Theory2

Meaning & Function

The ambiguity of architecture's role in contemporary society is partly due to the sincerity of its social responsibility. Architecture functions as a mirror of society. It reflects, as well as projects, the conditions, hopes and goals of the people. If there exists a misdirection of meaning in architecture, its probably a consequence of the human condition obsessed with assigning every aspect of the world an instrumental value. Trying to find meaning within a closed system leads to a hermetic knowledge, thus deriving truth only from what the structure can prove. As rational structures and systems become ingrained in our collective conscience, the need for a deeper, transcendental meaning arises.

Meaning in architecture is tied to the human body and mind. Through the senses, the external world becomes known to the observer. Through the mind, the known is given an order­­ a framework that all aspects of nature, or phenomena, can fit into. Sensations promotes an interpretation of experience through the senses which in turn creates propositions.​ 1​ From this, a confluence of relationships arises. Meaning is derived by how these

phenomena relate and are cultivated in regards to their own potential.​ 2 Phenomena that are assigned a standardized set of rational parameters from which they can be known evolve into structures and systems.

In attempting to comprehend the world of the unknown, there must be structure and order. Without theories of how propositions work, nature is just chaos. A structure strives to evaluate, explain and organize every experience possible by providing beliefs, judgements, morals, ethics, values etc.​ 3 Structure guides methodologies and ideologies. Establishing a universal framework through the abstraction of propositions legitimizes phenomena and thus dictates how it should be known. This have emerged as the dominant mode of knowledge in our contemporary society. These systems have the potential to remove every element of mystery or unexpected possibility in nature. As the course of history has also proven, these are the realms where poetry, art and imagination are to be found. But even these realms are not immune to systematization. Even the natural world requires some foundation for comprehension.

Rational systems achieved a particular level of authority through the use of mathematics and logic. These functions evolved into systems, such as physics and geometry, that turned every aspect of nature into a language with the ability to predict trajectories, distances and probabilities with extreme precision. This provides a sense of security in a chaotic world, since everything becomes knowableand familiar. Beyond this system, the transcendental engages what rationalism cannot­­ the innate and eternal ontological dimension of human existence. Retaining the capacity to ask this question is important if there is to be any further existential investigations.

Deriving Meaning

The human body is a mediator of sensations, experiences and propositions.

Somehow, these experiences must be extrapolated into some form of meaning. But meaning, to be meaningful, must be relevant. To establish relevancy, things must be compared and contrasted through some point of view.​ 4​ In a rational system, there is a distinction between the subject (the knower) and the object (the known). The ability to comprehend and

communicate sensations through the human body constitutes the subjective position.​ 5​ The objective position concerns the interpretation of the

phenomena. The nature of phenomena (its extrapolation of the natural world) and the causal structure of reality (rationalism) produce a psychological model of rules that govern sensory experiences and their meaning. Rational systems adequately document the real characters of a proposition but their power diminishes when describing their phenomenal character.

Knowing

How do we come to know things? This simple statement contains two conditions that have stumped anyone who has speculated about the nature of the human condition­­ the essence of knowing and the essence of the thing. The rational model takes this statement and seeks to assign attributes and values. To know is to infer defining features to an entity or a thing that exists in the field of human perception. A thing is an entity that is identifiable and separate from other substances.​ 6​ This knowing about things

accumulates into knowledge, which refers to the qualities and properties of a proposition and how they manifest in human cognition. Knowledge has generally begun and ended with experience.

The tenets of epistemology react to the function of experience in two ways: a) the acquired, or learned, knowledge b) the experiential aspect of sense.

Acquired knowledge seeks to somehow extrapolate experience into a communicable form, something that is universally understood and/or accepted. In the realm of psychology, this would be defined as signs and symbols. Signs and symbols exist as abstractions of an actual experience and/or proposition.​ 7​ They seek to have relevancy to someone or a group of conditioned participants about a particular thing. Thus, the intent of any sign/symbol is to reduce sensations to tangible expressions so the experience and proposition can be communitcated to a broader audience rather than remain an isolated experience of the individual. But everyone must speak the same language to communicate intention. For instance, the term "rabbit", referring to a four­legged animal with soft fur and a big ears, would not be potent if one participant assumed that the semantic referred to an expression of fear made when one feels threatened. Thus, meaning must possess context and a shared frame of reference.

Both rational and existential models share this trait. In the human mind, the generation of a symbol­library and a symbol­vocabulary is a uniquelyhuman activity. Our need for expression is also our innate need for definition and hence security about the unknown for the knowable is no longer threatening.

What this does is remove unexpected possibilities in the natural world because standardized knowledge does not encourage personal interpretation. The use of signs and symbols imbued with cultural significance in architecture establishes and standardizes a prescriptive architectural language. Value­ladened symbols sought to evoke the familiar but instead reduced architectural creation to game of arranging typological forms.

Structure / Form

There are organized structures in existence, such as psychology, physics, and geometry, that exist as acquired knowledge and have no direct sense­derivations. They attempt to interpret sense­data and formulate structures and laws that govern how we can know such experiences. They shape how we think and see things in the mind and project them into the world. They frame the types of questions we are capable of asking about a proposition and the capacity with which to know it. The invention of simple

functions, such as counting apples, meant using a system that did not question the phenomenal dimension of the object, just its “real” qualities. The essence of what was being accounted for becomes irrelevant since the function only requires an object with a value. Once the function is in place, it no longer requires the initial proposition or experience to operate.

Autonomous structures can now project all the possibilities of a proposition without directly referring to it. We no longer need the actual apple present to discuss its characteristics. This can lead to meaning that is groundless. How can it convey experience when the methodology does not even require the entity as it is?​ 8​ Without the actual thing or experience, the structure depends on its own function for meaning and becomes a further abstraction from a

natural model. All that exists is structure and function­­ form without meaning.

It is like a speeding car that has lost control, its trajectory results from its own inertia. Where the driver, steering wheel, etc is no longer required for orientation. This is a distinct difference between rational meaning and existential meaning. Rationality requires the system itself as a source of meaning whereas the existential uses the system as a method of extrapolating some aspect of the natural world.

Consequences of Function

Our current definition of the world revolves around a human existence that searches for relevancy by defining their surroundings. The use of structures is one method from which this can be accomplished. It seeks to relay information that one individual has experienced to another individual and to one's self. Our only communicative conception of the world rests in our perceptual and conceptual faculties, which is transformed into a system of interpretation and standardization­­ our current version of how the world works. But what reason do we have to think that this holds truth, that it corresponds to the world as the world is in itself?

Descriptive systems cannot adequately express the experiential. All words are metaphors in relation to experiences because words can only refer to something in a collective conscience, providing only an allusion. Yet we try to express things that defies description. This is an inherent paradox because no two individuals could ever have the same experiential interpretation of a

word or an event. Each and every individual possesses a pedigree of experience that define the essence of their being. Despite this, we somehow manage to function within a shared system of communication, morals, ethics, knowledge etc. We require a system to adequately express our experiences but have we become conditioned to think and express feelings through a set of rigid parameters at the expense of experiences? To regain some aspects of the existential, we must suspend the structure and functionality of the rational system. With it properly contained, we might see the world anew again.

Structure seems unable to convey something that exists outside of its scope.

It is an invented and biased methodology of communication since it cannot express anything other than what its designed for­­ expressing a hermetic and closed world. Is everything that exists outside of its scope immaterial or reduced to a mere shadow of what it once was?​ 9​ The preference of using superficial systems to define undefinable circumstances contradicts the

experience since it is no longer sensation but prescriptions. Why should we use supplementary systems to express or comprehend any phenomena that can be known in a more direct way? These systems have become so ingrained that we know of no other way to see the world.

Orientation

In architecture, the role of modern thought promoted ideals that were esoteric, revealing meaning only through their hermetic knowledge. The human equation was reduced to the position of pure spectator by the logics of the rational system, for it seeks to categorize every aspect of nature and reduce it to a standardized form. If this rational model follows its own logic, then every aspect of the natural world will eventually be assigned some type of value and become knowable, understandable and predictable. Thus the mystery and mystique of the natural world will wane as the discursive system takes hold. An architectural position that follows in these footsteps will suffer the same fate. The limitations of the rational system are evident when compared to an existential view point that allows individuals to create meaning according to his or her own values.

Ultimately, the rational systems exist externally to the human condition and can only offer a superficial allusion to any experience or proposition.

Individual experience of a proposition should supercede standardized knowledge because it relies on the memory, the imagination and the unconscious capacity of the individual to generate meaning.​ 10 ​ Instead of a reliance upon discursive methodologies, a reliance on an individual interpretation of experience can reveal sensations in a much more direct manner. It is important to recognize that underneath any discursive methodology or system lies the potential for a complete abstraction of reality, particularly systems that do not require the actual thing for definition while others do. As a society, we must recognize that every individual has the choice as to which system generates their beliefs, values, language and experience.

Architecture must be sincere to society. It will forever be tied to society’s orientation. Even today, architecture still have the characteristics of space and scale that distinguishes it from other art forms. But in an era where credibility is only given to work that can be justified, tested & proven, many of these characteristics have disappeared behind a veil of functionalism and symbolic represenatation. If architecture mirrors the course that contemporary society is oriented towards (rationalism), then the human body and mind will continue to be nothing more than instrumental values. This will negate the human experience in favor of a perception of what the human experience should be rather than what it actually is. To recover a sense of familiarity in architecture, we must first recover some aspects of ourselves.

Bibliography

1. Susanne Langer, Philosophy in the New Key p. 54 2. Ibid. p. 63 3. Ibid p. 18 4. Ibid p. 44 5. Ibid p. 70 6. Mitchell, Types and Vocabularies p. 87 7. Susanne Langer, Philosophy in the New Key p. 48 8. Ibid p. 74 9. Ibid p.74 10. Ibid p. 58