Architekturbüro
Stocker BDA

Lieber Herr Stocker,
welch eine Frage, Freud veranstaltet Freudentänze im Grab, verzierte Gedankenbäude in unserer inneren Landschaft die uns im Traum begenen, die wir durchwandern und durchschreiten können ohne das unser Narzismus gestört wird. wir durchwandern perfekte Landschaften die sich nicht verändern, der Horizont ist immer der gleiche, der Sonnenuntergang unserer Wünsche. Durchdachte und durchdesignte Architkturen in einer Performation Piranesischer Verführungen und Anmutugen, erdacht und geträumt von uns. Und dann das: Aufwachen ,sehen schmecken ,riechen, fühlen Beton : Bonjour Tristesse!
Herzliche Grüße Robert Thomsen

Bomarzo...."das Wäldchen, mein kleines Bordell" hat Fürst Orsini einst gesagt....der Garten als mental mapping seelischer Befindlichkeiten....aber das ist keine Antwort auf deine Frage..

Dear Florian,

Very inspirational question that has puzzled me, because after reading it several times, I had the feeling that there was something off about it. Below, my attempt to "solve" it. My best regards

--------

Even before finding out what matches the folly in our inner landscape, to assume that a match between our inner landscape and the outer landscape is possible, it already is a very good start, ie. it already presupposes a positive interpretation of folly. A negative interpretation of folly, would disconnect the link between inner and outer landscape, and therefore it would annul the possibility of a match.

We have folly as “lack of good sense, stupidity, recklessness” and to an extreme, as “idiocy, lunacy, irresponsibility, madness”. Still, even if we consider only the first three synonyms, I’m not sure if we can say that there is a positive feeling associated with them. We can consider these from a sociological point of view or from an ontological point of view. Sociologically, many times, what society (or a culture) considers to be ‘lack of good sense’, ‘stupidity’, or ‘recklessness’ can actually be ground-breaking, helping to push a society forward, contributing to lessen prejudice or discrimination. In that sense, apparently, “folly” acquires a positive connotation — fitting perfectly the romantic ideal of what an artist or an individual is expected to do. But the apparent positive connotation it acquires is not assured for the results it has achieved. The positive connotation is assured because the “folly” has an orientation, paradoxically, given for what it has rebelled against. The link between an action expressing “lack of good sense” and what it rebels against assures that there is a link between thee inner and outer landscape.

Ontologically, orientation is again key to determine folly (and eventually what matches it). Folly with no orientation, ie. guiding principle, actually corresponds to “idiocy, lunacy, irresponsibility, madness”. In this case, I think that no positive interpretation of folly is possible and a match between “folly” and “inner landscape” is a word-game. It is to use “folly” in a romantic sense where “the fool” is praised because is free of all society’s constrictions. It confuses the sociological with the ontological. Sociologically, a man can be considered to have ‘no good sense’, and to be ‘mad’, yet, ontologically, society can be talking about someone who either 1) has an orientation; 2) does not have an orientation. If he has an orientation, even if he acts in a way that reveals that he walks away of society’s rules, we cannot say he is a fool; if he has no orientation, he is a fool. In other words, if he, ontologically has an orientation, then it means there is a match between his inner landscape and the outside landscape and his “folly” is apparent — in fact, the word even does not apply, but it reveals an irony, towards those who may eventually not understand that in fact he has an orientation; if, ontologically, he has no orientation, then he is a fool, an there is no match between his inner and outer landscape.

Therefore, the question “What matches the folly in our inner landscape?” is a false question that hides a rhetorical fallacy, in the sense that it means to question something through irony. If there is folly (and for sure if we take it to the extreme as ‘madness’) there will be no match with anything (not between inner and outer landscape, and in extreme cases, not even between inner and inner landscapes!). The particular irony of the question seems to echo the romantic ideal of one who feels he is struggling to find his orientation, without being constricted by society’s rules, while trying not to be judged by society itself (the wish of not being judged is expressed through irony: ‘you think I’m a fool, but I’m not, I’m just affirming my inner landscape, but I'll use the word 'fool' just for you to see that I'm not scared of being called one’).

The thing is like: any affirmation of an inner landscape always implies an outer landscape (and this we can consider to be 'nature', 'society', 'culture' etc — let’s not go into too much detail!), whether one embraces or rejects it. But there can only be an “inner” if we have an “outer” as reference.

In a nutshell: what matches our inner landscape is outer landscape, and if there is a link between both, the word “folly” does not apply, because there is orientation (even is society does not acknowledges it). If there is “folly” than nothing will match our inner landscape… and we have to struggle to find orientation ie. to find the link between outer and inner.

Concerning the question of the month, to question “what” is therefore not as relevant as an understanding of the dynamics between “folly” and “inner landscape”. If we describe the process between both, and why is it that the question is a false one, the “what” will answer itself, for each one of us, differently — but following the same dynamics.