Frances to Luis and William...
To summarize my stance on our recent ideas, it seems that there
may be at least three main stages to consider in making
architecture scientific.
(A)
First might be disposition and tendency, where sentience would be
one of the base paradigms here. Adeptive chances and freedom
through continuation would be moderated as immediate, or
initiate, for the architect. This given trait would be the static
origin and essence of architecture in being. It is the general
infinite deference of doubt toward pure feeling.
(B)
Next might be determination and practice, where experience would
be one of the core paradigms here. Adaptive changes and growth
through evolution would be moderated as intermediate, or
obstinate and remediate, for the architect. This driven trail
would be the energetic eruption and dynamic substance of
architecture in fact and deed. It is the special definite
difference between doubt and brute finding.
This may be the pivotal seat of particular and peculiar works of
architecture being held as original and unique and authentic. The
determination of architecture is its limits and contexts and
grounds, rather than its origins or causes or sources. The
determined practice of architecture would thus entail its project
as say an orientated plan, and its process as a say a fabricated
design, and its product as say a utilized construct.
(C)
Last might be deliberation and theory, where intelligence would
be one of the key paradigms here. Adoptive choices through
creation would be moderated as mediate, or destinate and
culminate and ultimate, for the architect. This taken trial would
be the organic and genetic and synaptic presence of architecture
in mind and thought and reason. It is the universal indefinite
preference of doubt in order to yield a belief in exact knowing.
