Audio Essay: J Bridge

This is a philosophical-ontological game. This heuristic game will bring our attention back to the basic stories. The stories we articulate with the bridges of language.

Phantasmagoric syntax

The bridge is a sculptural manifestation of an archetypal sentence, a sentence that can be imagined to be the basis of all others. Given the full content of the conceptual background, the architectural structure had to be executed in a polysemantic manner, forming lines of meaning in relation to the four (2 x 2) perspective axes:

a) with regard to the normative position of observers (on or outside the bridge, that is, with or towards the bridge), two dimensions of depth are revealed, the macro and micro world of symbols.

b) with regard to the position of the examining subject (recipient, spectator), the distinction is established at the end of the centuries-old division of theoretical and practical life:

a) Theoreticos (with original meaning: top view) is defined in the bird’s eye view diagram.

b) Praxis (since it is set in the idea of ​​activity, movement, and process) is noted in the matrix of development of the idea visible on side elevation.

In order to unite the intuitively accessible visual elements (pre-discursive form) in the aesthetic vision, thus making it a kind of super-structural unity (architecture in its original and pure meaning), the central part of the theoretical exposition will be defined as eidetic vocabulary.

The end of the text will explain the idea of ​​hyper-textual reading of the bridge as a dynamic macro-symbol with the possibility of creating an infinite number of internal lines/units of meaning and significance.

Eidetic Dictionary

Symbol 1 – Genesis

The first symbol is given in the perspective of the side section where it is outlined in the dominant constructive lines. Looking from top to bottom, the symbol represents the ontological matrix of the development of almost all phenomena: singularity, duality, multiplicity. The matrix in question contains a whole range of conceptual levels and nuances. Singularity: the first and highest principle, always essentially thought of as one thing. Captured in the historical sequence through various archetypal performances. One planet, one sky, one sun, one moon. Duality: Duality is the first step of progress, the first separation. It represents the relaxation of the previous tension created by the cohesive forces of self-direction. In Borges’s lucid cosmogony, the demiurge and creator shape the world with the first doubling. Doubling is also a creation. To be real means to be special, different from others. Here one thing stands against the other. Multiplicity: The accompanying multiplicity is the complete realization of the previous duality. It is multiplicity as a way and moment of existence: the multiplicity of existence. It is by its nature usually first in knowledge (Aristotle), in the way in which a child’s consciousness first touches many different external objects. In this, the world of exterior-multiplicity is seen on the line of one’s own logical development. This time it is a matter, not of the distant, but of the logical past.

Symbol 2 – Duality

Double Tetractys. The symbol stands in relation to the ideal and real side of the sentence structure. A look into oneself reveals thought as the source of a sentence. In its essence, the thought is affected by this symbol. (one: thought before thought, two: defined thought, thought in relation to its opposite, three: thought in the context of thought, four: articulated thought). As for the sake of communication – one’s own realization – the thought from ideality must be reported to reality, the symbol is given as a pleonastic ideal, doubled and conditioned, as the reality of an ideal. The previous ideality has been preserved as something obsolete.

Symbol 3 – Constituent

Like any dialogue, we start from a point that is formed under the influence of principles (circles). Places where the thought is put before action. Where a solution (overcoming) of the situation is needed. From that starting point, the point from which the context (problem) is visible, and the visible goal (from the other “desired” side), the (archetypal) sentence begins to be built. The sentence is constituted of three ideal terms. Three, as the basic number of the first geometric image (triangle), implies the first solid construction, ergo the first resolution. The term decreases, “specifies”, by its surface of functioning following the Pareto distribution.

– A Pareto distribution pattern is a universal matrix that shows the numerical use of words (terms) in a language. It applies to all existing languages. In addition to the presence of this pattern in language, it is also visible in other phenomena of nature, and the general principle of natural distribution.

In addition to the assumed ideal concepts, which are connected, rounded off, and grouped, this bridge-dialogue also implies contextual influences. Influences from the outside. Influences are all invisible factors that suggest the formation of a newly formed sentence. These influences are also represented by the ideal form of the circle, however, unlike the concepts, their basic ontological continuum is not the form per se, but its lack – emptiness. Circle void – an allegory of circular suggestion.

Symbol 4 – Binegation

Bridge dialogue is a formal representative of one of the most famous mathematical theories. Bertrand Russell’s theories of binegation. Binegation in distilled simplification represents the basic truth of mathematics in one simple idea. We will paraphrase the idea for better understanding.

– When two sets, on the polarities of the relation, are annulled, the relation that remains between is the only truth of existence. That is, the relation is true, free from the restriction of semantics.

This universal pattern of binegation can be seen in various natural phenomena and dynamic events, which within their existence contain sets and groupings.

A tree has a root (first set), a crown (second set), and a tree as a relative relation that holds two sets.

Man possesses external infinity (the first set), inner infinity (the second set), and consciousness as the relative relation that connects the two sets.

There are groups (sets) that stand in apparent polarities and surround us in the form of contrasting motifs. Very often they appear as logical systems made up of only two constituents because the third constituent (relative relation) is often of an intellectual (non-physical) nature.

Examples:

Emotion – Logic

Female – Male

Spirit – Body

Magnet poles

Symbol 5 – Story

It’s all a story. If we agree that the definition of a story is everything that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, every space-time phenomenon is a story. The symbol of the story is visible in our design through two perspectives. And as such, this symbol is doubled. It is doubled in structure and stylistics.

Symbol 6 – Rising Sun

The silhouette of the basic constructive and basic pragmatic part of the bridge draws one of the most famous primordial images. An archetypal picture of the Sun rising behind the Temple-City. We find this image (and its analogues) throughout the history of almost all civilizations and cultures as a well-known symbol of God’s action above human creation.

Fractal dimension

The sculpture is, as can be seen from the above, not only polysemantic but in the same aspect fractal. Forms of the fractal structure represent a systematic ontological and cognitive meta-function visible in the whole plane of existence. It is a moment of transformation of quantity into quality. A repetition matrix in which macro and micro constituents stand on the same conceptual principle. The big is reflected in the small, and vice versa. Basically, it is the genetic principle of creation. Each cell contains information about the whole in which it is located. The conceptual generative unit of the bridge-dialogue is derived in the form of an eidetic morpheme: the bridge as a relative relation in the indifference of its own signification. Bridges are woven into the Bridge, concepts into the Concept, and between the concepts are placed bridges and concepts into those bridges. Their communication is complete. The entire sculptural creation in terms of multiple and multi-dimensional symbolism can be interpreted as the key of the hyper-textual work.

The post Phantasmagoric Syntax appeared first on The Architectural Mythologems.

Does writing nurture thought?

The soul is free when it is brought up, claim Eckhart and Goethe. I guess that their upbringing also went through the naming process (Adam’s first task).

Genesis of Anima

As Weininger stated, we came to this world as bisexual. The fetus, in its initial form, contains the potency of both principles. During development, one principle grows cumulatively, and the other remains only as infinite potency. This infinite potency is Anima (Animus).

Given our perceptual possibilities, Anima is not presented (only) as infinite potency, because we cannot just apperceive it, but it is also presented as what we lack – the concrete opposition of our set.

Dream of meaning:

In a dream, God spoke to me. The dream was empty, without any happening. Just a voice saying one sentence:

“The meaning of meaning is not in meaning but in the balance of form”

The dream is, among other definitions, a direct reference to Bertrand Russell’s Binegation.

• If two sets on opposite sides are balanced, the structure relation that remains between them is the final truth – the abbreviation of the logical concept.

The pattern of binegation, which I read today in many external and internal phenomena, opened its universal law to me when I began to seek it in Nature. The epiphanic moment was the discovery and rediscovery of the tree. Trees as an ideal visual representation of binegation. Trees as logical images. Trees as an ethical mechanism.

Crown – an exterior set, (many)

Tree – relation, (one)

Root – internal set (many)

Tree (as imago), communicates ethics

Crowns produce fruit, leaves, oxygen etc. The outer set is ultimately altruistic. It only gives in relation to God (Helios). The tree, or structure relation, is what we see (human perspective). The tree is One constituent that by its number and appearance represents the fractal unit of the remainder. The root, or inner set, is that which nourishes, collects, absorbs from the Earth, and later translates through relation to the outer set. The relation is the truth of the tree. One principle – One God. The relation (tree), is archetypal in relation to the branches. The tree is a principle and a prototype. The tree is a necessary, ontologically complete, pattern that elaborates its story through two contrasting sets.

The root and the crown are visual representations of Development and Maturation.

“Form Equilibrium”

In our imagination, the tree is always in the balance of the crown and the roots, but this is mostly not the case. The Ethics of the Tree communicates differently. The canopy is larger than the Root. Giving is more branching than collecting. The principle of production (ref: Theory of Novum – Terence McKenna) is more dominant than the principle of collection. The principle of maturation is more than the principle of development.

The post Dream and the Tree appeared first on The Architectural Mythologems.