The Best of All Possible Systems

In the first paragraph of Unwarranted Apology, I was struck by the statement of an inhumane world’s division of buildings into two ‘intellectually separate parts’ – introduced reductively as mechanical and structural. This seemed to me to be a description of how buildings do what they do, but not necessarily what they are or why they are. (The metaphysical implications of this potentially false dichotomy between how, what and why are not to be explored here, but it’s important to note that this distinction is not drawn by Buckminster Fuller.) Fuller is concerned with an expansive world view, leaving out no variables, to systematically describe what is, or, perhaps more importantly, what we define the universe as within the limits of our systematic understanding.

Both Banham and Fuller argue for expanding our intellectual understanding of what is. Fuller is of course more ambitions by imposing no initial limits to this system of understanding, and Banham is uncircuitously concerned with buildings. Banham argues that the division of structure and mechanical makes no sense, and that ‘the mechanical environmental controls are the most obviously and spectacularly important, both as manifestations of changed expectations and as an irrevocable modification to the ancient primacy of structure…’ Contemporary buildings reflect these sentiments. When one looks at new buildings like the Federal Building or the De Young, or even buildings contemporary to this article, like the Kimball Museum or the Richards Memorial Laboratory, one can see the structure has lost its primacy, and elements like services and enclosure have become primary informants of the order and form of the building. Both articles address a new way of thinking brought about by the 20th century technological advances, and reflect a post-enlightenment idealism.

Spaceship Earth is laden with Candidian language. Every element of the system is ‘by design’ the best in the best of all possible systems. The phrase ‘by design’ comes up multiple times. I appreciate that in order to surmise on the systemic workings of the universe and to believe one has arrived at a comprehensive world-view one needs to be a believer. Fuller clearly is. The language doesn’t seem to recognize the ‘inhumanity’ that Banham describes. ‘Objective employment of those generalized principles in rearranging the environment seems to be leading to humanity’s eventually total success and readiness to cope with far vaster problems of universe.’

Once again, we see that nature is given primacy, (‘nature, which always employs only the most economical realizations…’) as is reason. Fuller recognizes that, like a bird in an egg, our resources are being drained and our inhabitation of the system will necessarily need to change. Perhaps the output of our natural tendencies toward preservation and propagation, mixed with our rationally defined generalized principles will someday synergize, producing more than the sum of the two parts. History has shown our nature and our intellect to be at odds. Cosmological stories from many religiions have to explain the conflict between these two, but Buckminster Fuller argues they will and must synergize. Surely, they could do no other such thing in the best of all possible systems.