Website, film :

More recent version : 20090315open_architecture.pdf

Now under construction :

Collectively editable document (optimized for firefox/chrome):

Original URL :

Contribute, request editing permission to admin:

Cesar Harada:

Versions download : v.2008.10.03 (rtf 136kb, pdf 308kb )

Project managed by Cesar Harada, Design Interactions, Royal College of Art, London, 2008.

Under the supervision of Prof. Naomi House, prof. Anthony Dunne.

More recent version under the supervision of Sarah Teasley.

Contributors & syntax

000 <Cesar> : based in London - Cesar Harada : Design Interactions student (2007-2009), 

001 <Natalie> : 2008/06/30 - Madrid : Prof. Natalie Jeremijenko, Biotechnologist, Artist, USS 

002 <Angel> : 2008/06/30 - Madrid : Prof. Angel Borrego Cubero, Architect, USS 

003 <Nikloos> : 2008/07/12 - London : Nikloos Dplg. from Exyzt, Architect

004 <Kondo> : 2008/08/25 - Paris 11: His Exellency Embassador Kondo, UNESCO

005 <Julien> : 2008/08/27 - Paris 12: Julien Dreano - Agorabox, Hacker, kernel programmer 

006 <Salim> : 2008/08/27 - Paris 12 : Salim Ferane - Agorabox, design & communication

007 <Maxime> : 2008/08/28 - Paris 13 : Maxime Grison Dplg. - Participative Architect 

008 <Tony> : 2008/09/08 - London E2 : Tony - Homeless in Shoreditch, ex-electrician, from Manchester

009 <Eszter> : 2008/09/10 - London SW7 : Eszter Steierhoffer , RCA student - Urbanist, curator  

010 <Jesse> : 2008/09/10 - London, Wherever: Jesse Darlin' - Libertarian, artist

011 <Naomi> : 2008/09/12 - London SW7 : Prof. Naomi House - Interior architect, litterature expert 

012 <Ilona> : 2008/09/12 - London E2 : Ilona Gaynor - Data architect, interactive designer at imagination

013 <Sachin> : 2008/09/13 - London : Sachin Anshuman - Articulated membrane, media surfaces 

014 <Welch> : 2008/09/15 - London SE1 : Prof Chris Welch - Lecturer in Astronautics Astronautics 

015 <Andrew> : 2008/09/16 - London SW7 : Reverend Andrew Wilson - Christian Reverend at RCA

016 <Raoul> : 2008/09/16 - London E1 : Raoul Kane - Actor, improvisator 

017 <Usman> : 2008/09/17 - London N4 : Usman Haque Dplg- Architect, designer 

018 <Bedini> : 2008/09/19 - Firenze (Italy) : Prof Danielle Bedini - Interior Architect for space Station 

019 <Simone> : 2008/09/19 - Zurich (Switzerland) : Simone Truong - Choreographer 

020 <Karin> : 2008/09/22 - Seoul (South Korea) : Karin Pauer - Choreographer 

021 <Nina> : 2008/09/21 - London E2 : Nina Beier - Sculptor, situationist 

022 <Ev> : 2008/09/21 - London W1C : Prof Ev Yemini - Brain science, swarm computing, AI . 

023 <Zeltner> : 2008/09/22 - London E2 : Michael Zeltner, Programmer, artist 

024 <Saba> : 2008/09/22 - Cambridge CB2 : Prof Saba Abdul Hussein - Molecular biology, DNA 

025 <Teodora> : 2008/09/23 - London WC1E : Prof Teodora Gliga, Neurocognition 

026 <Aissa> : 2008/09/25 - Paris 11 : Aissa Logerot, Product designer

027 <Sarah> : 2009/0216 - London SW7 : Sarah Teasley, Critical History Studies at RCA

<!-- meet a search engine engineer / webcrawler programmer -->

<!-- meet a swarm computing scientist -->

If you contribute, just add your number, name (or pseudo), place, and a few words (only number, <pseudo> and date are mandatory, the rest is optional - privacy).

When you edit, please always add the mark-up "<yourname> your say </yourname>" so we keep the document a little tidy and "academically" usable.

Tasks list

<!-- add images to the document, priority to philosophy images, peoples faces... -->

<!-- clean the document structure, create links - and erase them from the link list when linked from within the text body -, anchors - internal links - , tables -->

<!-- classify the links -->

<!-- add Chris Welch -->

<!-- add Sachin Anshuman -->

<!-- add Ev Yemini -->

<!-- add Saba Saba Abdul Hussein -->

<!-- add Simone Truong end of interview -->

<!-- edit open architecture video as many chapter on youtube, vimeo, dailymotion -->

<!-- edit exzist video as an independent project -->

<!-- edit toxic reef video as an independent project -->

At the conclusion I understood that I had it all wrong : I tried to define Open architecture by its context, it does not work because open architecture is not localisable in the context, it is our context, they are too many overlapping of parameters and leads to repetition. Instead of trying to map open architecture, it might be more productive to organise the notion on axis of development :

the form variable - what form is open?

the time variable - how does open architecture evolve in time?

the social and psychological variable - what is it, who makes it exist?

Another possible way to do this would be to layout main questions and child questions structure. Intermediary conclusions would be good too, otherwise just a global conclusion would remain too abstract and non-rooted.

Lastly the conclusion should be in these terms : open architecture cannot be a set of constraints, but to the contrary the making of singular facts in the real world that challenges and open the current notion of architecture, science or art. We can propose strategies for an open architecture for future developments.


<Cesar>What is "open architecture" ?

The term "open architecture" has been used in several fields : computer hardware and programming, social sciences, philosophy, biology, engineering, architecture, urbanism, ecology, economy, advertising etc but its meaning remains very unclear while being an apparent subject of growing interest and controversy. 

What does it mean? What promises are these terms holding? Is it possible? How to get there? What are the potential risks and benefits? What does it implies? Who needs "open architecture"? Who is licenced to use it?

No cross-disciplinary study yet exists today, and before the term is overly misused or exploited as a commercial labelling by advertisement and sophists, it is useful to attempt even an incomplete description. This publication is discussional, such a subject doesn't even belong to the authors, it is a social construction in progress, you are warmly invited to contribute to it. The subject is so complex, sensible and alive I realy needed first hand oral informations from specialists and non-specialists.

This research is being published simultaneously under several formats : printed text on paper in an file, text file .rtf standard format, full video documentation, all released simultaneously in the public domain and accessible, editable on . 

Most of the things you will read here are material extracted from the interviews, and is much more exciting to look at as a documentary, so instead of reading I'd rather advise you to go on the website and see the film (also more up to date):

<Kondo> Sculpture, Architecture, movies, music etc, the world of art, politics, economy, philosophy, physics ... Like in the bible, everything means ...</Kondo><Cesar> One ?</Cesar><Kondo>Yes, that's why you need to have a holistic view. So I talked about reductionnist approach, it has been successfull and usefull but now we have to learn how to re-assemble the different parts discovered by a reductionnist approach otherwise we will loose sight of the whole, the whole being superior to the sum of its components.</Kondo>


<Cesar>In order to know where I was going, I started by editing a subjective map of the researches that claimed architecture openness or that I thought were offering such properties. At the center is the "known", the utterly obvious. On the left is the "abstract", on the right the "tangible". At the top is "simplicity", at the bottom "complexity". The ensemble is the evolving domain of knowledge, the thin discontinuous line is the edge of knowledge. So or exemple : "religion" should be in the top left hand corner - trying to solute the meaning of the universe in simple universal rules - whereas "philosophy" is also at the extreme left but at the bottom because it is infinitely complex. In the top right hand corner there is "physics" - trying to resove the mecanic of the universe by universal mathematical rules -  whereas "Urbanism" is very tangible and complex. Many other relevant "attractors" (subject matters/disciplines) such as "Ethic, Law, Politic, Economy, Social, Dance, Sculpture, Physic, Biology, Computing, Design, Architecture, Urbanism"  are placed in this diagram, meanwhile we agree it is arbitrary and personal. The content of this publication is made of bits of dialogs, comments and proposals and is lineary deployed in the diagonal of the map : from the abstract and simple to the tangible and complex, followed by a synthesis. 

The style of the dissertation is a hyperdiscussion with a tight mark-up language : two people are having a conversation, somebody on the opposite side of the world answer via skype, than the discussion comes back, the subjects changes, not the people, than the people are changing not the subject, constantly interrupted, refreshed, streamed, delayed. There is no frustration in this work : the things I did not have the time to fully develop in this essay are marked up as <!-- x --> and will be released in the next version of the publication or gradually added. Many interviews are not transcripted in the paper, my excuses to everyone who gave me there precious time, it will come in the next release, with less bugs and optimized.


contributor & Syntax

Tasks list

Table of content



_Static Contemplation

_Comfort in the Oneness

_Curiosity & Surprise from the obvious

_Religion ≠ Science


_Surprise ≠ creativity

_A jump the void (method), away from targets and wet networks

_People learn what they want to know

_The controlled experience

_An constructional history of Philosophy


_The tipping point, freedom and abandon

_Construction is destruction is construction is destruction


_Transition, transmission

<!-- _ Post carbon collapse solutions, proprietary to open -->


_Too weak to be free

_Be a part of it - or not

_Simply new constraints

_Public enemy, private enemy, common space

_Belong, subvert to serve

_Collaborate with your enemies




_Wake up

_Where openess comes from



_Trust & Fallacy



_Go Neutral

_Preparing uneconomic growth in a day to day perspective


_Naivity and altruism

_Living together

_Free floating individual and assimilation

_Team building, a social ground for open architecture

_Challenging culture conditionning

_Infrasocial framework


_From being a new world to creating a new world

_Inner space | External space

_The emotional texture of space

_Life imperative is mouvement

<!-- Sculpture -->

<!-- Physics -->

<!-- Biology -->

<!-- Computing -->

Design, Architecture, Urbanism

_Form challenge


<!-- Morphogenesis -->

__Conventional classical open architecture

<!--Plan libre (Corbusier) -->

<!-- Mies Van Der Rohe -->

<!--Shigeru Ban, the house without walls -->

__0 gravity

__Hard space soft space

__Non visual architecture

__Practicable, play

__Standard vs Diversity

__Aethetics of openness

__Non planning

_Time challenge

__Instant architecture

__Social durability and transmission

__Survival architecture, slum, nomads, reversible use

__Darwinian co-evolution of people and architecture

__Acceptance of the unfinished

_Psychological challenge

__<!--"Hikikomori architecture" (Bringing the world inside) -->

__When life totally depends on technology

__Dialogue with technology

__Phenomenological architecture 

__Orientation and habitability

__Angel "mottainai architecture"

_Social challenge


__People's expectations

__Anarchitecture, people's workshop

__Step by step reward

__Representation and feedback

__Interactive architecture criticism

__Participative architecture

__Autonomy and maintenance




Religion [absolute faith in compromise]

_Static Contemplation

<Cesar>At first I thought, for an open architecture to happen, they might be some prerequisites, some conditions, a context. We can meditate and think of perfect emptyness. Space of nothing. Prior to the happening of something. Before scale, movement, matter, life, meaning. A state of nothing is where everything is possible. Does this describes Open Architecture? We can try to describe emptyness, but it is nor necessary, nor possible.</Cesar>

<Andrew>The contemplatie prayer is by nature an exploration. Stillness and openness, I think they go together, especially in listening to people, in the sense of, in my work people come and they want to talk about issues, I need to be quite still in myself. And the more I switch off trying to solve what they say, and just be there.</Andrew>

<Cesar>This suggests openness is being there, static and receiving, observing, listening, feeling the universe, the others.<Andrew>Any knowledge, any good self knowledge is a helpfull thing. Any kind of self criticism ... No, I meant self awareness, and a moment of realising things don't have to be like they are, they could be different.<Andrew><Cesar>How does one discovers his own limitations?</Cesar><Andrew>Through experience, realising what one is good at, or not good at, reflecting on mistakes and failures, understanding how things have gone wrong.</Andrew>

_Comfort in the Oneness

<Cesar>One would need to know oneself enough in order to be able to open oneself to the others and to the universe. After understanding one own self, one can try to understand or imagine a certain state of coherence of the universe through the Tawhid, or doctrinal oness of god, oness of the universe. Such a coherent approach of the universe can allow one to evolve with much more confidence, having acquired a comfortable "mental image" of the universe : even if we don't know we are going, we know we are in this thing we know, infinite and indescribable, but we know it is such. In the context of an "absolute open architecture", we are evolving in a non-relative Context, C=Ø, an empty set { }. </Cesar>

<Andrew>The difference can be a good thing because difference is held in the unity of God.</Andrew><Karin>Yes, it is very beautifull, it is like you are all together in something, you know? The thing has a life of its own, and everyone is a part of it.</Karin><Raoul>You need to kind of be free, in some part of your life to let down every barrier, and almost think that what you are doing in this world does not mean anything, that you are connected to a deeper meaning to anyhting that you dont understand, but you can just do it, and you express that through your movement, your sound, whatever acting means really. It is important than to be kind of agnostic about everything, I feel. If don't have a full understnding of things you just go with what you inner god feeling would be.</Raoul> <Cesar>So if one seem to follow his/her own path easier with good faith.</Cesar><Andrew>Faith and learning to trust is a sort of natural human activity. Maybe on eof the pre-requisite is having some experience in faith or trust placed in one. Sometimes you know where you are, and that's maybe because in the tradition has mapped the ground very well, lots of people done this journey, but then there is moments you just have to... They haven't done that journey, so you have to like "Well I just trust this is going to be OK...".</Andrew>

<Naomi>Open your mind, so it becomes like a sponge for something. Perhaps if you are reading something you know it is going to be difficult.</Naomi><Raoul>I think no one really knows and thats the beauty of it right? If you knew that would despell the magic around it.</Raoul>

_Curiosity & Surprise from the obvious

<Andrew>Openness... I think it is partly curiosity, it is an enriching thing to have. Openess seems to be like being a prior committment : If I stay open to as many things as possible, than my life will be enriched by the encounters I have. And openness is always come with the possibility that something surprising my happen, hopefully it is a good surprise. Waaah, thank you! Yeah, curious! It drew attention to something they were familiar with. Over! So familiar, never thought about it.</Andrew><Cesar> So this natural state of hyper receptivity allies being static while having an active listening activity. Openness can just reveal what we always knew, the obvious, what we forgot, at the center. But curiosity allows surprise : </Cesar><Raoul>Something they just don't know, they not wait, they are not expecting. People are not expecting you to do something, you do it and that gives you the edge.<Raoul>. <Cesar>Suddenly being at the center could propel you to the edge of knowlege or even outside...</Cesar>

_Religion ≠ Science

<Cesar>We can argue that Open architecture, in the frame of religion describes a static calm meditation, self understanding that allows prehension of the concept of oneness of the universe. Having simple trust or good faith helps one evolve in this free space, while knowing that this nothingness isn't sterile or necessarily hostile.

A doctrinal and absolute open architecture is conceivable on the religous level of abstraction but is sterile. In the conceptual world, in the void an entirely open ensemble cannot be located : it offers no boundaries, no texture, therefore the existence of architecture is not tolerable in such a state of purity. If the architecture exists in the void, it cannot be inside it but can only be surrounding it, the universe is contained inside this idea, mental construction. 

In the absolute world (of theoretical physic and theology) the void is unpenetrable, a sanctuary : there is no difference between a "closed architecture" and its supposingly opposite "open architecture". We cannot enter in "space 0" and we cannot escape from it.

To move on, we need to give up our faith in science and tolerate the non-mathematical coherence of the religious realm. The open architecture we are looking for is not here, it is not a matter of belief but a matter of fact and common sense, it has to be more practical...

Philosophy [operative optimism]

_Surprise ≠ creativity

<Cesar>Getting to the edge of knowledge and beyond, extending the knowledge order  and architecture is the challenge.</Cesar>

<Teodora>We don't know what creativity is, it is not just breaking the rule, it can't be just  that, because that is not difficult. Of course there will be a variation how rigid we are, some people follow more than others, but most of us can do something different or the opposite of what we have been told, but this is not creativity. I am sure there must be something more to it. Not any novel thing is creative, interesting or artistic, some of it is rubbish. The richness of information either because some very creative things are very simple.</Teodora>

<Cesar>Than how can new knowledge be acquired? How can one associate two ideas? How can one, assemble, build an idea?</Cesar>

<Teodora>This is quite fascinating : there is this bios to classify things from very early on. So if you give a group of things to a 14 month (baby) they start to classify them. Most of the learning is based on the similarity approach, and that's why we use grouping more than opposing things, because you would have to oppose so many things for them to figure out, we don't even have access.</Teodora><Naomi>So yes, you are looking for similarities at first, but hoping that by finding these similarities, you hope that the student is going to find something new in them.</Naomi><Teodora>It is done subconciously.</Teodora>

<Cesar>So the activity of knowing is making groups, loose or tight ensembles { }, and by the same action differentiating them by classification, thus compartimenting, creating solid separations between things.</Cesar>

_A jump the void (method), away from targets and wet networks

<Naomi>No, you dont have a target, but you can only draw from the experience you have already.</Naomi>

<Cesar>In my previous essay "Troubles in Space perception" I advocated a method of knowledge acquisition by jumping in the unknown. There is a territory of knowledge and in order to extend it, you might not build upon what you know, but you will rather jump out of it, as far as possible, to eventually come back to what you know with "little steps" (Teodora) in the unknown. This hypothesis of knowledge acquisition is being verified in the neurosciences, in the pattern of of knowledge propagation in the neural network.</Cesar>

<Teodora>I mean, if we made it from here, there is no reason why cannot make it from here, because this was in the same situation as this in the beginning. But your question was : "will we do this?" and I think that ...</Teodora><Cesar>It is impossible?</Cesar><Teodora>No no, if it was possible here, because this was a singularity : there is a point in time you just had this, and you went on. So if you have this (neuron A), you can have this (neuron B). But the question is : would you want to jump, one you have created some stable (network) here (pointing neuron A) and it probably varies from person to person : some people want to go like that (small synapses drawn as dashes from neuron A to neuron B) small steps and then get here (pointing out neuron B); some people would sample (creating many new neurons C, D, E, F, G) starting from everywhere and then group them together. In infancy you would se more this kind of model, where you start with many points at the same time, this is only the way they can advance because they have to learn so many things.</Teodora><Naomi>That must be a serie of moments, you are going off, a tangent all the time, that might lead you to there and back to there or close to it, and that might lead all somewhere else, and there is a little bit there, and that might lead you over here (far). But you are not doing some random tangents, you are actually thinking "how do I pull that back to what it is that I am trying to say.</Naomi><Teodora>But we do simplify things that's the only way. The ultimate goal is to understand how we make decisions, how we interpret the world, but it is impossible to study the world! You need to start somewhere, this is why I study categorization, because categorization will never happen on its own in the real world.</Teodora><Cesar>The fact is that one will never be able to understand the entire world within his concious brain, but rather to arrange ideas around atractors (I prefer "attractor" to "disciplines" or "area of study" which sounds like they are too closed ensembles) and evolve in increasingly regular dynamic patterns over time.</Cesar>

_People learn what they want to know

<Cesar>Why being interested in knowledge development pattern? Because we might want to reverse the way we build, plan in the real world : applying cognitive strategies to construction and planning. This means not constructing with a method but constructing and acquiring a method out of the construction process, a control system (control theory).</Cesar>

<Cesar>So when you are tutoring a student and you are trying to open his curiosity... How do you do that?</Cesar><Naomi>You ask questions, you try to find out what is somebody interested in, you just talk.</Naomi><Teodora>Learning depends on motivation, you learn what you want to know at a certain point. So when you search for something means that there was a reason, there was a question, why you want to fill a gap in your knowledge : that way the information will be stored better than if you were given some facts in a certain order and you were not interested in all that.</Teodora>

_The controlled experience

<Naomi>Knowledge is information, but the experience bit is kind of key. You reflect on the experience you have in the process of doing something and maybe next time you might be doing something  differently, but sometimes you might not :  I suppose you might not really be aware of the usefullness of the knowledge you have acquired. The white box for me is the perfect environement in which to think. (...)  Well I quite like the opportunity to be distracted, because I suppose this distraction might in some way inform what you were thinking about, ... It is a bit like saying "you can learn in the vacuum", or "you can design in the vacuum" (it is not the case) you need outside influence in order to inform or develop what you are doing. So room with a view gives you the opportunity to be distracted at your own will.</Naomi>

<Cesar>So if people learn what they want to know (might refer to phenomenoligical notion of intentionality) than everything is subject to their will - desire. I want to set this desire in the context of my understanding of philosophical history.</Cesar>

_An constructional history of Philosophy

<Cesar>Western contemporary knowledge is organised, in librairy for instance, in what we call the Universal Decimal Classification UDC based on a mixed belief on science and religions.

0 generalities

1 philosophy, psychology

2 religion, theology

3 social sciences

4 vacant

5 natural sciences

6 technology

7 the arts

8 language, linguistics, literature

9 geography, biography, history

We access knowledge via generalities, than philosophy and religion are supposed to offer a "bigger picture" of the world, than we have social sciences that condition the happening of supposingly "dry sciences", and than it gets very messy with natural sciences so we try to organise this with technology, entertain and criticize with  the art by producing expressive "data", poetry, novel, interpretations of reality, history and eventually wrap all this up in the physical geographic world again. Roughly the western isolationist approach make us journey from the organised abstraction to the messy tangible, an inverted pyramid standing on a very narrow base...

On the other hand the easter or traditional approach is "grounded" : you might access to the mystery and altar of Tawhid via the infinite cues nature offer

The deconstructivist mount of knowledge is scrambled and the pieces of knowledge shattered, all around, flying in chaotic patterns. But this not where we are... I explain this by the evolution of the relation we had with the idea of god, or superior organizational force below.

For the antic greek (Aristotle and Pyrrho), men are at the bottom of knowledge, they generate all they know toward the understanding of god.

God is the central force that organise radially all the universe.

But rationnalism (Descartes) with the metaphysic doubt gave as much responsability to both humans and god at each end of knowledge, a diamond sitting on its spike, very unstable and stimulating.

The empiricists (Bacon, Locke, Hume, Mill) suggested everything arises from experience, therefore man and god got together the uncomfortable equivalent responsability in holding the construction of knowing and organising the universe.

Than phenomenology claimed a state of purity, an irrational human made base of a rational knowledge, god-god started to fade for god-science.

Than the existencialists just said "there no god!", we are totally responsible for everything, Hiroshima.

And deconstructivists said "oh no, we can't do it", they realised we are too weak, and everything collapsed, Chernobyl.

So this is about where we are now : in a new Renacimiento powered by communication technologies, where everything could be back to "human centered design", or we could be more clever and understand we are not the center of any system.

Google proposes to organize the universe of data according to statistic and popularity, an election of knowledge, with man and his desires at the center. Is this how it should be? Now we don't organise, we search and find immediately, with we have entered an age of proactive collaborative architecture of knowledge, also competitive and unfair, an wild open market of knowledge.

 We still have a little of the deconstructivist heritage of chaos floating in the air, but we are crawling, indexing and creating catalog of everything, all automated... Anyone, a better idea?</Cesar>

Ethic [tipping point]

_The tipping point, freedom and abandon

<Teodora>We do nothing that doesn't gived us pleasure, especially in the first part of life, we are always driven by motivation. Even if you do something painfull, it might be because you find pleasure in doing paifull things probably.</Teodora>

<Cesar>We have seen that everything a human does is motivated.  If there is such an appeal on the concept of open architecture, maybe the conditions are here for it to happen...</Cesar><Usman>Talking specifically about western civilisation, for the first time in the few last hundred years we are finally including ecological ressources and energy as variables that are finite. Everything has got to change, the whole economic analysis, economic framework, upon which architecture itself is founded had got to change.</Usman><Kondo>The impact of industrial revolution or western industrialism was enormous and we (Japanese) learnt a lot, we became the second largest economy (Japan), but now it is our turn to share with western people our traditional ideas, that we are a part of nature. The industrialized society cannot go on like this. The Kenyan lady who won the nobel price Wangari Maathai (affectionately known as the "Tree Lady") on environmental issues, she came to Japan and she learnt the Japanese expression "Mottainai" (もったいない, 勿体無い - a sense of regret concerning waste when the intrinsic value of an object or resource is not properly utilized) and she liked it because it is exactly the essence of Japanese philosophy of life : "don't waste anything, because everything has a meaning, everything is important for the whole". If you go back to traditional wisdom, without being able to persuade other people, wisdom becomes a weakness, in the context of a competition.</Kondo><Cesar>How come?</Cesar><Kondo>Yes, it is terrible, but that's the reality.</Kondo><Cesar>So that means that we may have approximately reached the tipping point : our system has may have come to a point of over-efficiency - absurd - and we need, not to go back, but to re-invent it. If we haven't figured out before that our ressources were finite and believed our system was isolated - self sufficient - we have have been heavily mistaking. Can open architecture bring something in the debate? In the action? Does ethic apply enough pressure on our collective conciousness, politics, economy and our productivist model to produce such a change? Are we ready to go toward uneconomic growth, local production, simple living? Are these valid realistic proposals? Most of us are not ready  to sacrify any comfort, so we must invent something even more attractive and market the change not as a cost but as a gain, a long term-commercial tactic. Since many years a world wide political organisation called "Global Environment Organisation" is in project to replace the underpowered UN environmental branch in Nairobi Kenya. I suggest that only a cataclysmic accident, putting Hiroshima-Nagasaki and Chernobyl out of scale will make such organisation desirable : human never seem to forsee, they prefer short term stategy and would eventually repair the damages "Let the cataclysm happen, we'll figure it out".</Cesar>

<!-- _ Post carbon collapse solutions -->

_Construction is destruction is construction is destruction

<Cesar>Humans have never been so contructively and destructively empowered, at the tip of our fingers we could erase life from the surface of our own planet several times. Does this power offers a perspective of freedom?</Cesar>

<Ilona>Power isn't freedom. Not necessarily.  Power is opportunity, it is a position to give to someone, but you can create this power for yourself. if you are under the power of someone, it is not necessarily a pressure if the power of this person is not pressing you. But if you are not within a power, than you are free. We are underneath power, because we are underneath, not necessarily the queen, but we are underneath the government, underneath the law, language... So we are not necessarily free.</Ilona><Jesse>"Life is an extatic intercourse between destruction and creation", and then "keep loving, keep fighting".</Jesse><Cesar>For me, this suggesta a very straight forward application of the idea : open architecture, could simply be "opening architecture", opening doors in houses, windows in walls, destroying buildings in cities, destroying cities in countries, destroying countries in continent, make space on the earth. This is totally absurd.</Cesar><Simone>Peter told me that the amount of atoms in the world is always staying the same. Whatever happens. If you are born or if you die, the amount is always the same.</Simone><Cesar> Living is killing, we need to eat. We need to destroy something to build something. Of course, what I said before was absurd, I am personnaly convinced we cannot take radical measures, we need to subvert and negociate everything...</Cesar><Andrew>Nobody trust them, nobody loves them, nobody like them, nobody is investing any time in them, and that can become a point of new beggining! When people have come to real rock-bottom in life, than they find some form of self-acceptance, or start finding some faith outside themselves.</Andrew><Cesar>Do we need to violently hit the depths of insolvency to think of a solution? I refuse the idea of eternal return.</Cesar>

<Cesar>What is the difference between having a house and not having a house?</Cesar><Tony>Ooh, everything, everything. It feels suicidal on the street and everything...</Tony><Cesar>You feel suicidal all the time?</Cesar><Tony>Not all the time, but you know 75% no, 25% yes. I never ws like that.</Tony><Cesar>It is not your decision to be on the streets?</Cesar><Tony>Noooo! It's crazy man!</Tony><Cesar>So suddenly I thought : "Wahh open architecture is such a bourgeois desire!!".</Cesar><Usman>Yeah Yeah Yeah, absolutely. You know open architecture is the privilege of thos who can discuss, I mean, who are content enough with the rest of the world that they can discuss ridiculous things like this! Check the work of Michael Rakowitz : he made a bunch of inflatables for homeless people, he took them on as clients. It was not a question of donating "here is a lovely shelter for you. He actually went and took them as clients and said "what kind of space would you like? What do you need in the space? And he designed and built this inflatable  which is actually hooked on the air vents of buildings so they inflate and they have thermal protection.</Usman>

<Cesar>This is a very clever parasitic project, but it is only valid if the host is healthy. Shouldn't architecture provide protection on its own? Wh ymaking ouself even more dependent on others?</Cesar>  

<Usman>Given the sort of instability in general in the world, our way of living is suddenly not as secure as perhaps we thought it was ten or fifteen years ago. One might find people becoming a lot more self-motivated or having to rely more on buidling or making, supporting things themselves. Say ten years from now we might not be able to rely on pour electricity supply like we can now. Whether partly because of climate change, population increase or whatever. At the moment we can just switch on the switch and the light is going to come on but that is not necessarily certain ten fiteen years from now. There any number of things that could really change the way we relate to our technology, our architecture, to each other. So I think things are unpredictable.</Usman>

<!-- Biodegradable robot -->

<!-- Modified beaver ... fail ... -->

<!-- Destruct (video CSM) -->

<!-- Waste engine (valoraisation du dechet) -->


<!-- architecture for humanity,

"Architecture or Revolution. Revolution can be avoided."Le Corbusier, Vers une Architecture, 1923 Le Corbusier had it all wrong.One billion people live in abject poverty. Four billion live in fragile but growing economies. One in seven people live in slum settlements. By 2020 it will be one in three. We don't need to choose between architecture or revolution. What we need is an architectural revolution.</architecture for humanity>

Eventhough I admire the open architecture network initiative, i strongly disagree with the idea of a revolution, there is nothing like a revolution happening in architecture yet, and an other western idealised industrial revolution with its violence and absurd dogma is the last thing I wish for our planet and the humans who would survive. To my sense, the urge is here, but only clever negotiation and progressive undercover subversion of existing structures.


<Cesar>So do you think you have a bourgeois approach as well or ... ?</Cesar><Usman>No, I think I am trapped by that too. I recognize the fact that a lot of what I am talking about makes sense specifically in a western context, in a somewhat intellectually elite in context. I try to rescue myself, I don't want to beat myself up about it too much, by saying the purpose of this excercise it trying to break that rigidity, this bourgeois aspect of architecture.</Usman><Cesar>By participation for example?</Cesar><Usman>Yeah. In my second year architecture, my essay was called "death of the architect", because you know I always had a lot of empathy for the architect as this kind of nodule figure. I a sense the wider project is hopefully to knock down this quite privileged bourgeois in the way our spaces are designed and built and offered to us.</Usman><Cesar>What is the posture that people should have to go toward a participative architecture?</Cesar><Maxime>I don't think it is for the people to have such a posture. In a sense it is very pretentious for someone to say "I'm not an architect, I am going to find an architect and tell him I want to do a participative architecture, let's work together", this is architects role to do so, not to the people. The architects needs to push away their decisionary leadership ego and understand that we need the people to build. You build for people, you need them.</Maxime><Jesse>And really, who do we think we are, to go to Afghanistan and "help the people of Afghanistan" as western countries? I mean, who do we think we are really? I am not sure that's ...</Jesse><Cesar>Because we want to push our "droits de l'homme"</Cesar><Jesse>Yes exactly, it is a missionary thing, the great white book of Revolution and Human Rights, tame the savages  with Human Rights... There is something wrong with it.</Jesse><Cesar>We cannot neither export our ideologies, neither our problems : we "resolved" the pollution we produced during industrial era  by outsourcing our production and international investment. We gave them our problems and moved on. They will probably do the same in time, assuming they will be as evil as we have been to them, if not worst.

_Transition, transmission, hope

<Usman>Tofori historian and writter effectively says that within the architecture system, because it is so wrapped up in the capitalist production is incapable of critic itself. In other words it is not capable of revolution from within the activity. So the question is, within this frame of view : "is the notion of open architecture operating from within the sytem, or from outside the system?"</Usman><Cesar>Or englobing the system?</Cesar><Usman> Yeah , exactly, so I'd like to think it is the ladder, because it has been propelled in some sense by non-architects, and non architecturally cultural artefacts, hopefully it can transform the discipline.</Usman>

<Cesar>Today more than 90% of the built world came to existence without architect or tight regulation... Is it a good or a bad thing?</Cesar>

<Maxime>I do always have this feeling : you can say to your son "See this house, papa did it", "- Oh, you're living here? - Yes I built it", "- This furniture? - Yes I made it". There is an immense pleasure and satisfaction when something is done and you took part of the action, not even as the architect, even simply as resident. As resident I would have loved to be explained why, say my room is cold - might be because my wall is at the north - , is it a part of nature. Finally if you are urban, you live in the city you don't have the transmission of nature, you cant be the old indian saying to his son "See this plant son, it is medecine if you are injured". When you are urban, concrete..., everything that is around you is your existence and your nature.</Maxime>

Law [where innovation is illegal, subvert to serve]

_Too weak to be free

<Cesar>Humans are said to be social animals. Would we be strong enough to live in an open architecture if it ever happenned?</Cesar>

<Kondo>Human beings are weak and you need protection, you need a small group whith whom you can bevery franck and open like family or friends, or local community. Human beings are not strong enough to survive in a system made of (isolated) individuals.</Kondo><Cesar>Is this saying humans beings are not strong enough to be free?</Cesar><Kondo>Sure. Freedom is always something we have been longing for, but if you are in a total freedom, that will scare you. You can do whatever you would like to do, you can get how much money you want, than you dont know what to do, you are suddenly exposed to a totally open space, and you feel alone, very small, tiny, without friends.</Kondo><Cesar>What is the reaction when a child looses his cues?</Cesar><Teodora>Screaming?</Teodora><Cesar>When you take a child and throw them in the air, they are really happy yeah?</Cesar><Teodora>If you catch them! If you dont...</Teodora><Cesar>Dont they like to have their cues challenged? Isn't it what they like the most? Even more than the comfort of the mother?</Cesar><Teodora>I think there is always a balance : too much change is going to frighten them , some kids dont react well to this. They need to be told it is good, it may feel wrong but it is actually good. So the first time you dont do it  very well (throwing in the air gesture), they will not like it.<Teodora><Cesar>So being free has to be voluntary, or gradually introduced and "labelled" as "good".

_Be a part of it - or not

<Nina>Like clapping in time in Tate Modern : just by asking the employees to clap at a certain time when they heard clapping, we created a situation that was like an instruction but indirectly to the rest of people in the museum because when you hear the sound of clapping, we just have the instinct or behavior, we will clap along ; and if you don't there is the uncomfortable feeling of being clapped at. What position do you put yourself in. So matter what people did or which reaction came out of this situation, everyone was part of the situation if they wanted it or not, even if they decided to not take part .</Nina><Cesar>Still there is a critical moment when behaviour attach you to a certain group. But your identity as actor is always challenged by the evolution of the group, size, composition, behaviour...</Cesar>

<Kondo>If you enlarge futher Europe than, the "European-ness" will decline, if you include Turkey, Russia, Central Asia. You would be less European than you used to be when you are only 6. In this way the border will dissolve gradually.</Kondo>

<Nina>I think people know themselves when they let go when they let go the last important strings that holds it together. That's when it doesn't have any meaning anymore, when it doesn't matter anymore, that means that you have stepped one step too far out of the contract, it collapse just in that second that you do so .</Nina>

<Cesar>Just with like any other new idea, some people might unite in some sort of way around these principles, and from the outside the entity would just be identify as a new current, a trend, independently of how strong the new group participant are against classification and individualist.</Cesar>

_Simply new constraints

<Cesar>Realisticly, any freedom is a set of contraints. In the case of open architecture, is it adding rules, or substracting most?</Cesar>

<Cesar> I thought you were about to release an equivalent of the creative commons, like a patenting sytem for architecture? A legal framework in which people could build and be protected.</Cesar>

<Usman>We propose putting together a licence for the open source in construction and design of cities, the Urban Versionning system quasi-licence is not yet such a licence, at the moment the document is more a dogma or set of constraints, it is an OS, a quasi-licence, something to chew on. You can build using these constraints. So the purpose of this publication is : these are seven constraints to making an open source architecture. It is not yet the actual licence itself. Although having built something according to these constraints. In order to comply with this quasi-licence the following statement must be legible on the construction "This has been built under the Urban Versionning System V1.0". We were realy attrated by dogma 95, the film makers, like Lars Von Trier. They came up with a set of very strong constraints. They were not necessarily saying that all films have to be made like this, but if you want the stamp of dogma 95, it needs to conform to that.</Usman>

<Nina>The successful works that we'd done that included other people were the one for which the instruction was so simple that it stays with the logic  of their own reactions, so we don't ask them to act but just react.</Nina><Teodora>It about the way the brain is organised : it is optimized to minize processing time.</Teodora><Nina>If you just have one clear starting point than the logic will generate from that.</Nina><Cesar>What happens if you have more than one basic idea? Would it still be possible?</Cesar><Nina>Now I think it is time we had more basic ideas trying to put them one in one work, (with too many ideas) it collapses somehow.</Nina>

<Usman>I have not yet, built something according to this constraints, except I think the thing that came closest, and that I would love to pursue a bit more was "Scattered house". That was the first step to go building according to this (Urban Versionning System 1.0). So the seven constraints : 

1. Build rather than design : that means don't spend time presuming what you are going to do, actualy build it as you design.

2. Materials must come pre-broken : it is the idea that things should be hackable, openable, other people can do things with them, they shouldn't be seamless and perfect.

3. Make joints : as we discussed, the idea that you make something that people can plug into, rather than making the object themselves. 

4. Rubbish is the roots of virtuosity : that means that in order to do something spectacular your system has got to allow for real crap as well.

5. Collaborate with colaborators, that means that in a collaborative system you've got to recognize the fact that you might be collaborating with who you completely disagree with. If you shy away from that, it not necessarily going to be an open system.

6. Copying or not copying is irrelevant, it just is.

Anf finally, 

7. Property must be invented : so this is not necessaly constraint, but it is saying the current notion of property doesn't make sense in the way we currently understand architecture and construction, so it's got to be invented through the project itself.</Usman>

_Public enemy, private enemy, common space

<Cesar>What belongs to one?</Cesar>

<Usman>There is a kind of conventional understanding of public and private. We are now in private (we sitting are in his living room), and out there (showing the window) is public. But actualy people can hear us, people WIFI networks, I can snit there WIFI network from here, anyone outside, possibly corporations or governments can know full well what's going on in here. The notion of privacy is irrelevant. At the same time e go in the so-called "public space" actualy what we can do and how we do it, who we do it with, is tottaly set up by a set of rules and regulations. Public space itself is actually owned not by us, it is not owned by the public, it is owned by some other kind of organisation. So in a sense public space doesn't exist. So what is really interesting is what used to be known as "the commons". In English villages and towns thre always used to be the commons, which this communly owned land. There is a huge history of the commons but I indetiied that in that essay, saying that's the kind of interesting thing to think about, not the distinction between public and private, but what is this kind of common space where one can collectively own, in a visceral sense own a space.<Usman><Cesar>The morality of capitalism privileged the ideal of possession over the ideal of sharing. In today's repressive organization of the state, there must always be a responsible at hand, small enough to never oppose the strengh of the state. Even if we wanted we will not be allowed to be collectively responsible  of a land, a collective venture, a political action, only one man at the time can stand in front of justice.</Cesar>

<Cesar>Do we have enemies?</Cesar><Usman>Yes. The fundamental faculty of human reason is to make distinctions, between this or that, between right or wrong.  All of us have a kind of built in sensation of things should happen or shouldn't happen. So even in an open architecture context, we will be making similar evaluations : this should happen or this shouldn't happen. This set of people are going to be contrary to this set of people that I say I belong to. So in that very practical sense yes, there will always be, because we always find reasons to divide ourselves. Human beings... If it is not the color of your eyes than its... hahaha, they will find other reasons.</Usman>

<Cesar>If you start building something under the bridge, will people destroy it?<Cesar><Tony>Yeah, yeah</Tony><Cesar>Who destroy? Police, people, other homeless people?</Cesar><Tony>Not homeles people... Police, council, all types of people, passers-by, drunk people.</Tony><Cesar>If the police, the council,agressive or drunk people destroys homeless settlement than we  could be seeking legal support by validating the Urban Versionning System... Will it have any value in front of justice, as a use of the so-called "public space"?</Cesar>

_Belong, subvert to serve

<Usman>(Still talking about the Urban Versionning System 1.0) If you want you want to build it according to this, you need to follow the seven constrains.</Usman><Cesar>So if you want this to ba applied you have to take this proposal to the parliment, it has to be validated.</Cesar><Usman>Potentially, yes. The idea is to use this as a framework to write that licence.</Usman><Cesar>Everytime you raise a kind of dogma than it kind of isolate it from the rest of the legislation, so if a construction was completely respecting this set of constraint but completely overpassing other constraints, will this copyright protect?</Cesar><Usman>Well this is interesting because you know the open source licence was finally given a bit of validity recently, you must have heard about this court case : a company  had made use of some code which had been released as an open source licence. The person whose code belong brought an action against that company and was succesful in it. So in a sense, when you write a piece of legal text, a licence or anything, it means nothing until it actualy stands up in court. So this (Urban Versionning System) is not going to mean anything until somebody challenges it.</Usman><Cesar>So any kind of official document, as soons as it is under a form of contract, even toward yourself is validable.<Cesar><Usman>Yes basicaly.</Usman><Cesar>So if you want this to bring some progress to architecture law, in fine it has to be illegal, as a starting point.</Cesar><Usman>Well, that's an interesting way to put it. Let's not say "illegal" but "extra-legal", meaning it is outside of the legal framework and eventually gets subsumed somehow.</Usman>

<Maxime>And this is where it is becoming "interesting", you have to play with the rules to their limits. For example you can make a house with containers of 500 square meters and trick the "PLU" (French "Local Urbanism Plan"), trick  "Les bâtiments de France" (Contruction authority), trick the "COS" (French "Floor Area Ratio"), you can trick everybody, making a collapsible house, with containers, mobile, without having to submit a construction permit. Since you do something mobile, you are not doing architecture no more, and it gets very interesting. This is precisely what happen with "La maison du Chaos". Thierry_Ehrmann, a Freemason, maybe that helps when you talk to a juge, he bought a 19th century house and he completely dismantled it, and he said "this will be the chaos house", he is working with artists, himself he does a lot inside, the place is like devasted, completely chaotic, his chaos. Because he was not allowed to build what he built he declared it as an art piece, and became a case law. So it is not an architectural construction, even if he is living in there, have his company legal hosting, it is still an art piece.</Maxime> <Andrew>I think obliquity that people are talking about... if you want something you need to sort of go around. To apprehend somebody's deep things. Sometimes, if you are looking too hard for something in one place, you forget to see where it actualy might be.</Andrew>

_Collaborate with your enemies

<Cesar>Can you collaborate not with collaborators? Can you collaborate with your enemies?</Cesar><Usman>Yes, that's the point : even your enemies are your collaborators. "Hackers interested in a particular interpretation of human rights including the cult of the dead cow have launched alternative licences such as the hackivismo source software licence which expressively precludes the use of software produced under this licence by those dimmed to be human rights abusers." They say the software is open but not if you are going to use it for rights abuses. "Those falling apparently in this category and are prohibited from using the software includes any national of Cuba, Iran, Irak, Lybia, Norsee, Sudan or Syria who happens to be American enemies. In other words, anyone can use this free and open licence apart from the enemies of America. The point is that if you want to make something that is really open, it is going to be open to these people you consider yur enemies as well. So yes, we will have enemies.</Usman><Cesar>And we never gonna convert them?</Cesar><Usman>Yes people go through conversion process and then they become even more strong supporters, stronger than you and you get scared of them!!!</Usman><Cesar>But if, to the opposite you wanted to protect your thing, are you allowed to encrypt and protect to the best your product or invention?</Cesar><Julien>We have contacted the army to get to know which encryption we are allowed to use.</Julien><Cesar>So you are ready to talk to them?</Cesar><Julien>Sure, we have the shotgun and everything HAHAHA! They will laugh at us.</Julien><Cesar>So as a matter of fact there are some encryptions you are technically able to use by which are forbidden to you?</Cesar><Julien>Yes there quite some  illegal encryption out there.</Julien><Cesar>Because they are too efficient?</Cesar><Julien>Because in France we have a pseudo-law that says that every encryption has to be decryptable in less than x lap. It has always been a problem. But at the same time if tomorow I want to use this or that encryption, I will, fuck the state, we do what we want from our datas. They have no interest in doing so. Our solution there is a strong possibility that we sell it to universities and governments, people using sensitive datas, so I think they would have nothing against a heavy encryption, might it be breakable or not.</Julien>

Politics  [you must desire this]


<Cesar>Don't you think naivity is beauty?</Cesar>

<Nina>That it is a fragile, open-ended thing that we cannot grasp, yes. But desillusion is beautiful as well, somehow.</Nina><Cesar>What holds you guys together?</Cesar><Nikloos>It is doing pleasurable projects. Projects that have a strong story, that's why the fiction is so important, because it is this fiction that sets up the game, the plot, that holds as much the construction team inasmuch the visitors that come after.</Nikloos><Cesar>So it seems that a well managed dream holds people together and guarantees a certain social coherent order.</Cesar><Andrew>There were 4000 young people, and everybody's shoes was wet and there was no chairs in the church so everybody had to sit on the floor, so everybody leaves their shoes outside. I had never seen this, I was 18 years old. There was this huge pile of sandals, some very expensive german sandals that I had never seen in the UK, very desirable! Hehehe! And I couldn't believe it : I came to this community  where their are thousand pairs of shoes, everybody found their own pair of shoes and went off. I thought, it's ... good! I like this.</Andrew>

<Cesar>So a community, a more personnalized type of social frame offers less freedom?</Cesar><Jesse>Huh huh, totaly.</Jesse><Cesar>So the more the society is organized at a higher ground, the less you know the people in your surrounding, and the more you have freedom actualy?</Cesar><Jesse>Yes, in a sense</Jesse><Cesar>So imagine a system, you are so far from the power, you are not concerned anymore, I am talking about super states.</Cesar><Jesse>Than you are talkign about the case you are relieved of the freedom to choose, en hence you are ultimately free. As I was saying : "you don't have the freedom to choose? Make your own peanut butter. No in fact there is only one peanut butter. I think it is something to do with cumsumption. I think the problem that I always had  is with cunsumption, for example why I have never been part of a community with badge and nickname because it is a question of consuming, swalloying the ideology their aesthetic fully.</Jesse><Cesar>I always felt if was more a question of belonging...</Cesar><Jesse>Belonging is about consumming what can you swollow, I cannot swallow it like, maybe you know what I mean, you don't struck me like somebody who has like a crowd you realy fit into, so you know you can pass around these different crowds and you can think "ah that's nice, these other people are nice, nice". Now if you go to a party where there is all of them, than you... You can have some good conversation but you can really see why, even if you wanted to become like them, there is a point you couldn't swallow it. You cant consume it.</Jesse><Cesar>So you cant fit nowhere...</Cesar><Jesse>No, this is the best kind of freedom in a way, but that's also lonely but that's how it is</Jesse><Cesar>How did we come up with all these social structures of power? What, in our nature, made us behave like this?</Cesar>


<Usman>The discipline of the architect is quite wrapped up in the political structures that have come about the last couple of hundred years .</Usman><Maxime>It is weird, to have on one side a set of people who will decide, so called "elite" and they are forced to decide more or less, well "forced"... Most of them are very happy to decide and on the other side, a set of people who agree to suffer these decisions of others. This is quite strange.</Maxime><Usman>There was a point in which the architect, the person responsible or the design and construction of the building ws actually the same person. The designer of the thing might as well be owning it, not necessarily but quite possibly occupying in it, living in it. And as a result of this separation of trades, division of labour partly, the way the capitalist system has evolved, each of these things has a specific person to be responsible for. So in a sense the idea of openness in architecture is coming as a reaction to that. So basically it is trying to tackle several hundred years of inertia. That's perhaps why it is taking a little while to come about. Secondly, because in a very practical sense architecture conditon the way we live our lives, the practice of architecture is inherently conservative profession. We like to live in the kind of space e grew up in, more or less. It is very difficult for the majority of people to say "I want to live in a completely different space where doors are not doors...". We have this kind of inertia...</Usman><Cesar>Need of security?</Cesar><Usman>The practicalities of comfort, convinience and all these things. So architecture is not going to be so radical so it is going to change every ten years. The function of so-called "avant-garde architecture" is to probe these different boundaries, so there is a possibility of flowing in that direction eventually, but not necessarily straight away.</Usman>

_Wake up

<Cesar>What type of fantastic pressure do we need to move away collectively from inertia?</Cesar><Jesse>Because I have never looked at freedom or death. And I think, based on what has been seen about human beings who had freedom taken away from them and who have decided to survive anyway, than probably life is more important, yeah.<Jesse><Karin>I feel very quickly restricted in my freedom, so whenever something is expected from me or a tag, or somebody tried to put a definition on what I do or who I am, I tend to very much oppose it.</Karin><Jesse>There a really human and animal kind of (strong wince) "Noooo I don't want to do it heeeeiiiinn !!!" This is the pushing force, like an animal in the cage ; and the human ego like (funny face) "Well! How can you - tell me - what to do!??" which is very childish and rebellion again against the grand parent of capitalism. But I think there is a pulling force, which is where the birds (hands at the sky), there must be something better, which is why I bring god into it, there must be something better for everybody, there must be a more beautiful world than this, look at how we are all unhappy, that's really a pulling (finger at the sky) force. "System" has kind of a negative connotation for me.</Jesse><Cesar>How does it sounds for you?</Cesar><Jesse>I just dislike the idea of a protocol or an algorythm or some received, outside set of instruction, religion is a system.</Jesse><Cesar>So you alway feel a system is external?</Cesar><Jesse>Well of course it isn't. System is also precipitation, rain cycle, system is also the nervous system. I suppose something emotional in me dislike the word "system", the rational part of me understands, perhaps system, or the system is an intrinsic part of all things. I think system, when we say "fuck the system" is inside ourselves, we internalize it.</Jesse><Cesar>How do you internalize a system?</Cesar><Jesse>Because we don't know anything else, and for me it is the big thing. It is not about going ou there ans smashing the system it is about re-coding your own hardware.</Jesse><Cesar>Do you need the constraint of the theater?</Cesar><Karin>At the moment I do, but I don't want to need it, but I don't have a better idea... I mean of course I have a better idea, I mean... I like to work site specific and to use other existing structures but... something has to framed, something has to frame stuff.<Karin><Cesar>Life is a compromise and it sounds like architecture would hardly find people comitment as a rebellion medium.</Cesar>

_Where openess comes from

<Cesar>Where does openess comes from?</Cesar>

<Jesse>Who knows, but perhaps but human beings cant live without some kind of... </Jesse><Cesar>Opposition?</Cesar><Jesse>Perhaps it is not opposition, or we dont experience it as opposition but maybe we do need a code to live by, that is pre-decided and external.</Jesse>

<Cesar>If god is so much everywhere, how come the church is being such an organised structure of power?</Cesar><Andrew>A failure to understand christianity, probably HAHAHAH!</Andrew> <Cesar>This does not point out who failed in understanding christianity (might be everyone's fault), but reveals how human mind works : instinct of categorisation, pleasure of a hierarchical order of things.</Cesar><Jesse>Actualy there are alternatives, I don't know what they are, they dont seem to be good alternatives, maybe they are. I know that there must be things, because if pleasure and life comes from the breath and intensity of experience, there must be things that offer a better life than that.<Jesse><Andrew>I think the best things seem to happen on the edge of church, and flow back into it to become mainstream. People work with the tradition and they try things, they take risks, they are open to possibilities, and they do things, put thing into action like the thesee comunity or Chiara Lubich. Some of the realy interesting things happen outside the building where people work with homeless, are involved in prison, they go to places of violence, in the times of illness, in hospitals or times of dying, in schools, and the message if from all those places. The best scenario is that the message if from all these places and feeds into the life of the church on a sunday and it gets rich, emcompasses all of lives, and that happens to a little degree... But these intense profound experiences is out, in these other places, long way from church.</Andrew><Cesar>Openness seems to be in the domain  of good, why is that? Can I be suspicious about it...</Cesar>

<Kondo>Soft power in the power to appeal to people's heart. to attract people's attention and sympathy, that's the best way to influence others, and govern the world.</Kondo><Cesar>So openness taken as evidence "goodness" displayed to attract attention and drag peoples desires. But this means to conform by advance to human character in general, not to do one's own route... If we have a positive intention such effect happens naturaly and never needs to be turned into a strategy.

 <!-- Dreampolitics (produce pop culture) -->

<!-- Debug America -->

<!-- Meta-recyclagem -->

[[Image : Embassador Kondo, Soft Power (+Machiaveli )]]

Economy [Mottainai]


<Kondo>We have to find a way to maintain economic prosperity, material prosperity while protecting nature. Economic theory says "Economy should keep growing", but I am not sure : if economy grows, consumption grows, uses of ressources will grow and eventually we come to the stage we can't find no ressources no more.</Kondo>

<Cesar>Money are obligation, is deficit, negative action.</Cesar>

<Cesar>Our prosperity costs the poverty of the others. </Cesar>

_Trust & Fallacy

<!-- Trust Economy, Promiserver>

<Andrew> Economy has always worked to some degree on trust and maybe that's been less apparent in a mass market, mass economy, less personal. In a local economy trust is very important, you know the person face to face and the reputation, so the Amazon, Ebay thing is trying to bring back that sort of local intimate area of trust into this global digital market, so I think that's a very good thing. I like to think it was a short time fallacy when we thought business was about ripping people off. <Cesar> So you think that economy starts to become more human again after centuries of "maturation"?</Cesar> Maybe. But there always been sharp dealers...</Andrew>


<Jesse>So the freedom of choice offered by the capitalist free market, free, is almost a binary system, it offers this or, or, or, or; but there is no fredom from the freedom of choice if you have to consume.</Jesse><Cesar>So your way to free yourself is to be the generator.</Cesar><Jesse>The creator, yeah. There is a slogan actually which come from the DIY (Do-it-yourself bricolage) culture mouvement : "Participate, don't consume" or "create don't consume".

<!-- Instructables + Squid Lab, bi-component company, Social innovation -->

<!--The arduino case, open source but keeping a form of monopoly -->

<!--Mass Invention .org -->


<Jesse>Although people say "web 2.0 companies are trying to own it", there is no way they will. There is no way that anyone can. While we are speaking there are new channels, channels! Streams! It is very fluid, it is like air, water, the best kind of fluid thing.</Jesse>

<Cesar>Many idealistic projects are flourishing rooted in powerful western economies full of good intentions toward the developing world. Many charities are investing in other countries and happily look at themselves as educated benefactors. This is in the most part positively true, but the saddest effect is that they either tend to create dependency from the people they are helping instead of just helping them finding their way to emancipation, usualy treating more the consequences rather than the causes of poverty or alienation. Also success methods tend to be related to their context and a "copy-pasted" enterprise solution cannot work unless it is entirely reprogrammed for its new context. Open architecture applied to business, to my sense brings a tangible democratic influence in global capitalism : if information and communication can accelerate progress in individual scales, 

doesn't exploit people but enable them to figure out their very own local problems and generating long-term benefit, not only survival.


 <Jesses>I don't think anymore anti-capitalism is the solution, maybe it is more capitalism or personnalised capitalism.</Jesse>

<!-- <Cesar>If we want to open economy, at some point we will confront the question of property that supports most economic system. If we take off this vertical interpersonal separations, everything property supports as economic mecanism can only collapse. We are under this heavy mecanism, and we don't want it to destroy us while dying, we need to dismantle it very slowly, with great care and patience. Deconstructivism in this optic can be looked at as an apocalytic vision of the reality, a simulation of this momentum, that we want to avoid, or just survive. "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism" (, Frederic Jameson, New Left Review 21, May-June 2003). I disagree with that, it is just being lazy not thinking a bit harder, or a bit easier, just differently.</Cesar> -->

<!-- _Preparing uneconomic growth in a day to day perspective

<Cesar>If we had economic growth, it is reasonnable to start planning for uneconomic growth (nice explanation here from which the diagram is taken). I suggest since capitalism has been the major compartimentation force for forced privatisation of everything, then open architecture can be a force of decompartimentation, dissolving boundaries, inventing property.</Cesar>



_Naivity and altruism

<Cesar>If social structures are fragile because of humans, that means that the human desire for social structures is fragile.</Cesar><Nina>Yes. I think any social structure is based on naivity, that's the only way it can survive and that's the only way it can begin, and after a while if you build it strong enough  it becomes a structure in itself you can stay within. The only way to construct a new collective venture is by freeing yourself of any logic or any experience because you know by default it will break at one point, you know that relationships dont last, love if fleeting all these things.</Nina><Cesar>So you need to have some disillusioned naivity.</Cesar><Nina>I guess so. You can do with the pure naivity but most people have to do it through a refound naivity I guess, a chosen one.</Nina><Angel>I don't believe in altruism.</Angel><Cesar>Not at all? So how do you put the people together toward an objective without altruism?</Cesar><Angel>Because of self-interest, that's the best way to do it.</Angel><Cesar>Capitalistic?<Cesar><Angel>You can name it capitalistic, I think this is a very narrow way of describing social events. But I think self-interest is the most powerfull force in relationships.</Angel><Natalie>By re-framing in the environmental health clinic, we take environmental issues and reframe them in terms of your own environmental health, self-interested health. But as a critique of the medical model : medical model says health is internal, biological, inherited, genetic, atomized, individual... The major advantage of environmental health is : anything you do to improve your local environmental health (air quality, water quality...) the benfit is not only enjoyed by you, but anybodyelse you share this environment with. Self-interested environmental health has benefit as a locally optimized, but can aggregate to really substand siginificant environmental effect.</Natalie>

_Living together

<Jesse>The paradigm of society as we know it gross capital, heteronormative values, morality as defined basically by the Judeo-christian church  and so on... There are probably better ways to live, better ways to relate to one an other.</Jesse><Andrew>Seeing the other as a gift rather than a threat.</Andrew><Jesse>I think for exemple the open source principle is an interesting way of looking at it, but I say lets apply open source also to our relationships, gender identity, self identity, sexual identity and sexual relations. Everything would be a bit more fluid.</Jesse><Nina>Does sport actualy means competition?</Nina><Cesar>I think sport is sport, competition is something else</Cesar><Nina>Ahaa... But do they work together?</Nina><Cesar>Together and against each other</Cesar><Nina>The olympics</Nina><Cesar>I love the opening ceremony : everybody's happy, there is no winner, no looser yet. That should be enough!</Cesar><Nina>I only watch the Olympics ceremony, but I watched the whole thing, 6 hours!</Nina><Cesar>Fair enough, people are so happy to show their flag, good, perfect, and the next day they will be fighting each other crazy!</Cesar>

<Nina>We are constantly catching each other with different contracts.</Nina><Cesar>Apart from empathy, of what material can be these string made of?</Cesar><Nina>The bad strings would be expectations.</Nina><Cesar>Yourself do you have a lot of strings or you do you see yourself as a free floating individual?</Cesar><Nina>No no no, I have strings all over the place, I do, but you have all kinds of strings, you can build a new string in the second you meet another person. The social construction is something that we choose, to survive basically. Or it used to be a survival issue to keep each other warm at night and all that stuff... That's the whole complexity of a social contract being something you engage in for survival; it's to do with your own needs and at the same time the realization that other people have needs and you exchange. You know that you are stronger together, you know that things are possible when you work together, you can carry more... It has this constant duality to it because it is all the time about what you get out of it and what other people get out of it. The beauty of it is to forget about negociations and celebrate it as a means to do something great.</Nina> 

_Free floating individual and assimilation

<Cesar>This state of total possibility, in the void, you can go in any direction, isn't it a ver good moment, enjoyable?</Cesar><Simone>(...) I Found it extremely difficult. (...)</Simone><Cesar>Can you describe the sensation? Do you feel like you are really alone inside a big space, do you feel you are drawn and there is no...</Cesar><Simone>The funny thing is that I have almost no memories of it.<Simone><Cesar>What is good about being outside?</Cesar><Tony>Not a lot.</Tony><Cesar>Nothing? People?</Cesar><Tony>Yeah, you meet a lot of people. 50% are nice and care, the other 50% are not good.</Tony><Cesar>Apart from the people what is good about being outside?</Cesar><Tony>Freedom. You meet all kind of people. Not many responsabilities, is that a good thing or a bad thing?</Tony><Cesar>You prefer without responsabilities?</Cesar><Tony>Some days yes, but not all the time.</Tony><Cesar>Because you used to have a lot of responsabilities? Really? can I ask you what you used to do?</Cesar><Tony>Job? Electrician.</Tony><Cesar>Are there strings that you can live and others that you cant, being attached to you?</Cesar><Nina>No, I don't think so.</Nina><Cesar>So you think one is able to let all the strings go off?</Cesar><Nina>Yes, for sure.</Nina><Cesar>What happens in that case?</Cesar><Nina>You become a free floating individual.</Nina><Tony>How can you describe this freedom that you have?</Cesar><Tony>You do what you want, when you want. Except if you need money, than you got to sit down on here.</Tony><Cesar>Ah OK, so when you have collected enough money it is great! Do you pay for somewhere to sleep?</Cesar><Tony>Yeah.</Tony>

<Jesse>You know, when I was much younger I didnt think myself as one of them, one of you. I didnt have any moral question, I didnt identify myself with anybody. I lived in a completely hallucinogenic world and I saw many things that are not there, but I was really quite happy and everything was good. I didn't have any understanding of the world around me. Of this world that came to be my world, I didn't mind , and I didn't read the news, I didnt understand that, I didnt understand dynamics between the sexes or anything like that. and I didnt care to understand them. So in order to naviagte this very counter-intuitive at some point, I tried to become like the people I didnt understand, and mimicked the others to pass. What I didnt get was "Why do we live like this without questinning it?", that I really didn't get.</Jesse><Cesar>But you were surrounded, you had a community around you, you couldn't do what you wanted to do?</Cesar><Jesse>Oh, yes peers are a much stronger policy than some fucking external system.</Jesse><Cesar>Why is that?</Cesar><Jesse>Because you care about  what people think of you, because they are all you have, we are social animals. For example in the village structure, or the communities that I talked about, some of them operated on their own economies of drugs, of favours, of free culture, the gift economy they call it. Lets say on facebook , it is all pretty obvious, you don't want to be excommunicated, from facebook, or not invited to events. Not invited by this friend you met via that other friend... So you are terrified of fucking up, that would mean the end of your life as a social being, the end of your identity as we make it.</Jesse><Simone>In a way yes, we are part of one big organism, but I don't think that is fixed, as functionnal as human body. I think that the body is far more functionnal than societ. I think society always finds a way to get around.</Simone><Jesse>There just not much space in it. Not much space for me to move around. And I can say exactly what's wrong within it : there is so little hope. On the other hand getting put in jail, all that still exist for you and you're just saving it up, your life is your weapon against the system...</Jesse>

_Team building, a social ground for open architecture

<Cesar>What are the conditions for an open architecture to exist?</Cesar><Adam>I think it is solely a social condition. There is a wish, a need for the people who want to do these architectures for themselves. This is pretty much emerging, there is more and more trust, more and more people and professionals, they want to decide for themselves, they want to change their environment.  Eventhough these ideas have been around for dec ades it seems there is a really good social space now emerging, this is not a dream. When we talk about this things to non-architects, clients, normal people : they get it right away and this happen in different contexts.</Adam><Cesar>What do people get from such experience?</Cesar><Adam>You see this girl? yeah? Ok, she came saying she was always in urban spaces and she came here to do toy hacking for one hour and she was so happy, she said "I am not affraid of electronics anymore" and this is one of the key things with these workshops.  Technology looks complex, you re affraid of it, and with this it is a relief.</Adam><Cesar>Will the structure evolve some more? Or is it all planned and done?</Cesar><Nikloos>No the structure we think about it a bit but it evolves organicaly , there are always new people, people that we know that follow and involve themselves, that come back project after project. Every project is the construction of a team, we have a budget, a situation and around this situation we build the project in order to assemble people.</Nikloos>

_Challenging culture conditionning

<Kondo>Culture cannot survive when it is closed. As soon as it is closed, it will die.</Kondo><Teodora>We are so dependent, we need to learn from the others. Most of the things that we learn, it is so much easier to learn from others.</Teodora><Maxime>This is the danger when you are asking to people "What would you like?", they are very often conditionned by plenty of things.  For example at the moment there is a television show called "Deco" on channel 6, and people come to us saying "Iwant exactly what I saw last week on Deco!", because their interior architectural culture would be this. This is why the architect, the decorator, the designer has to go explore and aruse something extra, if possible personal. I live in a council flat I know the architect never ever stepped in my council house. There is a lyric from a rapper that says "I know the walls of my block better than the architect" That's very true. At the end you know every corner of your city, of your block, you know how it works. If you go play basketball and there isn't a water fountain, how stupid. The people who play football, everybody wants water, and the poor guy that lives on the gorund floor has to fill the bottles for everyone. These are very mundane details, but it is the living experience that will verify if it works or not.</Maxime><Cesar>How can we fight against political inertia?</Cesar><Nina>Usualy, we take our starting point in an existing situation and we introduce some kind of foreign element, or just a wedge into the existing social structure, something that pushes the entire balance to move just a little bit, and a new tension arises or a stronger version of the esisting tension.</Nina><Cesar>Is it a gift?<Cesar><Nina>Just as much as an annoyance or a challenge.</Nina>

_Infrasocial framework, acting what I have always been

<Cesar>There are other levels we might want to take action on...</Cesar>

<Cesar>Could you make am entire piece just from what you feel from the public?</Cesar><Karin>Yes, I'm sure.</Karin><Raoul>I think you build the coherency of your character, if there is a gap, it is your job to fill them and to make it something.</Raoul><Karin>The piece is always complete only you perform it for an audience anyways.</Karin><Jesse>I know that I will probably become more of what I have always been, like I would come out of the closet as I always been, emerge as I always was, shaking away the performative identities that made up a lot of my teen or twenties.</Jesse>


<Cesar>It can seem quite arbitrary why I chose dance, and not music, poetry, theater, painting. I did so because of the potential primitive nature of the media, the body. How can one expand a field that is so secular?</Cesar>

_From being a new world to creating a new world

<Cesar>The baby, when he moves his limbs, does he reflects to the outer world or is there completely random information firing from the brain? Does he have prior activity?</Cesar><Teodora>So of course it depends on when and in the beginning there are a lot of reflexes, for exemple if they move their head this side, they move this arm (same side) up. Many reflexes that you have as an adult as well. And there is a lot of random mouvement as well, but it is not useless mouvement because at the beginning there is little information for which there is a reason to act to plan things. You wouldn't be a ble to lear anything if you have nothing here (showing the brain) and stayed watch the world, you wouldn't get anything from it. Creating this random mouvement actualy helps you learn "oops my arm hurt something - solid object" or this is how far I can move my arm. So all this random generated mouvement at the beginning which seem a bit useless and chaotic is actually a way of exploring.</Teodora><Cesar>So isn't there like a booting sequence, like computers do to identify the hardware?</Cesar><Teodora>Yes, there is a center which that originally fires, so there must be a circuit but which is not structured in any way.</Teodora><Cesar>Do you mean at the beginning they don't use their entire brain. Say at the beginning just motor cortex and then ...</Cesar><Teodora>No, but they do a lot of other things : they hear, they feel, they see... For example for the retina there is , before the eyes open in the womb, there is a random activation of the retina, it fires on itself . At the stage it is not really vision, it probably looks like noise : the only purpose of this is telling the brain "there is retina, and this is the structure of the retina. The brain learns about the retina because of this self generated action. Also the body is growing continuously so they don't just have to learn where their arms are but they have to update this knowledge continuously because the arm grows, it becomes longer. At some point their hand is here (short), but than it is here (medium length), here (long, far away from the shoulder), so it is very gradual, over time, a very long process.</Teodora><Raoul>Improvisation is the best thing. I love improvisation. Basically when I learnt acting or trained or whatever, I did it via improvisation. And that's the most free thing because you react to other people, to other actors around you, you are reacting, in the moment in real-time, it doesn't matter about any script, be completely free, completely in the role. Everybody's got a soul and when you act, you are creating a new soul, to express all these new behaviours out of it. And it is kind of the actors job to embody that and show it physically.</Raoul><Simone>It is creating a new world. Your world is in a way limited because you are on stage making a piece, but at the same time concentrating on only one thing, your perception becomes bigger. Sometimes I get the feeling that I can see more when I am so concentrate on one thing.</Simone>

_Inner space | External space

<Simone>Of course as a dancer you think a lot about the structure of your body and hows your body's structure's changing in the space, like when I am dancing I often imagine myself, my skeleton, or my organs, how they move in that moment and how I can influence that structure. I think what is a very interesting research and we don't consider so much is the organs, because organs are very central, in that sense they don't move much; well it is not like the muscles and the skeleton, your bone really do something when  you move, but I think they have a huge influence on your whole body. The way we move, the way we relax, the way you can accentuate all sorts of mouvements... I think this is a relly interesting research to go into. I think yes, you can choreograph organs, but its not really for the audience but more for the self experience that maybe will improve your way of performing. It is very difficult to juge if it just imagination of if it is really true. Now If you think of skeleton, it has its limitations : what a joint can do, we have so many bones, that we don't know of : everyday I am discovering some other bones or some other muscles I never I never imagined how to use, so in a way it is fascinating. Of course the skills of a good dancer is to research that and get everytime further that day, that body doesn't have fixed boundaries hopefully. Of course in theory yes, but in your mind, your body shouldn't have boundaries. As you go on with working and researching you should push these boundaries further.</Simone.

_The emotional texture of space

<Simone>Peter told me that, the amount of atoms in the world is always staying the same : if you die or if you are born, the amount stays the same so it is just an amount of atoms around you can influence by mouvement I think as energy, and whenever it is a wall that is harder to break than just air, it is atoms. So I am not thinking like in a construction way, like constructing a house, but I am rather thinking of a mass to modulate.</Simone><Cesar>What makes a space hard or soft?</Cesar><Simone>I think this is the state of mind. The life , in the space that fills out the space has a state of mind, so it is more connected to emotions, than mass. I think it is a vice-versa action : the mass can create emotion and the emotion can create mass. And I think it most of it coming out of instinct : whatever influences me in that moment creates the desire to move and I create something within that space. It is very intuitive I think, it happens or not. It is like when you walk in the street and you decide to go to the left and not to the right, it has no reason, you know you didn't want to go somewhere. Because otherwise you would stop. You would be stuck.</Simone><Cesar>And it is not good?</Cesar><Simone>Well, I don't see it as good or bad, but I think, I hope that life stays in motion. Even if you choose to be immobile, as a choice, but if you don't choose anymore then you suffer.</Simone>

_Life imperative is mouvement

<Simone>To be actually so limited, only having this choice to just be in the moment is extremely liberating, you can only think from one moment to the other and you are so fully in what you are doing that you forget everyhting around... Maybe not forgetting around because of course you have to perform for all the audience people while you are on stage.</Simone><Karin>When I go to see performances, the 2 things of real interest for me, the two things that really really catch me and interest me and enthousm me are on the one hand super conceptual works like Jerome Bel's direction and people work with similar ideas and on the other hand just male bodies dancing moving super physically hardcore on stage.</Karin><Jesse>And when he was a student and able bodied, because this will happen quite fast this disease, he used to drive his car really fast at night with eyes closed ; and now he regularly goes real fast in his wheel chair and capsizes it. So he is kind of an adrenaline freak (talking about Stephen Hawking the expert in black holes and Cambridge professor of Mathematics suffering from ALS). This is a cool fact huh?</Jesse><Cesar>YEAH!!!</Cesar><Jesse>HAHAHA! I love it, it is one of my favourite science fact that doesn't really counts...</Jesse>

<!-- Sculpture [Aesthetic of a sytem] -->

<!-- <Cesar>I like to think of sculpture as collective object of curiosity, attention, an attractor, human aestehtic magnet. In that perspective sculpture is as much the object in itself as the social structure it is creating in its radiating aura, therefore the sculpture becomes a social performance, expand to architectonic level.

Gathering, concentration yet movement </Cesar><Andrew>There is a sort of modern movement to make that they can be movement within a church, so you can start in different places and move the service around, it is always good to allow people to move from one place to another to do a journey within the service, so they have to put their bodies into action. There's been a modern phenomenon of shrinking the church so it is much more intimate, to get this community feel and god is amongst us rather than somwhere you have to journey toward, so you get churches in a round, where the altar is in middle of the people or close to the people.</Andrew>

<!-- Nina Beier - Sculpture as action, situationist, gravity, social attraction, family -->

<!-- Ourline -->

<!-- Clayman -->

<!-- Toxic Reef -->

<!-- Physic, Biology -->

<!-- Systeme vivants et paysages, Otto frei -->

<!-- USS maintenance is life -->

<center and outside>, <no center> -->

<!-- Self assembly -->

<!-- Everyware -->

<!-- Saba Abdul Hussein - Molecular biology, DNA -->

<!-- Infra-Radio -->

<!-- Biotech (Uros, Argo, life to language) -->

<!-- Time capsule, doomsday clock -->

<!-- forever life (Aubrey de Grey), cryogenics, transhumanism -->

<!-- Japanese scientists storing data in DNA - evolution ... Biocomputing -->

<!-- Nanoskincare -->

<!-- tolerance & Error tolerance -->

<!-- Go Neutral (carbon Network) -->

<!-- Computing -->

<!--It is absolutely inevitable to have a deep interest in the exponentially growing field of computation and communication technology for open architecture. The velocity and accuracy of the spreading of an idea depends largely on the quality of the media used to transmit data, emotions, ideas and for this purpose technology keeps on improving. We now understand that social change is made possible by technology. -->

<!--Agorabox Julien - Hacker, kernel programmer -->

<!--No center, Swarm Computing -->

<!--vehicle island --.

<!-- From language to life diagram -->

<!--Ilona Gaynor - Data architect -->

<!--Force Feedback <impulse & maintenace -->

_Conversation theory


_unpredictable future (computer intelligence faster than human)

_*Anti search engine


Design, Architecture, Urbanism

_Form challenge


<!-- Morphogenesis -->

__Conventional classical open architecture

<!--Plan libre (Corbusier) -->

<!-- Mies Van Der Rohe -->

<!--Shigeru Ban, the house without walls -->

__0 gravity

<Bedini>The problem is that, in space, in orbit you have a micro gravity environment so you can use all the parts of the station, ceiling, floor included. So when you design an interior you have to think you have 4 walls, you have the entire space, the entire vomule available to put functions and equipments and facility.<Bedini><Cesar>If you can build anywhere that also means that everything has to be closed?</Cesar><Bedini>You need to have restraints on all things, restrains means some item to fix things on the wall because if not everyhting would float around.</Bedini><Cesar>Is it possible to imagine that we could let everything float around, just attached by some threads, instead of having them into boxes?</Cesar><Bedini>Yu can use for example velcro or elastics to fix the things, not magnets because magnetism could damage electronic devices inside the station. It is not possible to design a module from interiors because you have a fixed configuration of the exterior structure, because the exterior structure has many constraints : the principal constraint is the pressure because you have inside one atmosphere ; outside nothing! So you have only a few geometrical shapes able to support one atmosphere inside and  zero atmosphere outside, you have cylinders, spheres or similar shapes. Than you have constraints given by the launches, because if you have some kind of missiles you have a given cargo bay , this means to have a fixed diameter available inside the cargo bay.  For example for the shuttle you have 4.5 meters in diameter, that's all... So can only have cylinders with this diameter.

I discussed my thesis in 1984 and I designed a very big town, space town, very big, very huge, for one million people and I made this project with NASA scientists support. Not so realistic, first of all for money. Second for the possibility to construct this kind  of huge structure. My town was located in the Lagragian Points. 

<!-- explain Lagrangian points [[image:]] -->

About moon, probably on the moon we will have more freedom in designing the general architecture of the base because in any case you have a surface to organise all the functions. So you can aggregate more modules, different shapes of modules and so on, so the general architecture will be more attractive. In my big town, I re-create the gravity by rotating the town around an axis. This was the reason for the large diameter of the town, because not to have a big speed in the inner surface where the men can live, you need minimum one kilometer in diameter, not to have problem with the vestibular system (internal ear, 3 axis that provide the sense of equilibrium) not to have the feeling of rotation. To have a low low degree of gravity you can only obtain it by rotation, in fact NASA is thinking to have somekind of rotation station going to Mars, because in one and half year you need to go to mars you can have many problems related to the bones and to the muscles of men. So if you have some kind of rotating module or rotating part of the module, for example the sleeping quarters, you can reduce these risks of this mission.  I hope that in the future designers will have more freedom in designing space modules, in fact I am working now with inflatables technology because this technology will allow us to have larger modules and so more freedom is designing the interiors and also the aggregation modules altogether.</Bedini>

__Hard space soft space

<Cesar>What is softspace?</Cesar>

<Usman>Because in that time I did it with the computing analogy with hardware and software than would run on the hardware. These days I realized that a kind of arbitrary distinction, it is even a very specific way of designing where you have the computer, and then you have the software and it is two separated entities but I think it is actually possible to think of them as one. It is possible to conceive a computer in which the hardware and software are not distinguisable, I'm thinking particularly of analog computers, chemical computers and things like that. So I do wonder about how rigid that earlier distinction was, as it kinf of pre-supposes that there is stuff that doesn't change which is a wrong assumption because even walls crumble (Cesar points Usman's living room wall) HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! exactly.</Usman><Cesar>Do you think architecture has reach a certain age of maturity?</Cesar><Usman>My instinctive reaction when you ask about architecture's maturity is like it is kind of immaturity. In much of the architecture world, and I'm even here talking about so-called "advanced research in architecture, we are still talking about form, and about blobs, and about moving sort of changing, fluctuating form, despite things that Cedric (Price) introduced back in the 60's which was thinking architecture as a system, a system of relationships and things like that. So I don't know if maturity is quite the right word...</Usman>

<Cesar>So now we know we are evolving in complex open systems, how do we translate this into architecture?</Cesar>

<Usman>If one wants to apply open source to any kind of hardware, wether if it is architecture or elsewhere, the question is what is open? Is it the plans and diagrams for the built thing or is it the actual bricks and mortar of the building itself, is it the building itself or just the design that is open? That's where the distinction is come, because a lot of people say "architecture can't be "open source", because open source has a set of rules and regulations almost which don't translate very easily. But the way we describe it the distinction in this publication "the Urban Versionning System" there is a kind of genome and phenome way of using open source, and our particular interest is in the idea of building itself being open, so this is what can be re-arranged. We actually moved away from using the word open source architecture just because it is a little bit problematic.</Usman>


<Ilona>The reason data coming from things, data needs to be extracted, it is a human source of extraction or computation is becoming is becoming computational source of extraction. So say I want to take data from the water, how many microbes in the water I am generating this data myself by extracting it, pulling information, because I am interested in pulling the information. If no one was interested in pulling the information from it, than there is not data.</Ilona><Cesar>So what interest you is the human?</

<Ilona>(data visualization of inputs) is human factor.</Ilona>

<Usman>Pachube is a service (website data stream manager) that enables people to tag and share real time environmental data from objects, devices and spaces around the world. The key aim is to facilitate interaction between remote environments, both physical and virtual.</Usman><Cesar>What improves every version?</Cesar>

<Adam>It is alway different, this is the first time we build a space together we used to do just like objects, now this is the first time we connect it to remote places via (pronounce "Patch Bay"), he just finished pachube so it is an interesting thing for us.</Adam><Cesar>So everytime the project is evolving, what is the next step?</Cesar><Adam>I don't know, we'll think about it when we get a request.</Adam>

__Non visual architecture, toward design of design systems.

<Teodora>Before 9 month of age, when things go off of sight for the infant, they don't exist anymore. So if you hide an object under a cloth, for them it is equivalent as if the object did not exist, they would not go and look for it. And this disappears later on. At  around 12 month if you do the same they will go and search for it. So this means, in the first part of life, things exists as long as they are percived. Out of sight, out of mind.</Teodora><But usualy what would happen when somebody would squat a house, you would come in and be like "Eerrr this is so pretty (irony)", this is a dump! A ruin! And then it will take some time and energy, people would build a kitchen, put on some music, make love in the sleeping bag there, drink beers, have a life there and slowly slowly, the life blood, the soul will start to come back.</Jesse><Cesar>The soul of the building or the soul of the people?</Cesar><Jesse>Who knows, maybe it is the same thing!</Jesse><Usman>One of my favourite project of my own, that I enjoyed most was "haunt", I think I cam closest to achieving to what I wanted to with that project, because it was something that can't be photographed, can't be videoed but it is a very physical experience for people who take part in it. because I managed to distill this experiential aspect of architecture without having anything that you could see.</Usman><Jesse>For me it is the way I have always understood the energetic world, which is that there is a thousand streams going on all the time, it is all happening all the time, tictictictictictictic, you cant possibly see it, you cant possibly understand it at all, but you might be able to tune into a bit of it sometimes, if you are in the same wavelengh, on your airport Ziiiiiiii.</Jesse><Usman>Actually I am less interested in the specific phenomenon like smell, electromagnetic fields etc, thes non-visual architecture, but I am more interested int the idea that we are perceptual beings, construct our environment through an amalgamation of all of these senses coming in. That really is my interest, how we as sentient beings take a whole range of specific or non-specific sensations, and through our perceptual systems, create and construct these environements. I guess in these specific projects : "reconfigurable house", "scattered house", there are basically a couple of intentions : one is to look at the idea of designing a system that enables other people to design, which is what I come to think as a kind of inportant role for an architect who wants to operate within an open system. In other words, instead of designing something that people inhabit, according to the architect plans and desires, actually designing a framework which is open enough it enables other people to design within it. Constructing the system that both enables and encourages other people to design is actualy really difficult to achieve. First of all because technically it is difficult, secondly because people generally don't thnik of themselves as designers, they think that designers is an obscure profession which some people have and some people dont. Convincing people that they can design is the sort of one little step you have to get across, and then enabling people to critic their own works and others peoples work is a sort of other kind of little step that one has to tackle designing design system.</Usman>

<!-- Audio massage furniture -->

<!-- Infra radio -->

<!-- __Practicable, play -->

<!-- Media in space for entertainment <Bedini> -->

<!-- Praticable design, vital basic objects <Aissa> -->

__Standard vs Diversity

<Usman>The way I have come to understand an interactive architecture, and a kind of open interactive architecture is one in which sensors and actuators are non-specific and the architectural system is there to enable the occupant to specify those, inputs and outputs if you see what I mean. I think Pask uses the word underspecified. An adaptive system is one that is underspecified, which means it develops its specifications over time.</Usman><Cesar>But we you designed the EEML (Extended Environments Markup Language) it was a kind  standard markup language standard right? Is it necessary to develop standards to enable communication?</Cesar>

<Usman>So what we did there, there is somthing called IFC which is the industry foundation classes, and this is a way of describing buildings in a kind of XML format, in a non-proprietary way. The idea is quite usefull in CAD packages, so you can be designing an object, which is linked to an other object that is in a factory, that is linked to an object that goes on site. What we are trying to do with the EEML is two things : extend IFC to be relevant in a building that is built, in the way that it is growing and changing, it is a dynamic ongoing process. And the second thing was to make it an open onthology, and by that this is how I am getting to the non-specified aspect of it which is : there is this kind of scientific meta-data that you can apply to EEML documents, geolocation, the sensor status, wherever the sensors are measuring an SI unit or whatever, but than there is a whole system of tags, which is a little bit like flickr tags which is completely user-defined. You can define a sensor as blush sensor for example, or as clicks per minute, or whatever. So the idea the fuller frame work of the EEML is underspecified so people themselves are to specify what is important. And there is all sorts of ways, where people have started to converge on conventions for using the tags : you will use a specific type of tag to describe a specific situation because collectively people determined that's a usefull way to do it.</Usman>

__Aethetics of openness

<Bedini>The general style of the interiors has to be simple, not fashion. Because you have a problem a style is not good for a long time. In any case, you can design some part of the station with movable panels, so you can subtitute textiles, colors and decorations in some parts of the station. You can also personnalise some parts of the station to satisfy personal items. For exemple in the cabins you can have this kind of device.</Bedini>

<Cesar>Sometimes I wonder if open architecture isn't proceeding of an aesthetic of the unfinished?</Cesar><Usman>I think you are right, it is a really important idea. Particularly in an open architecture system, that it is never finished, it cannot be finished, if it were than it is not open.

This publication we ended up calling it the urban versionning system, it is based on what is called the concurrent versionning system CVS. In software developpment if there are many many  people working together on the same piece of code, than they are going to be working on all different parts of it, and they might be updating at the same time, contributing to the same code, You have this system called CVS and it is very often used in open source projects because basically it enable people to slot in bits of the code that they are working on, and then if their is a conflict, you get an alert that says "these lines are overlapping, what would you like to do, would you like to keep this one or this one? And you can always rewind history. So in a sense the code in the web of many many sort of strands coming into it, so the point of this publication was to say that perhaps we could think about the construction of architecture in a similar way. This already the way the city works, because they are things that are coming in here, nothing ever finished, the city is never complete.</Usman><Cesar>But people are making the same kind of mistakes at both ends of the same city.</Cesar><Usman>This is very true, neighbours would be building things not really realising that they might collide. In cuba there is this slogan that "the revolution has always been re-made" and I think this is kind of the same thing, the idea is that architecture is the process, it is not the object. In fact I think I have described architecture as a verb rather than a noun, because it is about what people do rather than the thing that is left behind.</Usman>

<Usman>We have now come to the stage we can build pretty much everything we can imagine. technologicaly it might take a lot of money or it might take some time, but we can think of how to get to the point of building what we imagine. I think he (Anthony Dunne) Now is the time to really consider the aethetics and the metaphysical implications of these things.</Usman><Cesar>Before it is too late and we are completely efficient.</Cesar><Usman>Once you can build pretty much everything, than you have to start deciding why do I choose not to build, or what do I choose to built, or how do we provoque ourselves in expanding the imagination so we enter a completely new territory. Often the projects that I proposed, especially when I was looking for funding, it sounded impossible or implosible and I wanted to show and proove that "no, it is possible to build". For example for reconfigurable house, the idea of an inexpensive completely wired up, ubicomp oriented house : sensors and actuators everywhere, most of the people used to say "Ah, no way, this is going to be millions and millions of pounds!!", "No, you can do it a couple hundred pound", so even on a kind of very practical level it is not implosible to have this kind space. That probably connect with the conversation about ht post-optimal object. The idea that it is kind of crucial at this stage to start thinking abut these kind of poetic and lyrical aspects of the things that we design.</Usman><Cesar>And it is possible.</Cesar><Usman>Yeah, one hopes.</Usman>.

<Usman>Because I really love the idea is an organism, but they live this kind of structure behind which you think is coral.</Usman><Cesar>But it is dead!</Cesar><Usman> it is actualy not living, it is this sort of calcerious kind of material, interesting analogy. that the coral itself is living, but what we think of the coral is actualy not the actual living being. If you are building an open architecture system, you are actualy not building an object, you are building somethin with joints, and its ways for other things to conect into, and thats the link to coral, it is always building the thing that is going to be able to build on top of itself.

</Usman><Cesar>I've been thinking, we know the universe is expanding, and also everytime we make archeological searches we are just digging the ground, so I get this feeling that the earth keeps on expanding, digging - constructing, just like worms are here to making hole in earth to let it breath.</Cesar><Usman>That's a nice way to look at it, we'll find out in a hundred million years that the earth has got so much bigger because hollowed out.</Usman><Cesar>But imagine if we keep on we are even going to change our magnetic field and perhaps start to attract the moon again! HAHAHA!</Cesar><Usman>Or our cities will kind of throw off the revolutionnary speed of the  earth HAHAHAHA!!!! It will start to wobble!!! HAAHAHAAA! 

__Non planning

<Eszter>When there is a masterplan you always a gap, or an area which you do not touch, because you need to live something for spontaneity, for the people living there. If you plan everything exactly it is going to be just too clean. so you have to leave some doggy areas inside a completely new development as well, in a formal sense this will become like a parasite space... for the homeless people, it can be a big hole, a nice garden, or people can decide what to do with it and it can develop itself. You have to pre-program something that is non-planned.</Eszter><Cesar>What about the city of Dubai and its planned-to-the-extreme iconic projects? Can people live in it?</Cesar><Eszter>It is very planned but it is under construction. I don't know if you have seen that picture of Dubai, it is like a huge construction site, and it is really diverse.</Eszter><Cesar>So people can live in a city that is being built?</Cesar><Eszter>Yes, I think so. Actualy every city is always continuously changing.</Eszter>

_Time challenge

__Instant architecture

<Cesar>Your project "Unspecified" is very instantaneous, and you put it as a side project like if it wasn't important. Wasn't it the most rewarding because of its instantaneity?</Cesar><Usman> I think I would like to do a few more iterations of the same project to make it into a more sophisticated thing, it was a kind of quick experiment, a one month development project, I mean it was actualy one day workshop... So it didn't really have the rigour...</Usman><Cesar>Maybe this lack of rigour was an achivement as a system in which people could finalize the technology.<Cesar><Usman>Let me put it this way, there were actualy physical problems with it, in other words, the joints failed... This was the metalic angle from which we were building... but it was a little bit too flexible. It was good a first step, the second step would be to make this better, thinking about the problems that came out first.</Usman><Cesar>Isn't better to have something flexible?</Cesar><Usman>Yeah, it was not so good for kids toes that might get caught in the way of things were bending, but that's another argument to make this in some kind of hindge, than you really do get all mecanical degrees of mouvement.

<!-- Mukatsuku architecture, Self assembly structures -->

<!-- Bulma capsul -->

<!-- _Instant house (2 second tent -->

__Social durability and transmission

<Cesar>The more you make a customized architecture and the less it is flexible, because since it is not a standard anymore, the people coming after wouldn't be able to...</Cesar><Maxime>Well, precisely : how flexible do you want your architecture to be? You need to plan to allow not only this generation but securing the fact that the generation after this one might also be able to change your architecture.</Maxime>


<Aissa>Reversibility applies at different levels in the life cycle of the object, about the materials first of all : how a raw material is transformed, used to finaly return to its biological milieu the earth or to be mecanically transformed again for an other use as objects. So it is a system design with ecology in mind. Than you have a current reversible usage : so a table can become a bench, a chair or something else, it contains a variety of uses by its simplicity. To make this possible you need to make sure that the technique you use to assemble the piece is reversible : a nail isn't made to be taken off, screww are supposed to be reversible but it is not very much the case. I try to apply reversibility on these 3 levels and it is quite tricky to remain coherent until the very end. When you are a student you question this principle, also because you may be the first user of the technique : if you living in a small place it is very likely that your few objects will perform various tasks, every question is relative to a lifestyle. Also if you are young and not very rich, you may move from a flat to another and you need reversibility for a semi-nomadic agenda. Also you want your furniture to be a moment, ludic and didactic, and this should be made available to everyone, in the simplest fashion.</Aissa>

<!-- Walter Segal -->

<!-- Enzo Mari (Autoprogettazione)-->

__Darwinian co-evolution of people and architecture

<Teodora>There are population where you have this very spread impairment, I think there is a deaf island, where all the inhabitants are deaf.</Teodora><Cesar>Is it because their is no sound on this island?</Cesar><Teodora>No it is because they have this gene that makes them deaf and it is a dominant gene which means it will be transmitted to the children. And it is possible because they live together these people have changed their environment to be adapted to their condition. They managed ans changed this environment, this environment create a new evolutionnary pressure and this can affect what kind of descendence, which people will survive and which people will die. So for example : because they can't hear they don't like fast moving objects like, so maybe on this island there is no cars, or the cars are visually stimulating, coloerfull and visible. So since the cars are very colourful, those who have a better vision will die less being hit by a car, and they will have children, and generation after generation their vision would get better and better. But now because people live a long life and have few children natural selection is very slow.</Teodora> 

__Take nothing for granted

<Usman>You know all the smell project, the electromagnetic projects, the design system projects don't mean anything unless I can find ways to apply strategies learnt from there into things that are going to exist in the world for a little bit longer and in a different context. The idea of existing for a night or a festival is interesting as an experiment, but how can it contribute to the actual architectural conversation I think it can only do so into longer term. I am not necessarily talking about 50 years, but at least, longer than one night.</Usman><Cesar>Your point will be proven if your project keeps on improving over time.</Cesar><Usman>I know... I am quite happy with some of my old project, and I am really worried that I could end up dissapointed.</Usman>

<Cesar>What is open architecture?</Cesar><Angel>It is a way of looking at thing, taking advantage, not taking thing for granted,  using the knowledge of all people to provide new solutions, more complex systems in architecture.</Angel><Cesar>Recycling?</Cesar><Angel>Recycling can be there too why not.</Angel>

_Psychological challenge

<!-- __"Hikikomori architecture" (Bringing the world inside) -->

<!-- When life totally depends on technology (in the space station, in orbit) -->

__Dialogue with technology

<Usman>(Gordon) Pask is of course a very big influence on my way of thinking. What he brought to architecture was this idea, particularly because he was working with cedric Price was the idea of the architecture as a system, living machine, a kind of framework through which occupants can have conversations with their environments. One of his major development was this thing called conversation theory which was essentially a framework to explain how things may communicate even though they may have no a priori common system, how can they build that common system together in order to share, collaborate, cooperate, converse. With Cedric Price they were looking at how can human do this with their environment and buildings. People have proposed a open order cybernetics, or third order cybernetics, but they are kind of irrelevant simply because the premise of second order cybernetics is that there always a loop above and a loop below, an infinite regression in both direction. Here I can use the word intelligent to qualify a system : If you look at any intelligent system there is an aspect of second order cybernetics and control communication going on there.

<!-- __Phenomenological architecture -->

<!-- with Ph.D. Sachin Anshuman - Articulated membrane, media surfaces <Augmentation & Ecstasies> -->

<!-- Neurocognitive architecture -->

__Orientation and habitability

<Teodora>Men are much better are creating mental maps of the environment, while women would use local cues more. It is very important in an environment that changes  a lot because you need to know where things are.</Teodora><Cesar>Do we need cues?</Cesar><Teodora>Yes, the question is how to fix them? You need to find your thing and we are very bad at absolute positioning. Nomads are good at absolute positioning because they have more general cues like mountains, the sun, the sea... But then nomads are less good at relative positioning and have less facility distinguishing left and right.</Teodora>

_Social challenge

<Cesar>More than 90% of the architecture is made by non architects, and in some respects it sounds to me like they already - or people have always been doing open architecture? They exchange their plans, don't think about regulations...</Cesar><Usman>I think you are right actually, not only that : even in the built world in general, in the capitalist framework, architects are not responsible for that much of the built world, the domain of the architect is really quite small.</Usman><Cesar>So why should we care about this 10% we are supposed to be responsible for?</Cesar><Usman>... Good question... HAHAHA!!! Why should we care?... There is the notion of open architecture in the kind of practical buildable sense like you are describing, which may have constraints like gravity, but their is open architecture in the term of a political structure, because it has I think some political presumptions and consequences. But I don't know how the practical and political open architecture overlap, I don't know... I'd like to think they are both feasible in an urban context, because most of humanity is now living in cities for the first time in history, so I'd like to think it could be a way for us to see our urban lives.<Usman>

__Simply sharing

<Nikloos>Our political message is "this is the construction of a community of people that share what they build, share competencies and put the product of their effort at the service of the community. We needed showers for ourselves, and now people from the public are invited to use these same showers, for us, we decided it is a true public space, or more precisely a private space that is shared.</Nikloos><Cesar>Do you try to innovate in the aesthetic of architecture?</Cesar><Nikloos>No for us it is more about creating places, not remain abstract, we want to perform the city, invent stories with people in the city.</Nikloos><Cesar>When do you consider it is a success?</Cesar><Nikloos>When it simply works to welcome people, that people can sleep here, live, that it is alive and made simply, we got only three materials here, metal, wood, plastic, it is cheap and people are happy.</Nikloos>

__People's expectations

<Maxime>I made a list of question to ask people "where in your house do you like the most? you feel the most comfortable? 95% answer toilets! Yes, of course! Than you wonder, why the toilets? if you look closely, it is the place you are by yourself , the smallest place you have, so why not making this place better?</Maxime><Cesar>Nooo! You would destroy it!</Cesar>

<Cesar>Can you please describe the sensation between when you are inside and when you are outside? How is it inside the house?</Cesar><Tony>Nice, warm, safe, normal.</Tony><Cesar>And now how does it feel outside?</Cesar><Tony>Ruthless! Ruthless! Ruthless! Cold, hungry.</Tony><Cesar>If you imagine your house, do you picture it very open or very closed and warm?</Cesar><Tony>Yes, small, short.</Tony><Cesar>Not open?</Cesar><Tony>No, no, no... Cosy.</Tony><Cesar>So in your house, what is important? Size, colour, smell... What is important?</Cesar><Tony>Security. Because in the street people rob you, beat you up, everything.</Tony><Cesar>Since you are an electrician you know how to build stuff , so do you like this idea of building your own house?</Cesar><Tony>Yeah</Tony><Cesar>Would you be able to build your own house?</Cesar><Tony>About 65% yes, electricity, mason, but some things not </Tony>

<Cesar>like plumbers works, water...</Cesar><Tony>yes, I cant also lift up big big stuff, heavy manual.</Tony><Cesar>How many people would you need to build?</Cesar><Tony>2 men, maybe 3</Tony><Cesar>How long would it take you to build?</Cesar><Tony>4, 5, 6 weeks.</Tony><Cesar>And you will build concrete, metal, plastic?</Cesar><Tony>I would build semi, like a log cabin : concrete foundation, wooden walls, wooden roof, felted roof insulation</Tony><Cesar>Windows?</Cesar><Tony>Yes, plastic windows</Tony><Cesar>Normal lock or chain</Cesar><Tony>Normal locks. And a guard dog</Tony><Cesar>Dog inside or outside the house?</Cesar><Tony>Inside  in his own little house</Tony><Cesar>Can you please draw the house of your dreams if you could build it?</Cesar>

<Maxime>We arrived to anarchitecture, saying that everyone can build, then you need people to solve technical problems... Or bring some artistic help.

<!-- shelter cardboard (RCA DI) -->

__Anarchitecture, people's workshop

<Maxime>People can play. We did not use conventional mock-up materials, it was all stuff that we found around, scrap material, solid. We always presented our mock up with a portable mock up workshop along, with cardboard, metal, wood, clay, anything e could find. Even if your model is not clean, it doesn't matter! It is not the typical development mock-up in agencies in a glass-box, you come in and they tell you "you will live in this apartment with smiling tiny people and the cheminee".</Maxime>

<Cesar>Do you involve people in the construction?</Cesar><Maxime>This is a different question. Most people don't want to.</Maxime>

<!--__Step by step reward -->

<!-- __Representation and feedback -->

__Interactive architecture criticism

<Usman>There is one understanding of the universe that says : you are fixed object, you have emotions, you have emotions, and when I see you smile, that means you are happy, so I can take the input of your smile and therefore this happens, to my mind this is a philosophically flod way of looking at the universe. I think that emotions are things that you describe of yourself, now if I am trying to infer something in you that you are sensing, than I have got to take an external representation of it, the only thing that I can say is that my system responds to the input of you smiling, this doesn't mean that it is responding to you being happy, and I thing that holds true to almost every single thing that we call an emotion, that we are responding to thing we already think are outputs. So we are not getting anything and the thing I am building here which I say is responding to your emotion says more about about me than it does about you.</Usman>

<!-- __Granularity in participative architecture -->

<!-- __Autonomy and maintenance -->

<!-- Post human design (life after people documentary) -->


Let's be entirely honest as possible... Despite of all my radical efforts, I wasn't able to make up a coherent definition, found an answer, or could make conclusion to this research. I am nor ashamed nor frustrated, while I was exploring, the horizon kept on enlarging toward the infinite. On my original map of knowledge I kept on doing infinite regressions, fractals of practices, it all made sense but I just can't figure it out... I found everything in everything.

It has been an authentic quest, and there isn't much order in there. I have learnt a lot. The messy ungraspable nature of the subject is illustrated by this hyper-discussion, that I couldn't stop carrying on with passion. I have now even more unanswered questions than before... So many open paths, to take one at the time. But I have a lot more promising tracks to follow. I still believe something great can come out of open architecture, even if I must confess I have been mastered by the concept, I just could never step out and look at it to describe it for you.

I have verified that theoretical open architecture is unreachable in this human world, still it is the engine of my desire.

More practically, I have understood that open architecture happen through the work of design (form), in time and through the others. I will try. First of all, I will try to complete this overview of the subject in the next release before going more into depth. Also I cannot make sense of this idea alone, I will keep on asking what it is to everyone, I want nothing but lively answers.

I still believe that such an architecture isn't a new set of constraints, but rather a militant struggle full of compromises. 

For me open architecture is still, and perhaps for a long time, a challenge that I am pleased to take.


<Andrew>There is another oneness of spirituality, there is quite a lot of material in the Christian journey that says "the closer people journey to god, the greatest sense of openness they have with other human beings and with creation.</Andrew><Cesar>Is this oneness really enclosing everything or is this oneness open to something we might not know?</Cesar> I think it'd be open to what we don't know, because there is always something elusive about god, beyond, not knowable, so it always got to remain open , can't ever get to a point "sorted!" (...) Somebody talked about mystery about something being knowable, but you can keep on knowing it, rather than something that is unknowable that has to be fathomed all the time.(...) having experience is knowing that ending aren't necessarily the final end, but endings in out daily life often lead to the next new beginning.</Andrew>

After Chernobyl, life under the form of vegetation and animals has come back, and in the absence of human, even stronger than what we consider our most horrible nuclear disaster : is open architecture made for humans? Doesn't nature always integrate any "human mistake"? This is not politically correct.

If architecture is considered primarily as an enclosing activity, in the end, the concept of architecture is subject to our subjective ontological capacity to define what it encloses.

It is almost impossible to distinguish a perfect open architecture from a perfectly closed architecture : you can't enter in neither of them. You cannot penetrate in the close architecture because it has no opening and you cant enter an absolute open architecture because it has no boundaries. Both perfectly open and close are too pure to tolerate human presence, the human body . Therefore, the open architecture we could enjoy is an impure unfinished approximation of absolute open architecture. The constructive - destructive behaviour, any re-structural activity 


Architecture is the activity, the endless go and return between what we know at the center (obvious, materials) and what we don't know through our efforts and the making of imagination, research and technology.

Impure ....

The Open architecture might actually be infinitely complex and unapprehendable, ungraspable, out of understanding like described as Mr chaos tale by Ambassador Kondo.

We are not at the center of the system, there are plenty of systems.

Our resources are scarce but not our capacity to re-invent our relationship to nature. We are nature. 





uneconomic growth in theory and in fact :

Infinitely better articles in french below:écroissance_(économie)é_volontaire'Environnement

Centre for Alternative Technology,

Website, film :