Kia Ora Foci,
What makes a city alive? What aspect of the city would need
to be removed to ensure its death? Is there evidence in history of the death
of a city? These questions can give us more insight to the nature of a
city's life and consciousness.
What gives a city life? It would be the biological occupants that dwell
there. In the case of bees, ants and other insects, they give it life and
consciousness. Remove the bees and ants from their nest and the city would
cease to be alive. Ask any exterminator whether their work practice
eradicates the life and consciousness of an unwanted nest.
In the case of humans, the pricniples are exactly the same. Being a
biological being, we are governed by the same values as those of the bee and
the ant. Eradicate the human from the city and the city loses consciousness
and dies. This is evident in Aztec and Mayan culture. A beautiful,
inspirational and somewhat daunting civilisation that existed for a couple
of thousand years. When the people disappeared so did their consciousness.
The great cities died and were overgrown by the surrounding forests.
Cities are a collective consciousness of ideas. Like mindedness brings them
together and then the ideas or common value are enacted upon the surrounding
environment. This is what makes the cities alive. These shared values and
ideas are part of the culture of a city. They are set up and maintained by
systems and processes that produce goods and services which ultimately shape
the environment. This shaped environment is the city.
Whilst the structure to put these shared values and ideas is maintained, the
city is alive and conscious. It is the same for the ants and the bees.
However remove the structure and the city dies.
As pointed out by Pirsig, the pattern of value of a society can be
identified by the relationship it has with the pattern of value below it.
Our western culture has a poor relationship with the biological pattern of
value, but embraces a good relationship with the inorganic pattern of value.
How can we see this? Apart from the examples that Pirsig makes in Lila, it
is evident in the consciousness of the cities in which we dwell. All aound
me from the window I look out of as I write this are buildings, power poles,
roads, guttering, roofing, cranes, trucks, cars, antennas, signs etc etc etc
that embrace the inorganic. Concrete, steel, bitumen, gravel, plastic,
fossil fuel, vulcanised rubber etc etc etc. This city and thousands of
others around the world embrace the inorganic and contain the biological.
The economics of Global trade supports this, consuming the the biospheric
resources to support and maintain the inorganic consciousness of the giant
known as the city.
However, to delve further into this analysis, if human culture has a social
pattern of values that identifies strongly with the inorganic value, then
perhaps those other biological entities such as ants and bees whose cities
are derived from a lesser extent inorganic and predominantly moreso
biological sources are in fact at a higher level of social consciousness
because of their relationship with the biosphere.
In the words of E.F Schumacher, he states that in order for things in the
world to improve, a change in the value of economics, science and technology
must shift towards a more organic form.
The life and consciousness of a city will not do this unless its occupants
desire it to be so. If this is the case it is not so much that the city is
alive but the biological entities that dwell within it.
Ka Kite Anu
Andrew
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST