Ottopia - how to begin
….the texts can come from anywhere, and all I need to do is recombine/metabolize them.
metabolic reference, etc.
I think there are a few scattered references to the 'metabolic' floating around today. ….the 'idea' is out there, but it hasn't entered the general vocabulary yet (e.g., in the way that assimilation now has a legit definition besides the biological one).
My contribution (I hope) will be 1) the labeling /explaining of metabolic architectures /urbanisms, and 2) citing the metabolic imagination as humanity's next (millennium's) predominate 'operating system'
The intestine are the great assimilation machine of the body, whereas the liver is the body's great metabolic machine. The liver is not yet part of the 'present', however (it is higher up within the rib cage--the liver has a big 'presence' throughout the next millennium beginning in about 200 years). There is metabolism now, however, and it occurs within the kidneys as they produce uric acid (the kidneys are also the body's second best osmotic machine, the lungs being the first).
It is the metabolism within the kidneys, moreover, that is the first metabolism encountered by the rising plane of the present--the kidneys enter the 'present' between 1700 and 1800 (B. Franklin fits right in there). So the key may be within the kidneys. furthermore, besides being creative/destructive, metabolism also releases/generates energy (any dictionary definition states that), so I now wonder whether the metabolic process within the kidneys (and here I think we are lucky because I believe there really is only one metabolic process that goes on, i.e., the producing of uric acid) actually generates an electrical charge, or at least some kind of positive/negative chemical/molecular reaction.
next @ schizophrenia + architectures
…tie up all the loose ends regarding the “imaginations” and especially the metabolic.
interface, truman, etc
For example, part of being good at being metabolic is knowing precisely where to break the rules (i.e., within the confines of the rules themselves)--legal loopholes are very metabolic.
Quondam as an example of architectures of schizophrenic spontaneity
I now wonder if architectures of schizophrenic spontaneity are also (automatically) metabolic buildings.
Ichnographia Ottopia . . .
…a very architecturally metabolic Ichnographia, [a] schizophrenic pair.
architecture in cyberspace?
Chronosomatics suggests that the foremost electromagnetic architecture coincides with osmotic architecture--the heart being the body's center of electromagnetism and the lungs, which surround the heart, are the body's largest concentration of osmosis. The heart enters the plane of the present c. 3090. The kidneys are the body's second largest concentration of osmosis, but in the kidneys, osmosis mixes with metabolism.
It is worth noting that anabolism, the creative half of metabolism is purely creative, while catabolism, the destructive half of metabolism is not purely destructive, for it also contains tiny bits of creative operation.
quick response, good trip
I know of the Metabolists, but not their writing/ideas per say. More recently I've read what Isozaki says in retrospect regarding the Metabolist movement, and there he actually raises the issue of destruction not having been part of the original Metabolist credo, although, as he now sees it, destruction should have been a part of it. What I most like about metabolism as a process is that there has to be both creation and destruction in order for the process to work (otherwise none of us could even literally live). Moreover, I see humanity today demonstrating a high (and rising) degree of metabolic imagination.
an answer to "Now what?"
Is Decon the only thing to have run out of steam? Has the now pervasive and generally accepted way of looking at and being critical of architecture also run out of steam? For example, does moving from seeing Decon as reactionary to now (maybe) seeing the New Austerity as the latest reaction really convey a sense of meaning beyond the oscillations of fashion and trend? Has each new "critical" building become nothing more than the latest "creation" of the now global fashion show? Likewise, has the element of shock become ingrained within the (elite) architectural profession, the same way shock has become "stock-in-trade" in a good deal of high fashion? [I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the architecture that receives attention and the industry surrounding it being akin to the fashion industry, but I do think there is something wrong about not recognizing the phenomenon as such.]
Here's how I now look critically at architecture (and urban design) both currently and historically:
What architecture is extreme?
What architecture is fertile?
What architecture is pregnant?
What architecture is assimilating?
What architecture is metabolic?
What architecture is osmotic?
What architecture is electromagnetic?
What architecture manifests the highest frequencies?
What I've found so far is that some architectures fall straight into some of the categories above while some architectures are categorical hybrids. Here are some examples:
The Pyramids, Stonehenge, St. Peter's (Vatican), Bilbao(?) -- extreme, extreme architectures.
The Pantheon, Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, entry sequence of Schinkel's Altes Museum, Kimball Art Gallery -- examples of the best osmotic architecture there is.
Classical Greek and Roman Architecture -- pure architecture of fertility.
The Hindu Temple -- the ultimate transcendence from an architeture of fertility to an architecture of pregnancy, whereas the Gothic Cathedral is an architecture of pregnancy, albeit virginal.
All of 20th century Berlin -- the metabolic (create and destroy and create and destroy and ...)
To understand architecture of assimilation, look at the Renaissance, but also look to early 20th century Purism to understand assimilation in the extreme, ie, purge.
Today's architectures are by and large assimilating and/or metabolic (contextual and/or 'deconstructivist'?).
You're very lucky if you ever see pure examples of electromagnetic or frequency architectures today because they are almost entirely architectures of the far off future.
There are many more examples to offer, but that's all for now. In general, I see all architectures as reenactionary (as opposed to reactionary).
Architecture reenacts human imagination, and human imagination reenacts the way the human body is and operates. The human body and the design thereof is THE enactment. The human imagination then reenacts corporal morphology and physiology, and architecture then reenacts our reenacting imaginations.
"being the information"
The following is just 'chronosomatic' conjecture on my part: the human/corporal operation of absorption occurs at its most intense within the intestine(s). The duodenum is the largest and uppermost portion of the intestinal track, and thus it is the duodenum that will last appear within The Timepiece of Humanity's 'plane of the present'. The 'presence' of the duodenum is there now, and will end c.2197; chornosomatically, c.2197 is when humanity will have achieved a nexus of 'absorption'. In theory, the biggest 'chunks' to be absorbed are still to come "down the pike." Following the nexus of absorption will come several centuries where humanity will actively manipulate (metabolize) what it has absorbed. "being the information" may not actually happen until the 'plane of the present' transcends the diaphragm and then begins to engage the heart in conjunction with the lungs -- a chronosomatic transcendence (c.3090) from the profane (below the diaphram) to the sacred (above the diaphram).
Our diaphragm plays three roles: aiding defecation (profane), aiding respiration/breathing (sacred), and partruition/giving birth (a new being). Although Eliade never makes the connection himself, his entire explanation of transcendence from the profane to the sacred does nothing more than describe the role(s) of the human body's diaphragm.
Re: Theory of Theories
The notion of "thesis + antithesis = synthesis" reenacts almost exactly the physiological operation of metabolism [i.e., the sum of the processes concerned in the building up of protoplasm and its destruction coincidental to life : the chemical changes in living cells by which energy is provided for the vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated to repair the waste -- see ANABOLISM and CATABOLISM]. Metabolism is a creative/destructive duality, perhaps even the foremost and profoundest duality OF humanity. Anabolism is constructive metabolism, whereas catabolism is destructive metabolism [involving release of energy and resulting in true excretion products although new substances may be formed in metabolic processes that are mainly catabolic].
Because metabolism is of a higher reality than revolution, perhaps the 'Hegalian' notion of revolution and the subsequent interpretation that ultimately synthesis equals an ongoing parade of antithesis destroying a prior antithesis are not precise enough. The real equation seems to be that thesis + antithesis = antithesis + thesis = thesis + antithesis = (continuation of the pattern) -- wave[length]s. In metabolism, anabolism and catabolism work in conjunction as opposed to destroying each other or one destroying the other, and the real key (to understanding) here is that albeit destructive, catabolism 'creates' the energy that further enables the creative/destructive process.
Is revolution nothing more than humanity's reenactment in imagination and deed of one of the human body's basic physiologies?
Is Modernism a revolution, or is Modernism a realization of how humanity's (modern) creations operate?
metabolism and revolution
Cain and Abel (like all creation myth twins) were "brothers metabolic".
The Dance of Shiva (no matter how ancient) is a reenactment of metabolism. [note: Hinduism, particulary Yoga is a reenactment of the bottom to top corporal range of the spine.]
Romulus and Remus (true brothers metabolic that they were) reenacted metabolism.
Hegel's notion of synthesis (no matter how philosophically astute) is a reenactment of metabolism.
Revolution (no matter it be French, American, Red or Velvet) is a reenactment of metabolism.
Furthermore, Schumpeter's (sp?) notion that capitalism is "creative destruction" is a reenactment of metabolism,
genetic engineering and human cloning may well come to represent humanity's most extreme reenactment of metabolism. The point being that whenever it comes to a creative/destructive duality, the operative/defining word is metabolism or metabolic.
The above is part of the theory of chronosomatics, also know as The Timepiece of Humanity It is a theory I've come to use very much as a tool, and indeed a quite useful tool. Moreover, it is a theory that has an absolute principle in that the morphological and physiological design of the human body is chronosomatics' "intrinsic structure".
Considering that some architectural historians claim the "first Moderns" lived in the mid to late eighteenth century, it might be premature to place Modernism in the past tense. Then again, perhaps Modernism just isn't a useful enough term to describe what's really going on. That's why, when I look around at architecture from today and going back a few centuries, I don't so much see Modernist thinking and designing, but rather a lot of thinking and designing that is assimilating and/or metabolic.
Re: Theory dynamics; what theories?
Stephen Lauf proposed a different sort of dynamic as governing architectural theories, based on metabolism (!) I don't see how that view could be anything other than metaphorical, but it is intriguing if only because it raises one sort of alternative view (and thus introduces the notion that there could well be various competing accounts of architectural theory dynamics--hence one important task is to first grasp what those candidates are).
I am not proposing "a different sort of dynamic as governing architectural theories, based on metabolism." Rather I am working out a theory (chronosomatics) whereby human imagination reenacts corporal physiology and/or morphology. The metabolic imagination is just one of the human imaginations; the others include the extreme imagination, the fertile imagination, the pregnant imagination, the assimilating imagination, the osmotic imagination, the high-frequencies imagination. I then further theorize that these various operative modes of imagination in turn are reenacted in architecture.
For example, I see the Pantheon and Kahn's Kimball Art Museum as both prime example of an architecture that reenacts the osmotic imagination, which is an imagination that reenacts the physiological process of osmosis, which is the equalizing diffusion of concentrations either side of a semipermeable membrane. Both the Pantheon and Kimball are semipermeable (each in its own way) and both buildings work towards 'equalizing' the outside and the inside (again each in its own way). Furthermore, osmotic architecture seems to often capture a 'sacred' quality.
There are many other examples that I have thus far made note of…
Re: [Re:] enactment
Perhaps typology is basically an exercise in the reenactment of architecutral abstractions.
When it come to mythical origins and first ideal forms, it is worthwhile to ask if the mythical origins and the first ideal forms are themselves reenactments. For example, the dance of Shiva reenacts metabolism. Moreover, might not Plato's ideal forms also be reenactments (albeit highly abstracted)? Perhaps Plato's prefect circle 'ideally' reenacts the pupils of our eyes and Plato's perfect triangle 'ideally' reenacts the nose on our face.
Perhaps all abstractions are highly idealized reenactments of reality, rather than reality being a reenactment of highly idealized abstractions.
12. metabolic architectures.
13. osmotic architectures.
14. extreme architectures.
15. fertile archtiectures.
16. pregnant architectures.
17. assimilating architectures.
18. electromagnetic architectures.
19. all frequency architectures.
58. Imaginations, Zeitgeists and Architectures.
Re: E-M~A ARCHITECTURE
The most important aspect (for me) about osmosis is "equalize the concentrations on either side of the membrane." This speaks directly, if you will, to inside and outside and the melding/meshing of the two [or more]. Osmotic architecture starts from there.
Metabolism, osmosis, assimilation, electro-magnetism are each distinct physiological functions. do not confuse one with another.
The liver is the most metabolic organ within our body.
The kidneys are the second most osmotic organ within our body.
The lungs are the foremost osmotic organ within our body.
I go so far as to label the kidney osmosis as profane, and the lung osmosis as sacred.
Yhe heart is the foremost electromagnetic organ within our body.
The definition of the heart and the definition of an electromagnet (in Webster's Third New-International Dictionary) virtually describe the same thing.
Corporally (biologically), our electricity comes from salt (an electrified atom in our blood stream), and the iron in our blood (iron spontaneously magnetizes) supplies our magnetism. The S-A node of the heart concentrates the salt/electricity within the blood and this concentration then creates the electric 'spark' that intensifies the magnetism within the blood's iron, and thus the heart beats/pumps. The human heart is probably this highest order of 'machine' on this planet because what it pumps is what makes it pump--the utmost in efficiency and sustainability.
Is electromagnetic architecture then that which continually strives toward becoming an architecture where what it facilitates is also what makes it a facilitator?
Is electromagnetic architecture that architecture which strives toward being the most efficient and sustainable?
But there is an otherwise notion as well:
Electromagnetic radiation is the definition of light. [light, as far as science can presently tell, is an electromagnetic duality.] electromagnetic architecture in its purest sense is [also] an architecture of light.
I asked brian about the relationship between electromagnetic architecture and osmotic architecture because our heart is surrounded by the lungs -- electomagnetism surrounded by sacred osmosis -- the extreme[s] surrounded by the means.
Important point of clarification:
I do not see the body as a metaphor for architecture, rather i see the pysiological operations of our body -- metabolism, assimilation, fertility, osmosis, electromagnetism, etc. -- as also being the imaginative operations of our mind.
I do not believe in a seperation between the body and the mind. for me, such a differentiation is the real case of overarching (or is it over-reaching?). as our assimilating sciences increasingly tell us, we are what our DNA/body makes us. i simply see the way that DNA informs our body how to assimilate, metabolize, osmosify, electromagnify, etc, as being the same way our DNA informs our mind to assimilate, metabolize, osmosify, electromagnify, etc.
Architecture then can well be seen as a product of our respective assimilating, metabolizing, osmosifying, electro-magnetizing (etc.) imaginations.
I see very little need for humanity to look beyond itself in order to explain itself and how it operates.