One day, my work will be published, and all the world will see how cool it is to be a marginal woman. I, myself, am not as affected by the backlash of post-modern feminism because I don't consider myself totally American. I'm a hyphen. And as hyphens tend to go, I was raised in a Filipino family. And being born on Philippine soil, the blood of my ancestors still flow strongly within me.
So, I feel to be close to the farmer and the fisher and the peasant, because they were my people just three-four generations ago. And these people were anything but capitalistic. They honored the woman's worth by fighting with her for their machochism. For a woman then was not judged by the things she owned, but by her skill and prowess as a capable wife and mother. They had real life skills outside the homeroom romance, and real brains, that actually pose a threat to the male psyche. Still, that was the way things were- not as peaceful nor perfect, but mini-wars within the harmony of place and being.
Thus, I am raised well, to be as outspoken as the women of my family, but to also have respect for our male counterparts who may not appreciate or understand our abilities as much, and may in fact fear them. But that has been the key word: respect. It implies that we do not look down upon them as inferiors. It implies that we understand who they are. And greater would the implication be when we understood how much we needed them! Not in the sense an American woman needs her man...but more for survival purposes.
And this is because man was naturally built with that which we have less off; muscle to fight, to farm, and to fish. And they were made to comfort us in ways our mothers couldn't and reach us in ways our closest friends couldn't.
So, I was created to have a face demure and a presence that is calming. My physicality was created out of respect, compassion, and understanding....Thus I am often mistaken for an easy brainless pushover. I can't help it if my face was constructed to invite such misunderstanding...and I haven't yet been able to understand the meaning of this fate. ----------
As for feminism, I would blame the idea that a woman needs her man on the construction of suburbs. Suburbs were made out of American ideals of wholesome family farm life, open space cleanliness, and love of car (which also translates to love of technology- which isn't so bad; think of it as a child fascinated with a kaleidescope.) Of course there were it's negative side-effects, and one of them is a woman's dependency on her man because frankly, her man is all whom she will share a close, intimate connection with.
And this is because, community is lost in the suburb.
So, it would be safe to suggest that the needs of a woman have been intensified by isolation in the suburbs.
Secondly, our needs (a man's and woman's- but this piece deals mostly with women and trying to understand what is happening with them) have been trivialized by a capitalistic value system. This says that all a woman needs is a sale at Mervyn's, a chair in a CEO's office, kids, and sex. It makes it seem to easy to figure out what makes one person, or a million people happy, which is a side effect of standardizing to suit the mechanizations of a global economy.
So, it may be safe to assume that the capitalistic value system have flattened women out into nothing but cardboard cut-outs.
Now feminism comes into play by blindly putting the blame on men. Then it believes that the only way to achieve happiness, or equality and respect, is to become super-mom without any help from society. Which is close to impossible and thus leads to a lot of frustration and more blaming on men, who are not really the problem. And women aren't the problem either.
If anything is to blame, it would be corrupted American values. One example is forgetting how to analyze a problem without pointing fingers and fix it like our American inventors in the past. No wonder Japan and Europe excel us in the automobile industry. And no wonder our feminist movement/culture has done nothing but spiral down into doom.
As a reminder, this feminist problem is not as 2-D as the women it has created. I'm sure there's more to it than the suburbs. More to it than capitalism. I'd like to think it is actually a world-wide war on the subconcious level between the simplification of the human psyche and the complex construction of what it really is.
I suppose we're trying to find the third dimension now. The dimension we lost to capitalistic gain. The dimension that defines us universally as human. That which I see so wonderfully in third world countries, so I can say, and anyone else can say and wonder at how happy they are with what little they have! Because it is not materialistic things that define a human...and everyone knows that deep down inside.
Ahyah!! But that is exactly the problem. It is just evaded by meaningless terms such as feminism, but that is exactly the problem. The lost of the third dimension! Human isolation and loneliness, the search for life's meaning- all that which centuries worth of human life has pondered.........lost because someone decided, happiness was found at Wal-Mart.
And with that, we just became good at buying things. We lost interested in art and poetry and music (and that's why rock is dead), so we can buy things, or make things with a click of the button....so long as it's fast and easy, it's ok. Because we just quit thinking about what really makes us happy....We just stopped thinking period, and adopted ignorance. Because it is bliss. So we think....
I would also point to isolation of ourselves from our surroundings...from nature....from that essence we were brought into life. Because we think happiness is in isolation of ourselves. We've lost connection. No man's an island....We've lost so much by losing that third dimension. And we will probably never wake up to realize how important that third dimension is. So long as we are coddled by materialistic goods, isolated from another world of pain and suffering (another world which gives us basic survival instincts and skills), and we love thinking we know everything about nothing that is meaningless but seemingly meaningful.
And I think I've just uncovered the world's problems. This is it's heart. Strike it down and everything else will fall into place. And my lord will be pleased.
May 13, 2004
ARch
Just reading a bunch of online articles about architecture. Why? Because online is the fastest fastest source...and just reading them makes me think of how incompentent I am to start my own firm....I need to know what goes on in Engineering. I need to know what goes down in Construction. I also need to know what goes on in Architecture firms.
I need to update my knowledge in current technology. As I read, I smirk; smart building. Like all the other buildings before were just "dumb." Sweet, the complexity of building design is catching up with the complexity of a tree trunk's development...not. But it's getting an inch closer...
I do have design under my belt already...
So, I guess that way to learn management and technology is to apply to a design-build firm as a secretary. That way too, I'll be able to learn about the culture; I'm sure there are some holes in the fabric I can sink my teeth into. I will become an architect!! I will have my own firm!!! Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Architects need speed. Architects don't really have technical knowledge of anything. Architects have a hard time working in groups. They're so narrow-minded and incompetent in math and basic literature, it's a joke. They need to also learn about the internet. But schools focusing too much on design...no...it really can't be help. The way to becoming an architect requires a lotta time. A helluva lotta time!!!
I suppose after I graduate, I'll be applying as a secretary to various firms. I'll learn my trade there. I have no time to go Grad school. Once I have enough money, then I'll make it to Grad school. Grad school is only for recognition anyway. Otherwise, without the other skills, it'll be kinda pointless.
But wouldn't finishing grad and just becoming an architect help too? I don't have that kind of training..and culture in the architecture field isn't the same as it was before...getting a Master's too soon without the experience, might cut me under. I'll be overqualified.
At least with this urban planning degree, the mix is just right. They'll think I'm dumb. I won't be a threat. While in the shadows, I'll be watching. I'll waste no time applying for a secretary position ^.^ Then when I feel I've learned the ropes (five years tops), I'll apply for grad school. And then the rest will be history ^.~
So I guess I won't be going to Germany to study architecture...an American degree seems to be the only way: it holds the keys to the world~
March 23, 2004
The Working Class Experience of Shame, Inequality, and People Power in Tatalon, Manila by Michael Pinches
This Filippine hiya a very important aspect of social relationships is quite damaging to relations between the rich and the poor. In the Philippines, the people are very well aware of anything and everything that can cause shame, or: to "lose face." Shame can arise simply from the type of people you hang out with, the school you go to, how well-off the family, etc.
So, the rich end up looking down at the poor as shameful creatures; bringing along with this condenscension the act of not recognizing the poor as human beings. This often being the cause of anything but that which the poor can control, it breeds a sort of resentment and anger~ enough of it can cause an uprising.
But instead, the poor blame their bad luck, or their ancestors, not the rich.
This brings on a whole different and rather difficult perspective of solving Manila's problem with the "working class," as I will call them now in light of Pinche's essay.
They no longer trust the government because of its corruption and inefficiency. They seek no outside help preferably 'cause of hiya. Pragmatism, pure and simple; who would want to do anything that would bring about unjust shame to their heads? Especially in a culture where shame is very important.
~
Thinking back...I never really understood that shame concept myself growing up in the States. And because I wasn't able to understand it; because my parents didn't understand that I didn't understand it; the result was more of that anger and resentment. It's like you're suppose to feel bad (ashamed) for something that really wasn't your fault. I don't buy it. I was just a kid tryin' to enjoy life, when suddenly, I'm suppose to feel bad for something I don't really know how to fix/solve??
So, in a sense I can relate to the working class. I just want to be recognized is all as an adult. They want to be recognized as human. I wonder though, if they are recognized as a human, then how free would they become to move up the social ladder? And if I were recognized as an adult; how free will I be do what I want? Freer still I suppose....
The only solution that presents itself to me right now is to burn the connection. Just run and never look back. I'm a different person now, and if my parents won't acknowledge that, then tough. I'm going to stop tryin'.
Because I always thought it'd be easier to have their "blessing." But now, I feel that I don't really need it...'cause it's not a blessing. It's more like they're clipping my wings so I'll be safe, but at the same time, I'll never be able to fly; to rise up and meet my destiny: sky. And now with all my experiences backing me up; three years of college and all; I feel comfident enough to break away~ and fly~
March 9, 2004
Ideological Constructs
Another evaluation of my principles:
Thou shalt not murder. I take this as far as "murdering" souls with my cruelty. For that, I am guilty. I'll try not to be so angry....But as for murdering flesh and blood, no. So even if I had a baby because I was raped (hypothetically speaking), I'll keep it and teach it how to value life and creation despite death and destruction.
Thou shalt not commit adultery. I take this as far as foolin' around with other people's emotions...leading them on. Flirting is so much fun though...but really, I don't have to "fall in love," when I flirt...but if I end up doing so anyway, then I guess I should stop flirting all together. But all in all, I no longer want to break someone's heart...and yeah, I no longer want to break my heart. It's good advice to protect a pearl of great price.
Church and State Church and state shouldn't be separate. The church is responsible for teaching people principlesto live by. These people are citizens of a state. The state is responsible for protecting the "interests" of these people. Ideally, their best interests are the protection of their principles. But it's also true, that people can no longer think and act for themselves if it takes a law to basically command them "thou shalt not kill."
So, church and state are separate. Ideally, church doesn't need the state to protect its principles, especially if its principles are written within the hearts and minds of its people; so they will naturally be good, moral, virtuous citizens. Yet, the state can do a better job of providing the masses with order and services, like public transportation, military defense, public schooling, laws to protect and sort through issues separate from the church. But really, if the church's principles hold true for all its followers, it won't need a law to enforce, "Love they neighbor."
Friends and Freedoms "Friends will never "give" space. Space has to be taken, new ideas declared, new behaviors made, and old bonds broken. New bonds will form later, but old methods of relating have to stop first."
They will if the bonds are magically strong enough while they're too far away to really influence your well-being.
Ideological Constructs "It is impossible to ever really accept the way another thinks as "valid" because it would invalidate your own ideological construct. The best that can be done is to tolerate the existance of bizzare behaviors."
That is true, if they clash so much that one or the other will have to give it up for the other's sake. It all now comes down to how strong one's conviction is that she is right and how much better would the gain be for the cost...
February 26, 2004
Deism Defined
I suppose in every sort of religion/belief/platform, you have to become an ego-centric maniac, a bigot, one to stand firmly upon one's beliefs; unyielding and unbending. Like Christ. Like Hitler. Like Frank Lloyd Wright.
The masses are quite easy to manipulate. And to listen to all the different voices can "squash" one's individuality into a punitive shell of empty words and thoughts and ideas.
But how does one know they're right? It shouldn't matter. What should matter is that you're not just accepting it, but questioning it; testing it.
For example, the main reason why many Christians fail to follow their own rules and dogmas is because they don't take the time to think about it and follow the principle behind it.
So, I suppose in truth, I am a Deist. I believe in God. In my deepest modes of contemplation has it been revealed unto me what God's purpose is for me: to be myself. To know myself. To be comfortable with myself. To be independent. To be strong. Why, if he's such an all caring and all mighty God would he want otherwise for his people? Why would such a wonderfully glorious God want his people to be empty "nothings"?
So, once in my life, I said, "Know me and you'll know God." Because my life is living testimony of his existence. I should've been broken and torn many many years ago. But on contrary, I am a much stronger, confident self.
I can actually say "I" and know who and what this "I" is referring to.
All this because I am a thinker. Because I dare question authority.
But although I'm independent and strong and everything, I still know and feel his presence in my heart. And I can certainly say this without "blind" faith, but yes, with blind faith, yes. So...one afternoon, I can just bathe in the sun, content with life; at peace...and feel to be never alone. I know myself. I know my God. He knows me too....so I am not alone. I am strong and independent...but I can count on him whenever it gets rough...like, "I'll do the best that I can as myself...the rest is up to Providence."
February 24, 2004
About Charles Mulford Robinson
Spam Poetry
So, what does Charles Mulford Robinson and Spam Poetry have in common? Charles Mulford Robinson is a very hard historical man to find. I just finished doing a presentation on him, and both my partner and I agree that he's a very hard man to get a hold of. There simply wasn't anything bibliographical about him on the Net, only some articles he wrote archived in some prestigious university's online library.
Likewise, there really isn't much to say about Kristin, the creator of the weblog entitled Spam Poetry, but her work is totally bitchin'!
It's like sometimes, your personality can show through what kinda work you do...so in the end, it's more of the work you do that becomes more important: a better mirror of who you are to the world; a better personal profile; a better self-portrait.
Modest and self-fulfilling anyhow to say, "This is what got done." There is that implication that whoever got this wonderful thing done was a great doer (no bias) In contrast, "I got this done," you tend to look at the person, and sometimes, there isn't much a person to look at.
Charles Mulford Robinson and Kristin seem like very boring, ordinary people when you look at their lives separate of their works: Robinson is a mild-mannered reporter guy, like Clark Kent, and Kristin seems to have no life...but when you look at their work, it just blows you're mind and you're left feeling that sense of awe and understanding that they are wonderfully cool people ^.^ Robinson created the City Beautiful Movement, and Spam Poetry rocks like a mad-genious!
So yeah, work defines the man better than the man can define himself. 'Cause it's almost impossible to reflect upon the man himself in isolation...it's just hard...he's a very complex individual: one who seems to know lots about the world around him, but very little of who he is himself....but if he does work, he is able to project a part of his being upon that piece of work: something he and his colleagues are better able to grasp, and that becomes a definitive of who he is, which is somehow less binding than defining the person first and then valuating their work~somehow I feel that method boxes them into some sort of "cookie-cutter" personality.
Like I can say I like dogs. But then you'll get confused when I pass by a dog park and walk on the gutter to avoid the dogs running up to the fence to sniff/bark at me. But then again, I didn't lie. I do like dogs. But I only like them when they're not in packs. Individually, I can handle them just fine. And knowing this can add that third dimension to simply saying, "I like dogs."
February 20, 2004
"Moles and Skylarks" by William H. Wilson
1. I believe man to be an honorable creature, very worthy and very deserving of respect, of life, and of humane treatment.
2. I love nature in all its grandeur and splendid beauty. I remember a time when I was only eight, sitting on the steps of my grandmother's garden, saying some sort of beautiful poem to myself about the sunset's colors and the wind among the apple trees and orchids all blooming...I don't understand how other men can have such blatant disregard for something so beautiful...are they blind?
3. I do not believe modern society has done its duty in honoring mankind and nature. I have come to the conclusion on my own, that today's society places a higher price tag on technology and those better able to use such technology. I have reinvented the wheel, because I have recently learned in this article of a man a long time ago who has already thought of some of the things I'm thinking of.
4. So I suppose, if I were asked the question, "If there was any person in history you'd like to meet, who would it be?" it would have to be Lewis Mumford.
A. "First, he believed that all civilizations and cultures were organic, retaining some past habits and forms while developing new modes of thinking and acting."
B. "Second, because cultures were the sum of their past developments, true scholarship consisted of discovering and presenting the origins and paths of those developments."
C. "Third, he believed, cities had two purposes: to collect, reinforce, and develop their cultures; and to provide the good life for their inhabitants. The 'good life' was not materialistic in the sense of the technological abundance associated with North American middle- and upper-class lives in the late twentieth century...People lived full lives when they experienced interaction with one another in neighborhoods small enough for them to identify with and to understand entirely."
D. "Fourth, Mumford believed that the commerical-industrial city failed to provide the good life. For one thing, it existed primarily to produce and distribute goods and services for a profit. For another, it robbed its region to produce glitter for the advantaged few at the heart of the metropolis, but impoverishment for the unfortuantes who were failures by the canons of a capitalistic society..."
E. "Fifth, he hoped for a renascence based on the death of the economic and social forms of the imperialistic metropolis, and the rebirth of true regionalism built up from neighborhood units. The renascence would occur when men triumphed over technology and turned it from profit making to humane ends."
F. Really, what I am most interested in is defining the "good life" and getting involved in any way with the "renascence." Because with all my studies, I believe this to be the only way to improve the conditions here. So, I am an Utopian, a skylark.
I. Utopians "believed that mankind possessed dignity and worth."
II. Utopians "believed that the commercial-industrial cities of the twentieth century degraded man, exploiting his worth rather than cultivating it."
III. Utopians "believed that urban decentralization and regional settlement were already well advanced and were definitely the living patterns of the future. Existing cities could not be saved in their present form, no matter what the expedients."
IV. Utopians "believed that men would have to abandon their individualistic, competitive society for one cooperatively organized before deconcentration could develop in socially constructive ways."
V. Actually, I only agree with two of the four beliefs.
a. I believe that existing cities can be saved; their downtown areas can be revitalized and cleaned up through comprehensive planning and cooperative architecture. It will also have to take the combined efforts of the people though, to adjust to the "good life," befitting to the city. Whether the city came first or the "good life" is a mystery to me...like the chicken or the egg??(the good life, by the way is a topic I would most likely want to discuss further in the future.)
b. I believe men do not have to abandon their individualistic, competitive society, but instead learn that the self is not all there is to "life," and competition is meaningless without a "life."
January 26, 2004
Government is Us
and other readings for the first week of school
Urban planning is taking on a different view on the problems in society today. It looks more at the economics and politics of it, and strives to solve it through policy making. Meanwhile, architecture takes more of an artistic role. It tries to solve the problems through intuitive space-making/molding.
Here are some of the problems as of late:
The Urban Poor:
Many have argued against the gathering of the urban poor into one location. It would create ghettos, which meant low morality, sanitation problems, and environmental problems. Peter Hall argued that the underlying current was the fear of another "French Revolution."
I argue that if the poor weren't allowed to gather, they won't be able to create their own organizations that would help themselves better their lives. The Philippines is a good example of this happening actually. Nevertheless, the Philippines is not the U.S., and as Government is Us implies, this may never happen because economically and politically, a majority of people are loosing perceptions of their ability to control their lives.
The Ugliness of the Urbanscape:
Architects have tried to alleviate this problem with wild ideas of new forms and spaces...but it won't do anyone any good if they cannot somehow integrate their designs with one another.
Furthermore, based on the history of Planning, not much can be done about the ugliness of the urbanscape now because at the base of its creation lies the culture of America: independence, freedom, the car, etc. So, from this perspective, it architects and planners have succeeded in creating an urban environment for the American.
At the same instance, it also seems that the visions of a certain person can dictate the direction a society will take in terms of the built urban form. Examples of these people are Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier, and Frank Lloyd Wright.
The Urban Sprawl:
Again, a success. So why is it so much a problem as the last? It seems to be so by a lot of my professors; the main reason seems to be that its not a very efficient way of handling our limited resources. The undercurrent seems to be what it is doing to the urbanscape, how it is affecting the people, etc.
All in all, I'm starting to think this to be more of a social problem then. It seems like the American "dream" has outlived its promises and a new one must be issued...why? Because it provides a human being with basic motivations. Unfortunately, the people seem too tired; they feel too down-trodden, incapable, helpless, to believe in a new dream....
Then again, my thoughts are still unclear. I'm onto something here...something that dated back to the feeling when I first step foot in an architecture studio Freshman year.
December 7, 2003
Pre-Fab Design Review
The Story of The Soul pp. 70-110
A graduate studio of 11 decided to focus on pre-fab design. Of one design, the 7 reviewers got into a coffee-breakish discussion that swims about the pre-fab phenomenom in the U.S.; consumers are buying into it, and architects are buying into it too. Out of that discussion came many ideas trying to explain the phenomenom. 1) Pre-fab allows a wider economic range of consumers to fulfill their consumer dreams. 2) Pre-fab has brought design to the masses (there was an IKEA lady on the review board). 3) Architects like pre-fab because it is a new set of design tools and techniques to play with. 4) Architects also like pre-fab because it's affordability and accessibility to more people gives it more chance of actual construction and realization (good for the ego-rub)
This discussion was most stunted though by time, being off-topic, and not having actual research-made proof to back it up. It was just a whole bunch of theories thrown about by curious intellects who do not have enough faith to grasp self-evident answers.
Based upon this discussion, I know come up with another theory (to add to the professor's theory mentioned below) that architects in the U.S. become architects because they want to control their environment in the ways they weren't allowed to when they were younger. As such, most of what an architect designs is not very public: it is a tribute to their own egos and own artistic and technical capabilities. Most of what they create, in no way reflects the public that they serve.
I should not read St. Therese' work so fast, but I was rushed. It was my own fault for procrastinating till the last minute...but those pages I've read were really really good, and worth the rush...actually, I thought I was reading so fast: almost 10 pages for every 3 minutes. It usually takes me 30 minutes to read 20 pages.
St. Therese' trials put my heart to rest though. Like her, I have aspirations of becoming an architect, yet my path has been blocked~God has not allowed the reviewers to accept me into upperdivision. I'm starting to see though that it was done to save me; to keep me from falling deeper into a profession that seeks all the worldly things God hates. In other words, He did it so won't lose me.
I did lose sight of God during the first two years. I was torn inside out from the drying of my spirit, the abandonment, but still I resisted, and out of that resistance, I made enemies of many fellow architecture students.
I'm glad for it now because I see how my faith was put to the test.
So, now, I wonder, how will I ever become an architect if the practice of architecture goes against the spirit of God's word? God gives glory to the meek, yet an architect seeks fame. God blesses the poor, yet an architect seeks riches.
And like St. Therese, I do enjoy it when people do not notice me. (somewhere in the past two years, that kinda changed probably because of hanging around bad influences for too long). But her writings reminded me of the joy of being ignored. Why? Because I can converse better with God. I am one who seems always alone, but is never really alone.
So, yeah, I now wonder how I'll become an architect and please God at the same time? I don't know. But I do know that for now, I am in exile. God is doing to me as He wills, and I shall accept that. But while in exile, my heart tells me I should practice, hone my skills, and discipline myself to be a better citizen, a better person, and thus a better architect. This time though, I should do my training with Him. And when I'm ready, He will let me out into the hellish world again to pursue my passion and bring glory to His name.
Yes, for it is in the battlefield where I belong.
I'm glad to have been shown St. Therese. I'm also glad to have been shown St. Cecilia and St. Thomas. St. Cecilia is the saint of musicians because the music of angels dwells in her soul. Against her will, she was married, but through her faith, she converted her husband and good works were able to be through her husband. St. Thomas is the saint of architects because of a church he built in India. I have three saints to talk to now...well, one saint to talk to and two others to get to know still; but yeah, I'd like them to be my saints (=
Architecture is for the community. The built environment should extend from the recluse rest stop along the highways to apartment buildings in the slums.
An architect's job, therefore, is to be a servant of the people: to build environments for the betterment of the community's quality of life, and most importantly, to give that community a sense of identity. It is not for fame. It is not for money.
The best way for this to happen is to reach out to the neighborhood; circulate the architect's language among common mouths and teach them that they can teach us how to best design for them.
Such is the reason why I don't like today's architecture schools. The better the school it seems, the haughtier and elitist the students and faculty; and such attitudes can't really communicate well to the public. They only work within a small ring of elites, and their design ideas only work well with a certain budget, which I don't think is very innovative, if architecture can only be done within such a narrow context. Instead, the challenge for new architects is to break out of the box, and design for people; create environments with a sense of place, as it has been done before, a long time ago.
A long time ago, there were no architects. There were people who designed what they designed because of the materials available to them in the place they were living. They lived where they designed, and so they knew the community and the people. So, in some places, rooves were pitched and strongly trussed because it prevent snow from accumulating and weighing down the roof to breaking point. And in other places, houses were on platforms to keep the marsh water out. Then in the desert, houses were built in adobe because it was most available, and it helped control the temperatures inside.
So even though each building was built the same way, in a similar style, they were all different; the inhabitants (the main builders--designers and construction workers) incorporated their own personal touch. So, the built environment of such primitive cities were unified in design, yet heterogenous, creating a quaint and pungent urban character.
Now with more complex building technology and everything being uber-specialized, homeowners cannot readily go out there and simply build their own home. It's much more efficient and easier to hire contractors or designers or architects to do the job. So, they should do their job: use the available technology within the context of the environment within which they are building, but to the personal flavor of their clients.
Now comes the client's challenge: to develop their own personal flavor. This world has become a world full of icons and symbols that inhibit and discourage personal growth and identity development. For example, today, the wearer of a cross can say she is a Christian, but not know the meaning of really BEING a Christian because to really BE a Christian is to basically go against the grain of the society. In the world of architecture, a student's work can be torn down for making references to ideas of the past regardless of whether or not the student actually designed with that intention. In other words, professionals can prevent innovative designs from BEING because all they see is what that design symbolizes. Like sometimes, all that is seen in a man, is their father. So, it is difficult to break out of the box and develop a truly strong personality; one that can BE without symbols and references attached to it. Now that would be deserving of the term unique.
Now, I'm not saying to go against society, cast yourself away, and become a hermit in a desert...I'm actually saying that society should not be about conformity. It should be about community built of unique individuals who understand what humans need and what humanity is all about. No man is an island, but perhaps a chain of islands. Men are naturally gregarious. Humans need each other for survival. It is possible to live by oneself, but impossible to progress without others. It takes a community to build a Gothic Cathedral, not a single man. A professor here at ASU, once commented on a theory he had; that if children were allowed to imprint their environment (basically do whatever they want to do with their room--draw on the walls, rearrange furniture, etc.), they grow up more respectful of public space (a trait lacking in Americans, so it seems). In other words, if we let people BE, instead of making them conform to a standard, or boxing them within a symbol, society and community overall would be a better place. Yet these are all theories: truths that ring true to believers, but skeptics always want proof.
So yes, there is more to architecture than designing buildings. The built environment can only BE if there is a strong current of humanity and community that allows it, and that is not the architect's job, but the community's job.
Michael Crowe is ASU's new president. He is totally selfless, and his works are effective, but he does it without much staff consent. Instead, he works more like a lonewolf; getting things done on his own, sometimes even without his staff's knowledge. That method pisses off a lot of people and so they would complain and get on with life because it works.
In a sense, that was how my group worked. I don't really know what our paper was like, and I didn't know what the final design looked like until the day of the presentation; but it worked. Because our designer and paper writer were both lone wolves who weren't really good with groups (like keeping in touch, doing updates, etc.) and I was pissed, but hey, the job got done ^.^
Aspiration: The act of aspiring of ardently desiring; a strong wish; a cherished desire a passion one possesses as natural as breathing
Ambition: An eager, sometimes inordinate desire for preferment, honor, superiority, power, or attainment of something an obsession driving one to unruly acts
It is ok to have asspirations, not ambitchions
Sometimes, I read things I think I'm not suppose to read, and know things I don't think I'm suppose to know. So this article will remain untitled. It is the work of my existentialist friend, whom I think would be better left unnamed and ungendered.
Anyway, the premise is that there really is no meaning to life, and no point in hope. There will be truths, but since there are so many, the utterer of such a truth can possibly be wrong, well in Philosophy. I don't think this premise would apply to other subjects like Math or Anatomy.
What is the meaning of life? Why try to find a meaning? Those who try to find a meaning are those with meaningless lives. This subject didn't become so much a problem until the birth of existentialism (which some claim to be in the 1950's, but there have been works that predate that). We can link the above statement to another important historical context: the Industrial Revolution...and then the two World Wars. So, it seems that man has become cynical over time, and has lost all faith in hope and honor, and many other virtues. In other words, this "meaning of life" didn't become a problem until we lost all faith in hope and honor and all the other virtues. Maybe through the perversion of wars...maybe through the perversion of the industrial revolution...maybe through the perversion in thought and culture...the perversion of how man started to live for money~but even that statement is not completely true because it is more to it than money.
So, how did people live before all that? I'm sure they didn't try to find a meaning to life at all, and therefore had meaning. The lives they have lead though, are meaningless today's the MTV generation whose perceptions of a purposeful life are only defined by fame and fortune. No, those people didn't need fame nor fortune, and still, their life was purposeful. Was it hope? Was it honor? Was it discipline? Was it joy?
The best example of I can think of to best describe this way of life is the Samurai village in the movie, "The Last Samurai." Paralleled to the strife of the Native American, it seems as if this way of life was universal among all cultures...but somehow over time, it became lost.
With regards to truths. Hold true to your truth, and let others hold true to their truths. Don't doubt yourself or fear to be wrong. Such feelings are those that hinder progress and realization. Respect. Because sometimes others don't have the capacity to understand certain truths, true as they may be. Because it is sometimes better to get along with others than to be at odds with them. And because it is better to be patient...over time, Truth will reveal herself and she will be accepted as one entity for all people.
On a tangent with regards to truth and the ability for one to accept it would be truths about the person herself. Through my 20 years of living here on earth, it seems that many go through their lives trying to find out who they are. Once they do find out who they are, they either continue living accepting it, or denying it. Although, there is nothing wrong with running away for the time being, it is best to eventually accept simply because with this acceptance, does one learn best how to love oneself, and most importantly, how to forgive. And although self-forgiveness doesn't seem to do a whole lot, personality wise, it sure makes things feel a whole lot better. Then afterwards, whether or not one chooses to change their personality, that choice is up to them.
So, question...does this seeking of ourselves mean that we are indeed created to be who we are created to be before we were even born?? It seems now that we have no choice in who we are, and such choices are left to the star under which we were born, or God's will (whichever you wish to believe). This I suppose, though, would be better than if we were given the choice to choose our personalities. Why? Because we'd be nothing but "robots" until we are old enough to reason and therefore choose our personality. And who in this world doesn't enjoy a baby with personality?
Besides, too much freedom of choice can be a lonely and confusing thing....it would probably be ten times the hassle of choosing what to wear in the morning, or whether to take the soup or salad.
Based on this definition, I'm an existentialist.
Well, ok, so maybe I'm not an existentialist. Because with that last part said, I wouldn't believe in Satre when he claims that what one will be is what one will make of oneself.
Still, I do believe in free will, and the moral responsibility of the consequences choices may create, good or bad. But I also believe there is no point in dwelling on it; there is no point in crying over spilled milk, what is past is past. Let's move on by forgiving ourselves, but not forgetting. 'Cause if you forget, you'll more than likely make the same mistake again.
Now, forgiveness is a rather difficult concept for modern men to grasp. Simply because it requires a lot of compassion for oneself to be willing to excuse oneself of a sin. It also requires a lot of dedication because supposedly, once you forgive, you strive not to commit that sin again, not out of fear, but out of love of self. Screwing up hurts others, but most importantly, it hurts ourselves (the resulting guilt and sorrow stuff hurts), and so if we really loved ourselves, we wouldn't wanna hurt ourselves. Unfortunately, compassion and love is what many modern men lack for themselves.
Now, forgiveness, compassion, and love are all very difficult concepts to explain without good personal experience of what each one is...but for now, I suppose a dictionary definition will help. Then for some reason, I'm finding that it's harder for one to forgive oneself than it is for one to forgive others...even I used to have a problem with that.
I'm skimming through what I wrote three days ago, 11/3/03, and I'm soo confused...do yourself a favor, and just don't read that.
Quietly, she wolfs down the iced cafe mocha all at once, eyes wandering, swimming, before the final rest within the folds of a book. Once in a while, she would gaze up from it, and sigh as if reading a love letter from a voyage far away.
An architect should be well-versed in almost all studies the scholars know simply because all of those studies, in a greater perspective, can give the architect an idea of the overall culture of the people she is designing for. This statement can hold true on the premise that an architect's goal is to effectively portray the elements of her respective culture, but in a humble manner so that the architecture becomes the background to everyday life.
This is contrary to what I feel is believed today; that the architect's architecture is central: the main player on the stage of life. But really, how can a backdrop be the producer, the director, and the actors of a play?
Yet, there is also the artistic element in architecture, which is to uplift the human spirit in a similar way Howard Roark's work is uplifting: perhaps better words to describe what I'm saying is: architecture should subliminally make its inhabitants feel more like a man.
A man, in a sense that he is. A long time ago, men used to be. Then they would do and have. Being-Doing-Having. Today, it has changed: Doing-Having-Being. So, here is a very difficult task for architects today: to design, reflecting a culture that does not really exist because it's individual members are nothing without what they do or have. In another perspective, God supposedly created the world out of nothing. So this problem could be seen as a road block to progress, or as having a lot of potential for change.
Now, learning all studies gets to be easier with the understanding that all studies are interconnected. English, History, Science, Mathematics, Art, Music, and Physical Education, all interconnect in some way or another. English, the most important, provides us with the ability to effectively communicate in all areas through verbal or written communication. Art and Music, provide alternatives, specially to those who learn better in other ways than verbal or written. They also uplift and spirit and the soul, feed the intuition we have almost altogether abandoned over the centuries of development. Another department of art and music can find itself in Physical Education, through dance, martial arts, gymnastics, football, basketball. They all uplift the spirit, though some in other ways, but the players, especially, have a greater understanding of who they are through the awareness of their physical being, and the use of their intuition in making quick decisions and judgements. They feel; they just do it.
Physical education can also be a part of science: the science of knowing the human body and how it works to help it. Anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, chemistry, physics, etc. And science, is almost nothing without a history of important people and landmarks in discovery. So, as one can see, every subject is interconnected with each other; usually standing off on their own, but overlapping with other areas. Try thinking of a seven-circle venn diagram.
Southeast Asian culture is different from western culture in many ways. What I like most about it are its greater focus on community, its great respect for women, and its idea that power is measured in equal proportion to the amount of restraint the hero has.
In many ways, such a culture would have little problems with Women's Rights Movements and Feminism because women are already respected individuals; they would grow up being respected and thus respecting themselves. Such a culture would also have little problems with space and resources because sharing is naturally more economically efficient, environmentally friendlier, socially progressive, and physically healthier.
Recently, there has been a growing statistic that more and more people are chosing to live alone rather than with a roommate. This uses up more space, more resources, and it costs more. In addition, it creates individuals who do not know how to get along with other people and form healthy, lasting relationships, and more than likely, their diet would be boring and unhealthy. There will not be much diversity because that would cost too much, and it would spoil too quickly for one person to eat. So, for example, instead of buying apples, oranges, and bananas, one person may only buy an apple. Then, a person living alone would be more inclined to buy chemically processed and individually packaged foods simply because they're cheaper and would last longer. Unfortunately, these foods are unhealthy, its refuse are more damaging to the environment, and they waste more resources.
Now don't confuse this article as a call to arms for Southeast Asian "Nazis" (if such people exist: Southeast Asians don't have enough aggression in their blood to actually create "Nazis", considering that their idea of a hero is dignified, restrained, and delicate). Think of it more as a suggestion, to perhaps, learn from another culture, and fuse some of it with western culture, our culture, particularly the parts that better fit. A simple analogy of the importance of this task can be found in genetics, where it is scientifically proven that a more diversified gene pool is longer lasting, superior, and less susceptible to genetic diseases. So, let us diversify our culture to make it longer lasting, superior, and less susceptible to its own vices.~
The process will naturally be slow...especially considering the irony that America is one of the most diverse nations in the world, yet it does little to do anything useful with this resource. Instead, there is much racism and discrimination, although the overall condition is better than it was in the days of slavery. There is also much ignorance and little acceptance of those who are considered "unAmerican" in their thoughts and ways. It's a pity for this great nation, but hopefully, things will change.
How about I shove this colored pencil up your ass and call it art?
I lost 65 lbs in three months and I still hate myself.
"Rather than patronizing women with floral prints and teddy bears, she proposes dignified settings that reflect women today."
Architecture is to reflect the modern characteristics of life in every aspect, but in a dignified way. This is especially true concerning design in medical institutions and clinics: architecture can transform them into something more respectful and sophisticated. In the article, this is exactly what architect Anne Fougeron does with her work on healthcare environments in relationship with modern perceptions of women.
So, it is amusing to note that floral prints and teddy bears patronize today's women, implying and even mocking their helplessness and meekness. Thus further implies that women today are a bit more independent, self-reliant, and not at all meek. Such characteristics are expressed in today's fashions.
Nevertheless, it makes no sense to relate woman's helplessness and meekness with teddybears and floral prints because it is the attitudes to those particulars that create the relation, not the objects themselves. Then again, there is nothing wrong with helplessness or meekness. It only invites cruder people of society to take advantage of the person. But, if that person has even an ounce of self-respect and prudency, she will not stand for that kind of treatment, and the invitation becomes void.