arcology

Well, my last post about Arcosanti landed with a thud. Nobody has to tell me that. I could hear it myself.

How can I digest my feelings about arcology into something cogent? Is it just fantastic nonsense, or is there, in it - this thing, arcology - something of real value? How can we answer, or even just explore, that question?

Well, arcology is an idea, and every idea has some value. The value in an idea maybe tends to be in the nature of a "kernel". To get at the value in the idea, you might have to sift through the "chaff". I have spent a lot of time "with" the idea of arcology, and my sense is, yes, there is a kernel of value, or maybe there are kernels of value, in it ... and a fair amount of chaff, too.

One way to define what arcology, the idea, is is to say it is the collected work of Paolo Soleri. We aren't supposed to criticize Soleri's work, and to say that, in it, there is a certain amount of "chaff" might be a form of criticism. On the other hand, I think a fair number of people - and, by "people" I mean something like "experts" - question whether there is, in it, much of real value.

I mean, Soleri was an artist, and I don't think too many experts would deny that we can learn something about artistic technique by studying his work. If learning artistic technique is something of value, then, according to this line of reasoning, there is that kind of value in his work.

Personally, I don't think that's a small thing. And there's also this question of Soleri's philosophy. I've heard that criticized - and I'm inclined to agree - for not, in fact, making much sense. But I'm not sure that's really to the point. After all, I've read a fair amount of philosophy, and not much of it makes sense. I've come to feel that the purpose of philosophy might be, in fact, to dislodge us from "sense". The purpose of philosophy seems not to be to "tell" us "the truth", but to provoke us into thinking. I think Soleri might not have missed that mark.