where are we going? Where we were just well you're getting you're getting
with this question. You're really getting into into a problem of faith.
Um this is nobody can answer this with any certainty. I have been
convinced me. I use a blackboard some many, many years ago, very impressed
by by a lecture by Reinhold Niebuhr who said that, you know, here is God
the ideal state. I mean I think we do the same thing whatever the
definition. Yes, man and the predominant
concept, religious concept has been that we make straight progress up here
and this is what paolo believes. We are somehow okay, I won't I won't
inject what he believes, but a lot of people think that, you know, we're
getting better and better and better. Um and
and a lot of theologians and and I think that this relationship between
the idea that we aspired to and man and what we are remains pretty much
the same, but it's moving forward. You know, it constantly changes, but we
aren't going to be any better. We changed our thinking. Maybe someday
we'll learn how not to make warm not to live Rich love Richard Nixon or in
some way become become improve ourselves, but we'll make other mistakes,
we'll move forward. And I think what we have to do with our eyes up here,
deal with the realities.
We do need some utopias. We do need some ideal states that we dream up,
that change from generation to generation. What we want out of to help
move this program, but I think that the emphasis is on what we want out of
life, what is good for men and let God take care of May I make the night
but Mhm uh
oh this is let's say 5, 5 millions of years ago.
This is
or let's say
as far as I'm concerned, as far as what science says, this was matter and
energy, this was a glimmer of consciousness and then you keep going and
going and going now. What is Utopia for? This is reality for that. What is
Utopia for this for this is reality for that and so on. So all those
utopias are becoming reality by the consciousness developing from zero
into what it is now and by developing further into what you might call God
if as a as a hypothesis. So, religion to me is the simulation of something
that might happen if we want to strongly enough George business about Mr
salaries faith. Yet. Mr Langer talks about human nature as ecstatic. I'm
changing to me. This is a statement of faith, which I think distinguishes
Mhm. This attitude really has a theological at Yes, Put God on one level
and the human on middle level is totally split one from the other. What Mr
seems to be talking about is is simply consciousness simply and continuing
with consciousness. But I see no, no continuum and the idea of human
nature is static and unchanging and certainly now we're at the beginning
of things like we don't know if they'll actually come about things like
the beginning of information abundance, the end of material scarcity and
the end of say male female psychic polarity. All of these things are
happening now and they indicate that human nature is not a static,
unchanging concept, which to me is a heavily theological uh, there seems
to be talking simply about consciousness which evolves true continuum.
Should I take that first? First of all? I mean, I think the whole, the
whole concept, Yes, right. And I don't see a contradiction, but let me
first get something else out of the way. The whole concept that man
evolved out of the lizard or is being touted in some scientific circles.
That's number one. I mean, this whole evolutionary Darwin thing, I don't
know, but I'm not qualified to discuss levi Strauss, Kahn says there is no
such thing as as as primitive man, man is man. What I'm talking about is
much more man's biological needs and his biological, oh,
existence in the way that when it dribbles does it in his marvelous books.
And to me, the predominant thing at the moment is man's need for good,
clean, fresh air. It is you would not or you would and when you come to
faith, my faith is that man with his present biological, with his changing
spiritual aspiration Is a very good, nice animal. You know, there's
nothing wrong with that. Let's accommodate him. That to me is a problem
right now and I'm not concerned about what's happening 50 generations from
that right now you mentioned the family for example, as essentially
important if what the population experts tell the truth and I don't know
if they are not. The family is what the family is being seen now
increasingly on some writers of scarcity, it drives really and we don't
have enough and we come into a state information, abundance of material
abundance. The family will simply become one of many ways to raise
Children. So it's a now it doesn't seem as if these basic needs that we
talked about our basic to our nature, that they were living in a state of
great material and great information. Well then again, you get into it,
you get into a question of faith. I mean, I personally happen to be still
convinced that some form of of father mother Children relationship or
whatever you call it. However open it is, you know, a new concept,
whatever our changing attitude towards sexual morality might be that that
basic cellular unit, if you will of society, it is necessary that Le
Corbusier and and a lot of city planners have contributed towards its own
destruction
Of the family life that people want to live down on the ground and not up
in the 365th floor, some place that you want to have contact with nature
etc, etc, etc. But that's an article of faith. But but but but but to me,
those words that you said are pure theology.
But I think what what what what Mr Solari is saying is pure theology. I
think we have different theologies here.
The evolutionary development of consciousness. There isn't God here. The
human there. Yeah, but I'm not talking about consciousness. I leave that
to the theologian. I'm talking about man's biological needs at the moment
in our present state of of american society are being very severely
damaged by what you talk about biological needs. My mind by culture and
consciousness and especially something like family and its centrality as
as
biological, biological.
I
think that if we if we accept this statement that the biological needs are
what what the american civilization is to seek for. Now, I think we are in
very bad shape because personally I like to I had to be biologically fit
so that for instance, I can enjoy a poet, a piece of good reading or a
piece of good music or something. But if I if the scope of my life is to
breathe clean air, then I would be better off to be a lizard because
there's more satisfaction there. It's a fully biologically
implemented
phenomenon. So I think that we confuse the instrument with the end, I must
be healthy so that I can be creative. But I if I cannot create myself just
so that I can be healthy because that doesn't make any sense. Help here's
a these are the premises for something else.
I have some sneaking suspicions which was wondering whether you confirm or
dispute. I see in your mythology methodology, you've already told us that
thermodynamics and quantum physics have had quite a
effect on developing your methodology. But what disciplines would you say
have had a major effect on the spiritual. So, the archaeology method that
you developed over the years? Well, you know, if you're familiar with
right, well, he in a way is one of the clearest. Well, I know, I don't
know enough to say he's one of the clearest. But to me it was a clear Yeah.
A mind that quite clearly indicated that we cannot and he's a christian
catholic, that we cannot considered technology, for instance, as something
exterior to us, We must proceed in such a way as to interior rise
technology. So the technology becomes what it's meant to be an extension
of the sensitization of ourselves into something more sensitive. So in a
way there is not so much difference between the biological technology of
technology on my hands and the technology of a tool that somehow extends
the part that the ability to do something. But again, we are so young at
it. We are so primitive that it were so awful that every time we use
technology, we know we oversimplify the problem, we are doing sort of the
pliers. Very primitive kind of hand, or even very skillful
radiation
thing is a very, very poor.
If we reject technology or something exterior to ourselves ontological
speaker, then evidently we are in a bad shape because technology is going
to kill us. We must make a technology such a subtle instrument for for
transforming matter into spirit again that we are going to accelerate in a
way this process of becoming more conscious, more lively, more creation of
the entity.
Yes, Mr Griswold,
You mentioned that you did not think that people really wanted to live on
360.
Now we have an example in Chicago, the Hancock building which is very far
from Mr salaries archaeology, But it's also a step above the one
functional empire state building concept. And it seems that this is to a
certain extent working and making people
well, I think that remains to be seen american bandstand. Um
you have in every in in in every novelty, you have the novelty of here.
You have this novel. I think if if the Hancock building the rent up there
in the 99th floor was a little lower and all your friends didn't know how
much money you had the appeal and the happiness would be would be somewhat
less. It is certainly, I mean, I've been up there and I find, but it
doesn't matter whether I find it stifling or not. Um I think what does
matter is that it is at best a very partial solution for people who can
afford to get down on the ground floor, push the right button, get their
chauffeur to bring their cadillac up to the front door and go out to the
net, out to the dunes or go out into nature. But you see if you take that
symptom and you make that into a great big, big city where you really
really don't have much of an escape where you don't have the multiplicity
of choices that we still have, but that we keep narrowing, then I get a
little frightened. In other words, if you're all confined to live in
Hancock buildings, I think we're going to be pretty pretty much like
robots. I mean that to me is a rebellion 86 1986. Kind of frightened of
anything. That
yeah, that's where you really fall to pieces because you see, you seem to
, you seem to say that we can afford the the constable Ization, but we
cannot afford the non cast civilization. And I'm saying that the
capitalization destroying us because we cannot afford it. Nobody can
afford it. It's against life. It's against the logistics of life, is
against the this any sense that we can make out of the fact that we are
not pure spirits and it's really killing us. And you're saying that you
don't you don't need the, Which is not what I am advocating the equivalent
of the anchor. You need to spread the three billions which we are and
possibly four or five billions before we can reach a level maybe six
billions and we can spread ourselves thin on one layer and have nature
with ourselves, be able to reach whatever you want to reach and have a
happy life. This is not utopia. This is a, some kind of a twisted fantasy
that nobody, but nobody in this continent can maintain anymore.
No, it's not a twisted fantasy. It's a matter of arithmetic. It's a matter
of plain arithmetic, bucky Fuller has figured out. And I don't subscribe
to everything that bucky Fuller said by any means, but he's figured out
that the entire world population, whatever it is at the moment, and you
can get them on the island of Manhattan and there's still enough room for
them to dance the twist. It is an absolute myth that we're running out of
space. That's a myth. Just badly organizing, ruining this space. We're
calling it all up, but we're not running out. And I'm not talking about
that. I'm talking about the cost of having you run around to do your
things. You see if we some, if we add up the cost of the car reality, what
are we building, manufacturing, maintenance, fueling, repair, junking,
highway systems, uh, road system, bypass systems, garages, reaper, shops,
parking lots,
insurance, mortgages. I mean the whole castle and we consider that most
the bulk of this enormous castle is made so that we can get to the point
where we can start to perform because I have to get there to do something.
So, and I can do something only when I'm getting there. Well this
enormous, this gigantic, costly structure that we build up is to allow
ourselves american citizens to reach the point of performance. If we take
this and we and we think about it, then we must decide that something went
absolutely out of because this is, this doesn't make sense. I mean this is
this is taking the beautiful earth that we have consume it to the bones in
fuels in iron, in plastics, rubbers so that someone somewhere can start to
write a letter
work machine.
I mean, we are putting all our lives in logistics and logistics should be
an instrument, a simple, unobtrusive
concealed instrument for life to develop and what we have now the whole
continent is becoming a logistical device for what?
Well, I have a little more confidence than you do. I mean, first of all,
you know, now we're getting into economics. Um, we're talking partly if I
understand you write about priorities and I think they're terribly
misplaced in our society and we're talking partly again of a style of
living. Now, I'm very much opposed for instance, just to take a little
thing out of it. I'm very much much much opposed to drowning our cities
and our life and our existence in automobiles. And I also know as we all
do that carbon monoxide and all the poison that comes out of the stand.
Things are very bad for us. I also know as we all do that. It consumes an
inordinate amount of space and energy and energy and and look terribly
ugly and we've got to do something about it. But you will not be able and
I will not be able and we should not be able to take the tremendous new
freedom that autumn ability has given Henry ford people have Now the first
time in human history, the ability to move around privately, not heard it
up and see the world and take the family out to a picnic and go to go to
the Grand Canyon. And and this privilege you cannot take. You cannot. We
have to learn not to run away from our technology, but to dominate it to
master to find a way to have this autumn ability to have everybody have
this automobile without following up the earth. You're talking about the
use of automobile for recreation is one for learning. Yeah, but that's not
what we are doing with automobiles. Were using for survival. I'll build
mass transit for the necessities don't make any sense max. You have mass
transit in your elevators. And my God, that's so
that there is a very simple reason why yours doesn't work. The resistance
is hard to break. No. Now we're getting into specifics that I'm willing to
discuss. But don't tell me you're a city can work without mass transit. I
mean you have to have vertical elevators.
What I object, what I object to the term mass transit is that we know that
we are serving a pancake which is so enormous that there is no such a
thing as mass transit for it. You can only have single individual transit
, which is what the autumn abilities, which is why the system doesn't work.
No, you can't reverse it. You can't, you can't. Oh yes. You collect your
city, you collect your city, then you start to take something away, then
you start to walk. You know, you give them something you don't take away
to give them their legs back.
Our mass transit usually doesn't work in cities because it's this pancake
like structure and because you can't run a train out to every suburb. And
if you're centralized and the more you centralize the better mass transit
works well that there's a limit to that too. Mm hmm. That is impractical.
You you try to keep getting back into the, into the city into the high
concentration.
You have to find a lot better solutions than we have right now to make
that attractive enough. People just like their back patio and and bobby.
Some of them you have to open up multiplicity of choices.
Never seen. There's the coercion that we never considered because we live
with them. We don't consider them. What what what does it matter for me to
drive one hour a day? But the price of it? We ignore it completely. But
there's a there's a price tag which is fantastic. It includes the
destruction of the resources of the earth. But this is not. This is not a
single thing that you just ignore and say, Well, I have my courtyard, I
have my barbecue. Well, sometimes you may not have it someday. You may not
have it period. You might not be here. Um, you made a comment in the midst
of this, of this discussion about that, that seemed to imply that the use
of automobiles for things like recreation and leisure would be would be
acceptable to you. Is this true with my interpreter? If if the automobile
is not for an instrument for survival, but it is an instrument for for
pleasure or leisure, then evidently it's a very good instrument. But if I
had to use if this the network of things of physical things which exist
compels me, coerced me to use the automobile for for a regional survival,
which means brought to a job and then come back to the job be one single
within with three tons of metal surrounding me and so on. That evidently
this doesn't make sense. This is really a criminal act against humanity.
So I must in in trying to see the future in trying to plan for the future
, I must realize that the commuting, for instance is something that I must
get rid of. How did you get rid of it in the bulk of it by using the legs
instead of using the automobile. How can you use the leg in in Bethlehem?
If if I had to walk 10 miles evidently I cannot walk 10 miles. So I'm
going back to the this problem of having putting down a grid and then
start to move things on it. And I know that mass transit doesn't work
because I'm dealing with a pancake that has to serve thousands and
thousands of units so I cannot speeding in that kind of diaspora. The only
way I can conquer this problem is by shortening the distances. Why why
would we go vertical? Because the distances are only 10 ft about What
about getting from between one archaeology and another? Would you is there
room for automobiles in your college or at least outside of again, not
being not being a plan for a city but a diagram in the diagram I say the
automobile stops at the edge of the city so you can store automobiles
comment period. Mr piper. The one thing I think that you're forgetting.
Question one, the similarities
postponing is that you can have all the land area that you want to the
people of the population
equality and there he is going to deteriorate at the way using your
resources right now? Mr Solari miniaturize and cut down on ization of
those resources or cut down on the waist that is inherently
but I don't trust our present technology or present ideas towards
technology Two
give us a solution. You're flying everybody's
well. Mhm. I didn't say everybody ought to split up. Concentration is
taking the concept, the concentration is taking place quite natural and I
think it's a very artificial and unrealistic concept for the Minneapolis
experimental city to try and build a totally independent new city out
there in the sticks. I will explain more more tonight I think
Mr salary and I a complete agreement on the fact that our society is
disintegrating very rapidly before our eyes and that we have to
reintegrate. We have to bring things together again. Walk to work as far
as we can as much as possible having different age groups live together
and so on. Which we've all had before. They have to integrate society and
interest racial integration but by income groups by by all the various
pluralistic things. We have age groups et cetera. And the other thing
where we totally agree is that we are very recklessly exploiting the
resources of the earth and we have to start doing some.
Then we come into the methodology which by lovely slip Freudian slip of
the tongue. One of our questions for a moment confused with mythology and
that's where we where we differ. I just like to be a little more practical
and right now and here but I grab him not only grant him the right but
greatly admire and hold it very necessary. But we also have to set up
ultimate ideas
and ideals question
Give me the feeling that this is hilarious work is not great. Yeah right
now
did you draw continues?
It seems to want to start the earth.
I very much right now.
Yeah. What's the problem?
He said
this is getting away from this discussion from Mr salary though. What is
the structure we are? Where are you going to set the limits on this
vertical?
Oh, I mean if I if I gave you numbers I would be an idiot evidently
because the limit today might not be Might not make very much sense 50
years from now and I don't I don't want to even begin to put limits. But
definitely I would not suggest that we should build At 300 stories or 200
stories, building 50 stories, it's plenty 100 stories more than what we
need. So there there's the technology is there the means are there, it's
the will of the, what we might call the vision of the victorian charity
which is not there. You don't want to get ahead of structural engineers
then you want to let them Well, I think we can help each other. And this
is uh more of a question of your history you were with right when he was
doing broad acre city and then on his deathbed or when he's kind of
playing death
and start talking about the Mile high city. Well, I got news for you. The
mile high city. It's as bad as the pancake because the needle is not
better than a pancake. What you need is a solid see as we are not needles
of fantasies, but we are solid. That's what we have to go about because
only the vegetable is flat and it's flat for a simple reason that has to
receive energy from the sun. The question is how serious, right? When he
was done envisioning this. Well, he, you know, he liked to play pranks. I
mean he was very, you know,
tall building engineers. Fazlur Khan is one of them were saying right now
, you know, right said we're gonna do this Mile high city and they're
going t he mr right? You know, we can build this. But all we're going to
have is a structure with no roommates. And I think it is right, is the one
who is laughing well ahead of the structural, trying to see the point.
It's a good point that you might have to end up by building a solid in
order to keep it up. But as you said, technology might do much better
technology things it can do. But the point is that by by doing this, you
segregate as much as you do that. So if you want to get segregation out of
the context of life. You have to come up with a solid with the body not
with the leaf, not with the needle because both of them somehow
handicapped and kept in a lower level of consciousness. Because the
swiftness, what we need is a swiftness within the organism.
I'd like to come back and ask a question myself will probably no change
the current of our discussion. Um I think it's Mumford who made the
observation
Utopias, the classical utopias from plato more and so on. And even the
dystopias of the current century all have one thing in common and that is
that their totalitarian that is that they are so completely direct. Human
life dissent becomes impossible. The person who cannot or will not fit in
must be eliminated. That seems to be true of the ones that I'm familiar
with. How does the dissenter, how does the free spirit fit into what looks
like another?
Well, I suppose that for a moment that I'm I'm right in saying that this
is it's a swifter kind of device. What does that mean? It means that for
instance, the
all the server systems and all the bureaucracy involved. The server system
would shrink. So garbage collection, not not anymore. 50 trucks and then
100 drivers and so on. May be the equivalent of three trucks and three
drivers. So you you shrink the service and you shrink the bureaucracy, the
administration of it? What do you do that in all the other systems serving
the city from police to health, to all the retrieval and delivery systems
? You end up with something that compared to something else. What exists,
has a bureaucratic machinery which is a fraction of what it was there and
the body of the toilet which is also smaller. Well, you can say evidently
if you are, if you are autocrat, if somebody is ahead of this, you can
control it better. The fact is that it doesn't have to be one person,
the body social and the people that are controlling the machine and they
can be more directly involved in controlling the machine because of the
bureaucracies model. Because the the demands put upon the environment, the
the energy and the space and so on are all reduced. So it seems to me that
with a minimum of willingness within the society of not being
autocratically dry driven, this is the system that is going to do it.
But it's so it's only, it's only a necessity. It's not sufficiency. You
can always find, you know, the demagogue. Yeah. With the elimination of
community, You have one alternative. Another alternative would be marshall.
McLuhan ish, instant communication with everyone. People can still be
spread. Okay, now, what do you think of this as another? Yeah, I think
that this is not an alternative. This is part of areality