At 03:03 PM 1/12/98 -0400, Wayde wrote:
>Mark, you need to read Leonard Shlain's book 'Art and Science,' (or some
>such title), and you will understand the origin of some of these ideas a
>bit more.
Thanks; it sounds as though I do! I'll look it up.
> Many of the so-called *modern* concepts of space have been
>actually explored quite a bit by eastern philosophers centuries before
>contemporary explainations of such.
Exactly. Eastern philosophies have always had a highly integrated and
intuitive understanding of space/time/consciousness.
>A related topic, which Shlain's book confirmed - I always though that
>Mies' concept of 'Universal Space' paralleled the Zen concept of space as
>the 'container holding the pregnant possibilities of all things.'
Good job! I'm not sure if ol' Mies would have said so, but I think you're on
to something. Just like Sullivan's "Form and Function," "universal space"
has been perverted by a prosaic usage, making the deeper, more significant
understanding less prominent. To wit:
> When
>asked about this, a Mies scholar lecturing one evening at the University
>of Tennessee several years ago stared back at me as if I were mad, not
>knowing what to say in reply.
Of course not! Most get so hung up on the formal aspects of Mies' design,
they forget everything else! That's OK, though, as Mies himself did that on
a few occasions. :-)
Mark
>Mark, you need to read Leonard Shlain's book 'Art and Science,' (or some
>such title), and you will understand the origin of some of these ideas a
>bit more.
Thanks; it sounds as though I do! I'll look it up.
> Many of the so-called *modern* concepts of space have been
>actually explored quite a bit by eastern philosophers centuries before
>contemporary explainations of such.
Exactly. Eastern philosophies have always had a highly integrated and
intuitive understanding of space/time/consciousness.
>A related topic, which Shlain's book confirmed - I always though that
>Mies' concept of 'Universal Space' paralleled the Zen concept of space as
>the 'container holding the pregnant possibilities of all things.'
Good job! I'm not sure if ol' Mies would have said so, but I think you're on
to something. Just like Sullivan's "Form and Function," "universal space"
has been perverted by a prosaic usage, making the deeper, more significant
understanding less prominent. To wit:
> When
>asked about this, a Mies scholar lecturing one evening at the University
>of Tennessee several years ago stared back at me as if I were mad, not
>knowing what to say in reply.
Of course not! Most get so hung up on the formal aspects of Mies' design,
they forget everything else! That's OK, though, as Mies himself did that on
a few occasions. :-)
Mark