'Concept' in Architecture

[alexneverhurts]

Well I'm not very good at English, so my ability to play with words are quite limited, but what I mean here is though I'm an engineering student, and doing research about engineering, I never consider myself to be just an engineer. Engineering is probably my scientific aspect/training of my thought, while my interest extends further in the sensational part like arts and musics, and, of course, architecture.

[usarender]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments. You have not understood the system Alex.

Your posting -->>

[The Architect]

[usarender]

Architecture and engineering go hand in hand. Buckminster Fuller, Leornardo da Vinci...

The comment someone else made, that was later erased, was the architecture creates space. As this became debated, now one wished to debate if architecture defines it's own space. Certainly it cannot define space in a general sense, but can define it's own space it encloses, by defining it's boundaries and qualities. When these have been defined, the architectural space has made a spatial statement, created an environment and thus defined it's own space.

[The Architect]

[P.C.]

Sorry, but for me spaces don't exist. I find it a wierd academic frase that describe nothing. Esp. when it omit structure and is so arogant towerds what create i as how academics treaded this "space" thing.

[usarender]

What we are really debating, is the vocabulary we typically hear in architecture.

We hear about the "space we have created", the "space we have defined" the "space we enclose", the "spatial relationship of elements", the "this is a nice space", and on and on.

So in effect, we can take back a vocabulary that is not only belonging to science. One could argue it is not correct, in the true sense of the term "space". In architecture, we typically use a language that is not always consistent with the principles of physics.

So it does not make sense to argue who is right or wrong here. The use of the word has become commonplace, in various architectural applications. In this case, we can completely re-invent the wheel of application in every respect. At times we use a vocabulary that is understood in the profession, even thought it may not be scientifically correct, as it relates to mass and space in physics.

So when you argue, you are not debating with one person only, but with the general application of the terminology as it has and is used in architecture.

Further, space by itself does not make architectural sense, as it is nothingness without the existence of some structure, mass or form to define particular areas of containment. So when one creates architecture, one can give meaning to an element that otherwise lacks form. By creating an environment, one has given an architectural definition to the element of space, and created temporal boundaries, that give meaning to a limited amount of space, within the context of the architectural application.

The movement of energy through space creates the framework of time, of mass and thus of architecture.

Our buildings can, so to speak, create a flow of positive and negative energies, that we can balance in a harmonious design, by integrating the boundaries into the beauty of the inner sanctum, thus harmonizing every detail of the design into an integral, relevant, local spatial definition.

[usarender]

The Topic

"SPACE: DWELLING AND BEING (part 1)"

http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15851

Contains a very interesting exposition on SPACE in architecture

Now, a topic of concern to all citizens on planet earth-->>

This may seem crazy, strange, and to be posted by lunatics, but is the crude truth about the world we live in. We have lost our privacy. Today privacy no longer exists. Let me show you why.

Uncle sam and private enterprise is spying on you.

This, as a result of the terrorist war, some may claim. But it goes much further then this.

Those who do not see this are living in never never land.

The result? Very dire if we don't bring this into the public attention and allow it to be freely accessible to all, rather then controlled by a government.

Please see this post -->>

http://www.theregister.com/2007/06/23/sentient_worlds/

"The DOD is developing a parallel to Planet Earth, with billions of individual "nodes" to reflect every man, woman, and child this side of the dividing line between reality and AR."

"Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS), it will be a "synthetic mirror of the real world with automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information", according to a concept paper for the project."

http://www.simulexinc.com/products/case_studies/

"SWS also replicates financial institutions, utilities, media outlets, and street corner shops. By applying theories of economics and human psychology, its developers believe they can predict how individuals and mobs will respond to various stressors.

Uncle sam claims they are doing tests on statistical analysis, for strategic planning, for scenarios of the future, geographic analysis and the like, but the true goal is ultimate global integration and control under a government controlled system. They will know everything about who you are, where you are and what you do. If we do not make this effort to bring this into the public domain and universal quickly, the result will be dire for all.

The answer, Project Liquid Universe.

New World Economics: Simulations Controlling Reality in 2007

http://plausiblefutures.wordpress.com/

"This is not particularly science fiction. I’ve discussed aspects of the surveillance state before, but I am far from an expert and the field is vast and mostly secretive. I would point you towards recent articles at Global Research and Cryptogon for more knowledgeable takes on the surveillance enclosure. The peeks we do get are significant, such as the Sentient World Simulator that DARPA and Simulex have been working on, which is a fully-functional model of planet Earth, all it’s nations, and their people. The system is based off an earlier technology called Synthetic Environments for Analysis and Simulation (SEAS), which markets this super-computer power to the corporate world."

There is much information out there of concern to all regarding privacy issues. Most are not taking it seriously.

Why allow the uncle sam, the DOD, private interest groups, and private companies spy on everything you do, from your personal, to your business, to your corporate life ? If is high time we globally unite in this project, and remove this data from private or government interest groups and keep it where it belongs - in the free public domain!

Now there are those who think this does not concern us as architects and designers ? It is high time we join forces and create the future together, including the architecture of the future.

This is all what project Liquid Universe is about and has been about since the beginning. We seek to create this exact same type DOD SWS system and the various Simulex Case study types projects within the PUBLIC DOMAIN, where they should be. Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, unite with us! Why allow one government and one company to set the stage for the future? It is high time we bring this into the public domain, where it belongs.

Together, as one voice, we need to request our politicians and leaders to open this information and these projects to public access! Why hand these projects over to one single company, to monopolize, control this information and thus monopolize the future of humanity? Whether you agree or not, either we do this together, or government and single companies will do it, and it will be too late for us to join efforts!

The government is already doing this, and some on this forum call us all sci fy fantasy, illusions? It is high time we as architects and designers WAKE UP, and realize urgently what is going on around us! Either we design our own alternate reality and re-shape the future together, or the government will do it for us, and it will be too late to go back!

If this does not concern us as leading architects, as environmental designers, as those who lead and shape the reality around us, then who does it concern? If we do not act and do something about this, who will?

This is a new government project and there is still time for us to unite and bring this into the public realm, before it is too late!

The time is here and now.

New World Economics: Simulations Controlling Reality in 2007

http://plausiblefutures.wordpress.com/

"This is not particularly science fiction. I’ve discussed aspects of the surveillance state before, but I am far from an expert and the field is vast and mostly secretive. I would point you towards recent articles at Global Research and Cryptogon for more knowledgeable takes on the surveillance enclosure. The peeks we do get are significant, such as the Sentient World Simulator that DARPA and Simulex have been working on, which is a fully-functional model of planet Earth, all it’s nations, and their people. The system is based off an earlier technology called Synthetic Environments for Analysis and Simulation (SEAS), which markets this super-computer power to the corporate world."

There is much information out there of concern to all regarding privacy issues. Most are not taking it seriously.

[usarender]

MASS/SPACE RELATIONSHIP OF MAN and the creation of Architectural Theory in the design practice.

As seen from this discussion, and related topics, we need new architectural theory and ways to design our environment, based on the human experience of space.

In our architecture, we must create a humanizing implant of forms that allow the space to be bound by the human experience.

Thus, we see the role of architecture in the ordering and articulation of space.

The Po MO plastic surface architecture we see in many of our cities is ordered by developers rather then by a true architectural sense of spatial responsibility and human experience. Thus, we must lay for the future a new path, one of the destruction of the old cold de-humanizing space, and for a re-creation of architecture according to the relationship it has to space and the experiencing of space. So, when we speak of culturally and humanly relevant architecture, rather then speak of "Experiencing Architecture", we must speak of "Experiencing Architecturally Humanizing Space".

Some Important spatial concepts we must consider are -->>

1. The importance of Localized spaces.

2. The ideas of Spatial extension and movement.

3. Articulate human space versus the space of movement.

4. The Ecstasy of Infinity.

5. Vastness and narrowness in architectural definition.

6. How networks of mobility influence our perceptions of space.

7. The road and movement of cars leads to a defacing of the cities, and lack of local spatial definition!

8. The street is ex-centrically related to dwelling space.

So in architecture, how we articulate our space becomes important.

Thus, how we create a sense of community in contrast to the path of the vehicle, which exerts a dehumanizing experience of space. Architecture thus also becomes culturally influenced by the cosmic connection or lack of cosmic connection to the universe around us. Thus, the practice of architects outside the confines of their own culture can be a risky business, in other words. The cultural values placed on different conceptions of space becomes thus relevant.

Further, our architecture can define whichever conception of space we wish to project. Our architecture can thus better relate to how we define, experience and view the space around us. In a localized statement, there is thus room for architecture to create a human mood definition of how to relate to space. In creating an architectural mood, and a connection to various conceptions and human experiences of space, our architectural space can be thus treated in a multitude of ways, depending on the spatial relationship and experience we wish to high-light, as defined by a program of spaces. Thus, our architecture can be treated as "ground space", elevated or suspended space, floating space, ceiling space, pathway space, enclosed space, open space, directional space, fluid space, articulated space with open and closed voids, which define the human experience as localized spatial experiences. Thus, our buildings can open up to the cosmic space at times, to create a sense of insecurity, or even of ecstasy of infinity, or feeling of vastness, or can close into personalized space at times, to allow for a feeling of definition. Our architecture can be "floating" and create a sense of fluid light spaces, or can be, according to the hierarchy of architectural spaces, be created as primary or secondary space.

We can use the concept of ground space to relate to the home, and elevated space, in connection to the sky, as the place to dream and view the world below. We thus have a new sense and meaning to the exploration of space, and to the idea of building cities in space, as we will be experience the cosmos and world around us in a completely new way.

We can thus formulate a new vocabulary and language of architecture, using this new conception of space. Space no longer is universal, endless, it becomes defined by the human experience! Thus, we can create buildings or spaces as pathways, such as museums, or as fluid space, where the changing nature of the functions allows for a fluidity of definition. We can thus associate this fluidity of space with a fluid, movement oriented architecture and translate this into fluid forms.

We can design our architecture along new networks of mobility and allow it in a sense to communicate in a different way from localized architecture which maintains a greater connection to the community. Thus, the future networks of mobility, both earth-bound, and celestial bound, become the new ordering and organizing elements, as they create new ways to perceive space around us, and thus will directly influence our views of the city, of civilization, of how to live in the cosmos and planet earth. The degree or facility of our mobility in these systems will determine also how we value our spatial experiences and thus also call for a new architecture.

In the community sense, we can re-design our ordinances in such a way that we take into account the spatial definitions in the ordering of space. Thus, when we see our cities by following old traditional zoning laws, create a narrowness of space and do not allow man to expand into space as they should, we end up with new zoning laws that call for new ordering principles. Thus, in some cases, more stepping back of buildings, for example. This implies organizing our architecture according to the governing predominant beneficial spatial definitions that exist in the cities. Thus, culturally relevant landmarks become important in establishing zoning laws, points of reference, axial transitions, the relationships of volumes becomes important, as well as the architecture to be defined along paths of movement. The zoning laws can call for a different architecture along zones of movement, where the spatial perception is modified, versus localized neighborhood architecture. Both in essence call for a more localized humanizing spatial experience. Further, all these principles of space call for new urban re-development efforts, new city designs, and new ways to view the interplay of spatial definitions in our architecture.

Further, an "anthromorphic" view of space defines that man in essence creates and defines his own conception of space, based on his localized experience. So taking this into account, we now realize the modern call to allow space, of infinite quality, to simply flow through our architecture is completely wrong. In doing this, we end up with architecture that lacks in spatial quality. Thus, our new architecture should deal with every aspect of space and our experience of space, and not organize itself based on external organizational principles, but based on the human experience of space as defined by a local context of our architecture. There is no more room, in this vision, for badly articulated space, for geometries and shapes which do not enhance the human experience. In effect, we learn how to better rid ourselves of the architectural trash of geometric spaces and shapes that maintain no relevancy to an experience of space. If the geometry and shapes create a human addition to space and help us better to create a mood of spatial experience, they become justified. If they do not, they are destroying and de-humanizing our spatial experience. We thus have a filter to use in our design practice.

In Summary, we end up with a new vocabulary for architecture, a new vocabulary for the cities of the future and a new vision on how we perceive and influence the space around us, as Architects.

[usarender]

Further, we have a completely new formulation and variety of spaces to deal with in architecture -->>

Stationary space, spaces in movement, articulated spaces, vast spaces, narrow spaces, spaces in networks of mobility, ex-centric spaces, home based centralized referential spaces, localized space, defined space, undefined space, community spaces, infinite space, vehicular spaces, ground space, elevated space, horizontal space, vertical space, ceiling space, pathway space, enclosed space, open space, directional space, fluid space, contemplative space, transitional space and on. The list becomes endless, according to the human experience. Space is no longer an infinite fluid undefined element that we allow to simply " flow " through our architecture.

Space thus becomes relevant to the human experience in a beautiful way. We can allow this way for a greater connection between our spatial conceptions and our cultural heritage. This also can influence our zoning laws as perceived by our cultural values. By taking artistic and cultural values of a particular society into account, we can create a relevant spatial language and thus implement this in a practical way into our ordinances in such a way that we preserve our artistic and cultural history, by our conception and perception of space. (Public, private, transitional spaces particularly).

No longer do we need to order our architecture according to classic ordering principles. Those, of romantic or ancient times, become substituted for a new language and vocabulary of architecture that frees itself from the traditions of the past.

We thus discover, moreover, that by allowing our architecture to maintain a greater sense of spatial vocabulary, we also develop a more intimate connection to the human experience of the world around us.

Our buildings then can become more organic, more related to man and nature when we truly capture the human experience of space in all its multi faceted forms of human experience, from the contemplation of a flower, to the vastness of the expanse of the cosmic container of perception. When we understand how we as humans perceive space, we can thus establish a greater connection to nature and the cosmos as well. Truly, by relating our architecture to nature, as Wright did, to natural forms, to mountains, to rocks, to water, to lakes, to rivers, to plants, to air, to wind, to fire, to the earth, to the heavens, we create an articulated architecture that in essence becomes one with nature and embodies a deeper connection to the functions of nature, versus the merely the simple human functions. Our architecture, in being more connected thus to the world around us, will serve us better, will be more organically connected and will serve a greater function. This implies also on more organic forms in architecture, if architecture is called to respond to nature in such a direct way. Now what these organic forms be we can but only allow the site, local determinants (the context), technology, practicality and social acceptance to determine.

We must thus learn to establish a connection between our architecture and the environment around us, and it's temporal qualities, such as Mr. Wright did in "Falling Water" and many great architects have done in contextualizing their architecture to the flow of energy, time, matter and the natural surroundings. Architecture that is immortal maintains a balance in it's connection to these elements, establishing a harmonious design that is in intricate connection to the world around us, and thus becomes the true "Timeless Way" of designing architecture."

Down with dehumanizing FFF architecture.

[usarender]

Down with dehumanizing versions of FFF architecture, and those that do not maintain a broader understanding and spatial vocabulary of architecture.

Now, how can one argue FFF is an "immutable law of nature"?

In nature truly it is best expressed, but this does not translate necessarily as an immutable law in any sense, nor is it automatically applied to architecture, as if it were an automatic "natural process" inherent in all we do and produce in architecture.

It was coined in architecture to express the modernist cry, and cannot be considered an "immutable law of nature" in any sense, when applied to architecture.

In nature, it can be clearly seen, but not always in the architecture that has been produced over the course of time, since this modernist cry first arose into view. At times, the result has been such rigid control and application of FFF, that the buildings resulted in the application of narrow spatial understandings that led to cold, sterile, dehumanizing buildings that lacked a greater spatial definition and understanding.

In architecture, we dehumanize our spaces when the same lack humanizing spatial qualities in both our urban spaces as well as in the architecture of our buildings.

In architecture, nothing can be a " natural fact". There is no use in celebrating the decoration, if the architecture, in it's " functional aesthetics" has not understood it role to develop a more organic connection with nature. In nature, we see a natural progression and a connection and spiritual unity in form and function. But in architecture, this must be artificially created, otherwise it is not present in any form. Thus, to say this immutable law of nature automatically applies to architecture does not make sense. Further, in nature, there is no sequential relationship of elements between form and function, as this assumes. There is a unity between the two. In architecture, this unity is not always present and depends on the designer, in his ability to unite form and function into an integrated solution. Many times, architects can create forms that somewhat deviate from their function, and thus there is no inherent " natural " connection between ideas, unless a designer knows how to produce this connection and translate it into his architecture into a beautiful union of form and function.

[usarender]

CHAOS, ORDER, LANGUAGE AND INTELLIGENT CREATION

There is order in chaos. It is one of replicating patterns, that do not create a design, but rather patterns of repetitive forms, or nice intricate unique unusual patterns that are a result of random combinations rather then a creative language.

Order is not the same as design. It has not intent, no idea, no language.

THE FOUR INGREDIENTS OF LANGUAGE -->>

1. Alphabet,
2. Grammar,
3. Meaning
4. Intent.

In chaos, the four ingredients of language are not present. You only have an order of repeating patterns that keep creating a new order of repeating patterns of chaos, and that is it. There is no alphabet, no grammar, no meaning, no intent.

In the DNA code, ALL THESE ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT.

LANGUAGE ---->>> IDEA --->> --->> DESIGN -->> IMPLEMENTATION

DNA HAS ALL THIS.

RANDOM PATTERNS DO NOT.

In summary -->>

All languages come from a mind.

DNA is a language, therefore it was designed, not a result of a random pattern.

A mind designed DNA.

Now with our architecture, this expresses the need for this new LANGUAGE of architecture, that can carry the code of our new forms in the vocabulary we devise that thus shapes our environment. So the imperative need to carefully shape our thinking, so that the language will produce the adequate forms.

In this endeavor, we can thus create a new LANGUAGE for architecture, one that is guided by a creative process all along the way and by the intent of our architectural expressiveness.

[usarender]

The topic above discussed the relationship between chaos, pattern and design.

Now, there is a huge chasm between the world of chaos and the world of design. This can be understood by understanding the structure of DNA, and how this relates to LANGUAGE and also thus how we can create the new language of architecture by studying this model of DNA.

As shown in this article -->>

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

"Is DNA more like stalactites and stalagmites and tornadoes and hurricanes and snowflakes and fractals? Or is DNA more like music, maps, computer programs and Chinese?

It’s definitely in the second category. Absolutely there is no question about it. So what we have here is that between the world of chaos and patterns and the world of designs and information there is a huge chasm. A huge chasm. The pattern of DNA is not like a language. It is a language. By any formal definition of language it is a language.

Chaos, fractals and natural processes do not produce languages or codes.
Now usually if people try to disagree with this, this is where they try to disagree. I had a guy say “No, DNA isn’t a language or a code, it’s just a molecule.” So I looked up Watson and Crick who discovered DNA, they got the Nobel Prize for it. I surfed the internet and the first thing I found was James Watson’s Nobel prize acceptance speech. And the very first paragraph of his speech talks about the genetic code. Code, language, same thing.

DNA is a language. The DNA molecule itself is an encoding decoding system.

This is the core problem with a naturalistic philosophy of materialistic science: Matter and energy all by themselves cannot produce information.

Norbert Weiner, who is considered the father of cybernetics, was a mathematician at MIT an absolutely brilliant guy and he made this statement.

He said
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”

Matter, Energy and Information are three Distinct Entities

Information cannot be created without intent. There are no examples of information that is created without intent. You have to have the dimension of intent or will, which is a property of a conscience mind, in order to have any kind information. Otherwise all you have is chaos. All you have is tornadoes and hurricanes and stalactites and stalagmites and snowflakes. But you do not have any kind of language whatsoever.

So the problem with a materialistic philosophy or belief is there is no way to explain where the language of DNA came from. Because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. No exceptions.

The essential distinction between pattern and design is language
• Fundamental Property of all Designs: Idea precedes Implementation
• Idea must be represented by language
• All language comes from a mind

The essential distinction betweens patterns and designs is language. Patterns don’t have languages, but designs do. So the fundamental property of all designs is that an idea precedes the implementation of the idea.

The idea exists in a symbolic form before it’s physically built. An idea, in order to exist, has to be represented by a language. Even to have an idea in your mind you have to talk to yourself and have images in your mind of what you want to do before you do it. So we know this:

• Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions.
• All languages come from a mind. No exceptions.
• There are no languages that do not come from a mind.
• So we know that DNA was designed.
• A mind designed DNA, therefore a need for a religious explanation."

This programming created the framework for intelligent evolution or adaptation of the species. A programed basis for ordered mutations.

The ideas that preceded all language.

The form behind all function.

The reason behind all meaning.

The intelligence before all matter.

The language that creates the energy, that results in the light, the form, the matter, the codes, the genetic engineering, the language that makes up our universe.

The need for establishing a LANGUAGE of architecture has been established.

LANGUAGE, the basis of all design.

[usarender]

Intelligent creation.

Intelligent creation, in architecture, can have a multiplicity of definitions. When we have intelligent evolution, intelligent adaptation of the species, intelligent design, we have an intelligent creation that is constantly mutating and adapting itself to the new environmental conditions.

The same must be with our architecture. We must allow our architecture to mutate, to evolve, to adapt. Thus, by programming our language to allow for this intelligent adaptation, we are also creating the basis for our intelligent design in architecture.

This creates the need to understand the language which governs our architectural creations. Thus a need to establish a connection between the language of architecture and it's intelligent evolution.

Now all types of theory and liberal ideas are preached at us in every mode at all times, and we do not even but question whether any of them make sense, including evolutionary theories of all types.

Language. At the core of the creative act.

Humanistic philosophy and it's influence on architecture.
The need for a new language free of historical chains.

In our ideas of architecture, we frequently do not see how the human oriented philosophies and theories have influenced our design philosophy and ways of viewing architecture.

In the Renaissance view of man, and the human ideal proportions, man and humanism, from that point on, become the governing philosophies guiding design. This lead to the application of humanistic ideas of philosophy and metaphysics to architecture, thus leading to our modern views of man and his relationship to the built environment. Man, seen as a functional machine, and nothing more then that, designs functional buildings that are functionally related to their form.

There is no creative intelligence in creation behind anything in nature, under this humanistic thinking. Man is behind it all and that is it.

Thus there was no more need for contemplation of the sublime, for an understanding of the spiritual values of man and their relationship to the built environment. Man, thus, becomes disconnected with the arts of the Ages, including Eastern philosophy and it's implications on architecture. A huge chasm is developed between the East and the West. This chasm continues until today, due to this humanizing force of the industrial revolution.

Now even Leornardo studied paiting, architecture, technology, science, human anatomy, and many other things, so why can't we as architects, artists, scientists, among other things?

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/REN/DAVINCI.HTM

"Perhaps Da Vinci's greatest work was his notebooks on which he wrote his one and only book, The Painter , as well as a legion of notes on technology, science, human anatomy, architecture, as well as sketches of all these things."

[usarender]

Metaphysics in Architecture

Now, why is metaphysics even debated in architecture, as has been done in this topic on concept in architecture? One cannot have a philosophy of architecture, without this debate, so it seams. So metaphysics, philosophy, scientific theory, evolutionary theory, creationism, foundational structures, alternate energy sources, language of architecture, and a multitude of ideas that are being debated in the framework of concept, of form following function, are all thus relevant discussions, as they shape our architectural theory, to various extents. So our architecture gains a greater relevance to our deeper views on these issues.

Thus metaphysics and philosophy are related to architecture, and this why we are spending so much time developing a discussion on the idea "concept" in architecture. Thus, religion, metaphysics, philosophy, scientific theory are all in a sense related at some point, especially when it comes to defining the origin of man and his relationship to the environment and world we live in, and thus the architecture we produce.

THE NEW LANGUAGE OF ARCHITECTURE

In architecture, many hold the term "concept" to be relevant to architecture. I personally do not. I prefer to think of the LANGUAGE of architecture, as I have demonstrated.

So who is to decide at what point architecture is allowed to cross the line into metaphysics, philosophy? We are doing it all the time in adopting the idea "concept" in architecture, without even knowing it.

Further, the Age of Enlightment brings man to the forefront, and man, rather then a supreme being, becomes the center of the universe and the center of himself. This humanism, is nothing but a religion of man as well. It is a cult of man, or in other words, a worship of man. So if many thus worship man, why cannot some worship another definition and believe this relationship of language of creation is related to the language we create as individuals?

It has been shown that language is related to design. Therefore, the language of architecture is related to design. Therefore, the language of architecture functions well for to substitute the idea CONCEPT.

And since language, as demonstrated, is an inherent part of genetic code, and genetic code is a language, and any language cannot happen by random mutations, or by spontaneous evolution, this shows the language of creation must be driven by creative individuals. Thus the idea of a creative intelligence and creative design behind everything that exists and that we create as architects.

Further, as has been demonstrated, this intelligent design calls for a new LANGUAGE of architecture. Thus, the connection has been established to the many posts on this subject of a language, in this discussion on concept.

There is thus a connection between language and design and thus the need for a LANGUAGE of architecture. The term concept is thus too vague.

The ideas and the connection of ideas in architecture can be expressed in a linear way, which represents the architectural thought process.

As shown, in this sequence of the Logistics of ARchiTectural ThougHt, each element gains particular relevancy, depending where it falls in the sequence -->>

1. A Problem.

2. A context.

3. A function.

4. The LANGUAGE of ARchiTectural ThougHt (Traditional word Concept).

5. A form.

One must begin with this process in architecture, before arriving at a form. So we can see FFF is an oversimplification of a much greater hierarchy in architecture. It was merely a reactive cry in history.

Now, we can see from this hierarchy, that Form truly follows function, but it is not a direct link this way. Only in the PROCESS. In the RESULT, form and function are united into one solution and work together. In the logistics of architectural thought, there is a need for separation of elements in order to reach a form. So the simplistic notion form follows function is exactly that. A reactionary simplistic view of a much greater process of architectural thought.

Without this creative intelligent planning, there is no form to any function. Thus, no correspondence between form and function. Thus, the basis of intelligent design has been demonstrated.

Thus, in intelligent design we allow humans and creative intelligence to design our environment and create it's own LANGUAGE of architecture.

In this discussion, the connection between intelligent design and language has been established.