One must remember that Chinese buildings have a shorter life cycle; a building that might be put through a renovation in the West when it ages is often torn down in China. But perhaps deeper than this is a sense that China has experienced such turmoil in its past that nothing is permanent, even buildings thousands of meters tall. NKT
8 Comments
While that sounds understandable on the one level, it's not really acceptable. It makes a murky compromise with the repeated Chinese mistake that since life is not permenent, it doe not worth meticulate attention. It's a paradox for all cultures, but China has the tendancy to miss a greater humanitarian concern in requiring good designs, even though nothing physical is forever.
isn't that part and parcel of the maoist doctrine of man controlling nature?
No, John. Maoist doctrine was not of a humanitarian basis, but a totalitarian one. The Zen quandary here is like "since palaces and masions have all gone to ash, there is no point to insist on offering fine buildings. And Since China has so many people, each individual life certainly worth less." That, is in fact, how things began to go wrong in China every time; the lesson of belaboured effort in making of the impermanance is in fact the antidote to the Maoist nihilism.
Make no mistake, this means not to put Western value above that of China. It's China that needs to regain its faith in all efforts for humanism.
I'm not saying that it was a humanitarian doctrine, but rather that it is asserting man's role as the dominate force in shaping reality.
Its not to say that there aren't issues you claim, but it is a logical frame work to move reality towards a position that has no responsiblity other than progress. This was the great problem that conformed communist power structures of the past...
that's what I was attempting to say without demarking the edges of my position.
Still, some nuance missed, John.
"asserting man's role as the dominate force in shaping reality."
1. Progress does exist, in the "process" sense. Every thing does come to pass, yes?
2. Do you see men part of nature, or separate subject, such that there were possibility in which a discussion of men controlling nature is independently valid?
look I think you are implying a position on me without realizing that my statement was purely attributed to the news burb above, which stated that a Maoist doctrine was more concern with the issues I stated and not humanitarian issues, but rather, only advancing forwarded. I don't see what why are to disagree with there. I think more generally we both agree. I was just stating where these ideas came from not if they were right or wrong.
and yes I agree with what your saying about progress, but on the issue of nations and technological progress I don't see where your semantical break down leads us. Its not as though I stated the end of history and you countered by saying that me by stating the end of history I have already engaged in an historic act.
I like you.
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.