Re: Venn diagrams (aside)

Excellent text, Brian, some questions I imagine are directed to me, though
you seem to answer them as well.

> i am not sure who is writing this, and i would
> skip it as a result, yet there is enough extra
> complexity added-in to any rhetoric of ideas,
> deciphering each other's language or sense
> of things,

I wrote it, sent be the wrong ID by mistake. I am admin'ing Architexturez
for a couple days (long weekend here)

> architecture is engineering at best, it is missing
> the reality and engagement that architecture is
> able to provide, to understanding, conceptualizing
> and communicating a sense of things, and in that
> there is a lot 'written' in texts and buildings and, if
> questioning the _interdisciplinary_ aspects of the
> field- what is one approaching ontologies for, they
> are not of architecture, implicitly, are they?

But they are, one needs ontologies to qualify the expert domains, not an
interdisciplinary one. Would you have said, say in the 1400s, "if
questioning the _interdisciplinary_ aspects of the field, what is one using
_paper_ for?", I think I disagree here, as I keep saying, these are only
media formats, and no one side of any argument should appropriate the tools.

> what
> about structuralism, communications theory, the
> computer? please let me know how a computer is
> more architectural than ideas, how Minsky can be
> simply considered 'architecturally relevant' yet a
> logic diagram, thought itself and reasoning, is
> somehow less about building, especially arising
> from an architectural questioning?

Why say an architect should make buildings only? I thought even
institutionalised commonsense everywhere understands it differently (viz,
the copyright laws, architecture is a special kind of representation. I like
to think about stuff the society seems to expect from the profession, is
this too much? Should I stop, and work from inside some restrictive idea of
architecture?

> how can D&G
> be applied architecturally, psychiatric-philosophy,
> without a question,

One applies these things _because_ there are many questions. Yes, I'd also
be dismisive of these texts if I could safely say "Ontologies are not to be
used by Architects who do not Question the Interdisciplinary Aspects of
Architecture", I'm afraid I haven't reached those exalted heights, can't
make rules-by-fiat, so I go off to philosophy! It is language such as this
(and I quote you) "architecture machine whose desires go towards the right
ends", and _whose_ ends are the right ends? don't these statements actually
point at the need for D&G in Architecture Talk, seriously, Foucault says D&G
enable us to contend with the Fascist that lurks within all of us; so, _How
can D&G be applied to architecture?_ ... With A Plethora of Questions.

Most of these you have answered below... So I guess the questions are really
to set the stage for your narrative, not so much for me to answer. So
anyway, I am just pointing at the undercurrent(s) that disturb me.

> yet to get to any architectural
> understanding, less philosophy uniquely based
> in architectural awarenesses, is somehow less
> real or relevant than a computer program that can
> be downloaded or created from a programming
> lab or group, with no relation to architecture itself?
>

I see this, yes, of course, an automatic, programming-type logic has always
been fascinating, satisfying, one can even be obidient. Let's try this:
"Less is More", "four legs good...", "some men are created more equal...",
we'll have Venn diagrammes of these, no? and we'll have the Clocks all
Striking Thirteen! Sure we can do away with the "somehow less real" aspects
in architecture, and what have we got left? They _do_ say these are
Orwellian times!

Don't let this distract the conversation, you can take it as an aside.

>
> architecture, for instance, in dealing with cities
> or machines is not just language, it is history,
> economics, labor issues, technology, how things
> work and function, engineering, communication,
> structures, political consideration, -- considering
> a simple idea of 'ontologies' for architecture is to
> relate to philosophy...

Excatly! Onltologies, computers, all are needed if one is to use D&G, and
the flows; or Critical Theory and Communicative Action. Even American
Pragmitists will apply ontologies. These are a philosophers' tools, no?

> architects invent, in some way, the future.
>  it is a knowledge-based, imagination-fueled,
>  and pragmatic-bound field of pure possibility.
>  why let language stop this profession dead?

Precisely, at what point will an Architectural Process discard language,
both natural and symbolic? Math, Lingustics, Computer programmes, figures
and diagrammes? At what point will we have Architects who may speak? I
rather think when desiring machines come into becoming, when war machines
are born into a design process.

And I do not wonder about this language many architects employ, the world
over, the languages of Environmentalism, Identity, Rationality, demanding
"truth", "logic" and "less muddiness"; erected like dykes and barriars
against the many flows that are architecture - ("don't like this job, but
the shouting is good" the Vogan poet says) a uniform makes the man in many
ways...

- anand.