In The Shadow of
Civility:
Technique and Tectonics Portal
by Bob Hoernel
Perhaps the best means by
which to manage an ability to share a comprehension is to
clarify the manner in which the civil, universal, and
creative code abstracts form into a linear and informative
scheme. The model I would offer is modal and modern, however
we would know it best as technical and technological. Our
thought -- modern thought -- is formal and mathematical, and
almost exclusively so. What is technical is such because it
is relative to builders and carpenters (as well as to
weaving), and to all artistic efforts that are not composed (but rather
built and fastened through the use of technique). Whereas
engineers and artisans build things with regard and
reference to a plan, architects compose in composite visions
that possess form. Comprehension (and all that is
comprehensive) is such because it is composed and musical;
that is, all true art is both composed and beatific. All
that is formal is drawn from (abstracted) form, and thought
of as in accord with our formal systems of abstraction . . .
in effect, built and fastened together artificially. We can
know all that is relative to techniques and tectonics (tecton in Greek speaks
to the work of carpenters). The universal code of
which I speak is that of abstraction (on the one hand), and
that of building or weaving together forms (on the other).
The engineer 'works' the composed visions of an architect
into a plan, and oversees the building of an artifact that,
in fact, seeks to replicate the architect's comprehensive
vision. The code of all engineers is also intellectual, and
is also that of civilization, of creation, and all that is
thought Unitarian. The code -- the X-code -- is iterative.
The iterative reality of facts and artifacts is that which
may accurately be called virtual and formal (and thought of
as an abstracted and constructive truth, that is informative
and informal as a plan, but also as a replication of the
composition composed in the architect's mind).
As in music, the composing architect must convey his
comprehension of a work to the engineer: the engineer seeks
to capture that which had been composed (and, hopefully,
comprehended): the engineer, through technique, 'grabs' (or
records) the composition in the
abstract (that is, he encodes it). He then translates (the
codified recording, the 'facts') into an artifact that
resembles the architect's composition. This (that is decoded
or 'played back') is as a
shadow of that from which it was drawn. All that is
technically iterated is 'thingified' . . . is rendered as a thing. It is
the intellect that 'thingifies' all that it translates from
code (and, as Ortega said, is the proto-thing). In other
words, verdinglight (the
light thing or intellect) is the prime thing because it serves
to both 'grab' or record, as well as to iterate that which is grabbed
(encoded and decoded). I hope that is comprehensible. This
is to say that, before there was anything, there was a
composite or composed integrity (which, in turn, was grabbed
in abstraction, and decoded). In this creative flash, this fiat lux, we make
manifest the prime application of the universal code. As
with the work of every or any engineer, the prime 'work' of
technique (the Prime City or Realm) 'took' form (and
possessed form). I do not wish to imply that there is
anything 'wrong' about engineering.
When I introduced the phrase 'social engineering' in my
doctoral dissertation (in 1976) I was interested in social
change as it relates to history. Puerto Rico had served as a
kind of laboratory for such early efforts, and I wrote that
these efforts served to mutate what would otherwise have
been. The chair of my Ph.D committee objected to my choice
of words; I told him that I knew my use would be challenged,
however the word fit. I also reminded all at my defense that
genetic aberration is the basis of natural selection, and
that not all mutations are thought 'bad' or 'good.' So it is
with social engineering, however those who experiment
with the lives of others must bear the weight of
responsibility for what they bring into existence.
I cannot say social engineering is 'good' or 'bad' for the
same reason I cannot say medical and/or genetic engineering
is one or the other. Perhaps, as you read on, the reader
will come to comprehend why. As with all codes, in its
application the code encrypts: in its translation, the code
is worked backward as an intelligible iteration of that which was
composite in the mind of the architect.
The beatific and composite vision (and reality or virtue) of
that which was rendered as a plan (by the engineer) was
comprehensive and comprehensible: the iterated construction,
however faithfully translated, remains as a shadow of that
from which it was iterated.
There is a confusion with regard to the use of the word
iterate, and that of reiterate: when a thing is 'iterated' we
encounter reiteration (and the two are not the same). Things are reiterated
through the application of this universal code: beatific and
integral compositions are iterated in the prime application.
We assume that one cannot 'make' something from nothing; in
poetic making, however, we begin with a beat (and not with a
thing). Posey is that made ('up') in poetic beats . . .
composed and created. Our 'worlds' are posited worlds of
relativity, that are exclusively expressive of things . . .
quantifiable worlds, that employ 'pockets' or packets of
quantified information (that are discriminated and
translated as both factual and formal notes, as
understandable knowledge). The twin aspects of
any beat are also those of gender (and the twin names of dynamic). When the
architect creates, that created is posed, and formed (as in
steps of a series) as a composed realm . . . a 'thingified'
realm, to be sure, however as the Prime Realm: the Artist does not
enlist an engineer in the prime iteration. There is
but one prohibition (one lone 'sin'): that prohibiting
a no re-iteration
from within a Prime Realm of (that of The composite
'Rosey' . . . and the ring around it ("ashes, ashes, all
fall down").
Truth becomes virtual and formal through the process of
reiterative abstraction (and translation). To begin
comprehending the code, is to begin repairing our optimized
and monocular visions of both Truth and of the Realm . . .
the integrity, composition, beauty and gender of all that is
'cast' and played to an audience in our unitary theaters
(and in the theatrical lives we experience in our
existential visions of life). Persons (all persons) be made
in the image of God; which is to say, we are all capable of
seeing more than the hard-edged images of our apparent and
reiterated surrounds . . . we need but begin to comprehend
(and, if there is a 'key' or 'nail' to comprehension -- a clavo, or a llave -- it is to be found in
the code that we fail to think of as a code).