Towers, Domes and Psychospiritual Force
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Ever walk through a city and pay attention to the way its geometry affects you? Architecture is one of the oldest tools for shaping the human mind, for the mind takes its cues from the environment, forming the backdrop of its perception of the world. Often we don't notice it, so subtle is its effect; but in that subtlety is its greatest power, for being below conscious awareness it is able to inform the subconscious perceptions of everyone within.
Still, every once in a while we're present in or near buildings shaped in such a way as to evoke a reaction. Kings and high priests have known this since ancient times: with the soaring domes and towers of their palaces and temples, the mind's of all who behold them are powerfully affected. Towers of any kind - be they simple monuments, such as an obelisk, or the steeple of a church, or a pagoda, or the Birj Dubai - invoke a feeling of awe and respect, a psychological sensation that might be described as having a portion of one's energy diverted to support something else (the subject of awe.) Thus, towers have the effect of drawing in psychospiritual force from anyone within ear shot, the strength of the draw inversely proportional, perhaps to distance (and maybe also, proportional to ignorance of the tower's true purpose.)
Domes, meanwhile, serve the purpose of concentrating power, the concentration increasing as one's position approaches the center. Amphitheatres achieve this effect as well, as indeed does any circular geometry: the closer one comes to the center, the greater the power they feel being concentrated upon them, and at the same time the more likely others will be to perceive them as having power.
A cathedral gives a fine example of a two-part use of this dynamic. The steeple draws power from all who can see it, thus concentrating it and focusing it into the domed area near the altar. The arches accentuate this effect, maximizing the upward flow of attention and awe, this increasing the power concentrated still further. So long as one is in the pews, the awe can be pretty much overwhelming, a sensation that increases as the front of the church is approached. Once under the dome, however, one feels as though the power is flowing in rather than out, a feeling which itself intensifies as the center is approached ... approached, but never reached, because that center is for one man only, the priest, in whom all that awe resides by proxy of god.
A neat backdrop to the church service, don't you think?
The usage of these principles in modern cities is also instructive. Virtually all of the buildings in the down-town core are towers of varying height, generally the tallest being the banking towers or other corporate headquarters. Those who work and live at the tops of those towers are regarded in modern society practically as distant gods, who may do as they please with impunity because all wealth and power resides within their grasp. There are domes, of course, as well, generally appearing (in addition to, of course, any cathedrals that happen to be present) in two building types: seats of government, and arenas.
Thus, although the power is focused on the presidents and CEOs of the corporatocracy, it appears to be focusing on athletes and politicians. Of course, everyone knows that organized sports is just a game, just as everyone knows that organized politics is a sham but ... everyone continues in the charade that politics and sports somehow matter (or so you would think, given the attention paid to them.)
Can these geometries be used in other ways? To gather energy from above, rather than below? To liberate, rather than concentrate; flow, and not hoard? In short can architecture be used to enhance the very attributes we seek to create (or discover) within the new civilization - if that's the right word - that we are giving birth to now?
The answer of course is yes, and I've some ideas of my own that I've been working on but, what are your ideas? What sort of architecture would be most suited to achieving these aims? I've seen some interesting stuff getting linked to on this subject, but would love to hear your own thoughts.
In Lak'ech
Comments
...
(Welcome back man, and sorry to read about your father passing away.)
Personally as far as architecture goes, yes I think you are correct about the ways buildings focus power. I just can't stop thinking of Imperial Star Destroyers when I gaze up at those bank buildings.
Then there's 'Starchitecture', or our Obsession with a few rock star Frank Gehry types, and every city needs to have some innovative, postmodern, sparkly Crystal-shaped building or giant UFO or Cube or something like that. Usually a museum because then they have an excuse to spend money on it. But in the end, it's sterile and gaudy.
I am a fan of good old fashioned, stony, hand built, Ivy covered architecture. I also like Frank Lloyd Wright of course, mainly because he knew that first of all the building is part of the landscape and emerges from it. I also like structures that are very organic and lyrical, Like Gothic Cathedrals and Gaudi.
But architecture is a form of art, and so much of that goes along with it. Basically my taste in architecture is a certain reflection of my values. But my taste and appreciation can widen in certain circumstances.
As far as geometries go, I think they are arrogant and boring. How many elongated boxes, pyramids, domes and cones have we already built? But there might be some things we can take advantage of, mainly drawing from nature's growth patterns, like fractals for instance. I think that as a rule, it's good to avoid right angles, straight lines, and embrace asymmetric patterns. Building materials: stone, Earth, cob, wood (preferably salvaged or sustainable), concrete (a form of stone), vegetation, time, decay, glass and steel used sparingly (to direct light). No simulacra allowed.
You don't really need a fancy architect for most of this stuff. It needs to be P2P- even the big stuff- ESPECIALLY THE BIG STUFF. People just have to appreciate nature more, enjoy being a part of creating the place they live or work, and not be so anal about living in a sterile geometric box.
Cheers,
Meade
...
Yeah, it really depends on the materials. I mentioned Cob and concrete mainly because of those forms. Stone just lends itself to organic forms off the bat, if you don't put much effort into cutting it, and you integrate it into the structure. But it does take more care and energy... but the love and care taken in selecting the stone transfers into the building. My favorite are those beehive huts that are put together using flat stones perfectly fitted, without any mortar, and they last forever because freezing doesn't crack the structure it naturally separates and comes back together. The Incans were also amazingly good at building that way.
I also have a preference for structures made of earthen materials (stone especially), and also the half-underground structure, because it creates a more seamless connection between the ground and the structure... which if you think in the energies involved, and even at the thermodynamic level, just keeps you more in tune with the earth.
And yeah, hooking up with some people building with cob or earth is definitely on my list of future things to do, just to get some hands on experience with it. Of course they make it a bureaucratic nightmare to build any sort of structure yourself these days, unless you have money. But people need experts or they might hurt themselves, so it's for our own good.
I suppose what I mean about geometry is that too often we are dazzled by our preconceived plans. And part of creating and organic structure is to actually let the structure grow and evolve organically... the easiest way to do this is to plant vegetation on it. Another easy way is to create a structure that is easily added onto and that you don't need permission to change. So instead of looking outdated in ten years, it actually gains value with age.
building geometry
Domes and other round shapes have figured into my study of shapes, but mostly in contrast with square buildings, because they are the most common in the US, where I work.
I experience domes as allowing for the naturally circulating quality of energy, though I can see how you might experience this as a concentration.
I have written a bit more about this in my blog, the darkness conjecture in a piece called
spheres for darkness retreats
It begins:
~
Where should one do a darkness retreat?
At this point, my best idea is: inside a geodesic dome. Round, curve, and triangle-based structures (superadobe domes, hexayurts, geodesics, conics) allow lifeforce to flow. Thus they are very conducive to rest. They also provide an energetic shield against the psychic influence of this culture.
Having observed the effects of square shapes on myself and others for many years, I’ve concluded that rectilinear geometry does not serve resting and healing very well. This is because squares do not let subtle energy flow. Squares slow down, concentrate, and focus lifeforce. The square is a manifesting shape. Thus it is good for productive activity–work and spiritual practice. But the square disrupts and deforms passive activities. Thus sleeping in them is a big problem...
best,
f
the darkness conjecture -- http://andrewdurham.com
Psychogeopgraphy
"Psychogeography was defined in 1955 by Guy Debord as "the study of the precise laws and specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organized or not, on the emotions and behavior of individuals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogeography
I also like Frank Lloyd
I also like Frank Lloyd Wright of course, mainly because he knew that first of all the building is part of the landscape and emerges from it. I also like structures that are very organic and lyrical, Like Gothic Cathedrals and Gaudi.
club penguin

Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket




