MENTAL ECOLOGY EXPERIMENT

The textural environment,

as a space of understanding

through the eyes

into the psyche,

tessellated into action.

The names as if like to understand language, structure, sequence, and if one action leads to another. Meaning to actually describe an event, a happening, a description of a description. To question the very act of reading, To be in your brain, to touch you thoughts with thoughts of reaching to reach the thoughts of thinking itself.

You have read to become.

I can’t help but want to go into this term

muti-anthromolecular or what it means to become it = 90,000 over black algae.

What is the architecture of thought, the thought of comprehension, of understanding the components in relation to how one understands an idea or reads of such within the mental ecology. To question this, meaning that the mental ecology is one that often times is connected or proscribed medicine (both east and western, northern and southern) when out of function, and or balance, i.e “Ones understanding towards the environment is seen as a pathology, (I pollute my home and ecological systems, I don’t know this but I do it, and when I’m told (by plant, human, wind, etc.) I forgot how to look so I no longer see). So the process in turn begins and one takes a medicine via plant, observation and or action. But to question this idea is to move forward. To question this idea in relation to the environment of the mind itself and or how the idea of becoming a text or a medicine it self through a reading or experiencing of a text itself is the question. To methodologically experience or to read through perception as mental digestion of an idea is again a complex biochemical process but one that again intern can act, as it is a action of becoming or verbing.

When we say that there is an architecture in lava, ask water.

architecture in lava, ask water.

An anthropological understanding of architecture is the unseen bitterness of lemons when the tongue ask for thirst. What is at stake when one does not question the systems of understanding architecture an environmental perspective of what is both in the mental ecology of the mind in which reinforces the ways in which one or many compose, value, or connect to, the biological, and ecological relational systems in which architecture is made from. What are the conditions of architecture itself as an entity of expression to

create or destroy.

mental thought, or architecture be questioned in the sense that it is a matter of only agreed creative energy, or the essence of matter in which was agreed upon by practitioners in relation to a system of tectonics, or the putting together of

a system of components.

essence of transforming, as in to watch wings utter. So is there a system of architectural expression that then looks into this movement of energy itself. Meaning, to ask, what is the architecture of architecture? If architecture is a living entity, and is alive, what happens when one dissects it. A hand full of soil. Again remember we are not talking about architecture as in buildings, but the concept of architecture itself, the very essence of the phenomena. What would it be made of? The more one questions this, one soon finds that architecture as a thought has many limitations in relation to how it is perceived, and the power of it. Not the creativity, or the energy in which creates an understanding of architecture, or the destructive force that also produces architecture, but the energy in itself which is that of the environment in which architecture then would sit. Architecture is therefore a theory or movement in itself. However, the energy one creates with, or destroys with, is a question to ask, or explore together. You the reader, are the architecture, its energy, and to look deeply into this matter is to start to design with the vitality in which it offers through the perception of the mind. Is architecture thought, or does it require thinking. Is it conceptualised as evolving from history. Is architecture only based on evolution or can it forget identity. This means of course that its contextual. Its relational, but in that, it is also limited in the sense that it has always been, as in, to soak in a reflection of its connection. Architecture is not creative at all in the sense of class. Meaning that the classification of architecture then already limits the context, or the connection that, the meaning of that word has on the form of transformation of architectural matter itself. If we agree that thought can be matter as well, even the thinking or the connection to creative

is a limit to the creator.

This is an architectural observing,

A running of history.

or a questioning, of the energy itself in which design, or destruction has to exist through, or manifest within, which in essence is a movement toward architecture. The reader is the read, meaning that the writer is the written. To question the meaning of architectural blurs with the aspiration to observe the environmental fluctuations while you see, in you, in us, as we, move through, live between, the carbon particles that flux the architectural lungs of a living ecology. To create the many within the inner.

The idea of the text it self having a life, is tumbling, a falling, i.e or via, or in relation to the memory of what is read. So the idea of taking the invisible thought and forming it into a visible thought through text is an alchemic process. to question, What is the site in which this process happens, how can text and the composition of the words both graphically and conceptually form architectural imaginations, reflections, analysis and or observations in the readers mind.

Title = “The architectual space between starvation and surplus”

When we say that there is an architecture in lava, ask water.

An anthropological understanding of architecture is the unseen bitterness of lemons when the tongue ask for thirst. What is at stake when one does not question the systems of understanding architecture an environmental perspective of what is both in the mental ecology of the mind in which reinforces the ways in which one or many compose, value, or connect to, the biological, and ecological relational systems in which architecture is made from. What are the conditions of architecture itself as an entity of expression to

create or destroy.

Can the mental thought, or architecture be questioned in the sense that it is a matter of only agreed creative energy, or the essence of matter in which was agreed upon by practitioners in relation to a system of tectonics, or the putting together of

a system of components.

Matter is the essence of transforming, as in to watch wings utter. So is there a system of architectural expression that then looks into this movement of energy itself. Meaning, to ask, what is the architecture of architecture? If architecture is a living entity, and is alive, what happens when one dissects it. A hand full of soil. Again remember we are not talking about architecture as in buildings, but the concept of architecture itself, the very essence of the phenomena. What would it be made of? The more one questions this, one soon finds that architecture as a thought has many limitations in relation to how it is perceived, and the power of it. Not the creativity, or the energy in which creates an understanding of architecture, or the destructive force that also produces architecture, but the energy in itself which is that of the environment in which architecture then would sit. Architecture is therefore a theory or movement in itself. However, the energy in which one creates with, or destroys with, is a question to ask, or explore together. You the reader, are the architecture, its energy, and to look deeply into this matter is to start to design with the vitality in which it offers through the perception of the mind. Is architecture thought, or does it require thinking. Is it conceptualised as evolving from history. Is architecture only based on evolution or can it forget itself, and recreate its identity. This means of course that its contextual. Its relational, but in that, it is also limited in the sense that it has always been, as in, to soak in a reflection of its connection. Architecture is not creative at all in the sense of class. Meaning that the classification of architecture then already limits the context, or the connection that, the meaning of that word has on the form of transformation of architectural matter itself. If we agree that thought can be matter as well, even the thinking or the connection to creative expression in the field of architecture,

A running of history.

This is an architectural observing,

or a questioning, of the energy itself in which design, or destruction has to exist through, or manifest within, which in essence is a movement toward architecture. The reader is the read, meaning that the writer is the written. To question the meaning of architectural blurs with the aspiration to observe the environmental fluctuations while you see, in you, in us, as we, move through, live between, the carbon particles that flux the architectural lungs of a living ecology. To create the many within the in

inner.

The process and writing = with 12 they saw 3, as if to think in cycles.

One has to question what it means to write as into compose,

Where does the layers of writing happen, via or i.e, in the thought to the pen or paper or the keys to screen, then back to the eyes for thought to question:

then to become approved

to then go to the reader,

to then think,

to then like,

to then perceive,

to then question,

to then begin to write.

What does this process actually consist of,

How can you map this journey or the

process of seeing yourself becoming it,

if we were to look at the process of writing

as a form of architecture in the sense of

building from components,

how does one carry on,

What are the components,

where is the conceptual framework

of creative expression find its origin.

And how can this be questioned

or observed.

x12 = no forms in and apple seed before we saw to speak as into propose as into notice 12 air bubbles in a singing waterfall Is this interesting to consider as an architect in relation to writing? Just as you would consider all the environmental conditions of a site both anthropologically, materials, HISTORY etc, one should, or not, or maybe think about, also considering the Haptic relations of the text itself, themselves, or ourselves, being that what ever you write will be translated in the invisible mental ecology of the readers brain, how can you design for this.

If one is to write

as into move

into action,

to reflect

to compare

to describe

to connect

to suggest

to relate

to stretch

to lie

to become

to exchange

The learning beyond words and the stopping of each fragment, meaning to know and or to see and learn beyond the words is the stillness of a rapid movement. Not a stillness as in to not move but rather a connecting to this knowing and movement through moving on seeing that one is moving with it in stillness. to learn to see, true or false observation.

No within letters ,

No between sounds,

No to much words,

No power in name,

No within terminology,

As in to be aware but not fluctuating as in to be aware of the listening but not in flux of receiving the message. Can we hear each tone without the thought of what it means to listen in which would formulate the appreciation and or expectation of one being ready or reacting to the

responses of red/reader

the more you seem to known shows me the fact that we known you known you know you know = 0

ation = denoting; an action or an instance of it.

ology = subject of study; a branch (not tree) of knowledge.

The decision to compose a written experience is one of architectural intention in the methodology of creative expression meaning that the seen contextual marks, lines, shapes, that gather to become letters/words and all forms of seen semantics being mirrored on your optical lobe is again designed to be a reflection of looking, with or reading with ones eyes and visual sensory which will intern affect perfection of the visual text itself, themselves, or ourselves. So the architecture of the text itself is a point of departure within the mental ecology or memory. But to actually see the text one is also looking with electricity, to look intensely, to race from axon to axon of the unseen to comprehend to become the text itself is researching the looking of the researcher. The architecture of questing perception through seen and unseen compositions/plans of textual layering. The seen of the visual, the unseen of movement, the mixture both as textual medicine for the reader to become through re searching or looking though or at the researcher research.

Is a true knowing, beyond opposite of the false contrast.

Meaning to listen without at wanting or expecting to hear, meaning to listen without the mental digestion of the minds making clear its reception and bracing of the response tones? what does is mean to listen in this way in relation to connecting to ones internal and or external environment, can one listen to the mental ecology of the mind without the observation of the watching. what can one here. not to accept. who is the one we are referring to and is the reader actually reading or is the reader the idea of the read, meaning can reading, this line, then start the listening in which one is connecting to or rejecting to , and or thinking about in relation to the pass lines through a silence of the questions in a dot to end this sentence . to classify within as in to see the fragments, do you see them as in to explore, the process of trying to make the circle out of dots, each one will still engulf its knowing as in to say they are all fragments still, and one as in twelve will not make the whole in a gestalt way? or as oil.

to identify with with

When we say that there is an architecture in lava, ask water.