At 10:51 AM 1/2/98 -0800, Randolph wrote:
>In the strict physical/mathematical sense, architecture defines
>subspaces (of physical space). Even in that very limiting sense, it's
>fair to say that architecture creates those subspaces; no-one but the
>designer can perceive those subspaces until physical structure makes
>them part of common reality.
Fair enough; that's an even more-accurate description, assuming that a
"subspace" is physically possible. I imagine number sets and subsets are a
fair analogy, so perhaps it is...
> Besides, only Taoist mystics (maybe)
>perceive universal physical space; the rest of us move through a
>series of subspaces.
Not just Taoist mystics, but anyone who's had success with meditation; it
happens to most people, but this perception can sometimes be very subtle and
fast. It's usually gone before we realize what's happened. Some say the
feeling of being "in the zone" is very similar---that slightly altered state
where you're deeply immersed in everything yet still a little detached, when
everything you need to know or do is RIGHT THERE, and you aren't even
trying. I don't know; I haven't had much experience with it. It seems a good
description of how I sometimes feel when I'm doing my best creative work.
>I think it's very, very important. There's a lot of architecturally
>valuable material in 20th-century mathematics and most of it is buried
>in the intense abstraction required to deal with spaces of arbitrary
>dimensionality and metrics (distance-ideas). There is gold waiting
>for the designers who translate some of this stuff back into
>architecturally useful terminology.
Well, I don't know if that material, in and of itself, will have much real
value. I think that the underlying theme of the order of the universe that
these rules of space/time reveal will be of more importance.
Mark
>In the strict physical/mathematical sense, architecture defines
>subspaces (of physical space). Even in that very limiting sense, it's
>fair to say that architecture creates those subspaces; no-one but the
>designer can perceive those subspaces until physical structure makes
>them part of common reality.
Fair enough; that's an even more-accurate description, assuming that a
"subspace" is physically possible. I imagine number sets and subsets are a
fair analogy, so perhaps it is...
> Besides, only Taoist mystics (maybe)
>perceive universal physical space; the rest of us move through a
>series of subspaces.
Not just Taoist mystics, but anyone who's had success with meditation; it
happens to most people, but this perception can sometimes be very subtle and
fast. It's usually gone before we realize what's happened. Some say the
feeling of being "in the zone" is very similar---that slightly altered state
where you're deeply immersed in everything yet still a little detached, when
everything you need to know or do is RIGHT THERE, and you aren't even
trying. I don't know; I haven't had much experience with it. It seems a good
description of how I sometimes feel when I'm doing my best creative work.
>I think it's very, very important. There's a lot of architecturally
>valuable material in 20th-century mathematics and most of it is buried
>in the intense abstraction required to deal with spaces of arbitrary
>dimensionality and metrics (distance-ideas). There is gold waiting
>for the designers who translate some of this stuff back into
>architecturally useful terminology.
Well, I don't know if that material, in and of itself, will have much real
value. I think that the underlying theme of the order of the universe that
these rules of space/time reveal will be of more importance.
Mark