science?

the less you know, the more you discover.
scientific thinking is a philosophy.
philosophy is a social science.
but, most of the scientific theories were put forward by philosophers. so where does the boundary lie? is it the ability to question whats there? or think think of alternative ways of wht it could be? or jus to sit and look more deeply into what you know? does this make science happen? there seems to be a paradox here, as einstein seems to have come up with his theory because he knew less or developed slowly.relativity is hard to grasp. it involves us to imagine scenes that are hypothetical and so tests the highest and most profound logic that we can execute. isnt philosophy logic? so has modern science finally evolved to the position where it began... in the philosophy of it? or was it always like this? i doubt not, why then would newton have absolute and definite values for time. perhaps all contempories possess thoughts such as mine, its jus that this process is repeated, but with the ever evolving society, its reception is different. perhaps thats why einstein was more popular than gallileo. science today is just meant to help us discover science tomorrow. what is accepted depends on the social implications. so science and philosophy are almost the same thing, and they are related in that one determines the fate of the other.

also, sociology in terms of the devlopment or liberation of the mind has made people more open to new ideas and theories thus resulting in the popularity of modern science as compared to the past where galilioes philosophy encouraged scientific thinkin in a generation where no one thought, but just accepted.

H&D

well what do i have to say today?i was just reading erwins book. i realised that theres a lot said about architecture that we don't JUST see. It is the observation. the sensitivity. the whole emerging from the parts. the essential intergration of a structure.not the division. it seems to be a reversible process in terms of words, but like its mathematical parallel, integration isnt the same as division. Intergration starts from the basics of the building. To the detail of its use, and these details are used to create the whole. Thus making the building true to itself. Because it merely is what it is. But when dividing, the larger form is already created and we merely add the functions to this, and thus we create a fickle entity that is there merely because it has to be. in this sense, ur creating something that u envision, and not what is meant to be.
well it seems as tho im going on the tracks of kheng soon, but it came from my own understanding of herzog and de meuron. i guess it makes sense. but applying it at that level is the arduous task, and if im correct it will come gradually. our world is polluted and its difficult to get over the ornamented style that is all around us. functionality versus decoration. This doesnt even show half the picture. basically a building should jus grow out of its site, like the mountains, because it was meant to be there, and so it is.
i think my father would have made a better architect than ill ever be. He posseses the sensitivity to his environment and surroundings that make him observe things that most of us are blinded to. houses that dont have the post modern minimalistic style are not our type.. our type, those that are featured in architectural fashion magazines, would flip by his eyes. they arent him and so theyre not livable. his concept of a livable house makes him, unknowlingly, utter the essence of what a house should be. U mite think im just stating the obvious.. a house has to be livable rite? but in todays polluted architectural world, the real neccessities and beauties of architectural planning have been wiped out. houses arent designed for the people, but more for the architects or the fashion. The average person is not going to be able to relate to the modernities of life. It reflects in the types of houses they like. One might also think that this particular person is living in the past... but its possible that the past was capable of satisfying the livabilty coefficient (to make it sound cinfusin). At the superficial level, one appeals to first impressions. But at the natural level (how life works and reality) one appeals to ur biological, social, cultural self and its needs.
perhaps everyone is given this innate sense, maybe it has to be tapped to be developed, or perhaps you have to probe to find it... or its your experiences and age that moulds them in you... whatever it mite be, it is the key to making great buildings.buildings that satisfy the soul.

phew what a blog for today.. ill have to thank herzog and de meuron for the inspiration. :)

Ocean

an ocean
its connotation is typical
it symbolises distance.
Separation.
Fantasy.
Mystery.
But the sea?
What is it?
An ocean in a smaller scale?
More realistic...
Tangible?

Dreams are oceans.
Life; the sea.
We control none;
But we define the horizon...