On Sat, 11 Feb 1995, Mark Darrall wrote:
Stephen:>
> You feel you need to tell me "language works harder than we think." That's
> pretty strong stuff to say, coming from a position that states all language
is
> ambiguous and meaning is subjective. I work very hard to establish PRECISE
> meaning. Don't always get it, mind you, but I try. It's difficult to practice
> when the cultural condition no longer values precise meaning---in fact, I
could
> look at your statement sideways and say exactly that: LANGUAGE WORKS HARDER
> THAN WE THINK; that is, we don't think in proportion to language's ability to
> communicate meaning.
Mark, Look at all my statements sideways, i am, after all, a peripheral
visionary...
Thanks for calmly explaining your position. I can absolutely understand
your sense for the dilemma of campishness vis-a-vis poststructuralism in
the midst of your academics. Without question, architecture has pursued a
third-rate reading of deconstruction. I can name on one hand those who i
think approximate any kind of rigorous sensibility for the vagaries of
radical theory as it has been deployed in architecture. The list is
smaller for then being able to think radical theory in terms of
architecture. And who am i to say? you are right to ask. I offer only my
interpretation of the scene, it purports no authority but you can well
expect a debate. However, the antihumanist turn is a part of our
tradition and over time i have come to expect others to become
responsible for an engagement with that historicality because it is so
available and widespread. I know that positions quickly divide around
issues of authorship and stability. The only solution i have found to
this problem is that the lack of background necessary to understand the
incredible bulk of antihumanist writing should be taught in architecture
schools. I have been arguing this for years, if anything it has gone in
the opposite direction. For my part, i put a lot of energy into teaching
the background, (the little i know) in the few theory classes i have had
the priviledge to teach. It is a lot to ask anyone to balance
architecture/philosophy/and the relation between the two and have it make
any kind of sense for "real" world circumstances. Add another degree of
difficulty for the ability to explain in simple enough language what the
differences are between humanist and antihumanist thought (an already too
simply stated framework).
So the point is that "antihumanist" thought is not deficient. i maintain
it to be an increasingly NECESSARY modality to deal with today's
complexities. But antihumanist thought has been brought into the academy
only as a marginalized specialty. Not enough support for the necessary
background, for there not to be the kind of head-butting that has occured
in the past, with who? PA or Arch Record to moderate!? NOT!
But i still haven't stated why it is at all important. And i won't here
but i will point out that you are already sounding decon in noticing that
no matter how much you try to be precise there is always some excessive
meaning to your intentful writing or designing. THAT is what Derrida
tried to argue. So you are right, langauge works harder than thinking.!
Meaning is always in excess of intent (the old stuff about undecidability)
because, as Jacques pointed out, the primary condition for meaning is
difference, not unity. Difference preceeds and will always be more
powerful than unity. I mean something similar when I said to John Young,
the id is bigger than the ego. I would ask you to take the person you
have disagreed with in your school who argues postructuralist thought to
lunch and treat them with care, show some humility, give them a chance to
explain some of the background. If they can't then tell them they should
be able to. If they can't then it is only style. But remember it takes a
lot of time. I got lucky, i had to do it. And i still only have a smear
of what is necessary. Forget the brilliance rhetoric.
What is more, is that the scene is changing rapidly. Briefly:
Deconstruction as a discourse generally frustrated architecture because
we have to deal with "real" material. yes, at the end of it, that is what
it boiled down to. (See P. Eisenmans's "Letter to Jacques Derrida" in
ASSEMBLAGE) in my mind that was the end of it. Not that Peter should have
the final say, no, that is problematic. But the climate has shifted to
DELEUZE and Guattari (better read _1000 Plateuas_). i can promise you,
that over the next few years you will see an increase in talk about
TOPOLOGY AND (Hyper)SURFACE as architecture. With DeleuzeoGauttarian
theory there isn't the problem of thinking about architecture as
langauge. (they are substance thinkers, and not about the Derridian
abyss, they are interested in continuity and flows, ripe stuff for the
rhizomatic internet/electronic world). ((So Brian Carroll, please give us
more of your electronic theory, i agree with rma, that is your real power)).
i am going on too long, that is because, i sense care and intelligence,
and moreso, patience in your questions.
just get ready for a more gentile kind of radical theory coming from
Deleuze. But DO NOT give up on the import of Derridian thought...that
would be a big mistake (one that i currently maintain the top arch
theorist/practitioners have ALREADY MADE)....
darell:
> What cultural vacuity am I trying to compound through my symptomatic approach?
> And who are you to claim it deficient?
sp: just the issue i raise above about not knowing more deeply about your
own cultural tradition as evidenced in your sideways reading, without
realizing that it is Derridian in its bent.
who am i?: someone who will take the time to go into the specifics of
this debate, nothing more.
darell:
> How am I a myopic liberal? All I did was take issue with your denegration of
> those who do not subscribe to your approach. I've seen this attitude before;
> you call David (or his type) lazy; one of my profs calls another
> "anti-intellectual" because he doesn't believe in the decon/critlit
teachings.
sp: it has to do with what Gianni Vattimo calls the self-denegration
immantent in the Humanist tradition. Briefly: to pratice the assumptions
of Humanism (precision in your case) is precisly to undermine the value
base of that tradition. but hey, read _The End of Modernity_ by Vattimo,
you will find him quite accessible.
the anti-intellectual critique, well, yes it is a knee jerk response, a
human one. Doesn't matter, there IS SOMETHING more to talk about, how do
we get there? that is the question. I am looking at trying to teach on
the net as a possible solution. (gosh if i could only get paid for it...)
darell:
> Doesn't sound like "taking someone in" to me...
sp: sounds like you want some attention. ok, so you now have above, a good
chunk of my sat afternoon. If you formulate a good question, i will try
to respond. if you forward doxa and stubborness, i will match it with yet
a harder hit. (you should see me play basketball)
i am not a deconstructionist. i am not THAT good. and 1000 other
qualifications.....
spn
Stephen:>
> You feel you need to tell me "language works harder than we think." That's
> pretty strong stuff to say, coming from a position that states all language
is
> ambiguous and meaning is subjective. I work very hard to establish PRECISE
> meaning. Don't always get it, mind you, but I try. It's difficult to practice
> when the cultural condition no longer values precise meaning---in fact, I
could
> look at your statement sideways and say exactly that: LANGUAGE WORKS HARDER
> THAN WE THINK; that is, we don't think in proportion to language's ability to
> communicate meaning.
Mark, Look at all my statements sideways, i am, after all, a peripheral
visionary...
Thanks for calmly explaining your position. I can absolutely understand
your sense for the dilemma of campishness vis-a-vis poststructuralism in
the midst of your academics. Without question, architecture has pursued a
third-rate reading of deconstruction. I can name on one hand those who i
think approximate any kind of rigorous sensibility for the vagaries of
radical theory as it has been deployed in architecture. The list is
smaller for then being able to think radical theory in terms of
architecture. And who am i to say? you are right to ask. I offer only my
interpretation of the scene, it purports no authority but you can well
expect a debate. However, the antihumanist turn is a part of our
tradition and over time i have come to expect others to become
responsible for an engagement with that historicality because it is so
available and widespread. I know that positions quickly divide around
issues of authorship and stability. The only solution i have found to
this problem is that the lack of background necessary to understand the
incredible bulk of antihumanist writing should be taught in architecture
schools. I have been arguing this for years, if anything it has gone in
the opposite direction. For my part, i put a lot of energy into teaching
the background, (the little i know) in the few theory classes i have had
the priviledge to teach. It is a lot to ask anyone to balance
architecture/philosophy/and the relation between the two and have it make
any kind of sense for "real" world circumstances. Add another degree of
difficulty for the ability to explain in simple enough language what the
differences are between humanist and antihumanist thought (an already too
simply stated framework).
So the point is that "antihumanist" thought is not deficient. i maintain
it to be an increasingly NECESSARY modality to deal with today's
complexities. But antihumanist thought has been brought into the academy
only as a marginalized specialty. Not enough support for the necessary
background, for there not to be the kind of head-butting that has occured
in the past, with who? PA or Arch Record to moderate!? NOT!
But i still haven't stated why it is at all important. And i won't here
but i will point out that you are already sounding decon in noticing that
no matter how much you try to be precise there is always some excessive
meaning to your intentful writing or designing. THAT is what Derrida
tried to argue. So you are right, langauge works harder than thinking.!
Meaning is always in excess of intent (the old stuff about undecidability)
because, as Jacques pointed out, the primary condition for meaning is
difference, not unity. Difference preceeds and will always be more
powerful than unity. I mean something similar when I said to John Young,
the id is bigger than the ego. I would ask you to take the person you
have disagreed with in your school who argues postructuralist thought to
lunch and treat them with care, show some humility, give them a chance to
explain some of the background. If they can't then tell them they should
be able to. If they can't then it is only style. But remember it takes a
lot of time. I got lucky, i had to do it. And i still only have a smear
of what is necessary. Forget the brilliance rhetoric.
What is more, is that the scene is changing rapidly. Briefly:
Deconstruction as a discourse generally frustrated architecture because
we have to deal with "real" material. yes, at the end of it, that is what
it boiled down to. (See P. Eisenmans's "Letter to Jacques Derrida" in
ASSEMBLAGE) in my mind that was the end of it. Not that Peter should have
the final say, no, that is problematic. But the climate has shifted to
DELEUZE and Guattari (better read _1000 Plateuas_). i can promise you,
that over the next few years you will see an increase in talk about
TOPOLOGY AND (Hyper)SURFACE as architecture. With DeleuzeoGauttarian
theory there isn't the problem of thinking about architecture as
langauge. (they are substance thinkers, and not about the Derridian
abyss, they are interested in continuity and flows, ripe stuff for the
rhizomatic internet/electronic world). ((So Brian Carroll, please give us
more of your electronic theory, i agree with rma, that is your real power)).
i am going on too long, that is because, i sense care and intelligence,
and moreso, patience in your questions.
just get ready for a more gentile kind of radical theory coming from
Deleuze. But DO NOT give up on the import of Derridian thought...that
would be a big mistake (one that i currently maintain the top arch
theorist/practitioners have ALREADY MADE)....
darell:
> What cultural vacuity am I trying to compound through my symptomatic approach?
> And who are you to claim it deficient?
sp: just the issue i raise above about not knowing more deeply about your
own cultural tradition as evidenced in your sideways reading, without
realizing that it is Derridian in its bent.
who am i?: someone who will take the time to go into the specifics of
this debate, nothing more.
darell:
> How am I a myopic liberal? All I did was take issue with your denegration of
> those who do not subscribe to your approach. I've seen this attitude before;
> you call David (or his type) lazy; one of my profs calls another
> "anti-intellectual" because he doesn't believe in the decon/critlit
teachings.
sp: it has to do with what Gianni Vattimo calls the self-denegration
immantent in the Humanist tradition. Briefly: to pratice the assumptions
of Humanism (precision in your case) is precisly to undermine the value
base of that tradition. but hey, read _The End of Modernity_ by Vattimo,
you will find him quite accessible.
the anti-intellectual critique, well, yes it is a knee jerk response, a
human one. Doesn't matter, there IS SOMETHING more to talk about, how do
we get there? that is the question. I am looking at trying to teach on
the net as a possible solution. (gosh if i could only get paid for it...)
darell:
> Doesn't sound like "taking someone in" to me...
sp: sounds like you want some attention. ok, so you now have above, a good
chunk of my sat afternoon. If you formulate a good question, i will try
to respond. if you forward doxa and stubborness, i will match it with yet
a harder hit. (you should see me play basketball)
i am not a deconstructionist. i am not THAT good. and 1000 other
qualifications.....
spn