Deconstructionism "Understanding Thought"

[Quick dimension1]

I agree, It's not about recreating or providing a place that makes someone happy - what good it does do? design is not about seeking what we do not understand. Its like saying that god is design, and design is the search for the meaning of life. on the contrary design is simple - it makes sense of things.

[mx2]

I like that...it puts things in an order and proportion in a response as to what gives us good feelings. A way of sorting through the mass metaphysical confusion we try to shake off from time to time. Those that dare to make sense of it all, simply focus on one iota and assemble it for us to recognize and feel comforted. Hmm...I think I'm going off the deep end now...

I need a drink!

mx2.5

[mx2]

I can't put my finger on it, but I think we just contradicted each other...while saying we agree. Ironic!

mx2.5

[JingYao]

I think, it was a really interesting conversation and suddenly it died out.
I think the intension of this post was to have a collective dialogue to take the theme forward, not trying to pin it down to an definition. Threat this as a concept; it is all referential.

To me metaphysical reflection in architecture is essential, to understand the system we are designing in, and coming up with solutions or find the best pattern for given context. I think doing a little 'conceptual engineering' helps designer see the big picture, i don't think Architucture is about construction of the physical, but reflecting upon the metaphysical. In a way we are 'concept' creaters, fashion designers, we have to understand the mood of the world and pave a way forward.

The bottom line for me is architects today need to think beyond the physical, since the durability of a building last as long as the spirit, for it to survive we need to do some good conceptual engineering. In this age of creativity, we have to start designing some good 'concepts' not only buildings.

[csintexas]

Hi JingYao,

I suppose I would agree if by metaphysical you mean creative. Certainly most would say that conceptualizing is a good thing. Well I live in a physical house so I assume architecture has a strong physical component.

Yes a house will last as long as someone is willing to maintain it but that doesn't make all houses equal (physically). I would not argue against taking a more spiritual path to design I think it just depends what works best for an individual. For me creating a functional building is a fulfilling exercise. I don't now how I could use metaphysics to improve a design.

Do you have a particular metaphysical concept you use?

[JingYao]

Hi Cs in Texas,

I don't have much background in philosophy, at this point metaphysical to me means contemplation of something that is beyong the physical, an intellectual understanding of something, as Plato's parable of the cave, we are all chained like the prisoners, by looking at the shadows we are trying to reflect on the truth behind us rather than the reality we know in front of us. Concentualising what is behind us gives us a better understanding of the whole.

In term of design approach, understanding the patterns of nature of things, to me is conceptual engineering, (a term kidnaped from simon blackburn's book 'Think') thinking of the metaphysical, in a way, it is a zoom out approach or top-down approach trying to grasp the whole picture better before starting changing part of society which we call design.

In a way, thinking of the metaphysical is trying to visualise a model of reality so we can apply to it and see the effect with our imagination before we apply to reality. If grapsing the physical reality and transfering into a abstract model is a creative process, then i agree that metaphysical could also mean creative in the context of design process.

[csintexas]

I only took one philosophy class so I don't have that much background either. It is difficult to discuss a topic when we all use words or terms which we all apply our own slightly different meaning too.

Yes I would agree, metaphysical means contemplation of something that is beyond the physical, in the most general terms. But to further understand it I think it could go two ways: Feng Shui which has rules but is based on unprovable beliefs or pure spiritualism which does not need rules.

Although I count myself as being agnostic, I think we all need some spirituality in our lives. On the other hand I don't see what good can come of replacing science with pseudo-science.

[JingYao]

I agree in term of communication perhaps it would be better to have a set of language or system which serves as platform, however I doubt it is ever possible, since every one has individual experience and advocate meaning to terms as we experience the world i suppose. It is not a matter what terms I use, but in what context i use it, from context you would be able to understand my term, after all words acquires meaning with use not by its definition, that is the phenomenon of concept, i suppose, that they are all referential.

In the case of metaphysical, i think by comtemplation my meanings stays adhere to rationality, i wasn't point to feng-shui, although feng-shui is not scientifically proven, but tend to achieve psychological and social benefit when used well in design. (i am strickly talking about rules applied to architecture, not superstition) In a way lets give credit for rule-of-thumb that surved thousands of years of usage, it could be considered based on statistical rather than theoritical or scientific.

Yes, I agree, there is no benefit of replacing science with pseudo-science, but natually when things get complicated we tend to favour rule-of-thumb for quick decision which in time it builts up into a belief.

[csintexas]

I think rules of thumb are generally based on practical experience and not belief.

If we are designing a house for a client who considers feng-shui to be an important aspect of their house than I can see the importance of using it in the design. So I don't totally discount it or any other similar system. I don't know much about feng-shui so I couldn't say if it would make a house better or worse. I'm sure it contains elements based on observation of our physical world.

How we relate to our environment may be very or somewhat diverse on an individual bases but it is measurable and thus can be understood using real scientific method.

[P.C.]

Yes but scientific then mean the measures the exact volumes the exact 3D drawing maybe , the measures as they are , but what scientific method would yield the cooridiantes for a nice city, a beautifull house , the right proportions for a room , two rooms . If an assembly to manufactor it's parts can be generated, this also must be part of the scientific resoning , that it's not just a sketch but guided as you say, by a reasoable design theorie.

[JingYao]

I think the fundamental point about metaphysics lies in border where scientific knowledge stops, where philosophy begins.

Conceptualising something is not a scientific method, but helps to build foundation of science, as it could help theorise architectural thought.

[csintexas]

I don't that we have to use metaphysics in order to conceptualize. In my thinking they are unrelated. When we say conceptualize we generally mean to think creatively.

Beauty is not perfectly quantifiable but it does have some scientific understanding. Do we need to make things more mysterious than they actually are?

[JingYao]

To me conceptualising means, to thinking in terms of concept, in abstact term away from physical definition of ideas. To think in signs rather experience.

If thinking in abstact terms meanings being creative then, I agree with you.

I do not think making things more abstact means making it more mysterious, perhpas more vague so it could include more possibilities in creative sense.

[csintexas]

This kind of ties in with our discussion on "concept"

Yes I would say abstract thinking = creative thinking

Isn't the purpose of metaphysics and spiritualism to address the mysterious, the super-natural?

[usarender]

This discussion is interesting, and maintains relations and allusions to the idea of " a spirit of a place", where a particular location can denote certain metaphysical qualities based on the inhabitants, the past, the present, the expected future of the location, and the materials, elements and organization of the same in space and their "experiential quality" that can be " pleasant", "urban", "modern" and on. When experiencing architecture, according to the famous book, one must take into consideration this metaphysical quality. We can learn from it, and create our own philosophies based on it. It is everywhere. The experience of the world around us is connected in a metaphysical way to the events, the people, the materials, the location, the context (historical, geographical, cultural, spiritual, metaphysical experience and individual reaction to the environment).

When we as architects say the building "wants to be something", others may think we are only expressing our own desire, in other words. But there is something truly metaphysical about our way of experiencing a problem, a client, a context, a material application in the sense that the group of factors seem to "cry" or "call" for a particular solution that involves our sub-conscious mind, it's connection to the physical and metaphysical world around us. We are all connected in a way to this metaphysical energy and depending on our level of connection, it can inspire our architectural design.

Can a building affect society ? It is obvious that buildings affect society and the world around us. One must always take into consideration the user's point of view, from design inception through design evaluation and user evaluation in the course of a building's existence. A building is an inherent reflection of the society, values, people who design, build and occupy the spaces. A building can have a bad design, but still carry some positive connotations, based on it's metaphysical connection to the world and society around it. Or it can have a good design, so to speak, but only in the architectural sense, but maintain no connection to the metaphysical or physical world around it, thus loosing it's place in the context in which it sits. Much is to be said for the contextual aspects of the design, as Misvit has expounded upon.

About the sublime nature of architecture, this can be expounded upon as well. The degree to which this can be executed in practice can be determined by an infinity of variables, that may or may not allow the architect to fully express the full intent of his sublime inspiration, depending on the budget, cultural prejudice or particular influence of the architect.

Quick Dimension 1" brought up some interesting points related to a design approach. A concept that is driven by a building and "speaks of the inner qualities of the building type"...and "one manipulates the language so that it speaks the nature of the building". These are interesting points, among the others cited. A building cannot be ordered simply by the 'Frank Ching' principles, without no connection to the inner qualities that a building must express. If we were to do so, a building would be contextually out of place, as many buildings end up becoming when architects dis-associate themselves from the inherent contextual, cultural, technological, human and related challenges of the project at hand. Allowing a building to become "want it wants to be", can also allude to the need for the architect to express a certain sensitivity, an openness of mind, a willingness to experiment, rather then develop a preconceived idea of what he thinks or believes the building wants to be. This can be the danger, if the architect is not refined in his capacity to absorb all the challenges at hand with an open mind.

It is to be noted also that the most influential architects are also the ones that have the most freedom to break the rules, to create their own systems of thought, ways of designing, style and means of application. These are the vanguards of architecture, or those who define and shape the way smaller "minor" architects think and design. If we wish to be among the leading architects, we should not design by copying other architects designs, elements or style. We should be able to work within our own style that can reflect or work within a particular architectural style, but is not resting solely on such architecture, but rather, on one's own interior inspiration. A good architect should also be an artist, and an artist must have his own unique inspiration.

Also, we can speak of the movement "Deconstructionalism", or we can speak of Deconstruction in architecture. One is a historical movement and can be seen in spam architectural thought, as an example. The discussion here seems to deal with how we brake buildings down into their metaphysical qualities, the sublime nature of architecture, or the inherent qualities in a program that call for a particular solution. This seems to be in essence a hodge-podge of different ideas and reactions, rather then an orderly discussion of a topic.

Perhaps some of this discussion could be referenced more to the movement "Deconstructionalism" in it's historical context, and it's implication on modern architecture.

Also, is architecture a pursuit of self-knowledge ? Can it be an introspective experience of discovering one's own inner essence and expressing this in a rational visual way ? Is it a quest for self knowledge ? A quest for understanding the intricacies of the human mind ? I think not.

Now what birgco said completely expresses the idea behind the "Secret" of architecture, design, creativity and the greatest architects in history. Truly, there are true "architects" who are masters in their own right, then there are little "designers", who portray themselves as architects, but don't know the heck what they are talking about, a bunch of "bs".

The true creative thinkers in this universe don't need to be stewing around about what architecture truly is. It is simply a part of them and they create it, just at the Universe was created by a Supreme Intelligence. To deny this leads to a humanistic, self-centered perspective that ignores the infinite divine nature inherent in good architectural design, among other fields of human intellect. Look at all the great architects, the great inventors, the great scientists of the past. They all understood the "Secret". People define it in many ways. It is simply the reflection of something much greater, beyond our comprehension, that connects us metaphysically to the world we live in, and allows us to have a "divine moment of inspiration" , so to speak. By using this "secret" Architecture can reach for the sublime, can inspire, can create awe, can be considered itself a source of inspiration. By introspecting and looking into ourselves, we see nothing but a myriad of confusing ideas and ways of perceiving the world. By connecting to the universal energy around us, we thus transfer the universal knowledge and wisdom into our architectural thought.

Mx2's reaction to this thought also maintains some valid points. Many brilliant men in existence simply are never recognized, never become known. By connecting our minds to the "Secret" and the universal energy around us, we to can aspire and inspire. We need a sense of relaxation, of loosing our worries, and in a sense become metaphysically detached from the problems of life in a way that our mind is free to soar, to dream, to inspire. This cannot be done by pecking away or criticizing other thinkers. It can only be done with a kind, liberal, open and free mind.

There are architects who have a negative view of everything. They consider the past will always be. Nothing is new, nothing new can be created, it is, in their vision, the same old "stuff", reorganized into a new nice looking package. So, in this view, there is nothing new in the world.

If this were the case, the greatest technological achievements, inventions and creations of all time would have never come into existence. We, as free thinkers, must aspire, inspire, and create a new reality around us. We, literally, shape the reality around us based on the perception we have of the world we live in. This is the basis of the "Secret".

There are those in these forums that only give in to rational logic, to pragmatism, to purely practical applications. For them, this type of thinking is "wishful thinking", a bunch of "hypothetical postulation" and nothing but metaphysical speculation. They, in effect, maintain no connection and have no way to understand the metaphysical nature of the act of creation.

It seems, at some point, the discussion on this topic is completely lost. All types of wild detached emotionally responsive statements start to appear, that are based on preconceived ideas of what the world is, should be, and what architecture is. We cannot form one solid, unyielding definition of the metaphysical qualities of architecture and our ability to experience it and translate this into our own thinking and architectural expression. We each perceive reality around us in a different way, and are in the process of re-shaping the reality around us by our reactions and self-imposed ways of viewing the world. This, in turn, can either generate a new reality, or keep bringing more of the same back into existence. This leads then to the type of thinking that "it is all the same garbage coming back to us over and over again" . This pessimistic type of thinking does not aspire to bring about a change of thinking, as it is a thinking which keeps bringing the same reality back into existence. When we begin to alter our perception of the reality around us, we find a physical correspondence in the world we create. We thus, are the masters of our own fate, the captain of our own souls, the one's who determine what our architecture is and wants to be, based on our perception of the reality around us and how we project that perception back into existence in the form of a solid object, shape or architectural expression. We can project our feelings, our beliefs, our experiences, the experiences of others, the style of others, our own style, or simply do what we think society expects of us. Truly free thinkers do not base their opinions based on their expectation of what they believe society expects of them. They simply produce according to their own convictions. We need in this world architects with stronger convictions, that are so determined to act according to these that they will do anything to adjust their perceptions so they are in perfect alignment with what the project aspires to be. They must, therefore, have an open mind at that same time that they follow their convictions. Now, this is the difficult thing to do. If one has a strong will, and strong convictions, the tendency is to think that one will push for what one wants, and not what the problem truly calls for. This is where the "Secret" comes in. It calls for a generous, open, liberal mind that is connected to the Universe around us and is completely free of negative thinking and is in complete control of the negative forces that may try to disrupt the balance of forces that tend to push in opposite directions. In this universe, there are positive and negative forces everywhere. A great architect, likewise, must find a perfect point of balance between what the building wants to be and what it does not want to be. He must find a point of equilibrium for all undertakings, a place where his building will sit in perfect balance and harmony with it's context, surroundings in such a way that it becomes an inherent part of the world around it. When an architect can achieve this, he has created a master-piece.

Now what JingYao posted " Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:31 pm " makes complete sense. Somehow the topic of the conversation was lost somewhere along the "hodge-podge of ideas" in this forum.

Metaphysical reflection is truly essential to architecture. To find the " best pattern for a given context" reminds me of the book "Pattern Language" by Mr. Christopher. This may imply "conceptual engineering" , but only in the sense of creating the overall guiding pattern language which will guide the overall design experience. Without a pattern language, communities see uncontrolled development, find themselves lost in a conflicting urban tissue that becomes chaotic, self-centered and completely devoid of spiritual value.

Csintexas brought up a point to be mentioned also - Feng Shui and it's spiritual interpretation of architecture. This is to be mentioned, for those seeking to derive some metaphysical quality out of architecture. In this thinking, all architectural elements, their position in relation to the space, to the material world, to the energy and the "spirit of the place" are all connected. In this thinking, the metaphysical world truly "calls for a particular arrangement of space and objects in the space". Elements of energy, the Earth, Wind, Fire became the central figures in controlling and expressing the metaphysical energy. Their arrangements in space determine the success of the space itself in creating a feeling of balance, or harmony. When the elements are well placed according to this philosophy, a building maintains a balance between the positive and negative forces within. So there is much to be said, within this context. We do not seek to propose such a philosophy as the ultimate tool for design, but it has it's valid applications. Especially on the Western World, where we tend to simplify our design efforts into a pragmatic, intellectual reaction devoid of spiritual meaning. One can see in this forum that those who refer to this philosophy do not truly understand how it functions and operates. This is amusing in itself.

P.C. refers to the scientific method to determine the correct proportions of a room. This leads to the modern industrial age Le Corbusier view of the ideal human proportions, traced back to the Renaissance, where designers try to find a perfect proportion based on the human figure and apply it in a practical way to modern buildings, in the same sense that Michelangelo applied it to the graceful human shapes in the Cistene Chapel and his resulting architectural achievements. In the Modern Movement, this may result in buildings where "form follows function" but not much in terms of the spiritual values such as those defined in Feng Shui. So they seem to be two opposites, two extremes in architectural thinking. Not to dis-credit the modernist movement. It has it's application, validity,and has lead and can continue to lead to beautiful architecture. It is being used merely in reflective comparison of architectural value and interpretation.

It is important, at this point, that the discussion reverted back to the idea of the "concept" in architecture, the abstract thinking that leads to creative thinking. This is the basis of good architectural design. Any type of metaphysical relationship between the world and our human existence must involve our interpretation of this reality and how this translates into our architectural concept. We conceptualize based on how we feel either connected or dis-connected to the world around us. If we feel dis-connected, our architecture will reflect this. If we are in complete harmony with man and nature, our architecture should reflect this balance of spirit. Here enters the validity of such abstract philosophies as cited.

For those who wish to expound on the Universal application of creative thought and it's implication to architecture, science, and the world around us, we would like to invite you to visit our new "Liquid Universe" project.

It can be found at --->>>>

http://www.globaldeveloper.net/

In this project, the concept of the "Secret" is carried to it's extreme ultimate implications. The site may contain scant allusions to architecture, as the intent is not to focus on one subject. It is a project with universal implications. We are a group of architects, scientists, inventors, and visionary thinkers and the ideas we are launching are far reaching in their implications.

We welcome all who wish to participate on this project.

====================================
"You don't imagine the power of dreams and imagination.

Our words carry magic and can transform the future.

Our thoughts, ideas, aspirations and inventions re-shape reality around us and transport us into an unimaginable future of advanced human interaction and endless possibilities of technological developments."

Before our eyes is emerging of a new generation of scientists, visionaries, world collaboration, global intelligence, freedom of creation and scientific exploration !

Welcome to the journey !