The future does not have a definite form

Thesis (M.S.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1984. === MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND ROTCH === Includes bibliographical references. === If the city is more than a mere physical form, it is also the medium and outcome of the social "habitus" that...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Patrose, Prataap
Other Authors: Julian Beinart.
Format: Others
Language:en_US
Published: Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2005
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/27933
id ndltd-MIT-oai-dspace.mit.edu-1721.1-27933
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-MIT-oai-dspace.mit.edu-1721.1-279332019-05-02T15:50:51Z The future does not have a definite form Patrose, Prataap Julian Beinart. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Architecture. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Architecture. Architecture. Thesis (M.S.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1984. MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND ROTCH Includes bibliographical references. If the city is more than a mere physical form, it is also the medium and outcome of the social "habitus" that sustains the practice of a city. Groups of people who maintain certain common practices after awhile perceive them to be normal and "natural," even though the intentions sustaining some of these practices are limiting and inconsistent . As designers, our attempts at structuring formal and spatial order by classifications and by the interpretation of patterns, limits our other societal intention of influencing the future increasingly. The practice of classification and the recognition of patterns rests on the belief of the existence of an objective reality which structures our attempts at creating. What does it imply about t he influence we have on our future , if the environment we live in is a predetermined stasis? How objective is "what exists" ? Can form and spatial practices be self-justifying by their objective existence? If we are to approach these questions, we need to have measures of better and worse, a nd t he means for evaluating options in order to make consistent choices in the present. Underlying this proposition is the belief that all that we have as conscious human beings is the present. This paper explores three cultural assumptions that our existing mode of approaching the future is seen to rest on. These are: the belief in the existence of an objective future, the possibility of creating it in the present, and the position of individual subjectivity as being extraneous to the notion of an objective plan. The thoughts expressed here are intended to be more provocative than prescriptive, in the hope that we may design with a more conscious practice of intent. by Prataap Patrose. M.S. 2005-09-26T17:30:59Z 2005-09-26T17:30:59Z 1984 1984 Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/27933 11722103 en_US M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 109 leaves 3839610 bytes 3852757 bytes application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf Massachusetts Institute of Technology
collection NDLTD
language en_US
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Architecture.
spellingShingle Architecture.
Patrose, Prataap
The future does not have a definite form
description Thesis (M.S.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1984. === MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND ROTCH === Includes bibliographical references. === If the city is more than a mere physical form, it is also the medium and outcome of the social "habitus" that sustains the practice of a city. Groups of people who maintain certain common practices after awhile perceive them to be normal and "natural," even though the intentions sustaining some of these practices are limiting and inconsistent . As designers, our attempts at structuring formal and spatial order by classifications and by the interpretation of patterns, limits our other societal intention of influencing the future increasingly. The practice of classification and the recognition of patterns rests on the belief of the existence of an objective reality which structures our attempts at creating. What does it imply about t he influence we have on our future , if the environment we live in is a predetermined stasis? How objective is "what exists" ? Can form and spatial practices be self-justifying by their objective existence? If we are to approach these questions, we need to have measures of better and worse, a nd t he means for evaluating options in order to make consistent choices in the present. Underlying this proposition is the belief that all that we have as conscious human beings is the present. This paper explores three cultural assumptions that our existing mode of approaching the future is seen to rest on. These are: the belief in the existence of an objective future, the possibility of creating it in the present, and the position of individual subjectivity as being extraneous to the notion of an objective plan. The thoughts expressed here are intended to be more provocative than prescriptive, in the hope that we may design with a more conscious practice of intent. === by Prataap Patrose. === M.S.
author2 Julian Beinart.
author_facet Julian Beinart.
Patrose, Prataap
author Patrose, Prataap
author_sort Patrose, Prataap
title The future does not have a definite form
title_short The future does not have a definite form
title_full The future does not have a definite form
title_fullStr The future does not have a definite form
title_full_unstemmed The future does not have a definite form
title_sort future does not have a definite form
publisher Massachusetts Institute of Technology
publishDate 2005
url http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/27933
work_keys_str_mv AT patroseprataap thefuturedoesnothaveadefiniteform
AT patroseprataap futuredoesnothaveadefiniteform
_version_ 1719029360814456832