There is a metalanguage of studying effective techniques of organization which different sciences are using. It seems that architecture entered this area in the Victorian era when society need architects not only as designers of traditional form and function but as designers of organizations. It is an interesting start point which makes architect’s role more complex and connected to sociology, psychology and many other sciences. Alexsander who was at first a mathematician and then studied architecture developed architecture with rules similar as sciences. Koolhas who at first was a writer and reporter and then studied architecture, with founding his second center (AMO) focused on the relation of architecture with city and brought new diagrams to architecture. UN Studio is known of diagram thinking of circulations. Consequently, this development of architecture through the ages has changed our perception of design to a complex role including many new forces. But there are some traditional forms of architecture that are great examples of systematic thinking. One of those is the old city of Yazd in Iran. Yazd always reminds me that society does not need to have predefined cities but needs to have cities which can grow chaotically, of course with some limited rules between the particles or buildings.

It is weird for me that in this age of technology when humankind is going to grasp the space out of the planet earth, Architecture is not technologically and systematically developed as much as other fields. Systematic comprehensive architecture can be more than responsible; can be even a living form which is growing naturally. Now architects are using genetical algorithms to mimic natural forms. For example, an architect may observe and analyze a piece of bone, divide it to its micro elements and simulate it. But the real natural and systematic design is when designer studies the piece of bone in the scale of the relation of its micro elements or particles and translate them to building parts. The latter process should not happen according to a dead bone and should consider its all of living period that it is growing. It is interesting that there is a written and of course complex central text named DNA which control the birth of a living part and its messages and feedbacks during the life. This text can be read and its simple rules can be translated to our simulations. This holism does not make mistakes. Our future living buildings can adapt themselves to the new problems of cities. Anyway even if architecture use the prevalent technologies appropriately has lots of new hopes for society. With defining new systems such as intelligent material specification there would be first a clever designing help and second an evaluation system to decrease the number of mistakes.

In “The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics,” Park talks about metalanguages used for talking about the ‘instructions’ for architecture and I found that cybernetics itself can be described as a metalanguage.  Cybernetics, and similarly, systemics are constantly evolving conceptual languages of regulation and control which give us an understanding of hierarchic systems of which there is an input and an output.  The idea of a building acting both as an input and output in collaboration with man (“on the one hand serving them and on the other controlling their behavior” was also interesting and also reminding me of the kitten example Wiener gave of roles being reversed and two entities mutually existing.  We often think of buildings serving us, but to think that our surroundings are actually acting as more of a controller is compelling, yet not a new idea.  Gaudi’s Parc Guell does this, though as Park mentions, it evokes specifically contrived emotive responses and feedback.

After going through these readings all I can help, but think is that according to cybernetics (or at least my brief understanding) is that the world is nothing more than a complex network of inputs and outputs and relays all shooting back between one another.  In order to seemingly have more intelligence, one must create more complicated systems where the the outputs constantly feedback into the inputs to create a system that in a sense “learns” from what it is doing and its effects on its surroundings.  This lens of how one might see the world, was strong in  the Weiner reading where he discusses the ideas of input output and feedback.  He also makes the interesting distinction that it matters not whether the feedback from a command is given from a machine or from another human.  The one giving the original command is just looking for confirmation or affirmation that the command was received.  From this, I think that there is a theoretical stance from which to tackle the idea of “artificial intelligence”.  Weiner talks about how outputs affect inputs through feedback systems, and since it matters not who or what is acknowledging commands, than with a complex enough feedback system, artificial intelligence can be born.   There then rises the question of the soul or the human spirit, but one could argue that those ideas are a construction of our own minds.  It could be that we as a species have just developed such a complex feedback system, that anomalies have arisen.  These anomalies could be the result of humans sending output commands or questions for which there are no direct quantitative feedback results.  It is possible, that to compensate, new systems were created allowing for feedback loops to accepts a new qualitative responses, but as new systems of feedback and commands are created, the possibility for more questions arises.

Today, there is a very stark separation among the people who practice architecture. On one hand, those who remain as “purists” (the grand majority) and those who see architecture not as much as bolts and nails but as a collection of instructions, a means to a greater end.
Architecture, in my opinion is above all a set of instructions, and the architect, the person who defines those instructions. if the end result of such guides is a building, a teacup or a piece of software (systems architect) is completely a different matter.
after the arrival of computer software and the virtual abolition of hand drafting, the main resistance comes from fear to relinquish design power to artificial intelligence. since the use of BIM and parametrics has become a pseudo mandatory requirement (at least a must if one is to obtain contracts with New York State). there is what i feel a sense of paranoia from those who are educated in the old school (purists).
the new technologies, give little attention to crown moldings and ornamental wall bases but instead focuses on the designs effect in relation to time. how materials will decay over a certain amount of wear, how they will affect the individual and society as a whole.However, we must not get ahead of ourselves; with exception of Gaudi, this cybernetic architecture is not yet assimilated by the social consciousness, the common user is not yet expecting the use of parametric walls or auxetic materials in their living rooms. One day the house will indeed become “a machine for living”

Stafford Beer on Designing for Freedom, establishes first of all that human culture takes a long time to learn and to assimilate change. he states that because of our intellectual conformity, we have been using technology and the tools at our reach in an inefficient manner that not necessarily satisfies our social needs but rather increases the chances of catastrophe. in order to satisfy the demand for variety, the specific needs of an individual are deluded and generalized in order to fit a more manageable scheme. it is an interesting thought that despite the social insistence on individuality, it (society and culture as a whole) can not possible support the infrastructure necessary to provide such individual freedom. The main thought i believe is that even though as a collective or even as individuals we operate in constant search of variety and uniqueness, in reality our behavior and social structure is based on repetitive patterns and predictions without which modern society would collapse. everything is regulated in order to anticipate demand.

Seizing the well being back by compassion and knowledge

In the readings I found the words are not about architecture, nor cybernetics, neither science. It is all about human and being humane. In the ” Designing freedom” Stafford talks about cultural constrains that occupy the institution resisting the intellectual freedom. As culture teaches intellectual law, not intellectual freedom. Then he comes to the point what is freedom for which we are fighting over? Its is the variety or novelty. Then he focuses on how this variety can be achieved.He establishes his logic on designing a system. A cybernetic system/model designed through love, compassion and wisdom.Cybernetics is not the solution, it is the efficient tool (when designed accordingly) that has the tremendous possibility to change the involuntary functions both in man-made and natural scape.In the cybernetic system the outputs will be defined by the common people’s need that goes to the system for being minimized, then synthesized and then amplified to help the common mass and the source who are providing the variety, thus novelty, thus freedom to individuals. In that sense the freedom here is depending on the system/model. In the book Beer describes how the model can be fixed. One of his assumptions about the potential model should consist of simple models of dynamic systems which also fit to each other harmoniously.

Here I found Gordon Pask seconds with Beer in his “The architectural relevance of cybernetics”. According to Pask Isolated sub theories should be summed up to develop a overall system for mastering one of dynamic systems(architecture) by analyzing through artificial intelligence computer program.

Norbert Weiner in his ” Cybernetics in history” finds information transfer system in both computer and human body is the same. Synapse and data cable transfer electrons through the system. Both the bodies have two types of actions- voluntary and involuntary function. In his book he shows how the individual’s though process have shaken the world, one theory is this heavy that it took half a century to reach the common’s grasp. It is Human’s intuitive mind and only that can push the boundary of our limitation. It is unfair if this uber powerful mind is put to do the involuntary action (here I put the world as involuntary as it does not require any thought to process the action and it does not bring novelty). Weiner wants the artificial intelligence to take over the
automation(relentless and repetitive works/production) of human life and minds get engage in more creative pursuits.

Stafford and Pask mention cybernetics to reveal a system for the well being of the society and whereas Weiner hopes the artificial intelligence to release human mind from motor functions for individual freedom to think.

I will try my best to describe some of my own opinions and comments about the three texts of Cybernetics. The texts were speaking of a very interesting and odd realm of thought about which I want to explain my own interpretations first. It is very interesting to me that the status of “More probable the message, les information it gives”, which sounds to be something about literature, can be proved via Gibbs’ “Entropy” with help of some logarithmic equations. I will come back to this later but the point which, in my view point, is important is that with help of Cybernetics, every domain of human knowledge seem to have a connectivity and continuity with each other. We can see all examples of this within the texts; Institutions, media, technology, systems, control, etc. on the one hand and Philosophy, Physics, Telecommunications, Electronics, Literature, Art and Architecture (for sure) on the other, have some sort of integrity which can be explained through “message” and Cybernetics.

In the article of “Cybernetics in history” we can see author is trying to show the very basic type of message to a complicated one to explain the structure and conception of messages. In terms of structure, messages should be readable to our nervous system through our senses; “Visual, Verbal or Tactile” as explained by Gordon Pask in his article. Even though we can receive a message with all our five senses, regarding the speed of light, visual messages are very common. And if we look to Maxwell and Faraday’s Works we can find out that Electrical pulses are somehow a sort of light messages. In this way I (am not sure if I can) conclude that Electronics, as a medium for the message, is extension of our vision and for sure our eyes.

In Stanford Beer’s piece we can see an effort to solve machine era problems (which are produced by machines) through machines themselves. He explained the misuse of computer as a machine to calculate instead of a machine to communicate which clearly mention the power of messages and communications. He talked also about the Ashby’s law of “Variety against variety”. The following is my personal comment about this law. If consider the absence of balance between requisite and regulatory varieties as an increase Entropy, which is the will of nature. On the other hand the author showed us how the problem can be fixed with help of Cybernetics and he explained that some messages should be sent and received. The “Information carried by a message”, is “essentially the negative of its entropy” according to Norbert Wiener’s text. That’s why it is possible to rebalance the unbalanced Varieties in system by sending information through messages which are a flow of entropy reduction.

When looking to Architecture as one of the above mentioned disciplines, it looks so amazing the way it changes through the history. From symbolism as a coded language which carry information to functionalism that tends to control systems, all architectural styles and methods are related to information and messages. Gordon Pask also introduce a new Cybernetic Paradigm in Architecture that I think need more analysis as well as more time.

Obviously we know architecture is a cybernetic system that must adapt to continually changing environments, wants and needs. One thing about this, however is concerning. High modernism sought to take on this problem, and what came out of it? A generic grid where any activity could happen. I myself have stumbled into this paradox, and even so has Rem Koolhaus, most notably since modernism. But is that it? Like is that it?  A grid?

Mies used the generic grid ad nauseum, and his buildings worked very well; in fact they still work well to this very day. Proof of concept. But if that’s all architects do (which, I’m not arguing-we design the emotive qualities of space as well), are we necessary? Surely an engineer can lay out an efficient grid much better than we can at a much lower cost. This is proven to work in plan, but what about the section? There isn’t an easy way to do a grid like system in section. And thus, there has to be something more than the grid. Like I said, it works great in plan, but if a building is looked at as a cybernetic feedback loop there’s certainly a disconnect between levels of a building. The grid very literally stratifies the organism, thus making many sub-organisms inside. So the grid can’t be the solution. Hence where technology and architects come into play. If the building is to act as a single cybernetic organism, the grid per floor can’t be the solution. This is something that has bothered me since my somewhat failed exploration into flexibility of the building. “Where’s the architecture?” was the overwhelming criticism, though the answer was staring me directly in the face; in the section.

It’s this argument that brings the architect in. But how is sectional flexibility achievable; finishing off feedback loops in our structures? It is here where hope lies-that we still have not found a good solution to this problem (nor am I arguing that there is any one solution, as was the failing of modernism). It is in the section where we need technological, adaptable, responsive architecture. The grid works well in plan because it is on the same plane, but how do we put sectional pieces of buildings on the same plane? We have to get things moving, to destroy the stratification we’ve so obediently succumbed to in our buildings.