Changing world views

How is connection made by thought and felt as an experience? Present times begs us to consider this question. The nature of the connection has a reflection on the kind of spatial experience we create for people to live and the nature of connection also informs the manner in which a given space would be read by people. In short, connection informs our thoughts which, in turn, inform our ways of conceiving and perceiving spaces.

The nature of connection in contemporary times is influenced by onslaught of virtual environment, and the necessity to absorb large amounts of information in a limited time. We need to see what happens in this scenario - our responses are subjected continuous (and accelerating pace of) change because of micro level changes in virtual environment. Analysis and inferences are dependent on micro unit of data. It means micro control of situations (discussions, arguments, divergent views etc.) and inability to relate one bit of information or inference with the other. perhaps, even analysis and inferences are broken down to bits to data without a common thread. Thus, the experience is of complete fluidity of thought and no idea of how the larger picture seems to appear or how we seem to relate to the big picture of life? So, is it that the big picture is no longer relevant to be considered? As the world appears as a set of bits of data - unrelated to one another - we don't have a complete picture of ourselves or the people around us or even the idea of relationships. We don't know our own selves, we are filled with contradictions and we can't understand implicit signals that people send us or the environment seem to indicate.  Extending further, we seem to forget the experience of a continuous and refined memory collected over the generations to form cultural and social traits. We don't seem to consider the effect of geography on history and philosophy. in a nutshell, we can't visualize a "pattern" or "tendency" to design or conceive or relate to the phenomenon around us. Decisions taken with knowing the pattern have larger longevity and applicability than taken in response to bits of slices of time fragments.

Thus, we are referring to spaces which become highly personal, highly instantaneous and unrelated to the notion of what makes history, culture or society. We may as well forget how multi functional spaces seem to be used and how spaces acquire social, cultural, philosophical meanings born from considerations of geography and history. Thus, spaces, by nature, become fragmented/ unrelated/ bounded/ isolated/ disconnected  - architecturally, aesthetically and experientially.

The other approach is of being aware of the nature of comprehensiveness - everything being interrelated and because of which, a "pattern" is revealed behind the immediate Present. The bits of information, if connected or consolidated or analyzed - start to create connections. From connections, we perceive patterns and that results in generation of 'character'. The connections, may be informed by our associations with people, activities, climate (geography), ways of doing things (history) and the fundamental values that need to be cherished (philosophical). What we may be referring to is the experience of collective memory/ consciousness. Our gaze has to take into account a long term perspective of our actions and acknowledge the role of everything thing around us. We become aware of phenomena informing our thoughts and our boundaries of self seem to expand. In this experience of patterns, we create hierarchies, power equations, biases, preferences, relationships, cooperations and negotiations, attachments and other forms of connections. We tend to become  - more grounded and contextual in our response. This gets reflected in perceiving and conceiving spaces - which tend to become multiuse, multi functional, sensitive to environment, blissful or peaceful and subtle as an experience.

We operate in two such world views. We have societies that exhibit either of the two dominant traits and the architecture reflects these traits. We have societies that have both traits existing together.

From my experience of today's academic environment, the view of comprehensiveness gives us a promise to generate empathy towards each other and the environment. Can we transfer and evoke such values in the students, for whom the future is yet to arrive and who can engage in defining the nature of Future?

Which of the world views would you consider 'proper' to pursue?