the feng shui of lines and arcs
Things, frameworks, clockworks. phenomena
In relation to text, every single text is a phonomenon. If we think about it, there are things: letters. Even at a more basic level, the letters are lines and curves that are formed by different societies to convey different sounds.
If we use letters as the thing, then all words are a framework. They can be cateorized as adjectives or verbs or nouns or some other obscure part of speach, but they can also be separated into length or by definition. The clockwords that exist among words are their habitualness of useage in the English language. In this post alone, I'm using "the" and "it" and "be", and yet I didn't plan on using "slinky", although I could. Certain words always repeat in relation to a certain subject, like using "tempo" when discussing music or "illness" when discussing medicine. They have this regular repetition. Even words in themselves have a regular repetition based on what we have governed as the correct way to spell words or conjugate verbs. Essentially, this comes to the idea that all text, and not one in particular, is a phenomenon.
If the geometric shapes that make up letters are the things, then the actual creation of letters is a framework. Letters have a set way of arranging the lines and arcs, but there are at least 26 possibilities. From the arranging of letters, there's another way to frame them into vowels and consonants, or letters that hang below the line (y), take up the entire line (h) or letters that only sit in the middle (e). They always come back the clockworks of having a standarized alphabet. By having a standard, the letters can always be arranged in a uniform way. If this position is taken, then not only are texts a phenomenon but words themselves are.
In the words of Monty Python,
And now for something completely different:
I don't like to discuss, because I always feel that my best ideas are under scutiny of others, meaning they're evaluating what I created that's brilliant only to come along and steal that idea as their own. It makes me wonder what the real goal of architecture is: to create original or to take someone else's creation and turn it into your "own". Instea of fostering discussion, this whole idea stifles the creative process into makin one feel that if they share something it won't turn into discussion but robbery. The creative process can be enhanced by the sharing of ideas, but there aren't set rules as to how that works to level the field. Is there some courtesy that one should follow? What happens if one breaks the rules of the "idea sharing"? Essentially, we all start to end up with the same idea as it diverges towards what the best one in the group was, instead of expanding to the lesser explored.