Saturday, September 22, 2012

Thesis. Rants. Thesis. Rants.

Here are my reflections in light of my recent thesis deliberations yesterday which turned out completely not what I had expected <writing in a frustrated manner>

  • McNamara's Architectural Theology can never be understood by architects with a functionalist mind setting much less be suggested upon those who are addicted with the modernist notion of progress and development. 
  • Architects needed grace and divine intervention in order to understand Architectural Theology.
  • Our college is never ready for a process-oriented-type of thesis. They busy themselves like all 'modern' and avante-garde architects by the cultural hypes and pleasure in the application of the latest trend and latest innovation - another proof of this age's upward mobility and false notion of development.
  • There are those who can't stand being lectured upon. That's why they dwell upon their preconceived notions and assumptions, taking pride in their pretensions. They pretend to listen. They pretend to know. They pretend to understand. But they never listen. They know little. Because they are too stubborn to understand.
  • There are matters which cannot be explained by purported figures and statistics. Design philosophies and theoretical discourses in theology are examples of those matters.
  • Those who pretend to understand will never understand.Those who walk the road less traveled risk the chances of being mocked and called a fool.


  1. kaya mo yan kapatid, ganyan tlga ang buhay thesis :))

  2. McNamara's philosophy is too ontological, and by that inherent value is skewed beyond humanistic precepts. Because of the inductive nature of his philosophy, it already conflicts with the precept that architecture is both art and science (since science is deductive). Nothing is absolute in design, and often the zeitgeist reminds us of this.

    Architectural Theology, itself, is inherently self-referential and by that nature, also self-conflicting.

    Process-oriented discourses are usually misunderstood since it requires a different paragon than typical design-oriented theses. It is more difficult to ascertain its grounds being it is completely subjective and there are no outright outputs that manifest, which can be laid against design principles and standards.

    The academe is also normative, and utopian. To put it simply, it is a glorified fraternity. By that, seniority usually is akin to credibility and authority, something which we know is never completely true. Mentors hate being educated, especially with areas they are too keen to touch, or are unmistakably ignorant of.

    There are methods of using graphical abstraction to simplify philosophical and theoretical assertions. But that requires skill and a slant of propaganda.

    On the last statement, I cannot do more than agree. To know that one knows nothing is wisdom beyond intellect.

    Good luck with the thesis, it is a burden but a necessary one.


What do your active brain cells perceive?