In the early documents I saw a few members engaged in narrative-philosophical roleplaying. They each spoke from their own catalogue of characters and personal universe. I could see clearly that whatever ideas were mingling would ultimately separate; the organisms were too complex, the nodes of connection too thin.
Was the Order of Time destined to remain a collection of individuals sharing research in a theatrical way?
I was well aware at the time of notions of plant growth and natural process. In fact I had written an essay several years back on the possibility of a Book Forest, wherein individual writings grew up alongside others in an interactive ecosystem, but essentially remained distinct organisms. They would be kept in one online grove that a person could walk through and note them side by side.
But as an architect I wondered what was being built. I saw that humans are a kind of animal whose use of communication and open planning, and commitment to shared projects is part of their naturalness. I noticed that all Orders have a shadow, are artistically incomplete because they have order. That it was the more rigid Plato, not Socrates who founded the academy. That MLK led a country not only because he was a prophet but because he was a rigorous and steadfast organizer.
It was unclear to me whether the Unorder of Time would be willing to risk an order. It was unclear to me if that would be for the best. Who knows what the group's future was? The records are incomplete. But I wish I could have gone back in time and told this group of artists this, as an architect.
You hunger for politics. They are coming. Sometimes preparation, like Theseus training is well-timed for the miracles. Do not forget, the prophets were driven to organize because of miracles they experienced.
ReplyDeleteAll that being said, I am open to a building project.
Democracy and collaboration has worked from Beckett to Boccaccio--they recognized its slowness. That is the nature of devotional work. Looking forward to more building.
ReplyDelete