n: a person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible
or a rotter, dirty dog, rat, skunk, stinker, stinkpot, bum, puke, crumb, lowlife, scum bag, so-and-so
i have on my computer booksmarks, www.dictionary.com as i find my vocabulary pretty much consists of "dang" "shit" and "oh" and it comes in real handy on this website as there are many wonderful folk with such wonderful vocabulary that i find i have no idea what anyone is saying half of the time. so i try not to use four letter words anymore, just ones from other countries, or with at least five letter words, so intead of shit, i now say feces and instead of damn, i now say dang-it. it's a great site to have, and it also does the whole thesaurus thing.
hey hey, don't talk about my nanna that way....
what she does late at night, monday through saturday (no sunday....because of god....), between the hours of 8p.m. and 9p.m.(she goes to bed early) is absolutely none of your business. and i thought you were a nice person.
But as penance for adding that "fowl" bit of info to this thread, I'll send this back to david jaubert's original topic:
The AIA Journal, the little several-page black and red mailer that comes out every month, covers "Physical Environment Shapes Our Trancendance " this month. They cover physical vs. spiritual concerns, what makes a place sacred?, the neuroscience of sacred spaces (apparently there are researchers who believe we are hard-wired to sense "sacredness" in some physical environments as opposed to others - the article compares feeling "the sacred" as similar to feeling "love" - you know it exists, but can't in any rational way explain what it is or exactly what attributes the feeling has), and making non-denominational sacred spaces.
Worth a read. I can synopsize more if there's interest, but I only glanced at it so far as it just came in the mail a few hours ago.
antiper: well, i see agnostics as people who shut their eyes, their ears and keep saying, "i don't know".
i think that they don't want to know..
we can think that we are really spiritual and are in touch with the gods and have these nice discussions about trees and statues as long as we don't say that someone is wrong.
the fact is that we want to live how we want to, and we don't like anyone telling us what to do.. so we make gods that don't speak.
and we show our love and affection by making them nice and pretty.
lena: i understand your affection to orthodoxy and the traditions of your past, but this piety and sacredness is a shallow illusion.
look at what happened during the russian revolution. one week people were singing in church; the next these same people were dragging the priests by their beards through the streets.
its looks beautiful but inside there is nothing but death and decay.
look at jesus. one day he is popular and adored by the public, next day they kill him..
libery bell: people are awed by things bigger then they are.. lightning, tornado, mountains, big cathedrals, sky scrapers..
but, this sense to an object gets dulled over time..
if i worked for a year at st. peters i wouldn't be so impressed as someone coming there for the first time.. i mean intellectually i would be, but i wouldn't feel anything..
pasha. 2 things. The people that killed Jesus never really liked him.
And I have a few friends who lived in Rome and gave daily tours (pre 9-11) at St Peters and the Sistine etc. and more than a year later they were still glowing and thankful to have such a great job ("my life is great, for the past year, I have been in St. Peters almost every day.")
the fact is that jesus died utterly alone. there was not one person who tried to challenge the mob or the leaders. every one of his disciples ran away and hid. most people spat at him and mocked him, others just watched.
yet a week earlier he entered jerusalem like a king. people chanted praises, and laid palm leaves on the ground before him.
this is what religiosity and traditions are. shallow illusions. jews at that time had rich customs and beautiful ceremonies. tonns of laws and insructions for proper life. what happened?!
you must have missed my point.. people get bored.. bigger things take more time..
"if i worked for a year at st. peters i wouldn't be so impressed as someone coming there for the first time.. i mean intellectually i would be, but i wouldn't feel anything."
i'm with aaron. i didn't work in st. peters, only royal street in new orleans. but i was constantly inspired, amazed, and grateful to be exposed to such a place every day. the whole ritual of going to work every day, riding the streetcar, watching the shopkeepers on chartres hose down their sidewalks at 7am, smelling the pastries from the patisserie, and watching the jackson square vendors prepare for the day. this was a place and an experience i loved. it fed my spirit, so to speak. for different people, it takes different things to feed their spiritual life.
also, the comment to not per corell: "well, i see agnostics as people who shut their eyes, their ears and keep saying, 'i don't know'." the key words there are "i see...". because you have no idea and are projecting. it sounds like you don't understand the spiritual life of others except with reference to your own. you think because it doesn't match yours, it deserves no credit.
as not per said, sounds a little like you love your belief so much it amounts to self-worship.
and the little black box for agnostics? nice... very generous of you. but i'd prefer to keep exploring out in the world, thank you.
Aug 16, 05 10:52 am ·
·
Pasha, all I can say is that I wish you started talking from your own experiences, rather than repeat what has been put in your head by others. For example, the fact is you have no real notion of what the Crucifixion was like and who was there.
The following is an excerpt for A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part I. pp. 33-34:
I'm now going to relate a story that may or may not have something to do with "feelings" and place.
I spent the summer of 1978 in Perry, Missouri (population 839) as a Historic American Building Survey (H.A.B.S.) student team member. Our team was surveying and documenting two small towns and a variety of domestic buildings that were to be demolished after our survey because the land was soon going to be under water once the Salt River Dam was complete. One of the buildings I surveyed along with Barbara Hendricks (a architecture student from Texas) was so remote that Barbara and I were dropped off in the morning and not picked up again until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The house was named for Samuel Bell, and it was a simple 2 story farm house with a front porch, central hall, and a gable roof running from side to side. I soon discovered that we could easily get on the roof by going out one of the second story windows and onto the lower roof of the one story addition to the back of the house. I suggested we eat our lunch up on the ridge of the roof.
From the ridge of the roof a portion of the Salt River valley lay before us. The view was indeed beautiful, especially its rawness, and it was weird to think that this was all going to be under water in the near future. As a born and raised northeastern urbanite, all of rural Missouri offered me a plethora of new sensory impressions, and at this spot I found myself wondering what the "Indians" may have once thought of this place. Again, I was struck by the natural raw beauty of it all, and I said to Barbara, "I think this place is sacred." Barbara quickly retorted, "there are a lot of other places I'd call sacred before this."
About a month later, toward the end of the summer when most of the team was in the office drafting, our team historian, Travis McDonald (who is today the resident architectural historian of Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest), came into the office with exciting news -- demolition of the Samuel Bell house was put to a halt and the archeologists, who were also working in the region that summer, were to set up a dig there because it was discovered that the Samuel Bell house was built upon an Indian burial site. I immediately turned to Barbara and said, "I told you that place was sacred!"
In all honesty, I didn't experience any special "feelings" while I was at the Bell House. It just happened that the notion of sacredness entered my mind as I was giving a little thought to what I saw.
well, i know people who go to a homeless shelter or some village in africa and say how great that experience was for their life.
but ask people who are there? do they enjoy it?
yeah it nice to take a trip somewhere with a camera and experience stuff.
then it would make nice subject for pillowtalk..
and if you're going to debase my statement because its my own opinion, then what is the value of what you say?
i like tha: "the notion of sacredness entered my mind as i was....."
i think it gives a good example of a space that somehow connects to the "idea" of spirit within all of us. different spaces, wether it's a church, an old barn, sitting in front of the fire, the ocean, our childhood bedrooms, offer a type of spiritual focus to each one of us, i don't think it has to be god, or the answer to life (42), but these spaces are links, connections to the world around us, from what we can see and feel, to the memories, past, present, or future, floating around us...
and i think as long as we feel these connections, and experience them, as architects we should be able to design any space, especially a place of worship, a place to connect with the world around us, and how we fit into it.
hi rita, beautiful story in the morning. here is another dam(n) situation.zeugma
Aug 16, 05 11:23 am ·
·
pasha, maybe all I'm really saying is that it is more valuable to share experience than it is to share opinion.
I have some ideas about how to design sacred space, and they have to do with making it osmotic and electromagnetic. Some of Kahn's best architecture is osmotic and electromagnetic.
"and if you're going to debase my statement because its my own opinion, then what is the value of what you say?"
your grasp of logic will keep you turning in circles. if your own opinion 'debases' (weird usage of this word) those of others, then those others have every right (obligation, even) to discredit that opinion. if your opinion honors those of others, you can expect honor in return. simple.
the value of what you say and the value of what i say are equal.
v 1: corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; "debauch the young people with wine and women"; "Socrates was accused of corrupting young men"; "Do school counselors subvert young children?"; "corrupt the morals" [syn: corrupt, pervert, subvert, demoralize, demoralise, debauch, profane, vitiate, deprave, misdirect] 2: lower in value by increasing the base-metal content [syn: alloy] 3: corrupt, debase, or make impure by adding a foreign or inferior substance; often by replacing valuable ingredients with inferior ones; "adulterate liquor" [syn: adulterate, stretch, dilute]
Aug 16, 05 11:36 am ·
·
paper tiger, Kimbell Art Museum is the prime example (although I myself have never been there). The common spaces of Erdman Hall also have a sacred quality. As to osmotic and electromagnetic, that's literal and figurative both, very much like the medium being the message.
why not? how do you rank one over the other in this context?
as i see it, the only opinions which can pull rank in this environment are those of the editors (paul, javier, etc.). the rest of us are just floating here in the archinect ether.
oh i dont' know. we can do it the american way, by money, whiteness, republican, height, weight, ivy league vs. non ivy league, white trash vs. ghetto trash, spics vs. japs; of course, religious views, how dark our glass frames are or how square or round, who wears more black during the week, circumcision vs. foreskin, boxers vs. briefs....
all i'm saying is that if you truly believed that the value of what you say is equal to the value of what other's say then why are you in a discussion?...we're here to learn, or become more dumb, or to pass the time by before getting home and looking up porn, but i want to be proven wrong way more than i want to be proven right, and that's from the basic idea that some of my opinions are wrong, or of less value than others. but i want to be convinced, that's all.
rita,
been to the kimbell. neither osmosis nor electromagnetic crossed my mind as i walked through the spaces. there was certainly a flow, i suppose, but i guess my focus has always been on light,
and please, i'm not trying to be a smartass. but i am not too sensitive to the architecture lingo: "As to osmotic and electromagnetic, that's literal and figurative both, very much like the medium being the message."
could you explain that in paper tiger terms, please?
as i said, in THIS environment: you don't know if i have money, or if i'm white, republican, tall, educated (at all, much less ivy or not), etc. we may not react to each other as equals if we met. i may be older, with more life experiences than you. you may be richard meier. but here, in archinect space, it doesn't matter.
discussion among equals is valuable as an opportunity to share ideas and maybe learn something from someone else's point of view. that doesn't mean that the point of view of the other is privileged or 'right', only that it might be different and it might combine with the points of view of someone else with whom you've come in contact, it might connect with an experience you've had but not processed or integrated into your point of view satisfactorily.
discussion is a chance to allow your thoughts to evolve - it's definitely NOT a time to hear someone else's opinion and, because of who they are, adopt it as your own. our opinions are of equal value because they all deserve to be heard, weighed, and either absorbed into our worldview or tossed out.
this is why pasha's discounting of the opinions of others which don't mesh with hers is so disconcerting.
not per: essentially you said that only people in authority have a valid opinion. i am sure you didn't mean to say that.. but that's what you said..
opinion is deemed valuable is because of its content, not necessarily the person who said it.
but there must be a common point of reference that is used to determine the value.. a law of reason, logic, etc..
Aug 16, 05 12:54 pm ·
·
paper tiger, you say "my focus has always been on light" and what is light but electromagnetic radiation? (Look in the dictionary, dictionary.com) And osmosis is equalization either side of a semipermeable membrane. The architecture of Kimbell Art Museum is a semipermeable membrane that "equalizes" electromagnetic radiation.
yes, pasha, yes, "point of reference"
because not every opinion is as valuable as the next...that is all i am saying. everyone has a right to their own opinion, that's great but they are not all of equal value....
Aug 16, 05 12:58 pm ·
·
Now, why I equate electromagnetism and osmosis with sacred comes from chronosomatics, which will be discussed in (the book) Reenactionary Architecturism, that is, after A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part III is done, probably like a year from now.
what i said: "the value of what you say and the value of what i say are equal."
what i said: "discussion among equals is valuable as an opportunity to share ideas and maybe learn something from someone else's point of view. that doesn't mean that the point of view of the other is privileged or 'right'..."
what i said: "our opinions are of equal value because they all deserve to be heard, weighed, and either absorbed into our worldview or tossed out."
what YOU say i said: "...only people in authority have a valid opinion."
???
the only reason i gave any hierarchy to the archinect editors is that, if it is their opinion that it is necessary, they can simply pull our opinions off this board and not allow them to be seen.
rita,
aaah, that makes sense, so....
basically what you're saying is...
"filter" and "light"---
in paper tiger terms, of course.
or even further...
translucense?
sorry, i often think the first degree in architecture really just stands for
BullShit.
and this is not an attack on you, for example, one of the things we used to do in school, right before presentations or critiques or whatever, we'd go to the library, get the gigantic dictionary out, close our eyes, open a page and point to a word, and we were required to use that word at least five times in our presentation, or suffer the consequences of digesting cheap tequila with no chaser. it's like one of the things we learn is not necessarily how to expresss ourselves, but to really bullshit around the design with fifty cent words(some of which i'm convinced our professors would make up on the spot)....
again, not trying to be a piece of mierda, and honestly thank you for taking the time to decipher your writing for me.
i think pasha and not per should do battle, highlander style.
Aug 16, 05 1:17 pm ·
·
No paper tiger, I'm being much more basic by saying electromagnetism and osmosis. The key in the example of Kimbell is the 'equalization', and there also lies the key to Kimbell's 'sacredness'.
I choose my words very carefully, and the dictionary helps me to make sure I use the right words.
I can't stand bullshit myself, because it is used mostly to cover up a lack of understanding of the very basic.
I think this would be a great place for any kind of spirituality. Most religions, if you get past the rhetoric and misunderstanding, point thier followers to find God within themselves.
Where better to look within than a place where only you exist?
the agnostic design of spiritual space
um, what's a git?
n: a person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible
or a rotter, dirty dog, rat, skunk, stinker, stinkpot, bum, puke, crumb, lowlife, scum bag, so-and-so
i have on my computer booksmarks, www.dictionary.com as i find my vocabulary pretty much consists of "dang" "shit" and "oh" and it comes in real handy on this website as there are many wonderful folk with such wonderful vocabulary that i find i have no idea what anyone is saying half of the time. so i try not to use four letter words anymore, just ones from other countries, or with at least five letter words, so intead of shit, i now say feces and instead of damn, i now say dang-it. it's a great site to have, and it also does the whole thesaurus thing.
figured as much. i learned that a geek is one who bited the heads of live animals, primarily chickens from ren & stimpy...merde
'so you can make me cum, that doesn't make you jesus' Tori A (you want Tori Spelling darling)
optionally
'so you're jesus, that doesn't make me cum'
I think it's obvious that only money makes you cum.
ooh, you're good, french cuz words. jaja. in spanish it is mierda. yeah, looking up words is so much fun....or i'm in dire need of a social life.
does the dollar amount matter? i mean, is a washington gonna be like a one night stand, and a benjamin just a fantastic night of intercourse?
i need to get my gramma that exact t-shirt. she get a kick out of it, and wear it.
cause your gramma swings that way.
hey hey, don't talk about my nanna that way....
what she does late at night, monday through saturday (no sunday....because of god....), between the hours of 8p.m. and 9p.m.(she goes to bed early) is absolutely none of your business. and i thought you were a nice person.
hey man, you know, there's only so much old ladies can do with cats...
maybe i should get her a dog
Or a parakeet:
savage love
LOL OMG!!!
great link liberty bell, i'll print it out and put it in the box when i give my gramma the t-shirt, along with her new parakeet.
that has to be the most fowl thing i've read in a while...
thanks for the good read liberty (not meant as a sarcastic comment, either)
Fowl, I love it LenaV!
But as penance for adding that "fowl" bit of info to this thread, I'll send this back to david jaubert's original topic:
The AIA Journal, the little several-page black and red mailer that comes out every month, covers "Physical Environment Shapes Our Trancendance " this month. They cover physical vs. spiritual concerns, what makes a place sacred?, the neuroscience of sacred spaces (apparently there are researchers who believe we are hard-wired to sense "sacredness" in some physical environments as opposed to others - the article compares feeling "the sacred" as similar to feeling "love" - you know it exists, but can't in any rational way explain what it is or exactly what attributes the feeling has), and making non-denominational sacred spaces.
Worth a read. I can synopsize more if there's interest, but I only glanced at it so far as it just came in the mail a few hours ago.
this sounds interesting to me, if to no one else
i'm interested, as well.
me too me too!
antiper: well, i see agnostics as people who shut their eyes, their ears and keep saying, "i don't know".
i think that they don't want to know..
we can think that we are really spiritual and are in touch with the gods and have these nice discussions about trees and statues as long as we don't say that someone is wrong.
the fact is that we want to live how we want to, and we don't like anyone telling us what to do.. so we make gods that don't speak.
and we show our love and affection by making them nice and pretty.
lena: i understand your affection to orthodoxy and the traditions of your past, but this piety and sacredness is a shallow illusion.
look at what happened during the russian revolution. one week people were singing in church; the next these same people were dragging the priests by their beards through the streets.
its looks beautiful but inside there is nothing but death and decay.
look at jesus. one day he is popular and adored by the public, next day they kill him..
libery bell: people are awed by things bigger then they are.. lightning, tornado, mountains, big cathedrals, sky scrapers..
but, this sense to an object gets dulled over time..
if i worked for a year at st. peters i wouldn't be so impressed as someone coming there for the first time.. i mean intellectually i would be, but i wouldn't feel anything..
pasha. 2 things. The people that killed Jesus never really liked him.
And I have a few friends who lived in Rome and gave daily tours (pre 9-11) at St Peters and the Sistine etc. and more than a year later they were still glowing and thankful to have such a great job ("my life is great, for the past year, I have been in St. Peters almost every day.")
the fact is that jesus died utterly alone. there was not one person who tried to challenge the mob or the leaders. every one of his disciples ran away and hid. most people spat at him and mocked him, others just watched.
yet a week earlier he entered jerusalem like a king. people chanted praises, and laid palm leaves on the ground before him.
this is what religiosity and traditions are. shallow illusions. jews at that time had rich customs and beautiful ceremonies. tonns of laws and insructions for proper life. what happened?!
you must have missed my point.. people get bored.. bigger things take more time..
"if i worked for a year at st. peters i wouldn't be so impressed as someone coming there for the first time.. i mean intellectually i would be, but i wouldn't feel anything."
i'm with aaron. i didn't work in st. peters, only royal street in new orleans. but i was constantly inspired, amazed, and grateful to be exposed to such a place every day. the whole ritual of going to work every day, riding the streetcar, watching the shopkeepers on chartres hose down their sidewalks at 7am, smelling the pastries from the patisserie, and watching the jackson square vendors prepare for the day. this was a place and an experience i loved. it fed my spirit, so to speak. for different people, it takes different things to feed their spiritual life.
also, the comment to not per corell: "well, i see agnostics as people who shut their eyes, their ears and keep saying, 'i don't know'." the key words there are "i see...". because you have no idea and are projecting. it sounds like you don't understand the spiritual life of others except with reference to your own. you think because it doesn't match yours, it deserves no credit.
as not per said, sounds a little like you love your belief so much it amounts to self-worship.
and the little black box for agnostics? nice... very generous of you. but i'd prefer to keep exploring out in the world, thank you.
Pasha, all I can say is that I wish you started talking from your own experiences, rather than repeat what has been put in your head by others. For example, the fact is you have no real notion of what the Crucifixion was like and who was there.
The following is an excerpt for A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part I. pp. 33-34:
I'm now going to relate a story that may or may not have something to do with "feelings" and place.
I spent the summer of 1978 in Perry, Missouri (population 839) as a Historic American Building Survey (H.A.B.S.) student team member. Our team was surveying and documenting two small towns and a variety of domestic buildings that were to be demolished after our survey because the land was soon going to be under water once the Salt River Dam was complete. One of the buildings I surveyed along with Barbara Hendricks (a architecture student from Texas) was so remote that Barbara and I were dropped off in the morning and not picked up again until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The house was named for Samuel Bell, and it was a simple 2 story farm house with a front porch, central hall, and a gable roof running from side to side. I soon discovered that we could easily get on the roof by going out one of the second story windows and onto the lower roof of the one story addition to the back of the house. I suggested we eat our lunch up on the ridge of the roof.
From the ridge of the roof a portion of the Salt River valley lay before us. The view was indeed beautiful, especially its rawness, and it was weird to think that this was all going to be under water in the near future. As a born and raised northeastern urbanite, all of rural Missouri offered me a plethora of new sensory impressions, and at this spot I found myself wondering what the "Indians" may have once thought of this place. Again, I was struck by the natural raw beauty of it all, and I said to Barbara, "I think this place is sacred." Barbara quickly retorted, "there are a lot of other places I'd call sacred before this."
About a month later, toward the end of the summer when most of the team was in the office drafting, our team historian, Travis McDonald (who is today the resident architectural historian of Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest), came into the office with exciting news -- demolition of the Samuel Bell house was put to a halt and the archeologists, who were also working in the region that summer, were to set up a dig there because it was discovered that the Samuel Bell house was built upon an Indian burial site. I immediately turned to Barbara and said, "I told you that place was sacred!"
In all honesty, I didn't experience any special "feelings" while I was at the Bell House. It just happened that the notion of sacredness entered my mind as I was giving a little thought to what I saw.
well, i know people who go to a homeless shelter or some village in africa and say how great that experience was for their life.
but ask people who are there? do they enjoy it?
yeah it nice to take a trip somewhere with a camera and experience stuff.
then it would make nice subject for pillowtalk..
and if you're going to debase my statement because its my own opinion, then what is the value of what you say?
i like tha: "the notion of sacredness entered my mind as i was....."
i think it gives a good example of a space that somehow connects to the "idea" of spirit within all of us. different spaces, wether it's a church, an old barn, sitting in front of the fire, the ocean, our childhood bedrooms, offer a type of spiritual focus to each one of us, i don't think it has to be god, or the answer to life (42), but these spaces are links, connections to the world around us, from what we can see and feel, to the memories, past, present, or future, floating around us...
and i think as long as we feel these connections, and experience them, as architects we should be able to design any space, especially a place of worship, a place to connect with the world around us, and how we fit into it.
hi rita, beautiful story in the morning. here is another dam(n) situation.zeugma
pasha, maybe all I'm really saying is that it is more valuable to share experience than it is to share opinion.
I have some ideas about how to design sacred space, and they have to do with making it osmotic and electromagnetic. Some of Kahn's best architecture is osmotic and electromagnetic.
"and if you're going to debase my statement because its my own opinion, then what is the value of what you say?"
your grasp of logic will keep you turning in circles. if your own opinion 'debases' (weird usage of this word) those of others, then those others have every right (obligation, even) to discredit that opinion. if your opinion honors those of others, you can expect honor in return. simple.
the value of what you say and the value of what i say are equal.
ritanovel: which ones? and is that literal or figurative?
that's not true, the value of two different opinions is not equal, unless you live in neverland.
but you were right about debase
debase
v 1: corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; "debauch the young people with wine and women"; "Socrates was accused of corrupting young men"; "Do school counselors subvert young children?"; "corrupt the morals" [syn: corrupt, pervert, subvert, demoralize, demoralise, debauch, profane, vitiate, deprave, misdirect] 2: lower in value by increasing the base-metal content [syn: alloy] 3: corrupt, debase, or make impure by adding a foreign or inferior substance; often by replacing valuable ingredients with inferior ones; "adulterate liquor" [syn: adulterate, stretch, dilute]
paper tiger, Kimbell Art Museum is the prime example (although I myself have never been there). The common spaces of Erdman Hall also have a sacred quality. As to osmotic and electromagnetic, that's literal and figurative both, very much like the medium being the message.
why not? how do you rank one over the other in this context?
as i see it, the only opinions which can pull rank in this environment are those of the editors (paul, javier, etc.). the rest of us are just floating here in the archinect ether.
oh i dont' know. we can do it the american way, by money, whiteness, republican, height, weight, ivy league vs. non ivy league, white trash vs. ghetto trash, spics vs. japs; of course, religious views, how dark our glass frames are or how square or round, who wears more black during the week, circumcision vs. foreskin, boxers vs. briefs....
all i'm saying is that if you truly believed that the value of what you say is equal to the value of what other's say then why are you in a discussion?...we're here to learn, or become more dumb, or to pass the time by before getting home and looking up porn, but i want to be proven wrong way more than i want to be proven right, and that's from the basic idea that some of my opinions are wrong, or of less value than others. but i want to be convinced, that's all.
rita,
been to the kimbell. neither osmosis nor electromagnetic crossed my mind as i walked through the spaces. there was certainly a flow, i suppose, but i guess my focus has always been on light,
and please, i'm not trying to be a smartass. but i am not too sensitive to the architecture lingo: "As to osmotic and electromagnetic, that's literal and figurative both, very much like the medium being the message."
could you explain that in paper tiger terms, please?
paper tiger -
as i said, in THIS environment: you don't know if i have money, or if i'm white, republican, tall, educated (at all, much less ivy or not), etc. we may not react to each other as equals if we met. i may be older, with more life experiences than you. you may be richard meier. but here, in archinect space, it doesn't matter.
discussion among equals is valuable as an opportunity to share ideas and maybe learn something from someone else's point of view. that doesn't mean that the point of view of the other is privileged or 'right', only that it might be different and it might combine with the points of view of someone else with whom you've come in contact, it might connect with an experience you've had but not processed or integrated into your point of view satisfactorily.
discussion is a chance to allow your thoughts to evolve - it's definitely NOT a time to hear someone else's opinion and, because of who they are, adopt it as your own. our opinions are of equal value because they all deserve to be heard, weighed, and either absorbed into our worldview or tossed out.
this is why pasha's discounting of the opinions of others which don't mesh with hers is so disconcerting.
you're absolutely right. and richard meier is a hack. and i'm not a hack.
and i wish there was font for sarcasm, as you missed all of mine.
not per: essentially you said that only people in authority have a valid opinion. i am sure you didn't mean to say that.. but that's what you said..
opinion is deemed valuable is because of its content, not necessarily the person who said it.
but there must be a common point of reference that is used to determine the value.. a law of reason, logic, etc..
paper tiger, you say "my focus has always been on light" and what is light but electromagnetic radiation? (Look in the dictionary, dictionary.com) And osmosis is equalization either side of a semipermeable membrane. The architecture of Kimbell Art Museum is a semipermeable membrane that "equalizes" electromagnetic radiation.
yes, pasha, yes, "point of reference"
because not every opinion is as valuable as the next...that is all i am saying. everyone has a right to their own opinion, that's great but they are not all of equal value....
Now, why I equate electromagnetism and osmosis with sacred comes from chronosomatics, which will be discussed in (the book) Reenactionary Architecturism, that is, after A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part III is done, probably like a year from now.
pasha- what??!
what i said: "the value of what you say and the value of what i say are equal."
what i said: "discussion among equals is valuable as an opportunity to share ideas and maybe learn something from someone else's point of view. that doesn't mean that the point of view of the other is privileged or 'right'..."
what i said: "our opinions are of equal value because they all deserve to be heard, weighed, and either absorbed into our worldview or tossed out."
what YOU say i said: "...only people in authority have a valid opinion."
???
the only reason i gave any hierarchy to the archinect editors is that, if it is their opinion that it is necessary, they can simply pull our opinions off this board and not allow them to be seen.
rita,
aaah, that makes sense, so....
basically what you're saying is...
"filter" and "light"---
in paper tiger terms, of course.
or even further...
translucense?
sorry, i often think the first degree in architecture really just stands for
BullShit.
and this is not an attack on you, for example, one of the things we used to do in school, right before presentations or critiques or whatever, we'd go to the library, get the gigantic dictionary out, close our eyes, open a page and point to a word, and we were required to use that word at least five times in our presentation, or suffer the consequences of digesting cheap tequila with no chaser. it's like one of the things we learn is not necessarily how to expresss ourselves, but to really bullshit around the design with fifty cent words(some of which i'm convinced our professors would make up on the spot)....
again, not trying to be a piece of mierda, and honestly thank you for taking the time to decipher your writing for me.
i think pasha and not per should do battle, highlander style.
No paper tiger, I'm being much more basic by saying electromagnetism and osmosis. The key in the example of Kimbell is the 'equalization', and there also lies the key to Kimbell's 'sacredness'.
I choose my words very carefully, and the dictionary helps me to make sure I use the right words.
I can't stand bullshit myself, because it is used mostly to cover up a lack of understanding of the very basic.
"a 2x2x7 black box with a mirrored ceiling"
I think this would be a great place for any kind of spirituality. Most religions, if you get past the rhetoric and misunderstanding, point thier followers to find God within themselves.
Where better to look within than a place where only you exist?
bullshit is feeling sacredness of a space you've never experienced.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.