Home Page link

Christopher Egan

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 5 of 7       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Christopher Egan JD 01-19-2008
---> Re: Christopher Egan Chandler Knowle...01-20-2008
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by JD on January 25, 2008, 7:30 pm
I had forgotten about ghost sniper. Was that the kid in Seattle who kept
harping about sprawl?

Seems ot me that THE DOOGS!!! got to Chris once or twice too. Whatever
happened tothat guy? Is he at Gitmo?

And where's brudgers? Oh wait, I know, but I ain't tellin'!

And oh, BTW, I'm not dead yet.

Nice to see some of the old names. Even ones I've had battles with... some
dating back to the turn of the century.

Of course, Don is like a cockroach, this forum will never get rid of him.

Lucky Pierre, Ken, The Multi-dimensional Piranha, Soup, er, Rico DuJour

Master architect who takes more vacations than one man should be allowed,
Sir Fritz.

As for those battles, Edgar, we got into something about schools or arch
education I think. And was it Dezignare that thinks all states should
license ID's?

Chris weighed in on a lot of things back when this forum was more relevant.
I remember a lot of back and forth with Marcello. Those guys could go on
about all that history and theory stuff for days.

But mostly I remember how he could handle me. I gave him shit at times just
because he was too nice. We had disagreements but he had a knack for reading
the inflection in my writing without my having to resort to emoticons. It's
a skill that most of the youngsters do not possess and it's so fun to see
panties get wadded up.

What pissed me off about Chris was that, for the most part, he put up with
fools -- sometimes by ignoring them.

It pissed me off because I haven't the strength.

Sometimes I think that I want to be like Chris when I grow up.





>
>> Remember the post he made one time about water?
>> Man, almost made me get all misty eyed.
>> The boy could write some stuff when he set his mind to it.
>> Only once did I ever see him step, outside the boudaries of
>> *professionalism* in his writings, the oldtimers know what I'm talking
>> about.
>> And it was but a minor consideration considering the topic of the thread
>> twist. heh
>>
>
> This one?
> ---------------------------------
> Greetings to all here in alt.architecture.
>
> I have been generally disgusted by much of the recent content of the
> group, ...especially the cross-posts from some rather odd
> newsgroups...so I've stayed out of it. However, I finally decided that I
> have an obligation to express my opinion....welcome or not. In doing
> so, I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me....simply trying
> to give balance to some rather bizarre points of view.
>
>
> I am also going to criticize the beliefs of a long-time poster to this
> group, something I generally try to avoid. However, I feel quite
> strongly that my friend ghost-sniper has made too many hostile comments
> against civilization as a whole, including obnoxious and uncalled-for
> personal attacks on anyone with whom he disagrees, and that these cannot
> go unchallenged. For the record, those of you who have followed this
> group in recent years will recall that I have on several occasions
> defended his right to express his opinions here, and I will continue to
> do so. Ghost-sniper



Posted by Warm Worm on January 26, 2008, 3:50 pm
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> <cont top posting>
>
> Sounds like the group was more vital, if not more busy. It happens to
> groups. alt.design.graphic used to be a fabulous place I used to lurk just
> for the links that would be batted around (nothing too intellectual, but
> pretty 'state of the web') and the design crits. Then some troll showed up,
> then some who hated the troll, then some of the better contributors quit,
> and that's the end of that golden age.

Groups are what their members make them.
I still prefer the fact that there's no "baby-sitter" here as such.
(You have your own if/when you want to use it [not that it necessarily
works very well, or that your actions don't somehow belie your apparent
use of it ;] )

On forums with "net-nannies", people drop off, too. I've spoken more
about this on here before if you want to do a search.

Frankly, Don appears to be off his rocker sometimes, but then, who
doesn't? ;)

"Too bad she won't live... But then again, who does?"
--Bladerunner

To Chris:
http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/QuotesDeath.html

Posted by Kris Krieger on January 28, 2008, 5:05 pm

>
>> Remember the post he made one time about water?
>> Man, almost made me get all misty eyed.
>> The boy could write some stuff when he set his mind to it.
>> Only once did I ever see him step, outside the boudaries of
>> *professionalism* in his writings, the oldtimers know what I'm
>> talking about.
>> And it was but a minor consideration considering the topic of the
>> thread twist. heh
>>
>
> This one?
> ---------------------------------

Is thre any collection of his writings? I seem to recall he'd written a
book or two; I cna check that, but does anyone know of anything else? He
had a great many intrersting and IMO excellent thoughts, and expressed
them very well and often beautifully...







> Greetings to all here in alt.architecture.
>
> I have been generally disgusted by much of the recent content of the
> group, ...especially the cross-posts from some rather odd
> newsgroups...so I've stayed out of it. However, I finally decided that
> I have an obligation to express my opinion....welcome or not. In
> doing so, I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with
> me....simply trying to give balance to some rather bizarre points of
> view.
>
>
> I am also going to criticize the beliefs of a long-time poster to this
> group, something I generally try to avoid. However, I feel quite
> strongly that my friend ghost-sniper has made too many hostile
> comments against civilization as a whole, including obnoxious and
> uncalled-for personal attacks on anyone with whom he disagrees, and
> that these cannot go unchallenged. For the record, those of you who
> have followed this group in recent years will recall that I have on
> several occasions defended his right to express his opinions here, and
> I will continue to do so. Ghost-sniper has often contributed useful
> observations on construction and the business of building, and I hope
> he will continue to do so. I will not enter into personal attacks, and
> I prefer to think that he will reply in kind....but that is his choice
> to make.
>
>
> First....as to the notion that each of us is responsible only to him
> or her self....this is ridiculous. From the earliest dawn of homo
> sapiens, we are a species that has done its best by working in
> groups...whether for hunting, gathering, agriculture, industry or
> whatever. Isolated individuals who have no support from or interaction
> with a group do not drive pick-up trucks and live in gated
> communities. I assume that every penny that ghost-sniper possesses
> has been earned by honest work...but within a larger economic system
> that generates wealth. Outside of that system, life would be quite
> different.
>
>
> The original meaning of the word "civilization" is the art of living
> in cities....the art by which a large group of people organize
> themselves in order to get along and flourish in a large and complex
> society. Of course, there are cultures in which this level of
> complexity never arises...those that operate at the level of small
> bands, tribes or villages. When everyone is inter-related, or when the
> group is so small that everyone knows everyone else, the system of
> governance can be quite simple. However, once the scale increases to
> include large numbers of people who are unknown to each other and who
> live in different places, the mechanisms that work for governing a
> small group simply do not function. They must be enhanced by larger
> governmental organizations such as states or nations.
>
>
> Now some will say that this is a mistake, and that there should be no
> government larger than a village, similar to the type of community
> effort ghost-sniper described in his description of his gated
> community. Those who live in the United States and who hold this
> opinion are entitled to express them....but I will only respect their
> honesty after they have done the following, all of which are the
> actions of a national government:
>
>
> 1. Leave the territory of the United States since you consider
> the national government and economic system illegitimate and do not
> wish to be tainted by any of the benefits of living here.
> 2. With your friends, find some un-built-upon land and either
> purchase it...without using dollars, which is the currency from our
> supposedly corrupt national economic system backed by the national
> government...or fight a war of conquest to win it, and then seek
> recognition as a state by the world community...or prepare yourselves
> for ongoing military actions by those who do not recognize your claim
> to the land. (The land should be unimproved if you want to prove your
> point of self-sufficiency...otherwise you would be taking advantage of
> the efforts of others which would completely negate your ideas).
> 3. Build your community any way you wish....providing the
> infrastructure
> you desire of roads, ports, airports, water systems, water treatment
> systems, etc.
> 4. Support yourselves any way you wish...but if you wish to sell
> services or goods to citizens of other countries, including the US,
> you will need to develop treaties and request visas. If you prefer
> piracy, that is your right, although you will thereby prove your
> dependence on the efforts of others and must again prepare yourself
> for the military response of other nations.
> 5. Develop your own currency and try to win its acceptance and
> confidence in world markets.
> 6. Attempt to attract foreign investments if you wish to live
> beyond the
> level of subsistence.
> 7. Develop whatever system of justice, policing, etc. you
> choose...and your own system to prevent attack or abuse by criminal
> elements. 8. Develop your own education system, assuming you
> expect your experiment to survive more than one generation.
> 9. Do all this without the support of any national government,
> since you
> do not respect national governments and have repeatedly said that you
> do not want any help from anyone.
>
>
> Then write us and tell us about your new state....then I will listen,
> but not before.
>
>
> The fact is that ghost-sniper is benefiting enormously by living in
> this country under its system of government, economics and
> taxation...and unless he is willing to back up his words with the
> actions I describe above, all his attacks are those of someone barking
> at his own caretaker.
>
>
> Some examples...I was going to remind him that the current
> configuration of our nation was the result of aggressive action in the
> 19th century by the national government, funded by taxpayers, to seize
> vast amounts of land through purchase and/or military conquest, to
> pacify these lands through federal military occupation, to subsidize
> the construction of the railroads through gifts of land and military
> protection, and to subsidize settlement through the offer of land
> grants. However ghost-sniper has already suggested that he considers
> all of these illegitimate and unconstitutional acts in his amusing
> rejection of Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana Territory with
> national tax dollars! Without these actions by the tax-based national
> government we would still be the original 13 colonies on the Atlantic
> Coast, backed up by a much larger French-speaking nation stretching
> from New Orleans to Canada, including Louisiana, Mississippi,
> Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, etc. Of course we don't know
> what would have happened between Spain and France....since for some
> time they were both ruled by the Bourbons,...so maybe all of the North
> American continent would be ruled by a French-Spanish nation
> dominating its tiny English-speaking neighbor. Personally, I imagine
> that if Jefferson had NOT purchased Louisiana, the French and Spanish
> would have ultimately crushed the 13 coastal states in order to win
> access to their Atlantic ports. (By the way....ghost sniper lives in
> Florida...."La Florida" of the Spanish Empire....now just how did THAT
> become part of the US without action by the national government?...or
> maybe he would prefer to pay taxes to King Juan Carlos!?)
>
>
> I for one am quite proud to be part of a civilized society in a nation
> of states. I am quite happy to be part of a species that survives at
> its best through combined efforts. I am also proud to be an
> architect....part of a 5000-year legacy of providing the built
> settings for the life of this civilization.
>
>
> I expect that others share this pride...and I offer you my respect and
> friendship.
>
>
> Christopher Egan,
> Architect and citizen of the United States of America
>
> ------------------------
>
>
>


Posted by Pierre Levesque on January 24, 2008, 9:51 am

> Remember the post he made one time about water?
> Man, almost made me get all misty eyed.
> The boy could write some stuff when he set his mind to it.
> Only once did I ever see him step, outside the boudaries of
> *professionalism* in his writings, the oldtimers know what I'm talking
> about.
> And it was but a minor consideration considering the topic of the thread
> twist. heh
>

Or maybe this one?
------------------------

I guess I could start writing for days on the discussion....about half
of which would be questions...so please consider this post an act of
"thinking out loud" rather than a definitive reply. I won't try to make
a tidy essay...just a series of thoughts.


1. Sorry....I haven't read the book but certainly someone here has.


2. My words may sound a little academic, but they are real thoughts of
a
practicing architect....one who only makes a living by designing real
buildings for very real clients. I do believe, however, that we have the
honor and the challenge to use thought in our work...even though
sometimes it is no more than thought about how to get a school board to
listen to its teachers. Our website has some of my papers that others
have described as useful...and the intro talks about this...."The Demon
of Consciousness". My own work occasionally manifests real thought...and
I hope this will increase now that I am entering the "second half of
life".


3. I would like to question the fundamental method of dialectics that
underlies Rowe's premise as you describe it. Much thought in the 20th
century (the past, you know!) used the intellectual model of
dialectics...positing opposites in conflict....to describe ideas,
trends, etc. While it received its most famous push from Marx (Karl,
not Groucho)...this approach was so universally assumed that it was
almost invisible. However, I once heard Stanislaus Fung (a delightful
professor from Adelaide) remind us that there are other ways to think
about phenomena....instead of seeing things as opposites in conflict, we
can see them as "poles"...two ends of the same thing. For instance,
most plants have roots and leaves....but they are not in opposition to
each other...they are equally necessary, although different, aspects of
the same reality. It is possible that the whole notion of "the idea of
architecture" versus "relation to nature" is simply a failure to leave
the 20th century behind. Maybe we need a new model for thinking about
different aspects...Fung's idea of poles...inextricably bound to each
other but different. Sadly, I think that Rowe may be right that many
20th century architects fell into the trap of using dialectical thought,
and therefore felt obligated to choose between "architecture" and
"nature". Fortunately there were others, notably Alvar Aalto, who
rejected this and gave us another model for modernism.


4. I think there may be something to this idea of "architecture versus
nature"...but only as a historical description of what people
thought....not as a theoretical model for an inevitable reality. It was
probably inevitable, because so much of modern thought, in all
disciplines in the late 19th and early 20th century, involved a crisis
of self-identity for the disciplines (the reasons can be found in any
discussion of the dramatic social, technological, political and cultural
changes that took place between about 1870 and 1918). Painters asked
"what is painting?"...composers asked "what is music?"...physicists
asked "what is matter?"...and architects asked "what is architecture?"


Of course ONE way to understand a thing is to compare it to other things
and look for the differences. I think it was inevitable that some
architects would look for the essence of architecture in its birth in
the human mind....and to try to do this by setting up an opposition to
some "natural" order.


5. I personally think the truth is more complex and interwoven (I once
presented a paper in Auckland called "Dancing on the Threshold of
Thought" that presents a thought-model in which opposites dance with
each other instead of shooting at each other....maybe I'll post it when
we do our next website housekeeping). One example is here in San
Antonio...very old and very solid....and I used it to make this same
point for a group of architecture students from Mexico City. In the
1700s the Spanish built a system of "acequias" throughout San
Antonio...small canals to carry water to the small farms and produce
gardens of the inhabitants. The water came from the river, and since
the fields were always higher than the river, they needed some way to
bring the water to the higher level. Now in many places this was
accomplished by physically lifting the water...but the Spanish had
learned another less-energy-demanding approach from the Muslims who
civilized southern Spain. Instead of raising the water....they would go
upstream to a point where the water level was approximately that of the
fields they wanted to irrigate...and there they would build a small dam,
to raise and maintain the level of the water. Then they would cut a
ditch ("acequia") from the newly-created pond to the fields a few miles
downstream. Now..to get to my point...so I can take my wife to
dinner...there is one place at which the man-made water course must
cross above a natural water course. The solution is obvious...to build
an aqueduct, a bridge to carry the man-made stream over the natural
stream. But for me this 250 year old elegant little stone structure, in
the south side of my hometown, is a direct manifestation of the
duality/polarity that is architecture. It is a clear and unapologetic
construction of an intellectually-determined line, carried across a
natural meandering line, and the physical manifestation is made of stone
and geometry. The naturalness of nature is enhanced by the presence of
the human construction...and the clarity of human thought is enhanced by
its juxtaposition with the natural.


6. I think this approach I recommend can be found also in Heidegger's
notion of the "world and the earth" described in "On the making of the
work of art".....and in Lao Tsu.


Christopher




Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 24, 2008, 10:22 am

>
>> Remember the post he made one time about water?
>> Man, almost made me get all misty eyed.
>> The boy could write some stuff when he set his mind to it.
>> Only once did I ever see him step, outside the boudaries of
>> *professionalism* in his writings, the oldtimers know what I'm talking
>> about.
>> And it was but a minor consideration considering the topic of the thread
>> twist. heh
>>
>
> Or maybe this one?
> ------------------------
>
> I guess I could start writing for days on the discussion....about half
> of which would be questions...so please consider this post an act of
> "thinking out loud" rather than a definitive reply. I won't try to make
> a tidy essay...just a series of thoughts.
>
>
> 1. Sorry....I haven't read the book but certainly someone here has.
>
>
> 2. My words may sound a little academic, but they are real thoughts
> of a
> practicing architect....one who only makes a living by designing real
> buildings for very real clients. I do believe, however, that we have the
> honor and the challenge to use thought in our work...even though
> sometimes it is no more than thought about how to get a school board to
> listen to its teachers. Our website has some of my papers that others
> have described as useful...and the intro talks about this...."The Demon
> of Consciousness". My own work occasionally manifests real thought...and
> I hope this will increase now that I am entering the "second half of
> life".
>
>
> 3. I would like to question the fundamental method of dialectics that
> underlies Rowe's premise as you describe it. Much thought in the 20th
> century (the past, you know!) used the intellectual model of
> dialectics...positing opposites in conflict....to describe ideas,
> trends, etc. While it received its most famous push from Marx (Karl,
> not Groucho)...this approach was so universally assumed that it was
> almost invisible. However, I once heard Stanislaus Fung (a delightful
> professor from Adelaide) remind us that there are other ways to think
> about phenomena....instead of seeing things as opposites in conflict, we
> can see them as "poles"...two ends of the same thing. For instance,
> most plants have roots and leaves....but they are not in opposition to
> each other...they are equally necessary, although different, aspects of
> the same reality. It is possible that the whole notion of "the idea of
> architecture" versus "relation to nature" is simply a failure to leave
> the 20th century behind. Maybe we need a new model for thinking about
> different aspects...Fung's idea of poles...inextricably bound to each
> other but different. Sadly, I think that Rowe may be right that many
> 20th century architects fell into the trap of using dialectical thought,
> and therefore felt obligated to choose between "architecture" and
> "nature". Fortunately there were others, notably Alvar Aalto, who
> rejected this and gave us another model for modernism.
>
>
> 4. I think there may be something to this idea of "architecture
> versus
> nature"...but only as a historical description of what people
> thought....not as a theoretical model for an inevitable reality. It was
> probably inevitable, because so much of modern thought, in all
> disciplines in the late 19th and early 20th century, involved a crisis
> of self-identity for the disciplines (the reasons can be found in any
> discussion of the dramatic social, technological, political and cultural
> changes that took place between about 1870 and 1918). Painters asked
> "what is painting?"...composers asked "what is music?"...physicists
> asked "what is matter?"...and architects asked "what is architecture?"
>
>
> Of course ONE way to understand a thing is to compare it to other things
> and look for the differences. I think it was inevitable that some
> architects would look for the essence of architecture in its birth in
> the human mind....and to try to do this by setting up an opposition to
> some "natural" order.
>
>
> 5. I personally think the truth is more complex and interwoven (I
> once
> presented a paper in Auckland called "Dancing on the Threshold of
> Thought" that presents a thought-model in which opposites dance with
> each other instead of shooting at each other....maybe I'll post it when
> we do our next website housekeeping). One example is here in San
> Antonio...very old and very solid....and I used it to make this same
> point for a group of architecture students from Mexico City. In the
> 1700s the Spanish built a system of "acequias" throughout San
> Antonio...small canals to carry water to the small farms and produce
> gardens of the inhabitants. The water came from the river, and since
> the fields were always higher than the river, they needed some way to
> bring the water to the higher level. Now in many places this was
> accomplished by physically lifting the water...but the Spanish had
> learned another less-energy-demanding approach from the Muslims who
> civilized southern Spain. Instead of raising the water....they would go
> upstream to a point where the water level was approximately that of the
> fields they wanted to irrigate...and there they would build a small dam,
> to raise and maintain the level of the water. Then they would cut a
> ditch ("acequia") from the newly-created pond to the fields a few miles
> downstream. Now..to get to my point...so I can take my wife to
> dinner...there is one place at which the man-made water course must
> cross above a natural water course. The solution is obvious...to build
> an aqueduct, a bridge to carry the man-made stream over the natural
> stream. But for me this 250 year old elegant little stone structure, in
> the south side of my hometown, is a direct manifestation of the
> duality/polarity that is architecture. It is a clear and unapologetic
> construction of an intellectually-determined line, carried across a
> natural meandering line, and the physical manifestation is made of stone
> and geometry. The naturalness of nature is enhanced by the presence of
> the human construction...and the clarity of human thought is enhanced by
> its juxtaposition with the natural.
>
>
> 6. I think this approach I recommend can be found also in Heidegger's
> notion of the "world and the earth" described in "On the making of the
> work of art".....and in Lao Tsu.
>
>
> Christopher

Jeez. I regret to have never made his acquaintance.
BTW, I chafe when non-professionals presume to tell anyone what
professionalism is.
"It's so.... unprofessional!"



Page 5 of 7       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Christopher Alexander's book March 25, 2007, 10:00 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap