The Fold
Is that folding or is
that doubling?
Is it simply the
production of subjectivity?
Is it the appearance
and essence? Or is it based on existentialism philosophy which points out that
existence precedes the essence and is thus a principal since something has to
exist first and then have an essence?
Is the inside nothing
more than a fold of outside?
Is it the fold of our
material selves, our bodies to the fold of time or simply memory?
Is it one’s individuality
which is a question of a kind of Nietzscheian Mastery over the swarm of one’s
being?
To have is to fold
which is outside in, the fold of our soul, the incorporeal aspect of our
subjectivity.
In the book Foucault,
Gilles Deleuze points out that the fold is the operation proper to man, then
the super fold is the synonymous with the superman – understood as that which ‘free
life’ from within man.
Originality,
Singularity, Identity
The man is in charge of
animals (capturing the code), the rock (the realm of inorganic), and the very
being of language (the realm of affect ‘below’ signification). For Deleuze the
man is involved as an unlimited finite. ‘It is a fold in which a finite number
of components produce an infinite number of combinations’ (Deleuze, Bergsonism).
This is the difference and
repetition of Deleuze - or what we might term his fractal ontology.
The super fold still involves in a relation with an outside.
Then the result of three future fold would be:
1. The fold of molecular biology (the
discovery of generic code)
2. The fold of silicon with carbon (the
emergence of third generation machines, cybernetics and information technology)
3. Strange language within the language.
The Code
The key term in modern
philosophy can be identified as rhizome. It tests the intelligent capacity for
finding beginnings.
A rhizome is a
labyrinth. It is a structure of passages. It is marked by some properties that distinguish
it from the occidental history of labyrinth. First, it has neither beginning nor
end; it is also without an Ariadne thread. It is a labyrinth without center or periphery.
The third character that defines the rhizome is a structure of passages. The
metric order of which is so confused that it is unclear. Which element or place
of the labyrinth will take it to the next is not clear. It is a system of
shortcuts and detours, but not of straight and direct paths.
These three elements
(no beginning or end, no Ariadne thread, center or periphery and finally a
system of passages that consists only of shortcuts and detours) characterize a
rhizome that is why it is the place of unforeseen encounter.
The modern problem can
be in a system of contingencies which are random events. The events are neither
necessary nor impossible that take place on the basis of diminished causality.
A contingent event occurs, but it is not clear to me to explain.
The injection of Deleuze is perfectly fine if it is an interest of yours and certainly has had a great deal of influence over many notable, contemporary architectural discussions. The problems with what you propose here are: A) you will need to succinctly clarify your position relative to contemporary architecture, B) you must better articulate the nature of the rhizome through YOUR architecture lens rather than a generic Deleuzian model, C) your final paragraph begins to allude to some real architectural intentions (though they still remain unclear upon multiple readings) so it is highly advised that you begin designing something that makes it clear to everyone what you wish to do (and we may offer insights on editing your ideas).
ReplyDelete