Sorry to have taken so long...
At 05:25 PM 4/10/98 PDT, Brian wrote:
> yes, i would differentiate between things that
> are naturally electrical (most things), with things
> that are human-made, artificially electrical, such
> as a toaster, and things that are of a virtual order
> of electricity. these can be defined in terms of
> 3 different worlds/orders of electricity...
OK; you can define it that way for the sake of your thesis. But remember,
all we're doing is pushing around a bunch of stuff (electro-atomic
structure) that's funadmentally the same no matter what we do with it.
The Eastern view acknowledges this, and also sees "things" as being
something apart from a greater reality.
> everyone probably knows more about the subject
> than i. i am not sure about this. i do know that
> 99% of the interior of the atom is empty space,
> or something like that, such that a "wall" that
> looks solid allows sub-atomic electromagnetic
> particles/waves to travel right through them
> as if by magic. no, by physics, by knowledge.
Not by knowledge, but by their essential NATURE. These things aren't so
because we define them as such, but because that's just the way it is.
> the most tangible aspect of what you've said
> is echoed by James Trefil/Trevil in the book;
> Scientist in the City. Where "electricity" is
> stated as the "glue" holding the material world
> together, and as the counterforce to gravity.
That's nice as it's true a number of levels, both real and metaphorical.
> firstly, i think your opinion of what the thesis
> structure presents is just as relevant as what
> my limited view of things (as real or unreal as
> it may be) is. that includes everybody. and pro
> and contrary ideas.
That's good. You're right; we need to acknowledge that everyone brings to,
and takes from, the table different things.
> second, i approach this (to the disdain of many
> in private practice on the list, and professionals
> whom dislike theory in the academy) as an
> architectural thesis relevant to some, but not
> all aspects of "architecture". in my view, i do
> not equate electricity=everything architecture.
> it is relevant in some places, then again, not
> at all. i don't think the market will be the
> determiner of my thesis, as will open minds.
Its relevance ultimately matters only to you; if someone else is moved by
it, you both are made stronger for having made the effort. If only you, so
be it.
> it probably can offer little immediate insight
> into "built architecture", one type of practice.
> but it could, in time, such as a recent report
> regarding Boeing aeronautics company which
> (on Yahoo/Wired/Reuters) stated that a new
> material, or a present material's electrical
> properties could be used to transmit data,
> no cables needed. this could mean that the
> piles and the metal structure of a building
> may one day also be a mega-data highway
> of electromagentic information, .. could be
> the future of a multidimensioned and a
> multidisciplined research in archi-thought.
Most definitely!
Take care,
mark
At 05:25 PM 4/10/98 PDT, Brian wrote:
> yes, i would differentiate between things that
> are naturally electrical (most things), with things
> that are human-made, artificially electrical, such
> as a toaster, and things that are of a virtual order
> of electricity. these can be defined in terms of
> 3 different worlds/orders of electricity...
OK; you can define it that way for the sake of your thesis. But remember,
all we're doing is pushing around a bunch of stuff (electro-atomic
structure) that's funadmentally the same no matter what we do with it.
The Eastern view acknowledges this, and also sees "things" as being
something apart from a greater reality.
> everyone probably knows more about the subject
> than i. i am not sure about this. i do know that
> 99% of the interior of the atom is empty space,
> or something like that, such that a "wall" that
> looks solid allows sub-atomic electromagnetic
> particles/waves to travel right through them
> as if by magic. no, by physics, by knowledge.
Not by knowledge, but by their essential NATURE. These things aren't so
because we define them as such, but because that's just the way it is.
> the most tangible aspect of what you've said
> is echoed by James Trefil/Trevil in the book;
> Scientist in the City. Where "electricity" is
> stated as the "glue" holding the material world
> together, and as the counterforce to gravity.
That's nice as it's true a number of levels, both real and metaphorical.
> firstly, i think your opinion of what the thesis
> structure presents is just as relevant as what
> my limited view of things (as real or unreal as
> it may be) is. that includes everybody. and pro
> and contrary ideas.
That's good. You're right; we need to acknowledge that everyone brings to,
and takes from, the table different things.
> second, i approach this (to the disdain of many
> in private practice on the list, and professionals
> whom dislike theory in the academy) as an
> architectural thesis relevant to some, but not
> all aspects of "architecture". in my view, i do
> not equate electricity=everything architecture.
> it is relevant in some places, then again, not
> at all. i don't think the market will be the
> determiner of my thesis, as will open minds.
Its relevance ultimately matters only to you; if someone else is moved by
it, you both are made stronger for having made the effort. If only you, so
be it.
> it probably can offer little immediate insight
> into "built architecture", one type of practice.
> but it could, in time, such as a recent report
> regarding Boeing aeronautics company which
> (on Yahoo/Wired/Reuters) stated that a new
> material, or a present material's electrical
> properties could be used to transmit data,
> no cables needed. this could mean that the
> piles and the metal structure of a building
> may one day also be a mega-data highway
> of electromagentic information, .. could be
> the future of a multidimensioned and a
> multidisciplined research in archi-thought.
Most definitely!
Take care,
mark