Hello Araceli, Thanks again for the contact, and the response. I would say also that I at least (and I won't presume to speak for anyone else) am not at all interested in any ideological position of correctness, or design theology. But among my colleagues and others today, I see three general positions in this area. So I'd like to state those clearly so we can each understand "where we are coming from" as they say. One position is that of those folks who are in fact *ex cathedra* about various theories and doctrines. A lot of my fellow architects in the past have been of that ilk, as well as other designers. They have their "schtick," their story, and they are sticking to it... A second position is what a number of natural scientists have called "critical realism," the notion that we have working propositions about how the world works, and some are in fact more correct than others -- or, more precisely, they add important contributions to a more accurate (meaning more reliably useful) understanding. Newtonian physics is no so much wrong, as an incomplete model, a partial version of reality, which is supplemented very usefully with relativity and quantum physics. (Very usefully in the sense that we now have electronics and nuclear medicine and a host of other things - and some complications too, of course.) A third position is what I might define as "poststructuralist epistemology" - that is, we must avoid any hint of foundationalism, and embrace a Kantian kind of relativism of knowledge, understandign it as a culturally constructed narrative outside of any separate notion (or even hyposthesis) of "meaning." As Derrida said, "there is nothing outside the text." In this view, Newtonian physics is a mere paradigm, to be replaced with another paradigm -- not more or less right, because there is no external frame of reference to judge that, but simply a successional construction of the culture. The trouble with this view, to put it simply, is that therefore I quite literally don't know what they mean! They themselves have, in their own explicit epistemology, taken away any possibility of a sharable meaning, apart from my construction, your construction, his or her construction. If we happen to decide to share our meanings, great -- a kind of Desiderata philosophy, "if we find each other, it's beautiful." Otherwise, full-on epistemological relativism is the rule of the day. (And as we see with the extreme post-Kuhnnian view of science, it even affects ontology too.) Functionally, this is a big problem. It's in fact a colossally conservative position, a laissez-faire position. (As Habermas famously made clear to Derrida and others, much to their annoyance - because the fashionable self-identification is anything but. But as Habermas argued, logic is still logic...) The reason this matters so much, and why I mention it early in this discussion, is that it is a colossally powerful idea today in the design world, and the world of the arts in general. It is not taken seriously by most scientists, for reasons I suggest above, but architects, literary people, etc. - bring it on. Why? It's an enticing solution to the vexing failures of a more linear, modernist regime that has clearly failed. It offers a kind of "artistic blank check" to do whatever. It offers loopholes one can drive a truck through -- "let us have diversity" (which I am all for, but this is not the same thing as relativism); "let us be open-minded;" "let us earnestly take on all manner of serious problems, like climate change, and make narratives about them, artistic nods to them - a kind of magical thinking - but at the end of the day, let us assure that these small experiments all add up to nothing of any real consequence! If I were paranoid, and thought various special interests were capable of engineering such a philosophy to keep these people docile and ineffective - perhaps even pliant tools, allowing them to go on making lots of money depleting the commons and its natural capital - "let them have their absurd, self-eviscerating ideas" - well, they could hardly do better! (p.s. I copy some material from Rem Koolhaas below, who I think expresses this perspective very well indeed, together with its results -- abotu which he wrings his hands with the best of them. As does Peter Eisenman, and others... But woe is us, nothing is to be done... so let's just have a rollicking good time!) So I go into such discussions always wary of this problem, because it is so dominant in the design world today. And this is why I think the P2P Foundation is so exciting - it suggests that we CAN build something more effective, more resilient, just as collective intelligence has functioned in the past so effectively. (Science itself is one important for of such a collective intelligence...) By the way, I would agree with your Einstein quote that imagination is more important than knowledge, when it comes to the cutting edge of science -- and of understanding reality. But not imagination set* loose* from hard-won knowledge! We have been down that failed Utopian road too many times before... Cheers, m

From Koolhaas, "Whatever happened to urbanism?" http://www.princeclausfund.nl/urbanheroes/abert/texto4.htm

Modernism's alchemistic promise – to transform quantity into quality through abstraction and repetition – has been a failure, a hoax: magic that didn't work. Its ideas, aesthetics, strategies are finished. Together, all attempts to make a new beginning have only discredited the idea of a new beginning. A collective shame in the wake of this fiasco has left a massive crater in our understanding of modernity and modernization.... Since it is out of control, the urban is about to become a major vector of the imagination. Redefined, urbanism will not only, or mostly, be a profession, but a way of thinking, an ideology: to accept what exists. We were making sand castles. Now we swim in the sea that swept them away... The seeming failure of the urban offers an exceptional opportunity, a pretext for Nietzschean frivolity. We have to imagine 1,001 other concepts of city; we have to take insane risks; we have to dare to be utterly uncritical; we have to swallow deeply and bestow forgiveness left and right. The certainty of failure has to be our laughing gas/oxygen; modernization our most potent drug. Since we are not responsible, we have to become irresponsible. In a landscape of increasing expediency and impermanence, urbanism no longer is or has to be the most solemn of our decisions; urbanism can lighten up, become a *Gay Science *– Lite Urbanism. Woo-hoo - Par-tee! (Mehaffy editorial comment!)

From Koolhaas, interview in Architecture Week http://www.architectureweek.com/2007/0801/design_1-2.html

The work we do is no longer mutually reinforcing, but I would say that any accumulation is counterproductive, to the point that each new addition reduces the sum's value. In addition, we of course work enthusiastically for clients we readily describe as tyrants and occupiers. So there are many problems, first of all our work, which is not able to find its way out of this recurring dilemma, then there are the many reasons to question our sincerity and motives... It is not always clear whether we are using our position to engage in an intellectual discourse or an incredible ego free-for-all... (MM) Well, I give him high marks for honesty! On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Araceli Camargo <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi All,

Thanks for getting the conversation started. I am currently writing our use of neurochemicals and space, which I will send out the list. Our perspective is that the more we use the knowledge available on brain to enhance potential and be more purposeful the better.

The brain is not a linear and the study is even less so. Like any tool, when we first learn to use it, we feel in uncomfortable, however as time progresses we create finesse and innovation- this is what we are striving for.

In the meantime attached is our program, which is a showcase of our 'brain technology' and philosophy. If any of you are interested in seeing this in context I would welcome you to come to the launch.

We also welcome contradiction as we are not interested in being 'right'...we see ourselves as explorers and being proved wrong is healthy as that means we are on our way to learning something new.

Thanks in advance for the interest and discussion,

Araceli Founder www.wecreatenyc.com www.thecubelondon.com

On 20 April 2011 18:16, Michael Mehaffy <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Dear All,

I for one welcome the interest, and personally I do not find the proposal "scary" -- but I do have a concern that it may reflect a fairly linear, "mechanical" approach to technology. That's not to single out this proposal, as such linear approaches are still common in the design world today, and I think we still have many hard questions to ask -- so I welcome such a critical exploration. What I would say in initial response is that I think we are really learning from biological sciences that there is a much more "joined up" approach to achieving resilience than we have yet considered, and than we are likely to find with narrow mechanical "wheel-reinventing" approaches. (I cannot judge this proposals specifically, except to say it seems to have some of those traits.) I think that is always the danger with explorations of topics such as neuroscience, which can otherwise be incredibly beneficial. There is the tool, and then there is always the question of how we use it!

Best, m

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:

...

Thanks Araceli,

I'm sharing this with our list, though I can imagine some people may find this 'scary' ?

I'm curious as to potential reactions,

Michel

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Araceli Camargo < [email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi Michel,

We read about your peer to peer foundation and think that our work might be of interest to you, please see our press release below and attached our launch program.

We would love to see you at the launch on the 4th of May from 10-6pm.

Best

Araceli

*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*

*WECREATE NYC: First Neurochemically-Primed, Innovation Space Opens in Manhattan*

*New Workspace Uses Brain Technology to Build New Economy*

*WECREATE NYC (wecreatenyc.com) *New York’s first neurochemically-primed, innovation workspace for entrepreneurs, small businesses and thinkers, launches on May 4th 2011 in Greenwich Village. From the American founders of London’s THECUBE, WECREATE NYC combines expertise in neurology and industrial engineering to bring *brain technology* to New York.

Co-founder Daniel Gutierrez says “New York has the opportunity and the responsibility to create the model for a new economy, as the city attracts some of the brightest brains in the world. Our vision is to provide a space for this talent, which encourages innovation, industriousness and the sharing of ideas, to create solutions that effect change”.

The idea behind WECREATE NYC, *brain technology* involves learning how to use the brain to its full potential. Araceli Camargo-Kilpatrick explains, “understanding how our brain forms ideas, solves problems, and innovates makes all the difference in having a successful business. The aim of WECREATE is to create an industry-diverse workspace for entrepreneurs interested in collaborating, serious about growing their business and testing their brain technology”.

Not just another hot house for tech start-ups, WECREATE already has a community of psychologists, photographers, NGOs, economists and architects already involved in the innovation space.

Araceli continues, “We will be providing members with a new type of business strategy which combines tools extrapolated from neurology and industrial engineering. We are also providing our members with a diverse community as research from leading Dr. Keith Sawyer indicates that diversity is key to innovation. WECREATE is here to help make enterprise accessible and viable to all who are thinking about starting their business”.

This focus on brain technology also extends to the neurochemically primed design of the WECREATE space. How the light comes into the space, the colours in the space, the materials, and the layout are all for the purpose of creating the best environment for brains to innovate.

WECREATE NYC aims to build on the success of THECUBE in London’s Shoreditch <http://www.thecubelondon.com/>, which was established in September 2009 and profitable in its first year. Collaboration between the two innovation spaces will be encouraged, applying brain technology to generate ideas on both sides of the Atlantic

*NOTES TO EDITORS*

*WECREATE – Launch*

When: Press launch May 4, 2011 TIME<http://www.wecreatenyc.com/events/>

Where: 58 East 11th Street 10003, 8th floor

What: See website for the schedule www.wecreatenyc.com

**

*About WECREATE NYC – New York*

WECREATE NYC is a new innovation and collaborative workspace. Our objective is to create a vibrant space for entrepreneurs interested in collaborating with a diverse group of people, serious about growing their business, and wanting to push innovation boundaries. Our space will house people from diverse backgrounds and explore a wide range of knowledge neighborhoods to help instigate interesting collaborations.

Ideas are the fuel of great businesses, without them we wouldn’t have anything. WECREATE will be a space that hosts and facilitates the sparks of strong ideas.

The objective of innovation is to create a new economy, WECREATE will focus on getting entrepreneurs to generate sustainable businesses that will have longevity and feed the economy of the future.www.wecreatenyc.com

The space is founded by Daniel C. Gutierrez and Araceli Camargo.

*About THECUBE – London*

THECUBE workspace opened in September 2009 in London’s Spitalfields. We were inspired by the collapse of Lehman Brothers to create a psychical space, that would nourish and house would-be-entrepreneurs, who are now creating sustainable businesses and generating economic value.

We have gone through two evolutions and heading towards another. We started as space, moved to co-working, and are now heading towards creating the workspace of a new era.

THECUBE has been mindful to create a bridge between mind space and physical space. The physical space is neurochemically and physiological primed to generate productivity, a welcoming feeling and collaboration between members. www.thecubelondon.com

*For further media information about WECREATE NYC or THECUBE please contact:*

WECREATE NYC

[email protected]

Araceli Camargo Founder

THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com

-- Araceli Camargo Founder

THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com

-- Araceli Camargo Founder

THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com

-- Araceli Camargo Founder

THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com

-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "P2P-Urbanism World Atlas" group. to register to the group http://cityleft.blogspot.com/ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/p2p-urbanism-world-atlas?hl=en

-- Michael Mehaffy Visiting Faculty, ASU 1019 E. Lemon Street #204 Tempe, AZ 85281

Permanent Address: 333 S. State Street, Suite V-440 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.tectics.com

-- Araceli Camargo Founder

THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com

-- Michael Mehaffy Visiting Faculty, ASU 1019 E. Lemon Street #204 Tempe, AZ 85281 Permanent Address: 333 S. State Street, Suite V-440 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.tectics.com -- Michael Mehaffy Visiting Faculty, ASU 1019 E. Lemon Street #204 Tempe, AZ 85281 Permanent Address: 333 S. State Street, Suite V-440 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.tectics.com