JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPACESYNTAX Archives


SPACESYNTAX Archives

SPACESYNTAX Archives


SPACESYNTAX@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPACESYNTAX Home

SPACESYNTAX Home

SPACESYNTAX  1998

SPACESYNTAX 1998

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: more behaviour & experience

From:

alan penn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

alan penn <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:19:14 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (146 lines)

I agree with the bulk of tom's responses, but Stephen...

> Space syntax (or the axmap at any rate) is actually _doing_ something

reminds me of the contemporary criticism of Newton because he proposed an
invisible force. Since the mindset held that there should be a mechanistic
'cause' the invisibility of a force meant that Newton was a lunatic. Even a
cursory reading of Newton himself shows that when talking of gravity there
was nothing mechanistic or mystical about his thesis - it's a purely
empirical set of observations accounted for by a formula that describes the
observed regularity. That formula comprises a description of the world of
the phenomena themselves - not the phenomena 'as known' or the phenomena
'as observed' or any other subjectivist formulation. This is really all I'm
holding out for so far as syntax is concerned.

Yes, 'psychology in space' and 'social in space' are fundamental to our
interpretation of mechanisms in our field. But the basis of it all lies in
the 'spatial in space' - the basic maths of what you can do with space -
which is presocial and prepsychological, and I would argue a necessary
precursor to any rational theory of a role for space in either. Space must
be structured in itself for people to 'know' it or for society to take
advantage of it. All I'm saying is that it is the underlaying structure -
the 'spatial in space' - which the 'axmap' describes. And describe/quantify
is all it does. It does not 'model'  if by modelling you mean a mechanistic
construction of somthing that 'behaves' the same way as the real world
phenomenon in question. This is where the syntax approach is fundamentally
different to that of conventional urban or traffic models. It does not
propose a mechanism which is built into a model, it represents and
quantifies and finds regularities and correlations - these are the
'phenomena'. We may theorise about possible mechanisms to account for those
regularities and those theories often invoke social, perceptual or
cognitive notions, but space has its own independent laws which would exist
even if people didnt. In this sense syntax is analytic.

As an aside, we do also build models and simulations to test hypotheses
about how things might 'work' at the mechanistic end of the spectrum - but
dont tend to label these as 'syntax' although they do contribute to the
social and cognative theories that are developed. We also do
'microstructure of behaviour' observations to look for behavioural
mechanisms that might account for the aggregate patterns that we find at
the population level.

As for Lacan, I assume that Stephen is thinking of the work relating
topolgy to psychoanalysis. Anyone considering taking this thesis seriously
should first read Sokal and Bricmont, Intellectual Impostors: postmodern
philosopher's abuse of science, Profile Books, London (1998). Just as a
taster I quote one of their quote's from Lacan:

"Thus by calculating signification according to the algebraic method used
here, namely

S (signifier)
------------- = s (the statement)
s (signified)

with S=(-1), produces s=ˆ-1  "    (Lacan 1977)

(yes he uses small s's to denote two different things - and the funny
character for those without Macs is a square root sign. ap)

Using examples such as this Sokal and Bricmont effectively demolish any
notion that Lacan has the faintest notion of what topology or even what
basic algebra and maths is about, let alone a contribution to make to
bringing topology and psychology together. Its a good read and I would say
essential for anyone with postmodernist leanings :o)

Alan


>
>You're right its a bit chicken and egg - and arguments about how interior
>or exterior these things are all get very silly though the philosophers
>would no doubt go for it. But there's something else - Space syntax (or the
>axmap at any rate) is actually _doing_ something as I see it - its
>modelling something thats actually going on in urban space - and what that
>is has a great bearing on the kind of questions Tom Dine is asking - and I
>think its a bit disingenuous to act as though the axial map is just
>revealing pure (spatial) structure in terms of 'depth' and 'integration'
>and that sort of thing - and that this structure then has social
>implications. The spatial doesn't 'know' anything of course, the spatial
>structure that we are playing with is a mapping of an already apparent
>process which is social-in-space or psychological-in-space. As I said this
>is a speculation, but its not one I'm going to give up in principle though
>I'm quite prepared to concede details. When we map social patterns to the
>structure revealed by the axmap we are not mapping pure social onto pure
>spatial, we're mapping social-spatial to another social- or
>psychological-spatial. As I say I haven't thought too much about convexity,
>but axiality is as far as I can guess about 'place' and the way it is
>forged together with other places in a dilectical unity - through the
>spatialisation of movement (and knowing??). At this scale and on the
>street, all those other processes are probably slave to the process that
>gets us around the city. I don't think we can answer all of Tom Dine's
>questions without getting into psycho-spatial-analysis - and maybe
>Bachelard and Lacan and the phenomenologists can help with some aspects of
>the subjective response to space, but we need to know where we can help -
>and I think that we can help with place and its outward aspects, because
>the axmap has locked into its 'phatic' character, and the way it conjugates
>with other places to structure larger wholes. I think it probably happens
>at smaller scales as well. It gets back to one of my earliest points in
>this series of exchanges - that people need to be able to understand what
>space syntax is doing as a (latent) theory of the city rather than just as
>a technique for prising regularities out of space. Otherwise they're going
>to keep on asking - yes, but what _is_ it actually??
>
>
>Stephen
>
>
>>I suspect that we are probably saying the same thing, and that this could
>>be seen as an academic 'chicken and egg' argument. Which comes first,
>>spatial structures (millions of them) or the structures of "doing or
>>'knowing'"? I think that space and its mathematical logic comes first.
>>Lines of sight and minimising depth in axial maps no doubt have social
>>implications, as do the notions of convexity, however the only processes I
>>can concieve of that lead to those being 'knowable' run from the ability of
>>the human mind to 'read' these sort of structures and turn them to use. A
>>bit like seeing faces in clouds - humans are quite good at that kind of
>>thing. In my view the 'logical' structures of space come first, ie: there
>>has to be somthing there to 'know'. If we try and argue the reverse, we are
>>left proposing that the logical structures of space are somehow responsive
>>to ('aware of'?? clearly absurd) what humans can know. This may be argued
>>(in a weak version) by those that say that space is 'social' purely in so
>>far as it is a product of social and ecomomic forces, but in principle the
>>argument seems to me to be illogical and fundamentally wrong. It is just a
>>fallacy put about by those that seek to distinguish humans and the human
>>mind from everything else in nature.
>>


________________________________________________
Alan Penn
Director, VR Centre for the Built Environment
The Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning
1-19 Torrington Place  (Room 335)
University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
tel. (+44) (0)171 387 7050 ext 5919   fax. (+44) (0)171 916 1887
mobile. (+44) (0)411 696875
email. [log in to unmask]
www.   http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/
________________________________________________




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager