brian writes:
reading the intro to _Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture_, Kate
Nesbitt editor, Princeton Architectural Press, c.1996...and came across one
theme of the book that sounds like it is related to Lauf-S(teve) Timepiece
of Humanity.. [brian then adds some quotations from the Nesbitt
introduction]
Lauf-S(teve) replies:
With regard to The Timepiece of Humanity (aka the theory of chronosomatics)
and the essays on THE BODY in Nesbitt's Theorizing a New Agenda for
Architecture, I first have to point out that although written by an
architect and indeed seminally inspired by some of the words in Chapter
Eight of Geoffry Scott's The Architecture of Humanism - A Study in the
History of Taste, chronosomatics is nevertheless fundamentally different in
both character and intent from the way the "body" is used within recent
architectural theory, and even within feminist theory.
The theory of chronosomatics views/interprets the human body (male and
female) as a calendar incarnate, and thereby positions the design of the
body as an ultimate self-evident "symbol" or "blueprint" of humanity's full
duration. Certainly, no other architecturally inspired theory, past or
present, reaches this level of "incorporation", and, moreover, if
chronosomatics bears any resemblance to some other theory or concept
relating to the human body it is to Hinduism?s Hatha Yoga.
Because of chronosomatic's originality and uniqueness, and because The
Timepiece of Humanity is still a work in progress, I, as author, feel
obligated to protect the theory of chronosomatics from (premature)
miscategorization, and thus relating The Timepiece of Humanity directly to
(the history/theory of) architecture first requires an understanding of the
chronosomatic(ally derived) theory of human imagination.
Although it surfaced within the early days of my research towards developing
The Timepiece of Humanity, the notion of various modes of human imagination
being directly relatative to our body?s various physiological operations was
a completely unexpected by-product. Nonetheless, the concept/theory that our
mind imaginatively operates in precisely the same fashion/manner that our
body operates functionally, i.e., with fertility, assimilatingly,
metabolically, electro-magnetically, osmotically, and finally as pure
frequency, is very likely chronosomatic?s foremost contribution to human
thinking because with it comes a potential resolution of the proverbial
body-mind dichotomy.
Since late 1995/early 1996, I have been compiling notes and material for a
?book? entitled The Body, the Imagination, and Architecture (BIA). Of
course, my writing such a book comes with a real dilemma because I have yet
to finish writing The Timepiece of Humanity, upon which the BIA book is
based. (The more I utilize html and web publishing however, the more I
realize that the ?fluidity? and ?connectivity? of hypertext may well
(creatively) eliminate my writing dilemma, and, furthermore, hypertext may
actually enhance the outcome of my message.)
Part of my BIA material comprises a thorough bibliography of recent
architectural texts relative to the body. This process of both reading and
compiling data was necessary not only to firmly ground chronosomatics, but
also to validate and ensure chronosomatic?s position of originality and
uniqueness. In what adds up to a succession of one uncanny occurrance after
another, ideas regarding the body within contemporary architectural texts
and the ideas within chronosomatics come very close, so close that there is
even somethings virtual sameness, yet chronosomatics, because it harbors the
base notion of the human body being a timepiece-symbol-blueprint of all
history, is in each comparative instance alone able to make decisive
intermediate conclusions and further projections regarding the (design of
the) body and its potential meaning.
I am very familiar with Vidler?s text entitled ?Architecture Dismembered,?
and I will gladly discuss what Vidler says, albeit relative to
chronosomatics. As to the Agrest text, I?m sure I read it, and the fact that
I made no special note of it at the time tells me that it did not relate to
my chronosomatic research. Besides, humanity?s true corporal center is not
the navel, but rather the halfway point of our respective heights where our
two legs transcend into a single torso and where male and female transcend
into sexual unity.
reading the intro to _Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture_, Kate
Nesbitt editor, Princeton Architectural Press, c.1996...and came across one
theme of the book that sounds like it is related to Lauf-S(teve) Timepiece
of Humanity.. [brian then adds some quotations from the Nesbitt
introduction]
Lauf-S(teve) replies:
With regard to The Timepiece of Humanity (aka the theory of chronosomatics)
and the essays on THE BODY in Nesbitt's Theorizing a New Agenda for
Architecture, I first have to point out that although written by an
architect and indeed seminally inspired by some of the words in Chapter
Eight of Geoffry Scott's The Architecture of Humanism - A Study in the
History of Taste, chronosomatics is nevertheless fundamentally different in
both character and intent from the way the "body" is used within recent
architectural theory, and even within feminist theory.
The theory of chronosomatics views/interprets the human body (male and
female) as a calendar incarnate, and thereby positions the design of the
body as an ultimate self-evident "symbol" or "blueprint" of humanity's full
duration. Certainly, no other architecturally inspired theory, past or
present, reaches this level of "incorporation", and, moreover, if
chronosomatics bears any resemblance to some other theory or concept
relating to the human body it is to Hinduism?s Hatha Yoga.
Because of chronosomatic's originality and uniqueness, and because The
Timepiece of Humanity is still a work in progress, I, as author, feel
obligated to protect the theory of chronosomatics from (premature)
miscategorization, and thus relating The Timepiece of Humanity directly to
(the history/theory of) architecture first requires an understanding of the
chronosomatic(ally derived) theory of human imagination.
Although it surfaced within the early days of my research towards developing
The Timepiece of Humanity, the notion of various modes of human imagination
being directly relatative to our body?s various physiological operations was
a completely unexpected by-product. Nonetheless, the concept/theory that our
mind imaginatively operates in precisely the same fashion/manner that our
body operates functionally, i.e., with fertility, assimilatingly,
metabolically, electro-magnetically, osmotically, and finally as pure
frequency, is very likely chronosomatic?s foremost contribution to human
thinking because with it comes a potential resolution of the proverbial
body-mind dichotomy.
Since late 1995/early 1996, I have been compiling notes and material for a
?book? entitled The Body, the Imagination, and Architecture (BIA). Of
course, my writing such a book comes with a real dilemma because I have yet
to finish writing The Timepiece of Humanity, upon which the BIA book is
based. (The more I utilize html and web publishing however, the more I
realize that the ?fluidity? and ?connectivity? of hypertext may well
(creatively) eliminate my writing dilemma, and, furthermore, hypertext may
actually enhance the outcome of my message.)
Part of my BIA material comprises a thorough bibliography of recent
architectural texts relative to the body. This process of both reading and
compiling data was necessary not only to firmly ground chronosomatics, but
also to validate and ensure chronosomatic?s position of originality and
uniqueness. In what adds up to a succession of one uncanny occurrance after
another, ideas regarding the body within contemporary architectural texts
and the ideas within chronosomatics come very close, so close that there is
even somethings virtual sameness, yet chronosomatics, because it harbors the
base notion of the human body being a timepiece-symbol-blueprint of all
history, is in each comparative instance alone able to make decisive
intermediate conclusions and further projections regarding the (design of
the) body and its potential meaning.
I am very familiar with Vidler?s text entitled ?Architecture Dismembered,?
and I will gladly discuss what Vidler says, albeit relative to
chronosomatics. As to the Agrest text, I?m sure I read it, and the fact that
I made no special note of it at the time tells me that it did not relate to
my chronosomatic research. Besides, humanity?s true corporal center is not
the navel, but rather the halfway point of our respective heights where our
two legs transcend into a single torso and where male and female transcend
into sexual unity.