Baila
10mo ago
@sansampersamp is an architect. Let's see what he has to say about 'where architecture has gone' since Eisenman.
Philosophical perspectives in architecture have also largely moved on from Eisenman's deconstructive minimalism in the (an) opposite direction somewhat towards Heidegger's object-relational ontology/phenomenology via Harman. See Mark Foster Gage's Killing Simplicity.
Okay. What does Gage say?
It is understandable that Harman would enlist Lovecraft....Lovecraft also frequently enlists architecture and geometry....In "At the Mountains of Madness," Lovecraft writes of a city with "no architecture known to man or to human imagination, with vast aggregations of night-black masonry embodying monstrous perversions of geometrical laws." In "The Call of Cthulhu" he writes of a character who was "swallowed up by an angle of masonry which shouldn't have been there; an angle which was acute, but behaved as if it were obtuse."
...To try to design such a Cyclopean city...would be a lost cause, but to imagine architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reeality is an appealing opportunity....Harman writes, "illusion and innuendo are the best we can do."
There might be some youngsters or non-english speakers in the audience. Let's double check the essence of Lovecraft:
Lovecraftian horror, also called cosmic horror or eldritch horror, is a subgenre of horror fiction and weird fiction that emphasizes the horror of the unknowable and incomprehensible more than gore or other elements of shock. It is named after American author H. P. Lovecraft (1890–1937). His work emphasizes themes of cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries...
So architecture has moved on from Eisenman to getting as close to emparting "cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries" as they can.
No, no. They're not evil. They're just trying to create buildings that replicate the effect of an alien presence so profoundly dangerous that merely conceptualizing a infinitesimal part of it drives you to madness.
Baila
10mo ago
Eisenman is saying that comfort and harmony do not constitute the totality of either aesthetic preference or human experience, and just like someone might listen to metal or prefer picasso to kinkade, buildings may accommodate and respond to a broader spectrum of experience.
'Another way of knowing' is the primary rhetorical tool used in socialist and gnostic argument. Socialists have the nous and non-socialists do not. Their knowledge has gone through more dialectical aufheben. Its not that the views of others are wrong. Its just that there is another way of knowing. The thing you like is just one part of a spectrum of experience. Where as the socialists can view the whole spectrum. You like Motzart. He likes Metallica. But what if music had more? What if there was an entire other way of viewing and experiencing music? What if music challenged you? What if it made you uncomfortable with the injustices of the world? A view of music that is limited to the order of the notes is such a limited view. And really its harmful, because it excludes the people who view music as a way to do justice.
No thanks, and no thanks.
The new soviet man doesn't actually exist. Buildings meticulously designed to be discordant and harmful don't actually fill a portion of the populous with warmth. Eisenman doesn't feel comfort in his own buildings. He feels discomfort because he is good at what he does. Discomfort is the point. Take him at his word.
I think Marty Robbins has this one handled:
Baila
10mo ago
I appreciate your comment a great deal. I considered this angle as well. Eisenman speaks to it in the talk. He does not say that he seeks a harmony which happens to be diametrically opposed to Alexander's view of harmony. Eisenman makes clear that he specifically seeks disharmony. The buildings he designs are not beautiful and useful, but only to socialists. They are equally horrible and dysfunctional and painful to socialists as well.
I think this is the reason that Shafarevich concludes socialism is ultimately a sort of complex behavior of suicide. The goals they seek are ultimately terminal to themselves. Indeed, remaking man (in the literal physical, biological sense) such that he can only survive under socialist conditions has been a frequent goal of socialist groups. See 'new socialist man' or 'new soviet man.'
That said, I am out of my evolutionary-biological depth at this point. I suppose you could posit a selection mechanism that is selecting only for a group to pass on its genes, and those genes happen to be ones that derive pleasure from anti-harmony. But, I don't think group selection of this type is necessarily proven out; I think it is individual selection all the way down, with group selection as more of a second order phenomenon. I think, But like I said, I'm out of my depth here.
Baila
10mo ago
I think your comment is a bit dismissive of my point (or at least the point I attempted to make). Merely 'ugly' buildings are not at issue here. This communist architecture is not attempting to make buildings which are merely ugly, or buildings which meet a particular aesthetic that all non-communists agree is ugly.
Rather, they are making weapons. Every aspect of the design is specifically selected to cause disharmony and discomfort along all conceivable dimensions. Real factories are designed to maximize output (and ideally safety). Every single aspect of the factory is designed and tested to achieve that goal. The worker has 10 square feet of space, because he needs 10 square feet of space to do his job effectively and safely. Any more or any less and his output decreases or accidents increase. The lighting is such that he can do his job, but its not so much that it damages his eyes or gives him such a headache that he cant work. At least that is the goal.
If Eisenman or other such socialists designed this factory, every single choice would be made based on what caused the greatest degree of disharmony and psychic pain. If they had the data to determine the geometry most likely to create discontent among the workers sufficient to spark a riot or a labor strike, or cause the workers to divorce their wives or leave their churches or abandon their nations, they would build it. As Eisenman said, it is a moral imperative for them to maximize those effects.
Its not 'ugly buildings are bad.' Its 'these people are putting immense resources into harming you and everyone you know and everything you love.'
Baila
10mo ago
I agree about the actual debate at the time in which it happened. I mean to use the debate to raise the larger point that the debate is typical of socialists and socialist communication. And then ask the question of why do people not respond to clearly professed evil.
edit: I also agree that many were aligned.
On Communist Supervillains, Cognitive Dissonance, and IQ.
1 . Communist Supervillains.
Somewhere on the motte I found a link to a 1983 Harvard debate between architects Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. The debate was shocking not only for its content, but for its clarity and its age. It made me do some thinking about communism, cognitive dissonance and IQ. Hence this post.
Alexander and Eisenman are/were eminent architects and professors of architecture. In the debate, Alexander explains his philosophy of architecture. Alexander focuses on harmony. He explains how important it is for the building to accomplish its purpose, for the persons who use the building to literally feel comfortable in whatever that purpose might be. Alexander also explains his process (iteration and full-scale mock up) of achieving that harmony. If the purpose of a square is to provide students a place to relax and feel free from distraction, the square must actually create that mental state. There must be harmony between these things.
Eisenman is a deconstructivist (socialist). Eisenman views the creation of disharmony as a moral imperative. Eisenman explains that architecture is meant to make people psychologically (and sometimes physically) uncomfortable. Buildings must literally impose psychic harm and pain on the people who view and use the building, or it has failed its purpose. An architect has a moral imperative to create such pain among the populous.
This is real supervillain shit. Eisenman is an influential architect, part of a whole school of architecture, who spends his time, and his students time, and untold sums of money, refining their skill at creating buildings that are mathematically ugly, disharmonious, and cause psychological pain to those who view and occupy them. And he explains all of this in absolutely clear and calm language.
Now, for students of socialism, Eisenman's outlook is not noteworthy. Socialists of all stripes are notorious for compulsively committing their thoughts and plans to paper or speeches. However, for me, the Alexander v Eisenman debate highlights the absence of public backlash. At least, not enough to prevent them from making such buildings.
You would think that if an architect responded to a city's call for plans for a new middle school building and said 'my plan is to create this building, which I believe will maximize the amount of discomfort and pain felt by anyone who gazes upon or enters it,' that his plan would be immediately rejected and that he would probably suffer some sort of social consequences. Apparently, that is not the case. Apparently, you can successfully make that pitch without much trouble.
How is that possible?
2 . IQ
My first hypothesis is that a sufficient number of persons are literally incapable of comprehending these words and ideas, even when spoken plainly and directly. However, I am not familiar enough with the IQ literature to validate this hypothesis.
I am familiar with the basics of literacy levels. As you can see, the levels come with clear examples, and explain what a person at a given level can or cannot understand. If Eisenman's statements were written, then we could plug them into the levels, and determine who would understand.
However, I am interested in who could understand Eisenman's plain statements regardless of medium (written, spoken, etc.). What IQ would be necessary to understand the statement 'I am an architect. I build buildings that harm your mind.'? Does anyone have a source which equates IQ scores with conceptual understanding in a manner similar to the literacy levels?
3. Cognitive Dissonance
My second hypothesis is that sufficiently many people do understand what's going on when they encounter socialists like Eisenman extolling their plans to do evil, but that a majority of those people with an IQ sufficient to understand in theory, are in fact blinded by cognitive dissonance. That is to say, most people's minds will not let them take seriously the idea that whole departments of people believe that turning buildings into psychic weapons is a moral imperative. Even when the evil doers state their intentions plainly and have a decades (millennia) long history of success.
Edit: Adding a comment I made downthread. I rest my case.
@sansampersamp is an architect. Let's see what he has to say about 'where architecture has gone' since Eisenman.
Philosophical perspectives in architecture have also largely moved on from Eisenman's deconstructive minimalism in the (an) opposite direction somewhat towards Heidegger's object-relational ontology/phenomenology via Harman. See Mark Foster Gage's Killing Simplicity.
Okay. What does Gage say?
It is understandable that Harman would enlist Lovecraft....Lovecraft also frequently enlists architecture and geometry....In "At the Mountains of Madness," Lovecraft writes of a city with "no architecture known to man or to human imagination, with vast aggregations of night-black masonry embodying monstrous perversions of geometrical laws." In "The Call of Cthulhu" he writes of a character who was "swallowed up by an angle of masonry which shouldn't have been there; an angle which was acute, but behaved as if it were obtuse."
...To try to design such a Cyclopean city...would be a lost cause, but to imagine architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reeality is an appealing opportunity....Harman writes, "illusion and innuendo are the best we can do."
There might be some youngsters or non-english speakers in the audience. Let's double check the essence of Lovecraft:
Lovecraftian horror, also called cosmic horror or eldritch horror, is a subgenre of horror fiction and weird fiction that emphasizes the horror of the unknowable and incomprehensible more than gore or other elements of shock. It is named after American author H. P. Lovecraft (1890–1937). His work emphasizes themes of cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries...
So architecture has moved on from Eisenman to getting as close to emparting "cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries" as they can.
No, no. They're not evil. They're just trying to create buildings that replicate the effect of an alien presence so profoundly dangerous that merely conceptualizing a infinitesimal part of it drives you to madness.
Baila
10mo ago
Mediterranean may have been a better word.
In any event, I think the socialist religion pre-dates Judaism. I refer to the religious socialists as the Identicals; as the core purpose of their faith is to make everything (thought, matter, etc.) identical, not just with eachother, but with god. The Identicals can be traced before 500BCE, with clearly developed religious and philosophical currents in the OG "mysteries," Thales of Miletus, and also in the century or two after, in Pythagoreanism, general mysticism/syncretism/esotericism in the eastern half of the Med, Gnosticism, early Hermetic writings, etc.
Judaism on the other hand, is just a bit later, but not by much. Somewhere after 500BCE, Yahwism becomes monotheistic and then becomes Second Temple Judaism. However, certain currents of Judaism I think are rather indistinguishable from the Identicals. The more I understand the history of Kabbalah, the less distinction I see between it and any of the other esotericism and gnosticism of the same time and place.
Taking a bit of a tangent, I would like to ask your input on the most effective name for this religion. Socialism? the Identicals? Gnostic Praxis? Political Gnosticism? 'Oh my god, those Egyptian Hermeticists really were up to something!'?
Baila
10mo ago
(this comment is equally relevant to @hydroacetylene and @ChickenOverlord)
There is a surprising amount of literature out there showing the direct, continuous relationship between the modern socialist religion and the ancient one. You can see a previous comment of mine for a partial summary of The Socialist Phenomenon, which discusses the continuity of practice and belief through ancient and medieval groups. There are plenty of more modern, academically rigorous sources (e.g, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition by Magee; Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern times by van den Broek and Hanegraaff; etc.)
I wish I could make people read that fucking book (or any of those books). Even just the people here. If I could send mottizens copies without anyone breaking opsec, I would do so free of charge.
I'm not a theist but our society is clearly locked in a religious, spiritual conflict with the latest flavor of that most despicable and ancient of Mesopotamian religions. This conflict has material harms, but they cant be addressed until people recognize it for what it is. I wish there were a way to communicate this fact to the average person but I don't think anyone has cracked the code yet.
Baila
10mo ago
Why is this so difficult for some people to accept?
Socialists argue strenuously on this point primarily for one of three reasons:
A. Cognitive dissonance. One of the central tenets of the socialist religion is the claim that they and only they, by definition, have the nous. Similarly, all others, by definition, lack the nous. Therefore, a socialist literally cannot process a situation where a non-socialist presents facts about socialism because a non-socialist cannot, by definition, have that knowledge. Hence we recently saw:
I'm a Marxist. If [Cultural Marxism] were real I would have heard of it. The first time I heard of it was from ultra-right wing extremely online types. And they continue to be the only ones that talk about it. This leads to at least one of two conclusions
I am in on the conspiracy. And I am lying to you.
Somehow, you and a bunch of other online fascist adjacent types understand Marxism better than me.
In the years I have argued Marx and Socialist stuff I have pretty much never encountered an anti-Marxist that really knew much of anything about Marxism. It really is kind of astounding how ignorant anti-Marxists are about the ideology they profess to hate, actually.
B. Purity spiral. As a rule, there can only be one true socialism, and true socialists are duty-bound to eliminate all pretenders, or else their project will never be completed. Thus, some reactions against the idea are just socialists doing their usual infighting.
C. PR. Since ancient times, literally in the original 'mysteries', socialists have sought absolute message control about themselves and seek to eliminate disfavorable facts. Some socialists view a connection between modern, cultural Marxism and doctrinaire, Marx-and-Engels Marxism as a potential vulnerability, and so attack the association wherever it appears.
"Quite lovely."
More options
Context Copy link