The following concepts and thoughts are randomly presented as "points" to be considered somewhat independently. In their totality they are a mosaic of my philosophical perspective.



> An apropos definition of my aesthetic approach is Form Transcends Function. This is meant to imply that though Function is the initial consideration in creating the aesthetic solution, the development of Form supersedes merely what is required to satisfy that initial consideration. And because "functional" considerations also include the psychological and emotional aspects of the project, Form over Function, in reality, implies "Form for Form's Sake"; or in other words, for no other reason than for the sake of beauty.
     I feel that Form can transcend functional considerations. It can not only embellish function, but it can also take flight onto its own independent, aesthetic paths. Function might be looked at as the skeletal framework of the aesthetics, a point of departure, and Form is then given free rein to Effloresce. In other words, I do not feel all aesthetic aspects of the design have to have a meaning relative to the functional aspects of the project. Form can Break Free from Function.
     I still believe the aesthetics of a particular project should evolve from the various aspects of that project - that the aesthetics become what they are because of the creative response to the characteristics of that project. And I still believe that the resulting aesthetics should have meaning relative to the project. I think the difference I am trying to convey is that from that "meaning", Form can further develop like a "vine gone wild". My contention is that this transcendent Form does not need to be justifiable relative to the function of the project.
     The idea that aesthetics can transcend functional considerations is based upon my perspective of man's "nature". All things in the natural world are designed based on survival needs. All plants and animals are built like they are, not for some arbitrary design effect, but are the form and shape and color, because that is what servers the needs of the particular plant or animal."
     Man, however, has a mind that exceeds the capacity of that of the other creatures of the natural world. The greater capacity of our mind has given us a more developed consciousness and self-consciousness, and because of that, the mental freedom to consciously "choose", or in other words, we have what has been defined as "free-will". I feel Man's free-will transcends the needs based nature of the natural world, even as we remain a part of it. And as our nature thus transcends that of the natural world, so too can our aesthetic approach.
     When I started doing my pencil comps and clay sculptures, I noticed, accepted, and developed, my proclivity to make continual aesthetic decisions, as the design grew point by point. That ability to freely determine growth, I equate with free-will, and I've always felt it transcended nature's way.
     Another aspect of my aesthetic approach was the aesthetics themselves - as they evolved intuitively and spontaneously - organically - they never just repeated what had preceded, nor were they pre-established, like for instance, "I think I'll sculpt a woman's torso."
    This "Constantly Changing via Free-will" is the basis of my idea that Form Can Break-free from Function - that man's "human nature" enables him an "Unbridled Freedom of Form Development".
     The concept of free-will is the essential aspect of the philosophy of existence that I believe in - Existentialism. The essential elements of existentialism are that there is no God to take care of us, that there is no such thing as fate to guide our existence, and that nothing in life has an inherent meaning. Presented with this concept, many people viewed it as depressing and debilitating, and assumed it would foster a nihilistic attitude towards life - that nothing mattered, since nothing had meaning. But in truth, what it does do is give man the freedom to choose. To determine for himself the meaning of things and the actions he deems worthwhile. Thus we can choose to love or choose to fight. We can choose to construct or choose to destroy. We can choose to enjoy beauty or complain about the ugliness. We are free to create an incredible life, uninhibited by outwardly imposed limitations. From within ourselves, and thus organically, we can each construct our life as suits us best. And we do that by making the right choices - by taking responsibility for our lives and what we do.
     This is the ultimate use of our natural consciousness. We transcend the strictly natural by consciously improving and expanding our selves and our existence. No animal can do this.

> I would like to describe, as explicitly as possible, what I consider the Existential approach to architectural design. The idea is that each room should be considered as a separate entity and designed as such. The process is to "imagine being in the room" as the only way of arriving at appropriate design decisions. The bottom-line is that the atmosphere created is the sole essence of an appropriate solution. This atmosphere is an organic development of the following considerations.
    - Foremost is the functional layout - the room must facilitate the "real" way the client lives - this is paramount. A living room design should be based on the "living experiences" the client's life entails. What do they really do in their living room.
    - Next is the appropriate shape of the space, and the forms that delineate that space, and the colors and the textures and the detailing that delineate those forms. All these should develop from the atmosphere appropriate for the particular room for the particular client. Only by being inside this room, in your imagination, can the Existential Environment be designed - this is not an abstract composition, but an experienced atmosphere.
    - Each room should be considered separately in this manner, and what is determined appropriate for one room need not have any bearing on the design for any other room. Each room should be free to develop true to its function and its appropriate atmosphere.
    - The connections, or passages between rooms, should also be developed by imagining the experience, not as a pretty composition seen on paper.
    - The development of the entire interior design should be an outgrowth of combining the experiencing of all these environments.
    - The exterior is experienced separately from the interior and relates to a whole other set of elements, such as the aesthetics of the surrounding structures and the site, itself, and, especially, the aesthetic expression of forms, colors, and textures appropriate for the client. It, therefore, should be of a different set of aesthetics. With the interior spaces are connected, the exterior could be considered an outer skin that ties them all together.
     All parts of the architectural solution are thus given their own unique validity of expression, and combined together, create the total design.

> The Phenomenological aspect of architecture - "It is what is experienced". And as each of us experiences the same work of architecture somewhat differently, depending on our personal experiences and abilities to perceive aspects of the aesthetics, the reality of architecture becomes, in the final account, a combination of the object (the architecture, itself) and the beholder. This combination becomes the "atmosphere created", which amounts to an "effect" when experienced. Thus experienced architecture becomes a "combination of effects experienced through time". This is the Existential Reality of architecture. Architecture designed as a human experience - not as a composition of abstract relationships.

> If architecture is approached as an abstract composition, then complex aesthetic and conceptual relationships can be developed as a part of the architectural design. I feel BG considered these "Deep Structures" an important, if not essential, aspect of architectural design. The use of compositional concepts were developed as a guide to help establish these deep aesthetic, and conceptual interrelationships. For the architect, they offer the ability to create a cosmos around the original architectural concept.
     Regardless of my point by point progression of architectural elements, the constant urge would always be to establish deep structures in the relationship of one element to another. It would be my "duty", however, to ignore this urge and concentrate on the "human orientation" of the design, instead, especially when it ran counter to the abstract compositional aspect.
     It is also thought that my approach of a lyrical, extemporaneous aesthetic flow has the characteristics of a "surface structure" as opposed to those of a deep structure. But my perception is that the essential quality is each point and its relation to the points before and after it. That "surface flow" is what is experienced on a moment to moment basis through time - it is the phenomenal reality - and, therefore, the "structure" that is of a human/existential dimension.

> Unity : The issue of "Unity", however, is the very issue that delineates why I consider my approach "Existential". Unity was one of the outstanding, and seminal, characteristics of Wright's organic approach, and it has always been an important aspect of our organic philosophy. When I was designing the Amertec building, I wanted very much for it to have that characteristic - I wanted all aesthetic elements to be part of the whole, and the exterior to reflect the characteristics of the interior.
    At some point in time, I began to rethink the validity of unity, per se.
    - I began to think that though the bedroom and living room, for example, might be part of the same home, their functions and appropriate atmospheres are not the same.
    - I also began to feel, in a similar vein, that the interior served a number of aesthetic functions that were not the same as those of the exterior.
    - In addition, was the idea that each room/space (if, you will), the interior, and the exterior, were experienced at a separate times - a continuous present, so to speak.
     "Existential", thus, implies a separate experiencing of each element as a unique entity, having its own aesthetic identity and not being confined to an aesthetic unity - the "experienced reality" of each element being the most important determinant of the design solutions.
     As a metaphor of this concept, though it played no part in my formulation of it, is the human body, itself. Inside are organs, each designed for its particular function and each very different from the others. Structurally, there is the skeleton, which is a unique entity unto itself. And as an external element is the skin, which is also a unique aesthetic.
     As I define it, the basis for "existential design solutions" is the human experience and not abstract compositional considerations. To create "unity", I feel one must consider the design aesthetic, itself, as a priority. Also, I consider the "existential growth" of the design as one of each experience considered independently from the others and then added together (in a way, point by point) to create the whole - rather than the whole as the initial concern and the parts subservient.
     I would add that this type of approach to design is much easier facilitated by the use of sprayed concrete construction than with other methods of construction. Also, that much like the creation of biomorphic identities, it might be appropriate for only certain types of projects, such as those with very individualized rooms/spaces. I do not feel, however, that unity, in and of itself, is a required characteristic of organic design.
     Unity does facilitate a very beneficial quality in that it creates a "continuity to the experienced spaces". As the inhabitant moves from one space to another, the memory of aesthetic similarities of one with the other enhances a comprehension by the inhabitant of the architecture as a singular entity. I consider this a very important feeling. I would think the type of project might determine the approach to the design concept, as well as design concept, itself, that is the most appropriate for an organic solution.
     Regarding "unity": As we design, we all have a tendency to impart order and unity to our compositions. As artists, we want to create a work of beauty, and unity has always been considered an important aspect of a beautiful composition. My thought is that the reality of an architectural solution sometimes has considerations that would supersede purely compositional aesthetic considerations. And as such, it would be appropriate to refrain from the effort to impart unity.
     But I also feel that unity and order are not necessarily vital in the creation of beauty. As we flow linearly (the continuous present), we should be responsive to and enjoy change. There does not have to be a reiteration of past elements.
     The word, "Composition", itself might be part of the problem, because it implies abstract, aesthetic considerations that might take precedent over the existential reality of the appropriate environment.

> "Music in the Moment", is a book which discusses the theory of an Edmund Gurney. In the 1880's (simultaneous with Sullivan), Gurney expressed the belief that music is enjoyed and comprehended on a moment to moment basis only - a continuous present - as time is of the essence in experiencing music. It also discussed the memory and anticipatory aspects as they related to the moment by moment experience.
     Though parts of a work of architecture do not "disappear" once experienced, it is, nonetheless, experienced through time. The reality of the "present moment experience" can be considered the singular reality of that architectural composition at that particular moment.
    My design approach of an area by area development (point by point) is my theory of a Continuous Present approach to architectural design. This design approach is similar to my perception of the compositional technique first used by Edgard Varese - a sound by sound development. Each of these ideas is based on the fact that the point is completed and then the next point is connected to it based on a beautiful and appropriate transition - each point being a unique and self-sufficient entity. This responds to the linear "path" of time, moment by moment - being Always In The Present.
     The composition as a whole could be nothing more than the linkage of moment to moment sounds, which would be similar to the day by day flow of life. I mean a linkage of sounds based on beauty, not a pre-established structure. I like to think of it as a walk along a path where various choices of diverging paths can lead to evolving changes of scenery. The changes can be exciting and keep the senses alive. We must be open to change, and as in life and music, we might not be able to ascertain an order to this path, but we should enjoy the beauty of the flow.

     > The connotations of "room" are inadequate. But I also feel "space" is insufficient. Space implies the volume within the architecture and does not imply the architecture, itself, other than its "form", which gives the space its shape. The quality of the materials, the colors, textures, and the resulting effect, are not implied when using the term, "space". I feel FLLW was influenced by the Japanese (Shinto) connotation of space, which derives from the Ise Shrine. Ise is a sacred space, but the architecture of the Ise Shrines is nothing more than a demarcation of that sacred space. I feel Wright's use of the term indicates how important he felt "space" to be, but does not connote the total reality of the architectural interior.
     I believe "environment" or "atmosphere" are more appropriate terms. Either of those two words would indicate the totality of the living functions, aesthetics, and space, and the resulting effect. Thus, you might have a "sleeping environment" or an "atmosphere for entertaining" or a "dining environment", etc.

> As organic architects, the more we understand and are sensitive to the unique aspects of each particular project, the more our creative expression reflects our psychological and emotional response to what is special about that project. Being organic architects means we love each individual project, because we cherish and want to express what is special and unique about that project. The more we love, the more creative our aesthetic expression.

> Associations and connotations can be both intended by the architect as an aspect of the aesthetics and experienced by those viewing the design. These associations and connotations facilitate an ever increasing layering of the design's characteristics. What they should not do is become an image that detracts from the design's abstract aesthetic reality.

> It is my opinion that very few clients have a highly developed individuality that might serve as a foundation for organic solutions. Those that have, most often, do not also have an aesthetic inclination, but more often a creative inclination in their own field. It seems designing and building on a speculative basis, in some cases, might actually serve the cause of creative self-expression to a greater degree than relying on a client to define the project. I think most often, we have asked too much from the client as regards to creative design. I also think a home buyer, as an example, would be more inclined to respond to what might be termed unusual, if he could first see and experience the work of architecture. It might also help if there were other "unusuals" in close proximity.

> I don't consider architecture an "organism", and individual interior spaces as its "organs". I see architecture, not as a biological relationship with nature, but in an aesthetic relationship. It is not to become the same as nature that architecture should aspire, but to be on an equal aesthetic plane with nature that excites me. Forms might have naturalistic qualities for aesthetic and functional reasons, and the totality of the design might transcend its aesthetic parts to take on the quality of an "organic entity", but, again, not to mimic nature.

> There are two types of freeform. One that embodies an underlying geometric basis, and another that is totally free. It was Goff's thought that Gaudi's work was primarily the first type. The essential elements of the Amertec building are the first type as well, with the geometric movement of the rebars creating the main forms and spaces. Connecting these elements, I was able to use the second, actual free-form type of design.
     My desire was to one day design and actually build in a completely free and intuitive manner. This approach would first document the conceptual and aesthetic solution on paper as the basis for the start of construction. Then on site designing would be done on a continual basis as the structure is built, while keeping in mind the original aesthetic premise. I like the idea that the creative process would, in this way, be an ongoing adventure.

> In essence, "organic" would preclude any preconceived, externally applied design determinants. Only the natural evolution (organic flow) from the unique aspects of the design program, itself, to an appropriate result can be considered organic.
     The essence of "organic" is the freedom to allow the solution to evolve primarily from the unique characteristics of the project, itself. The more unimpeded by externally applied, pre-established restrictions, the design process is, the more we approach the ideal of our organic philosophy.
     The organic approach is also a beautiful philosophy of human existence in relation to nature and the cosmos. In the final analysis, however, I feel it is Love that is the essential element that we take with us into the abyss to create beauty.

> Traditional methods of construction are in a sense, externally applied design determinants in that they set design parameters that limit the aesthetic possibilities. Sprayed concrete construction on the other hand allows total freedom to design the space, form, whatever, anyway you want - it goes wherever you want it to. I equate this design freedom with the freedom created by the use of electronic instruments in composing music.

> It is my thought that the evolution of organic architecture could be architecture as a Biomorphic Entity with Amorphous Space. This, I feel, is our "uncharted shore" -an architecture based upon the living and emotional needs and wishes of man and aesthetically co-joined to natural beauty of the planet upon which it sits.
     Amorphous Space - free-flowing space created by free-flowing forms.

> The combination of freeform design with naturalistic characteristics opens a limitless panorama of architectural aesthetics. From forms to colors to textures to finishes, all can be created in never before seen aesthetics.
    In that regard, architecture could be aesthetically influenced by the characteristics of:
     - animals, insects, and bird forms and textures
     - plant forms
     - oceanic forms, as well as those of fish and corals.
     - geology, such as rock formations, ice flows, cave forms, and minerals.
     - human aspects
     - microbiology

> Incredible, beautiful, exciting atmospheres - that's essential element of architectural interiors. That is the goal when designing each room or space.
    · To start with the client's freedom to use the space as fits his wants and needs - as he sees fit - flexible or fixed - as he desires.
    · To evaluate and expand the function so that it exceeds the basic utilitarian need and facilitates an exciting living experience.
    · To have the aesthetics evolve according to this functional point of departure.
    · And then to have the aesthetics explode into "atmosphere", which then combines with the living experience to create the ECSTASTENTIAL - a word inferring an architectural environment that promotes a feeling of ecstasy in the inhabitant. Since I consider the effect of architecture on man its essential function, then I would think that the highest goal of our architecture would be to create an ecstatic response in those that experience it.
    

> "Atmosphere" requires that aesthetics, per se, be transcended to facilitate an effect or an environment. As examples, imagine:
     - a space defined by undulating forms similar to the swells of an ocean.
     Imagine these painted the blue/green iridescence of an abalone shell.
     - or a space defined by the fractured planes similar to quartz. Imagine these painted an opalescent yellow.
     - or a space defined by billowy forms similar to clouds painted variations of powder blues and light pinks.
     - or a space defined by soft curves, colors, and textures similar to the moss garden of the Sahoji Temple in Japan.
     - or a space defined by multi-colored cubistic forms similar to a rock grotto.
     Imagine those qualities, those beauties of nature as examples of potential architectonic spaces and aesthetics. Sunsets, cloud formations, flowing water, sea shells, etc. etc. etc. Imagine these always as abstracted, not copied. This is what I feel free form should facilitate in architectural design.

> Western culture has developed from an evolution of thought that includes the application of Euclidean geometry for architectural purposes. This has led to a geometry, and its technical uses, being used as a crutch in architectural design - we have let the evolution of our concepts predetermine results.
     We should abandon this crutch and resolve design decisions in a fresh manner by having a more emotionally involved feel for the design environment. Then again, when you have found "solutions and answers" for one, you must not let them serve as a crutch for the next. I equate this to the Dionysian Abyss as the primary point of departure that must be "entered" again and again and again, as you respond anew to each problem.

> When I find certain aesthetics particularly "unpleasant", I wonder about the inherent perception of "beautiful" by the brain - does the brain, neurologically, find some aesthetics beautiful and some not?
     It is my thought that our neurological responses are in good part conditioned by experience. That if we grow-up around particular types of aesthetics, neurologically, we grow to relate to and find those aesthetics beautiful. There does not seem to be the perception by all brains that certain aesthetics are inherently ugly. In the final analysis, the neurological ability for the brain to accommodate to ever new stimuli means one thing - the artist is free to explore and explode as he sees fit. He's free! He can venture into the unknown unafraid of creating a "misbegotten".

> The more the aesthetics veer towards the Phantasmagoric (I love that word, and all it connotes), the more potent the personal imagery becomes. Restricting aesthetics to the geometric curtails the emotional intensity of the response. I feel Gaudi's work is the best example of the phantasmagoric.

> The reality of a fractal is a mathematical constant. The reality of a natural phenomenon (i.e. your coffee swirls), to my comprehension, is not. Many chaos theory scientists equate the non - Euclidean quality of fractals with nature - they being closer to nature than the square, circle, and cone, etc. But though they might be closer, they are not the same. Like the mind of man, I see natural growth freer to respond to, not only it's genetic make-up, but to it's environmental circumstances, as well. To my way of thinking, neither the mind nor nature has the limiting mathematical basis that fractals do. - I cherish our ability to choose between making a left turn or a right turn on a moment by moment basis.
     When I think about my perspective of the universe and life, I don't see them as a Scientist/Mathematician would. Nor do I see them as a Spiritualist would. I guess it boils down to the fact that I see them as an Artist would. I don't need equations, nor do I need a God/spiritual essence to grasp their reality. "All you need is LOVE".

> Each form has its own physical properties of aesthetic characteristics, and I would think, that's all it has - just existential beauty - with no transcendental meanings. We can then either find them beautiful or interesting or whatever.

> "The Continuous Present" is an existential / phenomenological approach to life. - To be alive and be aware in the moment.

> Thinking about what I consider to be the "essence" of a work of art, has lead me to reconsider the term "work of art" and replace it with "aesthetic object". That is because, for me, aesthetics is the essence of, not only manmade works of art, but natural objects, as well. And by aesthetics I mean an object's form, color, detailing, texture, etc.
     These aesthetic characteristics of an object are its visual (phenomenological) reality. And it is this reality of simply aesthetics that I strive to create. I want to create an aesthetic object of beautiful forms, colors, textures, and the interrelationship of these elements, much like that of everything in nature, whether it be a flower, a rock, or a cloud, etc.
     For me, the value of an aesthetic object is based entirely on how beautiful I find its visual reality, its aesthetics, to be. Whether it's sculpted from clay or marble or wood; whether it's small or large; whether lyrical or monumental; none of that makes any difference to me as to its value. That it is creative; that it is original - a personal and unique statement; and that it creates beauty (at least for me) - that's what I deem its ultimate value.

> Wonderment and curiosity are the two most important characteristics of the creative persona. Truth is a variable very much dependent on each individual, so the thoughts and ideas you evolve are as valid as any.

> Imagination is like inspiration - a special quality of the creative persona. And like inspiration, we should make good use of it and enjoy it. One of the best ways to facilitate continual evolution is to imagine the possibilities. And then with the help of a little willpower, actualize them. Imagining the atmosphere of an architectural interior is, to me, the means of creating that interior.

> To emulate does not imply copying. It does imply a fascination and love with the object of emulation to the point one strives to have his work "be like" or strive to equal that which is emulated. The qualities of nature's aesthetics are such that I want very much to have my work have similar characteristics. The creative artist will always translate what he hopes to emulate into his own aesthetic vernacular. As Wright translated his love of nature into the geometric, I translate my love of nature into freeform. I will always be inspired by the incredible forms, colors, textures, and details of nature to the point that they will always be my aesthetic point of departure.

> The straight line could be considered the essence of Western culture. Time-wise, it's the quickest; distance-wise, it's the shortest; effort-wise, it's the easiest; cost-wise, it's the cheapest; goal-wise, it's the safest; construction-wise, it's the only sane approach! Obviously, I'm nuts!

> I truly believe man's greatest asset is his potential to Improve the world - to add beauty to the already beautiful, or to refine that which can become that much more "perfect".

> As some will spend time and effort in Transcendental Meditation, in essence, closing down the senses to the real world in hopes of accessing the spiritual world, I propose a discipline of Sensual Perception - self-consciously opening the senses, perceiving reality, on a scheduled basis. Concentrate, really concentrate, on taste, on smell, on feeling, on hearing, on seeing. Set-up a schedule, as often as suits you, but on a continuing basis, when each of these senses will be concentrated on. The important aspect of those existential exercises of concentrating on each of the senses is to become consciously aware of each. When you divorce each aspect (its sound, its smell, etc.) of a phenomenon, in a sense "abstract" its elements, then you begin to really "know" that phenomenon.

> My clay sculptures are examples of Melodic Flow in 3-dimensional forms. To my way of thinking it would be wrong to add the counterpoint whilst in the flow - it would be far better to add the counterpoint at another time when your emotions have progressed to a different state, when the mind would be more receptive to an alternate idea. Perhaps you could then enter a perpendicular flow? "Perpendicular Flow" - I love it! Get high, then shift gears, then pull an U-e (as in U turn), then blast off in another direction - letting your emotions drive you. Man, what fun barreling through the flow zone at different angles!

> Just as I let form flow extemporaneously in developing my sculptures, I should develop both a surface detailing of those forms and the coloration of them the same way. By "surface detailing" I mean a texture that is constantly changing and evolving, rather than repetitive and strictly accentuating the form (as in nature). Painting the sculpture would also involve the same "changing and evolving" (again dissimilar to the nature of nature). Thus the three elements of the sculpture: form, texture, and color, would each be independent entities. The sculpture's aesthetic identity would be the co-joined result of these entities.

> I feel the resistance to creative aesthetics is a deep-seated aspect of human nature. I feel it is part of the innate feelings of insecurity and a fear of the unknown, both of which equate to a need to cling to the past and conform to the norm. I often wonder whether these fears can be alleviated - if mankind can develop feelings of confidence in themselves and in the future. Man is evolving, as all things in the universe are, but whether mankind is evolving in this positive direction is another question.

> There is the distinct possibility that man is on the brink of a whole new "human nature" via genetic engineering. In the next 50-100 years, I think the limits we now deal with as humans will be erased. The psychological, intellectual, and physical aspects of being human will be substantially improved. What we are now will be considered a primitive form of human.
     Life can be good now, but we're missing-out on life's great potential to afford real happiness, and the ability to be lived to the fullest. Mankind will eventually create himself so that he can create that type of existence.
     Philosophical question of the day (hell, of my life!) - Why don't good things come easy? Why must they always require so much work, with so many obstacles in the way? I like "easy". I think it should be the way all things are. I don't buy that what comes easy is taken for granted and quickly becomes boring. I say, if it's a good thing, it's fun to enjoy it, and if you don't know and cherish a good thing when you have it, well then, you're the fool.
     If the manipulation of the Human Genome becomes a reality, well then, it just might be that "easy" will become the new reality of life. Then, rather than life becoming a bore, it will become the blast it should be.

> In a way, there are three types of people:
     First off, there are those who are "self-centered". These people base their actions on greed, power, and sex. They go about using the world to suit their self interests.
     Then there are those who are "good-intentioned". These people want to "improve" the world, to make it a better place to live. Their actions are based on telling everyone else what to do. They have a better way, and they want you to change.
     Then there are the "question mark" people. These guys don't know shit. But they are curious, and they are bedazzled by the beauty of the world. They don't understand why or how, but they know it turns them on. They love what they see and want to somehow express that love. Then someone comes along and asks this "know-nothing" if he (or she) can design them a home. This know-nothing says, "I dunno, but I'll try. Since I don't know nothing, what are your needs and wishes?" The know- nothing, not knowing anything, then drops into an abyss. He grunts and groans, and then he remembers all that love he felt and applies it to the client's needs and wishes, and then out of nowhere pops an idea and then another, and then there it is: this little flower of self-expression.
     Let's say there is this beautiful desert. And in this desert is this little desert flower, all by itself. The self-centered person, being a developer, decides this wasteland needs a road and buries the little flower. The good- intentioned person, being in this case a talented landscape architect, views this beautiful desert, but somehow decides that the little flower seems out of place. So to improve the desert he takes it upon himself to remove it.
     Now for the question mark guy…He's bowled over by the desert and the flower. Curious, he goes up to the flower and checks it out, but not knowing whether it "belongs" there or not or why the hell it's there in the first place, he simply walks away the better for the experience.
     The question mark guy goes out into the "real" world and gets the shit beaten out of him. The self-centered person steals his money, and the good-intentioned person merely screws up his mind. It's a bloody mess. The question mark guy, therefore, should always remember what makes "entering the ring" and getting pummeled worth it in the first place. That is the desire to create works of art that express the Inspiration he gets from the beautiful forms, the beautiful sounds, and the beautiful ideas he loves. It is also the Thrill of the Creative Moment he has when creating. The pure ecstasy he receives from being inspired to create and then creating makes it all worth while.

> A thought: regarding question marks, themselves: keep making them bigger. If you get close to an answer, enlarge the question. It's the exploration that leads to creativity. Whereas society admires those who "know the answers and are confident in there knowledge", creative types must stay receptive to keep growing and allow their creativity to evolve.

> Trying to do something that is "good", usually means doing what you are good at, which means doing something that you have already done. To grow and do something new, you must take a chance on what you have never done. You must jump into the unknown and work your way to a new found thing.

> I feel the best way to deal with a humanity that is far less than what we would hope it to be, is to take control of the only thing we can control: ourselves and our own lives. As I see it, we can Enjoy ourselves and our lives. We can Improve ourselves and our lives. And we can creatively Express ourselves. That's a whole lot to focus on. If all these fail to do the trick, you always can do what my favorite philosophers (teenagers) suggest: "have lots of sex".

> The Bottom-line is that man must realize that he can CREATE reality, himself. We must stop hiding behind dogmas and stop being afraid to take control and take responsibility. The Internal Abyss and the External Chaos are our ticket to freedom and are not to be feared, but embraced with confidence and strength. No More Crutches!

> Loved ones help define and enhance who we are, just as our genetic background and our culture do. For most, that is sufficient, and they know themselves by those parameters. But to become the person you have the potential to become, you must transcend those limitations and begin to call the shots. Sure, a lot of reality has to do with a natural outgrowth of circumstances. But to a great extent, Self-Conscious Effort is the guiding force that can create the "developed uniqueness" of each of us.
     Reality should be a creative endeavor - an effort to Structure your perceptional environment, to Actuate the beautiful, to Facilitate quality, to Become your potential.

> I do not feel that the universe can be "harmonious" or any adjective for that matter. It's like giving meaning to a rock. A rock can be aesthetically beautiful, but unless you are Shinto, there's nothing else to it. The poetic sentiment, in particular, "misplaces" the quality of the poet's heart on an external element that in reality does not possess that quality. Those qualities aren't out there - they're inside us. I'm afraid we are all just going to have to realize that it's time for us to accept the fact that there is no metaphysical essence is out there that cares. The creativity within us is the universe. Be someone who faces the blank void of the universe with strength and creativity to make of life what you can.

> As I am personally devoid of spiritual projections, I am likewise nil when it comes to association projections, so I see the abstract only. Even with its biomorphic aspect, which I pursue in my own work as well, it need not be more than the abstract for me to experience its full aesthetic power.
     To experience and enjoy the phenomenological beauty of nature - its perceivable beauty of free-flowing lines and forms, the colors and textures, is the only reality of it that means anything to me. And I have no interest in attaching any romantic connotations to that beauty - just purely gorgeous aesthetics.

> The definition of ART is the creative self-expression of the artist. Its validity is based strictly on its relationship to the artist.
     - The "art world" of galleries, art critics, and collectors, has nothing to do with ART - it has to do with business.
     - There will always be new creations, because there always be new artists with unique, individual expressions.
     - ART is the beautiful entity of the abstract relationships of space, form, color, and texture. Ideas are an aspect of philosophy.
     - ART is not philosophy. ART is not ideas. ART is AESTHETICS.

> The artist has three realities:
    Himself, when creating.
    His being known of and/or remembered.
    His influence on other artists.
    For the artist, himself, the first is his essential reality. The last, though predicated on the second, is his value to his art.

> The Dionysian Aesthetic: The Greek gods, Dionysus and Apollo have been used in the analysis of art to describe two basic approaches to design, as well as the art object, itself. In general terms, Dionysian has represented the aspects of emotion and intuition, whereas Apollonian has presented the rational. In "The Birth of Tragedy", Nietzsche describes the nature of the Dionysian aesthetic as having a wild, untamed dangerousness about it. It is an uncivilized, hedonistic, abandonment to the emotions and the senses. Passion is its emotional intensity, and Ecstasy is its emotional result.
     I equate the nature of my "extemporaneous, intuitive flow", which is driven by an emotional intensity, as the very essence of Dionysian expression. My lyrical and melodic flow of spontaneous intuition is essentially, Dionysian, both primal and universal!
     Nietzsche's "superman" is nothing more than the desire and ability to be unique and express that uniqueness. The Dionysian man transcends his culture and is not limited by it.

> The creative act is the essence and the thrill of being an artist/architect. I, therefore, consider the ability to sustain the creative state the optimum experience, and with both my pencil comps and sculptures, I am in a continual flow of creative expression - it is a moment by moment intuitive and spontaneous aesthetic flow. Rather than determine or decide what to do next, such as repeat an element to create a rhythm or a texture, and then go about doing it (work), I make each aesthetic movement flow from the previous one without any predetermination. I am, therefore, creating all the time - rather working to accomplish a design.

> Got a lot of chipping away at Rock, and I was beginning to wonder where we're (me and Rock) are going with this thing, seeing how I'm giving Rock free rein to "become" what it will - assuming it has a will. And suddenly I realize where it's going - it's becoming a rock wall!
    So I say, "Whoa Rock, why we becoming a rock wall?
    And Rock says to me, "Cause every other rock in this yard is part of a rock wall. So I want to be, too."
    And I say, "Yeah, that's great, but, dude, how the hell am I going to be a famous sculptor if I just do a rock wall?"
    And Rock says, "Hey! Idiot, I'm just a dumb rock. Figure it out for yourself!"
     So, at present, I'm banging away, applying my will to the naturally" dumb will of the Rock. Only time will tell where we end-up. But hey, I'm enjoying my "talks" with Rock.

> Here I was creating a major work of art - I was even thinking I was on my way to becoming another Michelangelo - when the big dumb "softy" starts breaking-off at my stone cantilevers! Just when I'm refining a detail, it cracks! And more than once! Hey, if Rock ends-up more than a pile of dust, it ain't my fault if it's not a masterpiece! Just leave it to a "natural" material to have a nature insufficient for my sculptural genius!

> Eureka! "Boulder" (Rock's cousin) has gone from "ugh" to "flat-out ugly"! NOW, I can leave that preconceived result I had in mind and head-off into "WHATEVER HAPPENS"!
     Hey look, it's up to whatever natural talent I might have, as to how it turns-out. Trying to make-sure it's good is nothing but a hindrance to creativity. The aspect of human nature that compels one to, at last, "open unknown doors" is at the heart of being a creative artist. Overcoming the fear that compels us not to do so, is the first "pain" of art-birth.
     Then comes the second "pain" of art-birth - the groping around in the darkness of a new "world" of unfamiliar aesthetics. And this abyss can be a frightening experience, as well.
     The easiest way I know of to deal with these pains is to approach each with love. But the ability to open up to this type of feeling requires a positive and confident attitude. Goff's singular effort was to help instill this positive and confident feeling within each student.
     It is because of Goff's influence that I strive to take my architecture and sculptures to the extreme. By extreme I mean: not to be satisfied with just creating form; not to be satisfied with having color and texture and adding finishing ornamentation; it is the desire to transcend the combination of all of these elements and create an Organic Entity.

> How "good" my aesthetic statements are means little to me. Who's the judge, anyway? Just as one person might like the beauty of one tropical bird more than another, both are beautiful, in their own right. They are what they are. My aesthetics come from me, and as such, they are what they are - and that is all they need be.

> "Abstract". Even though all art is filtered through the artist, it should not be termed "abstract" if it is primarily representational or impressionistic, because the object is explicitly or implicitly shown. Abstract leaves the object behind and becomes something altogether unique - totally non-representational.
     My latest "abstract" endeavor, affectionately called "Board", is underway. It's interesting to watch my mind wrestle with the indecision to either "just let it grow" versus "man, I've got to make this sucker great and do new and exceptional aesthetics". But alas, it's not my call - whatever will be, will be.

> I always get this weird feeling when I'm in "nature without humans". It seems to be two-fold. One that nature just keeps doing its thing, even though humans aren't around to confirm its reality. And there's also a feeling of isolation - like being connected to the universe, but as a solitary being. I feel man and his architecture has always strove to counteract that feeling by maintaining human companionship and enclosing himself from the elements.
     The sad fact is that it is very hard to be a "part of this world". There is not much out there that is beautiful and intelligent. I can relate to so little of it that it requires the development of a lifestyle primarily of independent separation.
    

    WAY OF THE WILD

The Abyss:
     By yourself, for yourself
     On the outside, looking outward
     Curious about the mysterious
     Undefined and forever evolving
    
Chaos:
     Confusion - answers unknown
     If answers are known,
     enlarge the question
     Aware of only the moment

Connected to nature:
     Howling winds at night
     Beaming sun at noon
     Cold water at dawn
     Barren ice fields


In Wildness is the preservation of Mankind's Creative Spirit.

> I consider "expressions of creativity" the most important product of human endeavor.

> The relationship of Extemporaneous, Intuitive Flow to the Flow of Life:
    Life moves in two basic ways: One is "cyclic", created by the earth as it revolves around the sun. The other is "linear", which is the movement of time, day by day.
     The cyclic connotes the reoccurrence of predetermined dates, such as the seasons, birthdays, Christmas, etc. - each at various intervals. Our life can be structured by these predetermined dates - we celebrate our birthday, Christmas, go back to school, go to work, etc.
     The linear would imply a path of ever evolving change. Evolving change would preclude any predetermined "points" along this path. And thus the ability to flow into the next point, unencumbered by any predetermination, would be the basis of this linear flow.
     The idea being that as man increases his desire to live creatively, the more he should discard the cyclic in favor of the linear. The point could be made that the cyclic gives a framework, an order, a foundation from which the linear can be "launched". I would agree but add that the more man can access his creative nature, the more apt he would be not to rely on such a foundation. Neolithic man required that foundation of the equinoxes, solstices, etc. - they were his "crutches", so to speak, as they helped him structure his existence. We, however, should be able to structure our personal flow of life so that it may organically evolve, as we creatively live each day into the next. This is the ideal of creatively living in the flow of the "continuous present".
     If we were to live almost entirely in an ever-evolving linear flow, I wonder how that would effect what is termed our "biological clock"? Does it have to have repetitive rhythms such as sleep patterns, or can it adjust to 4 hours @ various times? Does night and day need be taken into account or doesn't it matter that much? I would think we would have to be responsive to our need for down time to offset the "up" time. Eating could be determined strictly on a need to or want to basis. Priorities would be self-established as guides, as would the weather help determine the best options for a particular time period.
     If given the ability to self-regulate our activities, we might quite easily flow from one thing to the next without a biological need for cyclic repetition. Cyclic rhythms might feel more natural, because they are the way we presently function. But they might not be all that necessary once we access our inclination to live creatively in the continuous present.
     No more habitual life, no more external controls of our life, no more wasted life. If the desired activities were constantly available to us, our life could be a never-ending riot. But much would hinge on our self-discipline and self-awareness.

> Okay, enough is enough! I've about had it with all this violence and hatred and bickering and competition! I'm fed-up with all these social and personal problems. So here it is:
     Chayo's Solution: existence whereby everyone is happy and content.
     Two changes are required: man and society. Man by genetic manipulation, society from the evolution of man.
     To begin with, physically, every person would have to be a perfect physical specimen - attractive, healthy, yet unique. The important aspect of this would be that everyone would be satisfied and pleased with his appearance and not envious of that of others. It would then be necessary that everyone be universally, sexually desirable. Then all visual desirability of another would lead to sex, and no one would feel slighted or jealous. Attraction would not be frustrated. At the same time, various bonds with someone else could be established, lasting for as long as the relationship remained intense. After that, each could move into a new relationship with another person. In this way, all aspects of sexual contact would be continually possible, from initial lust to a warm companionship. Though sex is only one aspect of the physical abilities of man, everyone having it with whomever they want will make for a happier race.
     Mentally, each person would need to be highly intelligent and independent, with an innate curiosity. Each person would be able to determine for himself what choices best suit his particular proclivities, and life would become an enjoyable adventure filled with physical and intellectual interests and pursuits.
     Each person would, also, have to be emotionally and psychologically self-sufficient, yet loving and giving, thus allowing him to bond with another, without becoming possessive. The ego or conscious self-awareness would have to mature. No longer would negative emotions be necessary to experience the positive ones - no need to have sorrow, to experience joy; no need to have sadness to know happiness; no need to have hate, to have love. Each day would be joy, happiness, and love.
     Spiritually, man would no longer need the services of a god. He will have come to grips with the inevitability of death. He will live, what I project will be, a 150 year life span, at which time it will be his altruistic responsibility to vacate the premises with a glorious party of farewell. He would have also come to grips with his relationship to the universe. He will understand that man is part of an occurrence unique to Earth - Life. He will realize that it is Life, itself, that is sacred. He will also realize that given our intellect it is mankind's singular responsibility to make sure that life on Earth does not go extinct. Sustaining the existence of Life is, in fact, the meaning of man's existence. He would also realize that the personal meaning of his existence is to live life to the fullest - to develop and express his uniqueness and to share his love.
     The result of this evolution of man would be a society that would no longer need man to work for a living. Everyone would be free to spend his time as he saw fit. Society would no longer require conformity, but would thrive on the unique expressions of each individual.
     For just a moment, think of how incredible life could be and how little of it is really and truly special as it is lived at present. Some of life's aspects that we now consider as particularly important are part of the problem. When we are able to revise them, a better existence is doable. This utopia would enable each person to live a joyous and satiating life - a life free from envy, greed, hatred, and violence, but full of love and happiness.

> Was in it Confucius who stated, "Mystery is all well and good, but I'd much rather see the breast than imagine it? For it is indeed the actual perception of form that pops your synapses!" (I bet you never knew that the whole Playboy empire was founded upon this simple Confucian truism?)
     The reality of the bra is its ornamental quality to the form of the breast. Herein lies yet another aesthetic pursuit - the bra as a thing of beauty when applied over the form. In this pursuit, the "artist" must see form and ornament as one entity, and not be enticed by the mystery of form alone.
     Which reminds me, wasn't it Buddha who then added, "All Zen questions can best be answered by entering a mosh-pit or dining out at a fine French restaurant". Theory = Experience - which leads to Enlightenment, which is: "Don't swat flies, they might be Buddha Babies".

> I seriously do not know how a caring person can deal with the realities of urban planning. Personally, I don't think I would have the ability to assume I have the answers for others. In a way I equate it with being a missionary in a foreign land - I have no right imposing my beliefs on their way of life, no matter how much I felt I would be "helping" them.
     I feel things are the way they are because they reflect the way the people, as a body en mass, are. And in that respect, I feel there's nothing to do but just let it evolve as it will. America, like no other society before us, is continually heading more and more towards what the people en mass want and are. My thought is that each individual person has the option of joining the mainstream flow or separating from it. I see no value of spitting into the wind by trying to change it; or being a candle in the wind by railing against it. Hey look, our culture has given you the freedom to create what's good for you - what you want for yourself. By and large, the populace doesn't want you or need you, or for that matter, deserve you. Leave them alone and put your creative efforts in enjoying your life. My apparent negativity is based upon my belief that our organic approach and unusual aesthetics are not appropriate for the people we say we want to "educate".
     Nor, for that matter, do I think "organic order" can be applied to the reality of life. Journalists and historians look back and pick-out aspects that they consider prominent aspects of a certain time period and fabricate a story that has only a superficial relationship to what really was. Life is not an artistic composition to which the quality of order can be applied. It is unfathomable, complex, and chaotic.
     Now, anyone can decide to think there is an order or a god underlying all this haphazard complexity, if they want. Who knows, and if it makes it all a little easier to take, that's fine with me. But the reality of reality is the way it is experienced, regardless of what's unknowable. And I say we accept the reality of this experience, and not hang our hats on some mental make-believe.

> I know of only one law..."You don't eat, you die".
    From which there is the only "principle"..."Find a way to get food".
    The answer to that principle appears to be MONEY.
    The way (Tao) to get money appears to require Competition.
    The need for warmth, like sex, shelter, and a new Porsche, is naught but a "by-law". As such, it don't count for shit in extrapolating the true principle of existence - which is "Give me that!"
     The One Principle of Existence, "Give me that!" facilitates the Three Great Drives - to get Power, to get Sex, and to get Money. These are the motivating drives of the human species classified, "Takers".
     The other species are those who value Truth, Beauty, and Love. This species is made-up of artists, poets, philosophers, composers, and dreamers of all sorts. And because of the "love" factor, they have the need to share what they value most (truth, beauty, and love) and are therefore classified, "Givers".
     Now, for the life of me I cannot fathom the law that extrapolates to their disregard for the One Law, "You don't eat, you die". I'm figuring they must have been dropped on their heads at birth. Anyway, their great misfortune (besides a lack of food) is that they want to give to the takers, which is just fine and dandy with the takers. Problem is, they want to give truth, beauty, and love. The takers, however, know that truth won't make them powerful, beauty won't get them money, and love won't get them laid. And so, if truth be known, the givers are Wasting Their Friggin Time!!!
     So all you noble, beautiful Givers, Wise-up! - your efforts are being misplaced. Go create your own world and enjoy your own life. Make it beautiful, based upon your own perception of truth, and filled with love.
     So if you make me Dictator of the World, this is what I will do.
    The takers will be housed in enormous mega-structures. The takers don't care where or how they live, just as long as it is better than what everyone else has - so the big cats get a bigger cubby-hole. There will be lots of long lines, traffic jams, and crowded places to congregate, because they will then know they are in a "popular" place. They will be isolated from nature, because they don't like it anyhow, and this way they won't do it any damage. The one thing you must remember is that the takers don't care what they have, just as long as it is more than everyone else. In this way, the rest of the Earth's surface will be for us to love and enjoy and garden and make beautiful.

> The ability to change is the essence of the "contemporary" ego - an ego in tune with the flow of reality. To me "reality" should be a creative endeavor - an effort to Structure your perceptional environment, to Actuate the beautiful, to Facilitate quality, to Become your potential.
     As to the "reason" for architecture, except for a very few and far between individuals, most people are "socially oriented" and their concerns and needs are directed towards social ends (i.e. family, friends, making a living, enjoying their life, being respected, belonging to their group, etc.) Their need for "higher" aesthetics is close to non-existent. I consider this a "reality", maybe not the way it should be, but the way it is. I would almost say that what we as architects consider our architectural "mission" - to give people good architecture - is a delusion and based on the fact that we, ourselves, want good architecture.
     Regardless of the functional basis of architecture, I consider the architect an Artist. And as such, his primary "need" and "value" is to create beauty - to give form to the love he feels. This could be considered a purely "selfish" endeavor, but not so, if one realizes that the beauty he does create will be experienced and enjoyed and loved by those able and interested in doing so - which are primarily other creative artists. I feel this is a fact of life that we should face. If we were "wanted", we would be busy at work giving the world our idea of what they "need". They don't need it and therefore don't have the money for it. Rather than this fact hindering our interest in creating architecture, it should set us Free to Create Glorious Beauty for ourselves.!

> The Meaning of Life: Since Man first faced reality, he concocted Meanings that helped him understand and deal with it. As society became more complex and civilizations and cities developed, more elaborate Meanings were created to assist people function within these social structures. Thus Meaning evolved from Shamanism to the various religions and their dogmas. It is important to note that the spirituality that man experienced - the mystical experience - plus his feeling of wonder and awe towards nature and the cosmos, were truly felt responses to his inner spiritual qualities, which he then used to create a "god".
     Part of the evolution of Man's creation of Meaning was just recently revised to believe that "There Was No Meaning" - that there was no inherent Meaning of reality. When Nietzsche stated, in essence, that God was dead. He was not necessarily referring to a spiritual being, but that religious dogma - the meanings society was using - were no longer usable. Existentialism as a continuation of the "belief" that there is no meaning, was a philosophy developed dealing with no meaning.
     This lead immediately to a thought by many that no meaning meant Nihilism - nothing meant anything so nothing mattered. No supernatural rules, therefore, reality has no value. But neither Nietzsche nor existentialism intended nihilism to be the course of action to be taken by Man. Nietzsche's "will to power" and existentialism's "authenticity" are nothing more than Man's birthright and responsibility to CREATE MEANING and live by it. It was and is hoped that Man will have enough of a heart to create a beautiful Meaning, a positive and loving Meaning, a constructive and joyous Meaning, and a sharing Meaning.
     This is what it's all about - to stand-up and give Meaning and live accordingly. Thus will reality then have a truly valid Meaning, whether we believe in a spiritual essence transcendental to Man or not. Each of us, if we choose, can create a truly beautiful reality for ourselves.

> Goff told me the final butt-kick of a great composition/design is the addition of a dissonant element - that one, last, little part of the whole that sends the thing that much further. When you think you're done and everything's just right, think again and throw in the "unexpected".

> The connotations of "Organic":
    Organic - having the characteristics of nature. There are basically two characteristics: the aesthetic aspect and the growth aspect.
    · The aesthetic aspect would be natural forms, colors, and textures, etc.
    · The growth aspect is that of a development from within outward.
     As organic relates to architecture, per se, I feel it is wise to start with Louis Sullivan. The essential aspect of his philosophy was the growth aspect, from within outward - from the seed to the flowering of an entity - a natural evolution of its true nature. From this growth aspect evolved the aesthetic aspect of "form follows function". Thus the natural growth of an entity would express its design. Sullivan stated these concepts in, "Kindergarten Chats".
    Sullivan also extended this philosophy to include man and society, as he delineated in, "Democracy - A Man Search".
     Wright transformed this ideology into a breath-taking array of theories and aesthetics - from the way materials such as wood and stone are used to the evolution of each particular design from its unique aspects and in intimate response to the landscape upon which it sits.
     Organic can also connote the use of naturalistic aesthetics, such as freeform lines, forms, and spaces, naturalistic colors, patterns, and textures, and an entity having a biomorphic growth pattern. Gaudi's work is a good example of this connotation.
     Goff's delineation of organic has more to do with the artist/architect than with the art/architecture. Though his approach to organic design growth was extremely client specific, and thus expressive of the unique characteristics of the client, Goff's essential concern was the organic self-expression of the artist/architect. And thus we have his legacy - Kebyar.

> The very beauty of organic is that it "encourages" the development of each individual from his within his own unique set of attributes, rather than copying someone else's.
     The effort made is to search within yourself for answers, rather than pick and choose already developed answers. We are each made-up of a unique package of genetic and environmental determinants. They WILL facilitate a unique expression, if allowed to develop. The very essence of Kebyar is the flowering of that unique expression, by each individual.

> The Organic Principle is not a pyramid with the such of FLLW and BG on top, spreading on down to the also-rans. It is, what I would like call, a bag of marbles. Each of us "marbles" is of equal value, doing what we can, working with what we've got. None of us marbles has the right to be a "critic" or a "missionary" as it concerns any other marble. To me, it's that simple. Anyone can join the "bag", but the essence of the bag, which is "creative self-expression", is sacrosanct.
     Any of us can only do what we can do with what we've got, and we are the sole judge of our success. There is no architectural critic on earth or up in the heavens that we need answer to.

> I feel "differences" is the essence of Kebyar. We should learn from those scientists who attach their ego to a certain concept and live and die that it is the "final" truth, when the very nature of science is the continual evolution of man's awareness of truth. The same evolution applies to architecture. Organic growth is evolutionary growth, which to me means: "ever more free". I don't think that it's necessary that we personally like everything new and creative, but we shouldn't let ourselves become locked in place, either. Our culture flows and evolves like no other in history, and we should thrill to that flow and flow with it by being creative and responding to the creativity of others. Bottom-line: today's better than yesterday, and we can make tomorrow better than today. This does not mean, however, that we cannot cherish and be influenced by our "ancestors"!

> The secret is to make use of your freedom. It is also good to remember that the limitations on your freedom actually can be helpful in facilitating freedom, as total freedom is a tough row to hoe. The need is know the parameters within which you must function, and then realize all that you can do to create and then enjoy your life within those parameters. Though some parameters seem better than others, all come with negative aspects - so we best be thankful for the parameters we have.
     There are various aspects of personality transformations and/or "excursions". The one I am most interested in is the effort to "expand" what we are - to realize that we are more than what we think we are. Not so much an alter-ego, and not so much a little trip into other environments, but an enlarged persona - to grow by self-design.

> It's a shame that all of what makes us unique and beautiful , is not shared to the extent it could be. That is what "social" should mean. It is almost a catch-22: when socialization would be the most worthwhile, that is between persons with much to learn from and about each other, communication is difficult. But when those persons are of the same group and/or background, and therefore very similar in outlook, it is usually much easier to communicate, even though it is mostly both reconfirming the thoughts of the other. I feel this is because, for most of society, people want primarily "to belong". Socialization is a vehicle to substantiate belonging.
     I feel when a person has developed an independent spirit, he tends to leave the group and head-out on his own. But this very independence creates a desire to meet other people who have done the same. The problem being that, once on your own, it is difficult to bridge that initial gap of an unknown and discover another independent person. It is also the nature of friendship that "likeness" is paramount - rather than uniqueness and difference. So bonding with someone different than you is a difficult task. This is unfortunate, because this is where socialization becomes so much more stimulating and enjoyable.
     What is special about Kebyar is that, whereas in society where friendship is based on "sameness", here it is Individual Uniqueness that is the common ground. We can each be pursuing our own direction, but still appreciate each other's efforts. In fact, it is that very "differentness" that creates the bond.

> The reality of Kebyar is self-expression. The way of being the type of person who believes that the expression of his own unique individuality is the very meaning of his life, its most vital aspect, requires independence. It is vital that you maintain your self-conviction, if you want to enable your unique self-expression to develop and flower. You must stand apart and self-sufficient. You must venture forth into your own unknown with little in the way secure signposts.
     If you are to deal with the reality and continue to develop your uniqueness, you cannot look to others for reassurance. It is, of course, a given that society at large can be counted on to do its best to actively denigrate your efforts, as they are a personal affront to their lack of individuality.
     To accomplish this independence, to pursue your unique path, you must create for yourself the daily activities you deem important to facilitate self-expression. And then you must discipline yourself to pursue and develop these activities. You must accept being lost in the abyss of creativity as the normal state of being.

> I figure that seeing how you got way down here, through all of that stuff of mine, you're probably asking yourself where I got all of "it" from. Well, if you must know, I personally enjoy a Buddha Consciousness induced from sniffing glue. So I have it from Hisself that we are to join him in Nirvana, the Nordic Valhalla, the Hindu unknowable universal essence, the existential abyss of the void, in other words, the Kebyar cosmos of creative self-becoming self-expression.
     Man, I'm telling ya, this glue's good stuff!
     Hey, Buddha, pass the glueda.



RETURN TO TITLE PAGE