As you know I have lots of questions about how AI is applied. I like the comparison of architecture to early childhood education. As I read the comparison, I wanted to know how widespread is the practice of these shared principles. I was picturing a Venn diagram. In other words, I am interested in the concrete application of principles. I want to know what practitioners are learning and how that matters in other fields of work. Bridging differences by showing similarities, for me, is a powerful rationale for these AI tools.
Thanks Ed. What intrigues me is the willingness to ask and play with non obvious, non linear comparisons like this to mine the output for insights. It is the opposite of “performative” and likely to be anaethema in many workplaces.
Which is why I like wandering outside the walls :-)
Yes. It is why I like the way you think and work. The more anarchic and discontinuous the points of reference the more interesting things become. And then there are those who have preceded us who have been doing the same thing. There are centers of study that invite this kind of thinking. Architecture is one of them. Christopher Alexander, Leon Krier, and Juhani Pallasmaa are three who have expanded my understanding of the world. One of the keys is thought about the human body. Two of Pallasmaa's books are The Embodied Image and The Thinking Hand. His best book is The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senes. Alexander was a voluninous writer of A Pattern Language and the four volume The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and The Nature of the Universe. The connective ligaments to all this is understanding how our bodies function in relation to our minds. This is where Iain McGilchrist's work enters in. It is as if the body is a portal between the life of the mind and the world beyond our experience. The search is more interesting every day.
As you know I have lots of questions about how AI is applied. I like the comparison of architecture to early childhood education. As I read the comparison, I wanted to know how widespread is the practice of these shared principles. I was picturing a Venn diagram. In other words, I am interested in the concrete application of principles. I want to know what practitioners are learning and how that matters in other fields of work. Bridging differences by showing similarities, for me, is a powerful rationale for these AI tools.
Thanks Ed. What intrigues me is the willingness to ask and play with non obvious, non linear comparisons like this to mine the output for insights. It is the opposite of “performative” and likely to be anaethema in many workplaces.
Which is why I like wandering outside the walls :-)
Yes. It is why I like the way you think and work. The more anarchic and discontinuous the points of reference the more interesting things become. And then there are those who have preceded us who have been doing the same thing. There are centers of study that invite this kind of thinking. Architecture is one of them. Christopher Alexander, Leon Krier, and Juhani Pallasmaa are three who have expanded my understanding of the world. One of the keys is thought about the human body. Two of Pallasmaa's books are The Embodied Image and The Thinking Hand. His best book is The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senes. Alexander was a voluninous writer of A Pattern Language and the four volume The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and The Nature of the Universe. The connective ligaments to all this is understanding how our bodies function in relation to our minds. This is where Iain McGilchrist's work enters in. It is as if the body is a portal between the life of the mind and the world beyond our experience. The search is more interesting every day.