METROPOLEIS: FUTURE OF THE PRESENT VS FUTURE OF THE PAST
metropoleis: future of the present vs future of the past
re public spaces a place left to run away from, or location where we get together? Are they relationship-generative? What is passed off as comfort and user-friendly for person, is it otherwise by community something to be payed dearly for (and vice-versa)? Probably the topical challenge of our time is to go back to problem solving for the part starting from the whole, by abstraction. Is easily gripped a poor Positivism instead of Humanism. That’s to say human being is able to decide which means provide himself to achieve his own good. This line of reasoning is a bit much simplistic, without solving almost anything. Actually all is much more complicated and many-sided. Who is really able to have the freedom to choose, unconditionally? If so, what is good and what is bad for him? In the case he has successfully decided, is it matching his neighbor good and bad view? Small-time evolutionary notion, that humankind would be simply subject to law of nature as like as other living beings, bothers. The horse is a living being, the man too; but the horse does not know to be a living being. And it does not, not basically because it doesn’t know the meaning of living being, but rather because it isn’t conscious of its being. This prompts the question as to why human being, fitted with such wealth, seems to walking away from his good. The culture of optimization in place of invention has led in such a state, artificial intelligence is substantially nothing other than that. Most of the intellectual professions have been brought to concept of pure computation ratio, rather than being expression of humanism conveyed by specific art according to the fields of application. ... As like as pictures caught with tele lenses. The objects at the sight are looking flattened, there is no depth in the layers, no distance among them, no distance between them and who is watching. And you’re not given to seeing beyond. This is the typical point of view whose, focused on details and not able to reach all he wants but furiously willing to do it, turns to tricks let him illusorily make all close to himself. He forgets the bigger game, by missing the big picture.
public territories: multidimensional workshop where designing chances
How the future once was being designed, how it now is being? Nowadays we’re knowing cyber drives us to believe we’re able to do something without practising a specific art through the use of tools; by doing that, cyber makes the intervention of itself imperative whenever informatic devices go wrong, so that we’re at the mercy of something should be rather a tool in our hands. In an advantageous scenario, cyber is the tool human intelligence is the author and not viceversa. To resolve an human issue cyber optimizes machine; because in the long run it seems revealing barely more than self-referentiality, designing needs to be mandatory although not strictly natural, and then not necessary. So, what was and still stands essential is usually less and less within everyone’s reach, due to being off the grid drafted by cyber. By the way, the overall situation is far beyond the now. Past ideologies have failed, then a start was made on spreading that ideal driving action had to be considered a non-starter; instead of considering the failure of its application. What would be a mission with a short-term vision, or worse without any at all? The loss of ethics in widespreads of daily life, goes with it. So, there’s a tendency to appreciate fidelity in place of loyalty, to believe conforming to Justice what is just legal. It’s needed to abide by the law, but we must pursue Justice. Would you opt to comply with a model or the fundamentals? Would you deserve something thanks to your natural attitude or rather your effort? Back to the hot topic, unlike cyber, up until now philosophy has shown us being study humanity to ensure the future of it; precisely because that is not narrow-minded, but rather matrix of the other fields of knowledge. Phylosophy seeks to relate the why, the how, the what and the where. Who a priori doesn’t want to be familiar with it, simply misunderstands it as purportedly out of real life. It has never been. Marinetti imposed to futurists Leopardi as an optimism guru. The avant-garde Futurism movement, despite an apparent contradiction, had understood the fallacy of a revolution without the Classicism teaching; by which the world doesn't advance by a cacophony of voices but evolves only through a vision, an holistic view. That’s the key to an healthy progress. It’s already long ago increasingly gaining ground the idea that cyber can be a substitute for creation, that an art is no more needed. After varied revolutions in the ages, for the very first time humankind designates author of the change, deceiving itself to be the author of its own progress. Utopia of generating a superstructure delegated by human being to solve the issues, is actually the sneaky open-heartedness whose is offering an open-source global targeted. And that comes with the latent constant risk of undergoing damages at any time, whether they be by accident or intentionally for the oddest of reasons, due to the cross presence of cyber. Donald Knuth has said: “Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do”. Well, by worth has been preferred to assign to this sentence, will be evident the order of values of all of us. ... Human being is able to decide which choose between. Meanwhile, we could consider that Art is the how each one of us expresses his relationship with reality and un-reality; how life gets in/springs, transcendent in the immanence. Unlike an artificial processing, the actual difference is not so much because that can only be a unique combination. Is because that is concurrently casual and consequential without being to be programmed to be it. ... We could ask ourselves if would man on the moon become real without visionary Jules Verne writing “De la Terre à la Lune ...".