Frances to William and Kate and others... Without intending to unduly dwell on this topic of attempting to frame an architectural theory, the issue of consciousness and architecture occurred much earlier in my preparing for discussions, but it was relegated by me to the periphery, because it seemed a tad too subjectivist and psychologistic. Upon further reflection however it now seems that consciousness may indeed have an important role to play in my probe. The overall philosophy of realist pragmatism as a my tentative guide does seemingly allow consciousness in science, because it admits that only psychology can account for those instances of reason that logic cannot account for, such as the initial desire for seeking truth that thinkers have in the first place.
On the issue of consciousness and architecture, if planners and makers and users are subliminally affected by their own unknown consciousness when engaging any aspect of architecture, then consciousness should be considered as a factor to some degree in attempting to frame a theory of architecture. If in the evolution of humans for example they are naturally disposed by innate tendency to seek adequate shelter for purposes of survival, and thus are compelled by instinct and intuition to comply with this trait as given by adept habit, then it may be that their pure feeling of inner consciousness is one primary cause that drives them toward what is now called architecture. If warranted and justified, such evolutionary factors would likely place consciousness within the psychical and mental and cerebral spheres of architectural theory; which is to say, within those pragmatic dimensions of architectural force and power that are instrumental and operational and utilitarian and applicative. It seems that consciousness after all goes to the effects either of humans on architecture or of architecture on humans. In the original and primal evolution of ancient humans, the effects would likely be of humans on architecture. In the industrial and civil evolution of modern humans, the effects would likely be of architecture on humans. If the inner consciousness of normal human persons is to be held as part of an architectural theory, then it might fall under that department dealing with the pragmatic evocation of architecture. The persons involved would be the average participant, but could range from designers and builders to occupiers. It is therefore assumed that consciousness does play a key role in the practice of architecture. The initial task for me however is to clearly define in a relevant manner what consciousness indeed is, because not all learned fields agree on a single global definition. Under realist pragmatism all of consciousness in life is held found to be pure inner feeling, and without any logical reason to be so. The psychical state of consciousness can also variously be unconscious or subconscious or conscious. The human however is held to have no direct contact with their own consciousness, nor any absolute assurance that what the self feels or senses of its own self is in fact correct. To the extent that a mistake can be made by a human, about what their personal self may feel or sense of their self or of some other object, such as in the case of referred phantom pain, then the truth of inner consciousness must be inferred and interpreted by the human. This act makes consciousness a sign for the human being, which further represents the private self as a signified subject to the public person. The issue then turns on the role that consciousness might play in architectural theory, to the extent that something good might emerge about the relation between the human and the practice as a project or process or product. It seems correct that the faculty and facility of consciousness is given uncontrolled to persons as a dispositional tendency, and is an innate trait that persons engage subliminally. It is also likely the seat of paradigm belief systems, both natural and cultural. The range should thus be of natural consciousness, which then leads to doubt and judgement and belief, which then yields cultural consciousness. If humans are found to be pushed or pulled toward architecture by way of certain feelings, for say purposes of survival and comfort, then consciousness should be held as a natural normal habit that justifies architecture as an act and as an art. The field and study of architecture could then use this psychical information as a guide in its practice. William partly wrote... ...because I want to claim that all consciousness is embedded in belief... Kate smartly replied... Shouldn't that be that all belief is embedded in consciousness? No consciousness, no belief?
