i was going to try to write something
formal about these ideas though the more
i consider them, the less sure i am about
how it can be approached as it is a question
of immense breadth and depth and in a design
context it probably needs to be simple and
clear enough to be practical, and yet i am
not sure what level of description would be
necessary, or possible with my limitations
of understanding - all i know is that what
is written here seeks to be neutral and yet
may contain bias, which i accept as my own
and am entirely willing to reconsider ideas
that may be distorted and yet i may not see
until others can help me understand whyso.
that is a cultural disclaimer that this is
meant to ask a common question and seek an
impartial conceptualization, not to judge
one view as being superior to another, etc.
for me it has a lot to do with architecture,
infrastructures, engineering, ideas, aesthetics,
design, education, philosophy, science, culture.
and yet to write backwards proves impossible in
the current environment, institutions currently
are not capable of pursuing such an approach to
the present situations of the 'war of terror.'
ultimately it would be to relate the world as
architecture within its infrastructure as the
common universal structure of the 'modern', and
to consider events in such a context where the
additional layers of cultural perceptions (bias)
that are added through architecture and design
are not equated as universal cultural values, etc.
as they are so far from this that it is profane.
and ideological. and closed-minded. yet trying to
change the institutions of architecture has not
been possible yet because there is an ideological
lock on the ways of proceeding with questions that
have been answered decades ago, become solidified
as an approach to problems, mindlessly repeated by
those indoctrinated into the ideological system,
and exported to every area of life as the basis,
the foundation upon which to judge what is real,
true, good, and shared in common in the culture.
largely western, largely what is 'westernized.'
not entirely bad, but much is bad and very ugly.
it is emblematic of the 'testimonial' statements
of "not changing our lifestyle" etc. it is to
endorse an automatic machined way of living, a
nightmare of Le Corbusier's machine for living,
in which life is subsumed to machined processes.
people become equivalent to robots in how they
live their lives, questions are become choices
alone, not considerations that must be ongoing.
where is the democratic checks and balances in
such a solidification of points of view about
the 'western' culture as it currently exists?
"traditional" actions, without change, review,
or consideration, can effectively legitimate a
given "traditional" response as a tactic if it
is at the level of a bureaucratic megamachine
in which 'human' goals are secondary to those
of some automated state of affairs. and their
mediation may take on mythic dimensions when
individuals represent different perspectives
within this global bureaucracy, as if to be
representing particular ideas, questions, in
their molar forms, and not as the outgrowth
of something else, larger forces of ideology
which are made manifest, represented by these
same peoples in a cataclysmic clash of ideas
whose origin may be millennia before present.
that the humans involved are less a cause than
an effect of ideas never resolved, that could
run parallel throughout the centuries, only
now to interact out of necessity as the views
can no longer exist independent of one another
if so close in proximity that it threatens to
undermine core beliefs that are not yet able
to find stable relation, by way of cultural
perceptions, relations, experiences, reality.
there is a 'worldview' that is 'the modern'
that claims universality, changes much of
everything that is in its way, and yet is
not fully 'modern' by its own definitions,
it is subjectivized and can be westernized.
that quote from the origin of Greek science
and philosophy would appear to indicate that,
along with the origins of democracy and city-
states and planning, that a sense of how the
world relates may have been modeled in what
is a western context, which at the level of
culture, at the level of differences where
space, time, aesthetics, all of these can
be perceived differently by peoples because
of their not being westernized, may become
a cause of conflict in how the core ideas
are- or are not- assimilated into the world.
is it possible that, just as science of the
last 2,500 years starting with Thales of
Miletus, in what is today Turkey, is also
still reflected in this situation where a
'universal' worldview splits between near-
east and west, say between Greece and Turkey:
with the gradient between these being Cypress;
Greek Cyprus and Turkish Cypress? is this an
effect of ideas or how they are perceived or
applied which may be a cause of contention?
i believe so, and think that the ideas of
'science' and how it functions is at the
core of this problem and particularly the
role of 'science and the state' (author: price)
and issues related to philosophy - ultimately
manifest and made recognizable in architecture,
and how between near-east and west this is a
key and core concept which has become a symbol
of different cultural views of what is common,
of value, and how architecture as it remains
today exacerbates and destroys the possibility
of connection by its traditional approach to
new realities- and how it could offer a new
option, with ideas, that again meet the east,
west, north, and south in a common context to
establish a common relationship based on an
improved model which translated culturally
in terms of a shared design of civilization.
this is to go backward, to go forward, and
for the world to meet itself in the middle
of time, in the present, which all inhabit.
this is a sketch, which i am going to sketch
further into this conception in another post.
instead of formal, it is going to be informal
yet a few more posts will follow with ideas.
i believe it is responsible to share critical
review of the ubiquitous ideological statements
being made which are doing much more harm than
good in terms of core issues related to ideas.
what those ideas are will follow. ideas that
have every bit as much to do with problems
happening inside the .us culturally as they
have to do with the War of Terror going on.
that is, if it is indeed an issue with origin
in the formation of science and philosophy,
it would have as much to do with Creationists
vs. Evolutionists debate as it does with the
issues of Mosque and State in the Middle-East:
different ends of the same complex questions
which are not sufficiently modeled to be able
to be resolved due to how culture is conceived.
more to follow..