Dynamic balance


Finding our place

Note - This was originally scheduled to appear last Thursday, April 27th. I wasn't happy with that version, and with the sabbat, I really didn't have a chance to finish the rewrite on time. NW

I want to spend some time on one of the more complex lessons I had to learn, maybe it will help someone else.

One of the most common approaches in architecture is to build strictly according to the bottom line without regard to the human values. Let's face it, there is not much aesthetic in most housing subdivisions or modern office buildings, such things cost money and don't deliver measurable benefit to the owners.

At the other end of the scale, there is what I call the "Nature Rules" approach, otherwise known as the "don't touch anything if it is in the least way Natural."

Neither of these approaches really maximizes the human element.

Of course the modern approach reduces humans to numbers and labels, something that can be categorized and filed for later. Cubicles and beds could be stacked that the accountants would be happier. At this point humans are interchangeable parts, if one doesn't work, just replace it. Follow the system. Modern buildings are boxes for good reasons.

Stonehenge may be an absolutely wonderful place, but those standing stones didn't just appear there. There was a lot of human effort over centuries that made a good site better. Same goes for the Egyptian pyramids, or the Aztec ones if you prefer.

Where is the balance between the two?

We have to take one step further back.

We have to include the concepts of static and dynamic in our thinking.

The whole of idea of "pretty, but don't touch" is a fairly modern one. It grows out of affluence. That you could have something that was nice to look at but never meant to be used, that never would have occurred to some of our ancestors. Certainly they did beautiful works of art, but the best ones enhanced something that was already useful.

They would have found the whole idea of displaying something just to look at totally alien.

Now we approach, carefully separated from the art. It is preserved for the ages. Eternal, unchanging, untouchable.

In the last 60 years or so, we've taken that one step further. We keep things only as long as they please us, then we get rid of them.

In architecture, this has gotten horrendous.

Now I am not saying that old buildings are worth preserving just because they are old. But at the same time we need something other than just hacking out a chunk of the earth and putting the creamy frosting down, with little toy buildings on top.

At the same time, I don't want to preserve Nature behind glass to be gawked at by curious humans.

We need to recognize that the Earth is alive with her own rhythms and movements. No matter what we do, we can't preserve it motionless as if it was freeze dried. But at the same time, we can't plaster over the Earth and bury her under our construction.

Balance is a tricky thing. It can look like it is unmoving, but actually it's the point where opposing forces meet and cancel each other out.

I believe magick is strongest at the balance points.

Architecture should enhance the spirit of a place.

Magick should enhance what is already there.

Save the frosting for the cupcakes.

Posted: Tue - May 2, 2006 at 11:18 AM
 ◊ 
 ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Technopagan Yearnings
© 2005 - 2010   All Rights Reserved