We decide whether or not to join a revolution but we have little or no power over an evolution process. With this manifesto of mine, I condemn your superman manifesto. We are no longer interested in your promise of turning things around within the twinkle of an eye. We want someone who is ready to give us an ear; someone to tell us the truth for a start. Things have changed; the so called revolution will in the long run form part of the evolution process. It is an interdependent system in which no man has ever been and will never be an island. From the open source networks to the diverse professions we have all chosen, there are collaborations, the strength in the unification of our differences are bearing fruits for all who will take a little break from the role of the oppressor man to see. It is a fact that the most learned book worm cannot claim to have possession of all information. Is there a difference between knowledge and wisdom? Does the former inform the later? A collective body of knowledge is present and its application by everyone is responsible for where we find ourselves today. The wisdom of an individual is a drop of water in an ocean.

Variety is human and tolerance will save us from unnecessary conflict. Why would a single individual or establishment in the name of architecture be given the power to determine the future of our mode of life from the scale of the city to the knob on the tiniest door? Why have we shifted the whole responsibility to a sect within a conflicting family? We saw them come and go with their heavy baggage of styles and movements, failing to acknowledge they are part of our evolution. They have shaped our destiny with a group of lines. We have to make this formation dance graceful. I am not calling for a change of the reality; I am advocating the use of the right spectacles. No matter the amount of followers your school of taught has been able to bring together, no matter the consequences of its actions, be reminded that on the timeline of the existence of the human race, I am still trying to locate that one drop on yours in this mighty ocean of ours.

© Cosmos Bedzra

In Francis Heylighen’s “Cybernetics and second order Cybernetics” discusses how cyberneticians use relational high level concepts to “analyze and formally model different abstract properties of systems and their dynamics” thus “allowing us to ask such questions as whether complexity tends to increase with time.”

I will start by saying that in my effort to understand Cybernetics, first and/or second order, that the above statement holds true. The more I read, the more difficult the concepts became to grasp, not withholding the infuriating spatters of terms that only those already familiar with cybernetics would understand.

The idea of understanding how things work and the concept of deconstructing autonomy are intriguing but how does that apply to architecture?

Yes, architecture is continually re-inventing itself by leaps and bounds with new technology and attention to the concerns of the day. But what are we hoping to achieve by studying cybernetics in relation to it? Most traditional architecture is static. Even if it is not, it is only in recent years that buildings or its components have had the ability to respond to external stimuli. Perhaps the study of cybernetics is moving towards the creation of an autonomous building? One that will think for its user and pre-empt its needs and wants.

Excuse me for being a naysayer but haven’t most of us watched “i.Robot” where the cyborg is able to think for itself then tries to take over the world? I don’t know how much of an autonomous building I’d like to live in if what I do is being “observed” and analysed by the walls and windows.

To a large degree, yes, it is extremely practical to have detectors and sensors that will help save on running costs or help the environment. However, when it comes to cybernetics within the realm of architecture, I believe that second-order cybernetics would be much more useful in studying. I think that if the study of the intended users of the piece of architecture involved how they think, work and react to different stimuli, much more functional and successful architecture could be developed.

For now, based on my crude understanding of Cybernetics, I say that there are probably people other than Architects who would benefit more from the intense study of it. Then again, I probably misunderstood the entire article (I skipped the parts about equations).

please upload your manifesto here.

Liss