Deconstructionism "Understanding Thought"

[The Architect]

Hey QD1, in your attempt to jerk around the gullable and the naive - I give you this...

Architecture is pre-existing.

You can quote me on that.


Take care...

[Misvit]

birgco, using your logic, if we assume it is true. Either you are humble, realizing that there is a very low possibility that you are one of the creative geniuses you were talking about, meaning you should know yourself that your post and opinions are worthless. Or, you are not humble and think yourself one of the few priveledged... meaning we common folk don't care about what you have to say and find you annoying, which means posting would waste your time trying to enlighten us. In either case the outcome is the same, don't post anymore. : ) hope this helped.

[solidred]

[birgco]

Misvit,
please..... don't pride yourself on being obtuse, then urge me not to post anymore. It's more absurd than my post.

[csintexas]

darn solidred -hermeneutics?!

I'm having to spend to much time going to the dictionary in this discussion.

What ever happened to good old simple philosophy like: I think therefor I am?

[solidred]

Yeah, sorry Chris
I prefer to speak in plain English too, but entering into a discussion prompted by the writings of Derrida is bound to lead to slightly tongue-twisted grammar!!
What I meant, in short, is that we're not perfect but our imperfections of expression are, in a way, suited to our imperfect experiencing of the world. The inevitable gaps and flaws in our systems of thought make life interesting and propel us to explore life more.

[Misvit]

I am not priding myself on being anything, just having conversation, however I will not stand idly by when someone tries to lump me and everyone else, or 99.whatever percent you used as worthless. More over, if anyone tries to tell me my opinion is worthless and that I shouldn't say anything, I will argue otherwise. To put it simply and politely, please refrain from doing such in the future.

[mx2]

[csintexas]

I don't think I would have made that connection from what solidred said but no doubt that it is somewhat true. (although I take pride in not being a perfectionist)

[birgco]

Misvit,
you read the first line of my post and decided you would be offended. Read the second paragraph again.... it's not what you think.

[Misvit]

Birgco, I did read all of your post. I must have taken it more seriously than you meant it.

I was just trying to make a point that the discussion does in fact matter.

[Quick dimension1]

Csintexas- Said: The part I have been trying to respond to is:
- "we repeat what we don’t know; we disseminate various types of media that substitute and talk about the phenomenological world we experience, but in reality, we don’t know why or what the phenomena means."


Response:

We may never know what the phenomena means. The Concept: “we repeat what we don’t know” This statement means that we repeat what we see or experience in life. That’s the problem with design. Design should be about repeating how we understand our experiences. Here’s an example, the notion of “form follows function” is completing wrong. It more like form follows the understanding of the function of nature.

[Misvit]

Isn't that we repeat what we do know? If we don't understand something and repeat it anyway, it never meets expectations, however if we fully understand something we are able to enhance the previous design and exceed expectations.

[Quick dimension1]

Yes, we repeat what we do know. That’s the fine line of design; in the sense that architectural designs is not about taking previous designs and enhancing them or make them more efficient, but its more about creating a mental perception that enhances the experience or makes it more understandable for the human mind to comprehend.

[mx2]