the problem of observation
paul asked if we could define the observation level, if we would see the model we've tried to develop as a co-evolve, autopoietic-kind of system. i remember to read
that philosophy is about organisation and interpretation of experience as objective as we can, which the first step to do this, is to define the observer. experiencing means that the observer is
the part of the whole observation proces itself, thus what can we actually do is to say to what extent can we separate the observer from the observation. i summarise this below from the same reading:
1 from Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, its the nature of human mind to observe things as spatial and temporal and having certain categories superimposed into the observation.
2. from Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, the observer always affects the observation
thus, in light to the above information, i would argue that an autopoietic project is actually a very subjective project, and/or autopoietic models is a medium for philosophical utterance. the basic argument in autopoietic theory is that the behaviour is not emerge from interactions between elements in the model, but from what has been observed by the observer. accordingly, it would be relatively easy to argue that while we can see the apparent similarities of Hillier's thesis (ie. configuration of space influence and can be influenced by configuration of people) and that to autopoietic models, that the project should go on to model spatial configuration under Hillier's terms, autopoietically.
then the argument about modelling spatial configurations will roll on to the point that, architecture problem is not simplistic, it is actually complex, having to embed in it the very complex things of all, human beings. here, i have to be brave enough to argue that Cilliers approach, ie. the post-structural approach to complexity, while complex phenomenon needs not single method to understand it, but in the end, choices have to be made when we come to actually create the representation of it. this will bring us to the problem of representation