analogies , aphorisms , axioms , adages, apothegms (a5) (scroll (typed) {endless typewriter})

parental advisory

on 20 books derived from the 20 pages of portfolio that got me in.to here in the first place

an analogy of digging . in this life i’ve been digging in search of something what , i do not know and yet it is there i know it exists else i would not exist it and i , i and it are inextricably linked in this pit and so i dug and i dig sometimes down sometimes diagonal sometimes lateral and at a certain point a very specific point but a point nonetheless i hit bedrock the point at which there is no more and i lost faith in its existence it in mine i tried to go around sideways and resigned and defeated i gave up and ceased to exist it and i no more after some time it dawned upon me it somehow it in those depths a point of light touched me grazed me caressed me and i started digging again not diagonally not laterally just straight down because i started to believe again and such is the current state of my existence delusional digging striking bedrock that will not give way but neither will i the solid body and the flexible force and so i dug and i dig searching for that which does [not] exist

the candle analogy it’s a cold and dark world sometimes but we’re all beings of light and sometimes we forget that or someone or something or ‘they’ tries to blow out our flame or instrumentalize it or we’re ignorant or negligent of it ourselves but it’s important to remember we can always re.mind/re.light each other and be a beacon in the dark for those that have/are . lost

the olive branch i feel like i held out an olive branch , then you guys looked at the olive branch , looked at me , laughed , spit in my face , snatched the olive branch , stepped on it , lit it on fire , put out the fire with your piss , then , for no reason at all , fucked me with it

on solid bodies and flexible forces this one's quite simple , actually . you're a solid body . i'm a flexible force . flexible forces are not frenetic , but fluid . when a solid body comes in.to contact with a flexible force , inertia inserts itself as the third thing . the flexible force absorbs and observes and propagates and flows and dissipates and dissuades and dissuages and assuages and ameliorates and alleviates the inertia imparted by the solid body . the solid body , on the other hand , is immediately met with a re.action the equal and opposite of its imparted inertia . however, given it's (lack of) intention (the impartition , the initial action) , when confronted with its own imparted inertia , is shattered ; forced to re.collect and re.assess and re.constitute its.self as it picks up the pieces [of its fragmented 'self'] . thus , the question becomes whether the solid body re.organizes its.self as yet another solid body , or rather this time around as a flexible force . don't worry - there will be plenty of opportunities to make this decision again . don't even get me started on solid bodies coming in.to contact with solid bodies . and definitely don't get me started on flexible forces coming in.to contact with flexible forces . however , if a flexible force comes in.to contact with a solid body , there's a 50|50 chance that instead of what happens when a solid body comes in.to contact with a flexible force , (i.e. the imparting of inertia) , the re.verberation of the con.verse impartition by the flexible force may by some grace of God or miraculous spontaneous 'chance' occurrence , result in a re.verberation , and sub.sequent instantaneous re.organization which , while still as traumatic as the converse impartition of inertia by the solid body , is much quicker and 'more efficient' (see : supercooling and nucleation)

the bear trap analogy so you got yourself stuck in a bear trap , eh ? it looks to me like you got 2 choices (3 if you're really thinkin' outside the box) i. stay and struggle and strive and wretch and wriggle and writhe and , eventually , expire ii. cut off your leg , just above where the trap has grasped , and continue on as if nothing ever happened (iii.) ()

on re. to construe re.[suffix] as both contemporary and outdated, as a contradictory necessity // necessary contradiction , is necessary for the survival of architecture, a dying and soon-to-be extinct discipline whose practitioners and disciples think too highly of themselves (and subsequently of the discipline to which they are inextricably indebted to) . architecture, as we are all well aware, has been eviscerated of all sincerity, and we can trace this back etymologically to the ABSOLUTE loss [perhaps just of scope] of the meaning of the word in the first place : arche tekton i . e . re.presentation re.production re.solution [yes obviously not morphologically accurate, but it helps the argument] re.plication (have to look this one up, forget if plicare is actually a thing or only replicare) re.assert re.instantiate

on modal realism David lewis and possible worlds and modal logic as a method of re/instantiating architecture (re.asserting)

on hard heads and hellians something about human beings having hard heads and being hellians in the context of architecture could perhaps point to the other side of the violence of architecture coin, the violence which humans commit on their built environment

on reality nothing without touching

on the real violence of architecture what is meant by 'the violence of architecture' ? stemming from a misconception of the overall premise of tschumi's essay of the same name.sake, the 'real' violence of architecture has to do with two things in particular, one incredibly formal, the other incredibly spiritual. the formal violence of architecture has to do with the translation of the construction lines of the architectural drawings into violent [vectors, rays, lasers] stemming from each and every edge and center [line] present in the 'immobilier' aspect of a built, realized, and conceived project. these VRLs create something akin to the linear motion sensors [present in spy movies] which protect precious objects such as diamonds and artifacts and the like. architecture, by definition [in the context of transtension], is precious, and, as self aware as it is, knows it must protect itself in order to preserve itself. architecture has been inseminated with the egos of its designers and the ethos of the bottom line as such, as soon as one steps in.to, around, across, through, and/or beyond architecture (but really the built environment in general), one [subject] is assaulted, beaten, battered, and penetrated by VRLs . unbeknownst to one, this has unimaginable effects. hence, the spiritual violence of architecture. the loss/evisceration of sincerity in architecture has only served to bolster this condition. transtension offers an architecture and way of existing with.in, of, and around the built environment such that VRLs become conducive to one’s ‘self’, aiding in one's experience and synergizing with subject, object, and spirit, simultaneously.

on vessels vs. mirrors i think this works because vessels and mirrors do not exist/operate as the ends of some singular.ly binary spectrum , so just an embodiment of op.position without duality or something funny cause i was talking to kurt about it yesterday (actually as early as possible this morning) as both of us oscillating among states of vessel.ness and mirror.ness , and now im trying to figure out what object to use to refer to subjects that operate with the work (or at least the mentality of the work , or something along these lines) as coming from them rather than through them or ’off’ them now im thinking about that fucking marriott bonvoy that was a pure 50/50 danny lieb/oma derivative (literal) mash.up specifically that incredible quality of the transparent opacity of the mirrored/reflective sub.facade which formally lent all guests total anonymity , even transparency , even void.ness // non.existence , simply by reflecting back onto its context - the experience was really as if there was absolute nothingness behind the screen ; looking across, through , beyond , into the sky ; which you literally were because of the viewing angle [(must diagram and precedent analyze this building as part of this understanding of reflection / projection / mirror / vessel / how do we refer to those whose egos have tricked them into believing work is coming from them as singular subjects rather than through them as the divine ‘trappings’ of god or off them as the (inter, trans, and sub).subjective subjectivities across , through , and beyond which they exist

on the perceived thesis something akin to conceptual anamorphism wherein the project can only truly be understood via the ‘view from nowhere’ disjointed outward appearance that comes together upon accretion - think lorenz attractors

on language i've been thinking a lot about prefixes, suffixes, roots, etymology, and morphology of the [english] language in general, and while it's not something i ever plan on explicitly addressing, i think it is a good sort of context to provide for those who are initially coming into contact with the work.

on razors i want this thesis to be so refined, its as if it were the razor from goodfellas that could slice the garlic so thin it just melted right there in the pan. a garlic-melting razor sharp refinement of a thesis. i am but a vessel, honing in this thesis is not about me . how could it be ? i am but a vessel for an idea far greater than i , for the idea of Love transcends all dimensions

on (de/ex).pression when in a de.pressed state, ex.press your way (across, through, beyond). the only way out is through

on asymptotic (rela/condi).tions and half steps towards the wall that is the other in 8th grade geometry class, my teacher [mr. mcdonald] demonstrated how asymptotes work by providing us with a thought experiment - he stood up and stared at the wall. he told us, theoretically speaking, if he were to take an infinite number of steps towards the wall, with each successive step being shortened by exactly half, and if he were to do this perfectly, i.e. theoretically, i.e. without human flaw or error, he would never reach the wall. i think about this idea weekly. not necessarily because i have a penchant for asymptotes (although i do love the word, and find the ‘mpt’ to operate almost onomatopoeically, as in phonetically, as in mpt reminds me of a sonic asymptote, as in the three letters seem to have some sort of gap when spoken aloud or whispered internally, similar to the gap that is everpresent between an asymptotic function and the axis it is forever approaching yet never reaching). analogically, if the self is thought of as function, and [the] others thought of as axes, the parallel follows soundly. the self never reaches [the] others, although one can get infinitely close, painfully close; the gap will always remain.

on morphology in language, architecture, and urbanism letters are buildings are forms . words are blocks are forms . spaces are streets are spaces . sentences are multiple blocks are multiple sentences next to multiple sentences are multiple blocks next to multiple blocks are paragraphs are city blocks are zones are neighborhoods are pages are states are essays are nations are books are worlds are words are worlds are words our worlds our words are our worlds are our words.

on formalism no no absolutely not i wouldn’t even touch that term with a twenty foot pole i don’t even use that word it’s derogatory accusatory defamatory it’s like tossing a live round around an open flame you guys like to play these types of games but those consequences those implications i’m not interested in involving/implicating myself me but that’s just me me personally msilamrof no

on glass slippers hey there cinderella ;) if the shoe fits , why don’t you go for a fucking walk :)

on (im).mobilier walking around in paris a few summers ago, i found myself window shopping. what i viewed as ‘real estate offices’ were also decorated sheds titled ‘IMMOBILIER’

on [breaking] ‘the frame’ and perhaps specifically decorated sheds as the frames which architects must strive to break, especially wrt 40 ADA

on a.periodic , non.linear , (pro/re).gression in other words, ad.hocism. in a world where efficiency is prioritized, for the sake of time and money rather than quality of life or (environmental) health, ‘a.periodic , non.linear , (pro/re).gression’ exists as a mindset aimed at defying ‘the bottom line’. a defiance of rationality and logic, even if predictably so. things come, and things go. perhaps there is a rhythm, a sort of method to the madness, but if you zoom in close enough, it becomes a.periodic. non.linear, a.symptotic. things progress. then disappear [regression]. human constructs prioritize familiarity, predictability, teleology. useful tools, maybe, but not accurate models of the way things are. or perhaps self-fulfilling prophecies that have come to shape the world as we know it. who’s to say?

on corb and the repression of desire via an analysis of ronchamp and villa sav - connect to windows and (de/mis)fenestration in contemporary architecture and the fact that it can be traced back to ronchamp and the clear and obvious suppression of desire (with).in which modernism is rooted said another way, modernism is rooted in the suppression of desire, post.modern in an expression of that desire, and techno.feudalism as a re.instantiation of that suppression [of that desire] marble for iconophiles and iconophobes , marble after modernism - references from mara

on isolation i hate that i love it

on re.collection harking back to Plato, nothing is ever invented or created , only (re).discovered. this dovetails with the notion that the soul is eternal, and ‘true’ knowledge is simply forgotten upon birth. as such, several parallels exist between platonism, aka the roots of western thought, and eastern belief systems such as buddhism, taoism, and hinduism. working under this belief [of recollection], one is forced to accept their role as a vessel; if nothing is new, the role of humans shrinks to that of stewardship rather than omniscience, of creativity rather than creation, i.e. tapping into that ever.present force, that everyone feels but no.one knows.

the culinary analogy there’s fine dining, quick dining, and healthy dining (among others *eyeroll emoji*). analogically, there’s fine architecture, quick architecture, and healthy architecture. more accurately, boutique architecture, commercial architecture, and sustainable architecture. currently, the world [read : developers] only care about (quick/commerical) architecture . and if they can see//construe it as healthy, all the better . great virtue signaling and you can probably add an extra fee for your own conscientiousness boutique architecture refers to all the designers who just want to make beautiful things and are only looking for a client to fund it, regardless of // above all else and sustainable architecture ? well, that shit’s a joke, altogether not possible . just stop fucking building if you wanna be sustainable, and if you really have to build, then do away with all the codes and zones and liability and means and methods [see : designing for dis.comfort] for some real-world analogs: the gsd always has and always will specialize in boutique architecture. that’s why they’re thought of as the best, and people will go there on 0% scholarships - because this world is predicated on ‘the bottom line’, and they specialize in driving that shit in.to the ground. throw in all the other ivy league schools, and add in the big good state schools like taubman, knowlton, etc. as far as sci-arc is concerned, they fully sunk in until they slipped through, and that’s not even architecture over there anymore. if it’s even close, it’s the most bastardized boutique bullshit i’ve ever seen in my life. i still like it though. only $2499.99 to print your final model, and the trashcan’s right around back once you finish your review. don’t worry, we don’t recycle. commercial architecture is more or less your cut-and-dry cookie cutter tier 2 architecture schools. nice people, honest work, but quite frankly just lacking a little scope in lieu of some blissful naivete. cut the chit-chat and get with the program (you are a developer’s slave, here’s your fenestration grid, four material palette, and a fucking bike rack. good luck ! you’ll need it, but it won’t help) as far as sustainable architecture, it’s more or less what mit wishes they were known for. they push it pretty hard the first 3 semesters, but then it takes a swan dive straight off a cliff into the abyss. the truth is, if you want real sustainable architecture, go look at any indigenous, vernacular architecture that doesn’t try to be anything more than necessary, and then think about why throughout history they’re been referred to as savages and ‘less than’. we’ve got(ten) it all wrong

on media so i would say in the context of contemporary society the definition of media has almost completely mutated and metastasized into some aggressive form of terminal cancer because social media is predicated on a marketplace of attention and data. as such, 99% of media that is captured is pure commodity. luckily, the 0ne percent that is not still remains as externalized memory; that is to say, as subjective experience, that is to say as shareable subjective experience with no intention to commodify, that is to say that which can be shared in a meaningful way with those who are not present at the time of capture, without any ulterior motives. [obviously if you lie in bed with someone like althusser you know these ideological state apparati are inescapable as the field is that which sets the field in(to) its self, but w/e]

on scholarship as much as i would like to just stay in school and go get my PhD, i’ve come to accept the fact that scholarship has become an oversaturated mess with apparently no means for recovery. first of all, there are far too many scholars, far too little shared/concrete standards, and not enough effort. thus, everything has become not only oversaturated, but diluted as such that scholars are only interested in their own work , and only pay attention to the work of their colleagues insofar as it related to their own work. People are just building infinitudes upon infinitudes of echo chambers and epistemic bubbles which thus.far has only led to platitudes upon platitudes, with the echo chambers developing smaller and smaller niches and the bubbles, rather than meeting and combining to form larger bubbles, actually unintuitively by some sick sadistic twist of fate bound off each other, reduce in size, and float higher into the air. The result is chambers and bubbles which are not only completely inaccessible, but also getting to the points of ‘obscura infamante’, i.e. not even just inaccessible nor unknowable, but un.noticeable and de.famatory.

on [designing for] dis.comfort stemming from a exaggerated misconception of Christoph Reinhardt’s BT1 class on climatic design in architecture, designing for dis.comfort primarily has to do with the operational energy consumption of architecture. in particular, artificial lighting and air conditioning contribute to a large portion of the energy architecture consumes. however, this is misleading. it’s not the architecture itself consuming the energy, or asking to be kept at a certain temperature or with a certain level of luminosity. rather, it is the inhabitants of architecture, specifically american ones, that have become so used to having total control over their own individual environments that they have completely disregarded the effects this has had on the planetary environment. as such, there is an [exaggerated] belief that we should design for dis.comfort, which is really just to say get rid of air conditioning/heating and tone back the use of artificial lights. of course, this is only made possible by better (read : more conscientious) design which pays attention to it’s environmental context and responds appropriately. i.e., natural ventilation, adequate daylighting, considered massing and orientation, etc.

on functional redundancy two hands, two lungs, two kidneys, two livers, two eyes, two ears. not necessarily necessary, but not necessarily unnecessary. thus, functionally redundant. where is the functional redundancy in our architecture, which, although not necessary, would prove to be more efficient in the long run?

on cells inter.linked obviously a reference to blade runner (2049), specifically lines from a poem called ‘The Pale Fire’. for myself personally, thinking of cells interlinked reminds me of the larger organism that all humans comprise through their inter.relations, humans themselves as individual cells, being inter.linked through their social as well as their biological relations. of course, this can scale infinitely up or down, thus not limited to just the human race, but our system of objects, the planet, the literal cells that comprise an individual body, the stars and gaps that comprise superclustsers, and so on.

on series and sequences series’ as temporpal sequences as spatial simple

on value this world values money. money is equated with time. this world values time. an alternative is to value aesthetics. aesthetics are conflated/equated with Love. Love is timeless

on doubling back v. circling around given the choice between the two, i’d much rather circle around than double back. doubling back feels dysfunctionally redundant. you arrive back at the point from which you started, viewing everything you’ve already seen from the reverse perspective. circling around feels exploratory. you still arrive back at the point from which you started, but you’re arriving from an entirely different path (read : thesis as placing; to place). of course, there are times when doubling back is the best course of action, and times when circling around is nothing if not a waste of time.

on shooting for the stars shoot for the stars, land on the moon take off from the moon and try again float through space , rest on an asteroid , and keep aiming for that which is unattainable. eventually you’ll get there. or , as the saying goes , ‘you’ll die trying’ at a certain point you’ll realize there’s no difference.

on utopia literally, no place. and yet, something people are always talking about and striving for [it]. seems fitting. people are always talking about and striving for, [nothing]. no place. all this information, without any meaning, on a global scale seems like they got what they wished for.

on billboards think of them as the commercials of the highway. you’re driving along, enjoying the gorgeous, unadulterated, and obviously unexploited american landscape, and along comes an ad. for some reason, they manage to take up the entire windshield. their allure is inescapable. try as you might, you can’t look away. the irony really rears its ugly head when you realize how many of them are advertising injury and accident lawyers, in essence drawing attention away from the road in order to divert as much attention as possible so as to cause as many accidents as possible so as to garner as much business as possible so as to build as many more billboards as possible.

disparate iridescence think rainbow fish, dichroic film, oil slicks, and those shiny beatles , but make it theoretical

on fenestration from the latin fenestra, aka any small opening or pore. the prominence of the word, ‘fenestration’, or at least its resurgence in contemporary practice, i think can be traced back to first DSR, and then Herzog and deMeuron, for their sensual if not obsessive use of the ‘architecture as body, facade as skin’ metaphor. as such, fenestration, fenestra, really do become pores in the skin of the building.

on de.fenestration for a long time i thought this meant mis.aligning windows. it actually means throwing someone out of a window. i’m not sure why architects are obsessed with this word, other than the fact that only another architect would really recognize this word, and it’s a sort of litmus check for just how deep down the rabbit hole one has gone, how much kool-aid one has drank, if you will. if they don’t recognize the word, they’re simply at surface level if they recognize the word, but don’t know the meaning, perhaps they’ve breached the surface. if they recognize the word and know the meaning, more likely than not they’re already drowning. if they recognize the word and know the meaning and have an image of tschumi’s ‘advertisements for architecture’ pop in their head (the one where the guy is getting defenestrated and tschumi is blowing some hot air about “to really appreciate architecture you may even need to commit a murder”), they’re more likely than not totally utterly and completely ‘lost in the sauce’, fully drowned and now buoying around in a bloated body, unaware of their own expiration asunder. get as far away as possible and try to forget the word and the previous encounter. in the words of nasser, ‘banish that thought from your mind’. in other words, ‘fuggetaboutit’. in other other words, get out while you still can !

on mis.fenestration architect’s are so power.less, so spine.less, and so point.less, that the only solace they have found in contemporary design is to mis.align windows. there is great pride in windows that don’t align, that seem to defy what only fellow architects would recognize as “structural logic”. endless amounts of theory dedicated to simple shifts in window grids all to assuage the poor architect’s ego and his astounding lack of agency. oh boo hoo hoo what a pity for you

on ‘the nod’ this one, you won’t understand unless you’re (a) black (man) in america. walk down the street. see a fellow black man. make eye contact. subtly nod. nod so subtly that it is almost near nigh imperceptible. a moment of pure intimacy and acknowledgement. you are seen. both of you have pe(a/e)ked your heads be. (hind/yond) ‘the veil’ and recognized your.selves in each other. there is a risk here. intimacy is intimidating. what if he doesn’t look up? what if he doesn’t nod back? what if he looks up and you lock eyes and he doesn’t nod back? is this rejection? denial? self-hate? or just lack of recognition?

on ego i feel like i work harder than 99% of the people here and i care 100% more and instead of getting the credit i feel as though i deserve i feel “disappointed and passed over” because i don’t play the politics game as well as others because i don’t want to i have no desire to it feels dis.ingenuine so instead i say how i feel when i feel it and i do the work more or less in silence and by my lonesome because i have sado.masochistic tendencies stemming from childhood trauma and instead of someone anyone coming up and asking what’s up or down or wrong or right or good i’m just ostracized and left out and i know for a fact all of the aforementioned is both entirely projected from deep insecurities buried deep within my self and entirely self.imposed because again i’m entirely sado.masochistic and i find pleasure in my pain and joy in my discomfort and security in my suffering ; i feel secure in knowing i’m perceived exactly as i constructed myself and a sort of sick twisted pride in my solitude and ‘presence’ . it still hurts tho

on happiness people who strive for happiness are not people i want to surround myself with. if you ask me, they might as well walk around with one of those dunce caps on, or a big sign on their back (one of those pat-on-the-back practical joke signs that everyone else is aware of except the one wearing it) that says ‘KILL ME NOW . PLEASE ! I REALLY MEAN IT , I JUST WANT TO BE HAPPY) I mean, what a joke. You just want to be happy? Happiness is a by-product of suffering. Get with the program, kid. Happiness only exists in relation to un.happiness. Anger. Depression. Go be sad for a few days, or hungry, or thirsty, then have a really good conversation, or eat a piece of bread, or drink some water. Then come back and talk to me about happiness. Me? I don’t want happiness. I don’t strive for it. I want total balance. Equilibrium. Of course, even using the declarative ‘I want’ before total balance removes the possibility for me. That whole thing about desire being the root of all suffering and all. And you have these fucks saying ‘Architecture is about desire. Architecture is a product of desire.’ Yada yada boohoohoo . And you know what ? Fuck you too !

the case against linearity i’m interested in a.periodic, non.linear, (pro/re).gression. fuck your straight lines (read: i’m seduced by them too) they only exist in relation to the total utter and absolute lack of straight lines in nature (except for those crystals and atomic structures . those things are pretty straight)

on loitering NO LOITERING. most americans know these words before they understand their meaning. however, they probably understand the meaning of the words qua signpost given how effective they are. the only people you see loitering around are homeless ones, because the rest of us are busy loitering in the POPS of our workplaces, content and unaware , or intentionally yet blissfully ignorant , of our complete and utter slavery. NO LOITERING, although simply a symptom of the system, perfectly encapsulates the state(s) of this country. R I P

on responsible inefficiency responsible inefficiency can best be understood through its opposite , irresponsible efficiency . irresponsible efficiency is best exemplified by the capitalist development which now runs rampant across the globe . irresponsible efficiency gets things done as quickly as possible , as cheaply as possible , allegedly as safely as possible . conversely , responsible inefficiency is slow , it takes it’s time , it allows others to catch up , it invests more energy knowing it will last longer in the long run , aging gracefully so as to more fully integrate with its surroundings and inhabitants , it looks more dangerous to those who don’t know what they are looking at because there’s a certain relations to material and craft and labor , a certain embodied knowledge that doesn’t ‘read’ as safe according to codes and regulations . this world is predicated on irresponsible efficiency . we should be moving towards responsible inefficiency .

on the inequality//conflation of value specifically wrt aesthetic value as opposed/compared to ‘value’. here, ‘value’ as a colloquial/connotated term simply refers to temporal=monetary=capitalistic value. when people refer to the value of something, they are more or less referring to how expensive it is, and how long it’s gonna take. hence, our [society’s] subsumption of aesthetic value under the guise of ‘value’, and why we (read : they) prioritize food, shelter, and work that is done as quickly as possible for as cheap as possible. value and cycles of value which ultimately end up in the same exact pockets. every. single. time.

on productive procrastination an activity, practice, or pastime undertaken when the “more pressing” work at hand simply feels untenable and abhorrent. particularly useful when the productive procrastination work can be rationalized/validated as still useful, just not entirely timely or necessary. (see ls42 for a collection of products of productive procrastination)

on wells v. fire sprinklers coming into mit , you hear about the firehose . there’s so much going on , and you can quite literally take part in all of it if you really want , it’s as if sticking your face into a firehose intending to take a drink . yeah , you might get a little bit of water in your mouth and down your gullet , but realistically you’re just gonna get your face blown off . well , this thesis presentation , or even more broadly transtension as a way of being , is more akin to a fire sprinkler . people enter the room , come into contact with the work , perhaps even just pass by , and subsequently get a little wet . maybe they stick around long enough and get soaked , or maybe they stand at the edge and let that fine mist accumulate on the fine fibers of their clothes . regardless , it’s intended to be a gentle , less imposing , but nonetheless just-as- effective approach

on (a/pre).scription DISCLAIMER : this is an incorrect use of both terms ! ok so a.scription has to do with something akin to ad.hocism wherein nothin is pre.scribed but rather a.scribed , which is to say it negates rather than advocates . thus an a.scription list has to do with everything one should not do , similar but converse to a pre.scription list . think of it as a negated sol lewitt wherein the only rules sent to the builders are what not to do . not necessarily total freedom but one step closer some might say

the myth of creation humans (read : architects) are not creators . we do not create anything . we can not create . we are created . thus , humans have the innate ability to be creative , to be vessels for creation and creativity . always through us never from us

on black holes allow the whole system to run into a frenzy such that it collapses in on itself, thus producing new systems (read : the only way out is through). similar to the theory that blackholes point to the birth of new universes, or the hindi notion of creation via destruction and back again and again and again in an endless loop

on tough love growing up my dad used to always talk about ‘tough love’ . hand-in-hand with this was the notion that “the truth hurts” . for entirely different reasons , i’ve come to believe that love is tough and can hurt , and the same can be said about truth . but the truth can also be gentle , compassionate , and expressed in a loving way , whereas i think love also has to be true , honest , and intentional , which is what makes it as a set of processual actions ‘tough’

on capital ‘A’ Architecture + decapitalized architecture the capital in capital 'A' Architecture is ambiguous , although most probably do not recognize it as such . yes the capitalization of the letter A but also the determining factor of capital as a force shaping Architecture . i digress . capital 'A' Architecture is can best be described as that which edifies the self in a solipsistic , negative , egotistical fashion . This understanding can be gleaned from public perceptions of Architecture , wherein if one were to go out on the street and ask people about Architecture or Architects , more likely than not the response would revolve around the notion of individuals who design pretty things for rich people in such a way so as to convey a status of superiority . Said another way , capital 'A' architecture is that which edifies capital , with capital being understood here not only as the system of value on which contemporary society runs , but also capital as signifier of self-worth , in a literal sense . do not misinterpret this as only the fancy expensive poorly constructed and detailed buildings , but also all the projects and installations and exhibitions Architects fight to project and install and exhibit and display in shows and biennales and triennales and galleries and museums and lectures . architecture , and specifically transtensive architecture [in the context of this thesis] , exists as a counterpoint and/or mode of resistance/defiance to this capital 'A' Architecture . if Architecture edifies the self , architecture edifies the collective . if Architecture edifies efficiency , architecture edifies sincerity . if Architecture edifies objectivity , architecture edifies subjectivities . if Architecture edifies capital , architecture edifies Love . given the mode in which Architecture is condemned to operate in , or more accurately under , (that being neoliberal capitalism) , it is impossible to practice Architecture in a sincere , Loving , or (inter; trans; sub).subjective way . 'the bottom line' will always undermine , eviscerate , and prevail , relegating Architecture to a subservient force made hollow . as such , architecture should be practiced and taken one step further such that transtensive architecture is not only practiced but lived , embodied , and experienced . said one final way , capital 'A' Architecture instrumentalizes architecture so as to edify the self , whereas transtension allows the self to be instrumentalized so as to edify architecture .

on necrophilia contemporary architects practicing today , but especially those that go out of their way to fight for tenure at prestigious institutions and universities by developing a ‘practice’ or method of ‘research’ are inherently necrophiliacs given the simple fact that architecture is a dead profession and dying discipline . allow me to illustrate : the body , or corpus of architecture is dead . as such , all those who practice are playing with a dead body . we are all necrophiliacs ! rejoice ! find freedom in your violations and perversions ! what other discipline would accept you except one that can not reject you ( simply because it is not physically able to do so) ? play with the dead body . violate it . dress it up . break it down . bend it into weird shapes . ascribe notions to it that you know it would not agree with were it still around to contest and object . make it fit into your box . satisfy your own perverted desires . who’s going to stop you ?

supercooling and nucleation you ever see those videos where the bottle gets cooled down to freezing temperatures but it isn’t frozen yet , and then some dude flicks the bean and the whole bottle freezes into a slush in about a second or so , not instantly but perceptibly , like a cascade emanating from a single point in all directions ? well imagine that , but in a social sense , on a planetary scale . imagine the whole entire situation getting to this point just hovering right around above or below ‘freezing’ , and then some dude flicking the bean and catalyzing the whole world into a cascade . will it be a violent cascade ? a cold cascade ? a freezing cascade ? a fiery one ? this is usually when the owl bites the whole tootsie pop and says ‘the world may never know’ . well , in this case , the world may know well very soon .

on the (sub/ob).jectivity of line [and color] the modernists get a bad rep for their failure , but what we should really be talking about is their fear of themselves . they were so seduced by the apparent//alleged mathematical precision of ruled and drafted geometry that they really thought they could escape their own subjectivities into the objectivity of line. that’s unfortunate , for them as well as us , as we still haven’t escaped their folly , try as we might . there was an argument for it , that lines , ruled lines , straight lines , curved lines , splines , drafted with the aid of prosthetic tools (i.e. french curves and compasses and straight edges and t-squares and triangles) , would deliver them from themselves , into the warm embrace of cold , rational logic . “how do you construct this wall ? it’s curved” “it is ruled . use your brain . actually , on second thought , don’t . use this string instead . attach it right here just like so . use this straight base as your reference point . allow the point to guide you , use you , teach you . see ? it’s simple” the moral of the story is , draw lines with colored lead , and paint pictures with black ink .

on “drawing” perhaps my biggest pet peeve , perhaps my only trigger qua architecture [school] , is when people refer to PLOTTED ILLUSTRATIONS as “drawings” . i mean , do i really need to go through the etymology of draw , stemming from drauen , meaning to literally push/pull ? do i need to explain that pushing/pulling a mouse and pressing keys do not equate , because you’re literally just manipulating data , no matter how seductive the fucking pixels are ? do i need to walk around with an endless supply of Signal . Image . Architecture’s to hand out to whoever wants to try and argue ? seriously , just call them plots , or illustrations , or physically instantiated hot air , but at least understand that they are simply data-driven representations of CAD . COMPUTER AIDED DRAFTING . do you not understand how much we are shaped by the words we use ? do i have to explain why CAD is literally the beginning of the slippery linguistic slope that led to me having to sit through countless hours of reviews hearing reviewers and presenters alike talk about PLOTTED ILLUSTRATIONS as though they were DRAFTS or DRAWINGS . matter of fact , no , nevermind . language is relative anyway . i don’t even care . [hopefully i’ll just get over it someday]

on language as a stand-in for objectivity in the theory of transtension . allow me to explain . the tag line for transtension , or perhaps more accurately the elevator pitch , is as follows . ‘objectivities are generated by our subjectivities . our subjectivities are generated by our inter.subjectivities’ so , language , the thing which , according to some [pretty smart] people , is what separates us from what otherwise would be apex predators , serves as the basis of our external world , or the ‘objective’ . sure . but language is constantly changing and evolving over time . so that which is ‘objective’ is actually not so concrete and separate from us after all , not so external , now , is it ? ok , but , language is also what allows us , as humans , to grow and evolve over time . so , at the same time that our objectivities are generated by our subjectivities , with our subjectivities being generated by our inter.subjectivities , our inter.subjectivities are being generated by our objectivities . got it . and thus we reach the fabled ‘trialectic’ . cycles and circles of circles and cycles of cycles and circles . who knew it would only take until 7 weeks before ‘the end’ . *disclaimer . there is no actual tagline or elevator pitch for transtension . exercises like these simply allow the author to better understand what transtension is really circling around , aiming for , really trying to get at . also , i’ve never seriously read or studied the tractatus , but i’m assuming this is what witty was trying to get at . he did solve philosophy , after all (hyperbolic) . **disclaimer ii . there is no end . maybe [just infinities] (shout-out sampha)

on depth v. breadth in this life they usually say you can either go shallow and broad or narrow and deep [in the context of hobbies, studies, or a thesis, for example]. i tend to ride with the former, a shallow and broad approach. this tends to go hand and hand with architecture as a discipline, and more specifically ‘the architect’ as a disciple , i.e. ‘jack of all trades, master of none’. what i would like to offer today, in terms of a thought experiment, is quite simple. rotate your plane of orientation 90 degrees, such that depth becomes breadth and breadth becomes depth. are you experiencing the universe in a grain of sand, or are you a grain of sand trying to experience the universe.