (?) Meaning that the scientific
method of what is true and what is false is inadequate in the terms
of the idea of architecture. What is needed is human experience.
This is where the "old" nature and the scientific nature of objects
come in contact. Architecture, history, has yet to realize the
ability to sense and experience this other nature in a subjective
way. It has no framework for experience, and so it has never been.
The architectural _Process_, being the equivalent for the idea of
architecture as the _scientific method_ is for the idea of science,
instead has no truth or falsity, or if it does, it is on a personal
subjective level of interpretation, and this architectural idea is
presented in a courtroom with jurors with their own ideas of nature.
Here great things happen, many revealing the personal beliefs systems
of students and teachers and professional peoples. The discourse of
this idea of what is architecture is confined in this "old" nature.
Religion and belief systems clash over ideas of buildings, dystopia
and utopias erupt, people even cry, for they are humans. Here it is
safe to see the value of the objective/subjective discourse in
regards to a nature that is objective. ie. the teacher declaring
the physcology of one student fitting, and another unfitting.
This act is an act of science, except without any rules, nor any
truth or falsity. Instead this architectural _process_ is the idea
that architecture exists within the market as a prodcut (object)
to buy and sell, and that somewhere in there, the assumption that
the idea of architecture maintains, is the lessening of its ability
to survive in a shrinking ideology of dogma that are so disconnected
from the real as to make the teachers priests and the students their
congregation which pays homage to a history of thinking which has
now passed. And as it is the University, this idea of architecture
is stored away as dewey decimal in the Museum of ideas. And then,
the administration police this condition, so as to ensure the
continuation of the market forces. This is also part of the process.
>Lebbeus
>
>Responding to msg by "carr0023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
><carr0023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> () on
>
>> I think the process/method assumes value in the
>>objective sense of things.
Meaning that _process_ in architecture gives an idea an objective
value separate from the idea, as m.carr stated.
Thus, if one idea is more revealing than another it will be proven
through its concrete manifestations, and then this will judge the
subjective experience of the intent. Meaning even that the object
is more important than the subject (a/e a/un), and then judgement
occurs from a subjective personal standpoint depending on ones
relation to the present, such as (a/e) being judged from the 18th
century architectural ideal of "nature" or "buildings and nature."
Because of such absurdity, topics and ideas and thinking are held
in check through arbitrary definitions of what is subjectively
true and false, and each teacher has their own rules for this.
This subjective checks and balances then makes a median of any
larger thinking or development of the idea of architecture, and
instead relies upon the production and consumption of ideas through
this thing called _process_, which is itself arbitrary and is with-
out universal truth or falsity, as is the subjective.
>> Thus, anyone using this process/method is guaranteed
>>of certain value.
Exactly here, the differing idea is valued the same. In the most
objective sense, the idea through the process or method becomes
a product (in keeping with science), and in an empirical sense each
piece is of equal value, {for who knows what the market wants~}
Awareness and Blindness are equalized through this _process_ and
then are judged together by indistinct rule systems, being both
subjective and objective. The subjective idea is restrained by
the judge, and their nature, and in the same way, the object is
the successful realization as to the intent of the research.
There being no true/false, and also no experience in this "new"
objective nature, this idea of architecture finds itself confined
within the subjective declaration: that is not architecture!
Heretic. How can it be that if the A/E and A/UN can be proven
true by the method of scientific reasoning of what is
true and false ( even by its absense ) and yet, this
is not good enough for the architectural process ?
Again, it is the relationship between science and the nature
of science being objective. Architecture, and today the idea of,
exists within science. Architecture is no less an idea.
Architecture can make science, technology, united nations,
energy, transporation, communication part of its discourse and
knowledge, but unfortunatley any attempt is quelched with this
antiquated belief system of what human experience is, and what
nature is. Undoubtably these have changed and been influenced by
Sci/Tech and architecture is one idea that can realize these, and
with some objective empirical architectural evidence, such as the
electric hardwiring of the modern world.
The Grand Inquisitor by Dostoyevsky (30pgs) outlines this question.
appreciate the response,
bc