for instance, the 'design' (basic and applied) of the .US
Constitution has been brought up previously on the list,
probably a decade ago by now, with regard to issues of
architectural concepts of public and private zones. these
traditional aspect of architecture are largely forgotten or
their existence denied in the status quo ideologies today.
yet, it is the basis for the logic by which the decisions that
are being made are psychologically justified, identifying
the thinkers and their reasoning, what its limitations are,
what its focus is, how it perceives. this is and remains a
privatized, inherited system of observation, unchanged
from the founding of the .US and a major reason for the
'lack of reason' to transcend the enlightenment boundary
of man's views of the world, mankind, his story of things,
and in general, making everything dependent upon this
private, specific, subjective, non-universal, observation-
this is also the basis, in language, for justifications in the
sciences which distort the observations being made by
individuals whose private views are believed, by default,
public. the interface with the world, begins with that of the
private self, the private eye, this is the public face today,
and is increasingly absurd and inhumane as it judges
humanity (men, women, children, elders, ethnicities,
creeds) by the rules of some specific class of mankind.
which most nations base their power structures on, and
language often is ruled by some gender-components.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
therefore, the .US constitution in not being upgraded to a
human view, of neutral language, has a bias but also has
a limitation, that bounds human actions by those that are
decided by the men (private) who represent this public.
it is a bait-and-switch of historical proportions, in that the
civil rights, women's rights, disability rights, gay rights, and
other movements have consistently sought to make 'man'
more equal (men are not created equal, humans are) and
yet it is bounded by a logic which is private, insufficient to
actually 'reason' for a human perspective, with a human
perspective, when totally privatized and limited in doing
so, by design. the loss of public space, public interaction,
civic space, civic development, the lack of 'representation'
in government is the upper-limit of this, as politicians seek
to demographically spread their limited private self and
its perception into a larger public-- yet if a human view is
used, there is no need to try, it pre-exists as the shared,
public class. there is no way other than by inverting this
bounded situation, that the 'public' can be the external
relations between peoples, (interfacing with the universe)
and the private, the internal, maybe introspective aspects.
such a model would look like this:
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
by placing 'ideas' in a more optimally designed context,
such as by updating or editing the constitution to neutralize
its gender-limitation, its literal privatization of the language
which then is further distorted by representatives who use
this language, as reason for private reasoning of privatized
ideas, assumed public because they are representative of
external relations between peoples, its view pre-exists the
20th and 21st centuries, and several hundred if not several
thousands of years of perception have yet to be changed,
transformed, in the language, logic, identity, psychology of
peoples who are, by default, always judged by privatized
perspectives and reasoning, unless adhering to a design
in which this is inverted. the 'inner' circle in the diagram
above which says 'mankind' would, if private, then also
be able to say 'womankind, women, men, woman, man,
female, male, straight, gay, black, white, red, religious
belief, etc. though, in today's context, as it now exists,
these are also in the center, with 'human' views that are
trapped with public and private dimensions, bounded
by this limitation of the ideas and private beliefs of man,
individuals, and the largest public club of men that exists,
which may or may not be a nation state or secret society.
by making public language public, and private language
private, and clarifying this in terms of logic and identity,
and laws, it would enable a shared zone of interaction
that already exists, but in a muddle middle-zone of the
public-private that stagnates because of dual-purposes.
it is confusing, confusion, and an inaccurate way for the
representation of people in the 21st century, yet it still
is the default way of relating, reasoning, and interacting
and no doubt feeds upon extreme isolated views of men
who are powerful because of their traditional exploits--
not necessarily because of their serving public interests.
the discourses using language as it exists today is thus,
largely irrational when considered in terms of logic, it is
non-sensical, often non-productive, and always at war, in
competition, as a language of cooperation does not exist.
one person's rights should not infringe upon another
person's equal rights -- and yet this is exactly what is
happening between public rights and private rights.
this malfunctioning constitutional design requires a
review of how to translate what is public, into public
terms, and what is private, into private terms, and for
what is both, to allow for this. yet today private views
are blocking the public views that are shared by all,
or at least public issues that need to be dealt with by
those willing to do it, yet private views are considered
equal to those of the entirety of the public re-public,
in that an issue such a climate change can be held
back by a specific company's personal tax-issues,
when the issue is much bigger and more dimensions
yet if only taken in private terms, variously selected,
the issues can shift, sift, but remain always privatized.
this is why those who make programs (software) that
does translating are of great interest, as a program
could translate private texts into public documents,
by the laws of fair-use, and thus rest control away
from the private ownership of public ideas (such as
with science or architectural texts), not in terms of
publishing but in terms of cross-pollination and the
ownership of content, that ideas cannot be owned-
yet this is what has happened. that is a design issue.
if design is actually about basic and applied design,
the making, shaping, and understanding of ideas.
their communication, if distorted, is a design-issue.
in this case, it is proposed to be unconstitutional in
the bounding of the human community by mankind.
brian thomas carroll: architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=13102
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html