[thanks Anand for fostering more discussions,
was late to sign-on today and so here a post
exchanged to share with the list, not sure if it
has already been sent or not, so here it is....]

Anand, I believe we are thinking about a similar
thing in two very different ways, and so I now try
to clarify why I wrote what I did, though am failing
to make clear my reasoning- and it is frustrating
as I wish I could be more clear. In other words, we
may be 'at different ends' of language, in ways, of
the spectrum, not that one is better or worse, just
that it is different vantages, maybe reasonings,
and what may be relevant for my locality may not
be for yours. My focus is quiet simple in that I find
language unsuitable to ideas at a certain point,
a limit can get reached, that it is bounded by a
psychological or perceptual or conceptual limit,
and thus, to be able to use a tool to get at this
edge/hinge/joint condition, a shift or turning in
how something may be considered- it is of my
experience that writing cannot do this, at least
for me. And, with many large complex issues,
'the solution' may be a tool rather than technic/
technique for managing large amounts of data
or information as language in a systemic way.

What I was imagining, and it is just a thought
not anything to produce at this moment though
it would be greatly useful software in my opinion
for conceptualization of ideas, a simple program,
and I have read of XML enough (after writing to
you about it, I think it was) to learn that there is
mathematical notation which has set theory in
it, so that Venn Diagrams may be possible with
present-day math-xml. I do not know what is
entailed in such a system, yet it would be a
possibility to make a 'web-based' XML-based
venn-diagram generator, for communications/
conceptualization in the way Prem described
with issues of hierarchy and scale. Venn logic
diagrams outline a 'universe' in which 'sets'
are placed. Well, anyone of these could be
linked to another, similar but different Venn
diagram in scale or hierarchy, in the same
format-- it is the method to deal with issues
related to working from known concepts to
unknowns, across scales and disciplines. At
least, this is how they could be used and I may
or may not be proposing this for architectural
reasoning, as a method that is as simple or
as complex as one's thinking/reasoning of
ideas. It is a way to reason, even argue, in
diagrams, a certain position of reality and-or
realities, and to find relationships between
them, in simple and universal and literal
enough visuals yet could then be 'mapped'
or hyperlinked (never done before, as far as
i am aware) so that these scales could be
shown, and a type of classification of each
diagram or scale could be a mark, which
sentences in a larger argument could be
referencing or the diagram could reference.

Thus, a simple tool. The reason it seemed
interesting to me is that, it is likely a small
program that may be possible to develop on
a small scale. And if it is effective as some
kind of experiment in communications, that
is, if people find it useful to get at their ideas
and thinking and sharing it, then it might be
one of those realms of architecture which
cross-over into other realms (such as with
architects who design educational toys,
say, or like Negroponte's MIT media lab).
if such a 'tool' was part of a new context of
architecture, visual but not just imagery in
aesthetic terms, but also logical functions,
it could break through the language barrier
and get further into the things masked by
words and sentences and fault-tolerances
of trying to share/reason/communicate and
the breakdowns in relating ideas where
the assumptions may not be shared or
able to be communicated. I find a current
threshold so high that it is pointless to try
to communicate, as it is a waste of time,
energy, efforts, in language. A whiteboard
and some dry-erase markers would enable
10 years of work online, through diagrams,
within a few days of communicating. it is
this aspect of sharing ideas which is a limit
(to me at least) and it is not a technical as
much as a cultural situation. Language to
me is the problem, how to get beyond it-
or to another scale/hierarchy/resolution-
yet in the best form (information) possible.

below are two examples, the first is that a
complexity can be found in one Venn logic
diagram (16 options) yet this is only for 2
sets, there can be more per diagram. And
each of these linked to another. If it were
to be developed and released or on the
az website, say, just for an example, it may
be a way to show how architecture is able
to go beyond other disciplines in dealing
with things, that architects are of the inter-
disciplinary sort, etc. this is for the future.
it may sound absurd or some private thing
yet if given the chance someday, i intend
to provide plenty of evidence for such a
method to get at the ideas, that is, to get
ahold of language, conceptualization and
a shared basis for reasoning. it is the best
way i've found for, say, comparing issues
such as public and private space, which
one could make a diagram of, and in that
diagram could range physical space of
various cultural conceptions of spaces
in these terms, inside and outside say,
and also other aspects such as using
encryption in terms of architectural space.
one can write it, but with Venn diagrams
one can logically reason it and win the
arguments in the language.

Thus, if architects are facing some local
situation with various constituencies, it
is a tool for taking control of languages
and reasoning, getting a handle on it to
a mathematical degree, and placing all
ideas in a similar universe, it may be a
new kind of site plan or context, for ideas.
and building ideas, between online and
offline realms. this may be irrelevant yet
i know it has not been done, as it is a way
to get beyond paradox, and now most all
is stuck in the either-or certainty of some
discrete positioning, and it is impossible
to write through it, to reason with words
and sentences, it is not only absurd, it
induces nausea at the impossibility to go
beyond and get to the present, and future,
with ideas, all is stuck circa 1960s now,
IMO, and (re) cycling on itself, over & over.

this is not a judgment, it is a situation in
my view, and i could reason it, yet to move
beyond it, IMO, will take a new tool of ideas,
getting to the concepts as concepts, and
their relations, rather than surfing word-
scapes. it is this futility of communication,
and the fact that the idiots are winning, that
makes trying to write/speak/talk at distances
absurd, for miscommunications or lack of
shared realities may inhibit shared senses.
idiocy and brainwashing do not make for
good habitats for thinking, either, so please
understand i envy that you are having these
discourses, it keeps my hope alive for the
field. it is certainly dead here, except for
ideas, yet a fuller range of realization may
be possible there, that i cannot comprehend.

i need to power down on all of this, right
now. appreciate your sending the ideas.
i was trying to say 'i relate' and even more,
have been thinking about what you wrote
as it is quite accurate to the situation and
it amazes me as you are in real-time with
thinking, it is an immediate sense which i
do not encounter here, the field is just a
profession, one of many, not a passion of
which you, Prem, and others demonstrate.
and a large one, with people of many skills
and ideas. so if i can share one belief about
all of this, it would be that in communicating
ideas, to share them, say between me and
you, such a venn diagram tool would offer
options now limited by text-language and
writing itself, yet also not just visualization
of this, either, as buildings or ideas, but as
mapped concepts across scales/hierarchies
in some rudimentary way that may need to
proceed more advanced approaches, as
if the thinking is not that advanced, the tools
may show a complexity that fogs up ideas,
defeating them in the process of machination.
many are robots today. many building many
machines. this to me is engineering though
not architecture. not a technical solution but
a cultural question, with a whole range of
approaches, including technical, theory,
others. yet so much is automated as ideas,
that the 'content' to me is lost in the form or
formalism. widespread. unleash the ideas,
that is what needs to happen here. ideas
are held captive to bureaucratic machines
and their keepers, and it kills the ideas and
possibilities of building better worlds.

i may try to propose something for a lecture
about this, the architecture of the united
nations, yet it is in such an abstraction that
the only way to get there in language, on
a mass scale, from where things are today
is with a venn logic diagram for sharing of
ideas/communicating as the threshold of
differences versus assumptions may be a
limit upon ideas, where private vantages
may stop public discourses(space) from
getting to architectures and architectural
issues where they exist today, if only they
can be approached/communicated beyond
current limitations in language. brian

Seeing Deduction Happen by Exclusion
with Interactive Diagrams

The Things You Can Say About A and B



Venn Control        License: Freeware           Teroid Venn Control is
a .NET control implementing the concept of the Venn diagram invented in
1880 by the Cambridge lecturer John Venn FRS. The purpose of the Venn
diagram is to represent visually the intersection of sets using
overlapping circles and can be used to represent numerous different
types of information within many fields. The control's appearance is
set programatically, and additionally the values, item text, title text
and sub text.

        Publisher: |  Date: 08-01-2004 | Size:        110 KB

Venn Control (image) by Teroid Software