+
From: "carr0023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <carr0023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 07:09:13 CST
___________________________________
| Science | Just talked with another student
| | who is facing this question of two
| ______ | natures. One of architecture, one
| / \ | of science. But this person does
| | Nature | | realize that the nature of science
| \______/ | is the same nature, only different.
| | The thesis faces this question in
| | a subtle way of words, and more
|_________________________________| importantly, acceptable notions...
___________________________________
| Nature | The paradox found with assuming
| | the scientific nature is nature
| ________ | is in trying to describe an object
| / \ | of science, a machine, as having
| | Machines | | subjective experiential qualities.
| \______c_/ | The defining of machines as nature
| | and that _contraptions exist within
| | this subset is to describe that
|_________________________________| unknown, science and technology.
If one were to describe science and technology in an architectural sense
they would have to face the clarity of the objective nature, that which
the subjective idea of contraption addresses in the architectural terms
of "magic" or even "chaos" or "the unknown." The point of the thesis
was to explore the house as a machine, and that the machines inside the
house had needs and requirements, and that these were indeed natural
themselves. But when coming up to the question, the terminology resides
in "contraption" to describe a nature that architecture ignores as real.
But that this questioning of "contraption" is the questioning of this
scientific nature of objects, and that they may need to be understood.
Questioning Science and Architecture or Technology and Architecture
would be an easier way to address this human issue. Else we be the
aliens on this land, UnIdentifiable Objects in the Landscape, UOL.