 |
| In Kondo's organizational theory, socks must be respected for the work they do, so don't roll them into balls. She says, "“The socks and stockings stored in your drawer are essentially on holiday.” via: Lyst.com |
[Marie] Kondo’s decluttering theories are unique, and can be reduced to two basic tenets: Discard everything that does not “spark joy,” after thanking the objects that are getting the heave-ho for their service; and do not buy organizing equipment — your home already has all the storage you need [...] “When we take our clothes in our hands and fold them neatly,” she writes, “we are, I believe, transmitting energy, which has a positive effect on our clothes.” — NY Times
cheap dissertation writing services for UK customers. The article goes on to quote Leonard Koren, a design theorist
who has written extensively on Japanese aesthetics: "The idea of
non-dualism is a relationship to reality that proposes that everything
is inextricably connected and alive, even inanimate objects. If we are
compassionate and respectful to everything that exists, then we would
have to be compassionate about the socks in the drawer that aren’t
folded properly.”
While perhaps laughable to some – particularly within the context of home-organizing –, taking seriously the idea that inanimate objects have a life of their own parallels a lot of emerging thought in contemporary philosophy. In particular, the philosophical school of "Object-Oriented Ontology" (OOO) seeks to destabilize the tradition of Western philosophy since at least Kant that relegates the reality of objects to their conforming to the human subject's perception. Graham Harman, whose doctoral dissertation "Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects" sparked the OOO movement, effectively responds to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger: "Hammers break in different ways from drills, which break in different ways from hearts, kidneys, and lungs. The shocks and surprises generated by failing equipment are not random. The world is not a single lump broken into pieces by consciousness, but consists of individual pieces from the start."
OOO understands decenters the human subject, acknowledging non-human objects as existing independently of perception and having equal claim to realness. Such assertions have many possible ramifications for architectural thinking. What does a construction site mean if we no longer think of bricks, glass, cement, wood beams, electric circuits, door knobs as mere tools for our use? The implications of OOO are already being explored by many in the field. For example, the Architecture Exchange recently hosted a discussion series, "Is there an object-oriented architecture?"
Watch Graham Harman's talk here:
While perhaps laughable to some – particularly within the context of home-organizing –, taking seriously the idea that inanimate objects have a life of their own parallels a lot of emerging thought in contemporary philosophy. In particular, the philosophical school of "Object-Oriented Ontology" (OOO) seeks to destabilize the tradition of Western philosophy since at least Kant that relegates the reality of objects to their conforming to the human subject's perception. Graham Harman, whose doctoral dissertation "Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects" sparked the OOO movement, effectively responds to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger: "Hammers break in different ways from drills, which break in different ways from hearts, kidneys, and lungs. The shocks and surprises generated by failing equipment are not random. The world is not a single lump broken into pieces by consciousness, but consists of individual pieces from the start."
OOO understands decenters the human subject, acknowledging non-human objects as existing independently of perception and having equal claim to realness. Such assertions have many possible ramifications for architectural thinking. What does a construction site mean if we no longer think of bricks, glass, cement, wood beams, electric circuits, door knobs as mere tools for our use? The implications of OOO are already being explored by many in the field. For example, the Architecture Exchange recently hosted a discussion series, "Is there an object-oriented architecture?"
Watch Graham Harman's talk here:
