DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’ 1

Dwelling in the Realm of ‘Paradox’ -

Towards an Architectural Paradigm

ADITYA VIPPARTI

Architect – Urban Designer, Hyderabad, India

Abstract If we are to recognize that life and architecture

are part of a larger phenomenon of nature and

the cosmos, we would realize that they are part of a never-ending process of creation or the process of becoming. This process is continuously fed by various inherent contradictions. The constant struggle to deal

with these dual tendencies is essential to „existence‟ in the larger sense. Hence, the notion of „long lasting architecture‟ in the context of the perennial „process of becoming‟, itself has an inherent paradox. Today, we are part of a network culture driven

by digital network technology. Over the last 20 years or so, it has shaped the dynamics of contemporary society creating a whole new set of relationships which now drive the world. We

live in a state of paradox in trying to deal with the unprecedented contradictions posed by this shift. Our frame of mind is desperately

struggling and swaying between simultaneous conflicting tendencies. With this picture in mind, the paper ponders whether architecture is a solution, a remedy or a mere reflection of these transformations.

The fundamental premise is that the paradox cannot and should not be resolved or camouflaged. It should be expressed and made integral to the architectural process. With this intent, the paper hopes to project an agenda to help dwell in the realm of „paradox‟.

Keywords: paradox, physical – virtual, long-lasting, network society, deconstruction INTRODUCTION

Creation is necessarily paradoxical and problematic, as put forward by the philosopher Gilles Deleuze. It may never be fully understood, but the effort to lend coherence to

the paradox of life, is what drives the myriad cycles shaping the built environment.

This phenomenon is an omnipresent reality

that the built environment has to deal with. However, in spite of this subconscious awareness that flux is the only real constant, the human psyche looks for ways and means to reassure itself with a (mis)conception of

stability. Architecture, of course is a prime mode to lend an apparent coherence to the forces of change at play. With this background, the paper hopes to contribute to the conference‟s discussion on the issue of „Long lasting architecture in

dynamic societies‟. To begin with, it should be realized that permanence (long lasting/durability) and transience (dynamic/fleetingness) are

opposites. There is an inherent paradox while talking of long lasting architecture in a dynamic society.

Firmitas along with utilitas and venustas were the three virtues of architecture suggested by Vitruvius in his „De Architectura‟. Firmitas refers to an architecture designed to survive the course of time. The paper attempts to

revisit this notion in the context of present day societal dynamics. Research Methodogy

As stated at the outset, the paper uses the

concept of „paradox‟ as a strong vehicle to develop an architectural praxis in

contemporary society. It begins by explaining how our world is getting enmeshed in a „network‟-based society, and goes on to unearth the uncomfortable realm of paradox that it has given rise to. With this in mind, it reflects on an appropriate attitude to long lasting architecture, valid today and looking

forward to the future. The paper then claims „paradox assumé‟ (working with the paradox)

2

as the way ahead, and builds on it to suggest a possible architectural paradigm.

The intention in this paper is not to come up with particular means whereby a design solution can be generated. Rather, the

research operates at the level of suggesting a paradigm – a conclusion that could feed further discussion and design explorations.

A ‘SOCIETY’ SHAPED BY THE ‘NETWORK’ & A ‘NETWORK’ SHAPED BY THE ‘SOCIETY’

If we think about our lives, barely into the

second decade of the 21st century, we can see

any number of ways in which we are part of an

ever-growing „networked‟ social order.

If we turn back to the last great cultural and

socioeconomic upheaval (1960s -1980s)– we

observe how, facing the rising complexity and

costs of a globalizing world, with our faith in

technology and even progress exhausted, we

left the modern era behind for a new condition

that we would eventually call post-modernity.

Over the course of the last two decades, but

most especially during the decade from 2000

to 2010, we left post-modernity behind as well,

hurtling instead into network society.

Technology returned to our lives in force, while

social, economic and cultural changes

transformed the world we live in. Few things

have exerted as massive an impact on culture

globally as the network – the result of

spectacular parallel developments in personal

computing and electronic communications. [1]

Network itself serves as the best metaphor one

can think of for where we are now and where

we could be headed. In some cases, our

migration into the network has been conscious

and explicit. This includes our choice of email

as a mode of communication and our

increasing reliance on the network for

information, news and exchange of ideas. In

other cases, our colonization by the network

has been hidden from our view. It might seem

inconspicuous, but simple things like having an

ATM card, debit card, discount card or even a

citizen ID card means that you are in the

network [2].

The network in it‟s explicit as well as latent

forms has colonized the dynamics of our

society and will continue to do so:

Social

More than ever we see relationships and

human interactions co exist in the physical and

virtual worlds. Social networking sites like

Facebook, Twitter, Orkut have become a part

of our everyday lives. They augment the

physical experiences of our social life and

sometimes substitute for our physical absence

at gatherings and meetings.

Political

Traditionally, there has been a disjunction

between „big‟ politics and „grassroots‟ activity –

big was national/international, and grassroots

was local. However, we are increasingly seeing

bottom-up political activity gain in strength

aided by the network. An example of this is the

success of the Arab Spring revolutions

(revolutions in several Arab countries like

Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria

etc since late 2010) which have effectively

used social media to communicate and

organize people driven movements.

Economic

In network culture, information is the key

currency. By removing the physical aspect of

commodities from their representations,

digitization enables capital to circulate much

more freely and rapidly. This digitization

further empowered by networked connections

means that information is less the product of

discrete processing units than the outcome of

the networked relations between them, links

between people, between machines, and

between machines and people [3].

Increasingly, the immaterial production of

information and its distribution through the

network dominate the global economy.

Entertainment

The network is also our go-to for recreation

and entertainment. There is a seemingly

unlimited availability of music, movies, games

and books to be downloaded online.

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’ 3

Figure 1: A „network‟ based social order

Services

We increasingly use the network to avail

essential services such as health care, fire

fighting, housekeeping, shopping, maintenance

and civic services. The network is our window

to our day-to-day necessities in going about

our lives.

For better or for worse, we have embraced the network to drive our society today and to lead us into the future. There is no escaping the fact that we have well and truly become part of

the world wide web of the network. To think of

it, the network is not some unworldly alien insert enforced upon us. It is a man made construct which has developed and grown in it‟s complexity and engulfed everything (including us) in it‟s reach.

So, the network was a technological advancement achieved by man. The network in turn has re-crafted our society. Further, it is the workings of the society which again mould the network and fuel it‟s complexity. It is a fascinating vicious circle where „society‟ and

„network‟ reflect each other.

THE REALM OF PARADOX

Paradox is at the very heart of the nature of

the network. It has inherent contradictions.

Network culture is predicated on connection.

The network is an infinite, amorphous entity

meant to accommodate dematerialized

transactions or flows of information and data

(textual, numerical, audio-visual). And it is

fairly successful in it‟s capacity to „connect‟

across distances and time zones by means of

these information flows. However, it‟s

dematerialized amorphous nature leaves a

huge void with regard to fundamental human

needs – the need to touch & feel, the need to

taste, the need to smell, the need for

emotional expression, the need for materiality,

the need to sense scale, the need to

quantify/measure.

This is the crux of the paradox posed by the

network. It is all pervasive and ubiquitous in

the virtual information world. Yet it is utterly

incapable to connect to fundamental human

physical needs.

Symptoms of Paradox Virtual world hyper-connectivity vs physical world disconnect

The network imposed web of connections

seems to be overtaking individuality. Alienation

may be disappearing but so is solitude.

Constant connection can lead to overload –

particularly with regard to the increasing

permeation of non-work life by the office‟s

electronic tether. But it seems we have

collectively decided that it is better to be

connected than being alone. Today we are less

centred individuals, more assemblages

produced out of network flows [3]. We are

hyper-connected in the virtual world, and yet

crave for interaction with the physical world.

4

Figure 2: the „network‟ induced „paradox‟

Chronic rate of change

In our lives today, we face a flood of

information on a day-to-day basis via all kinds

of media- internet, news channels, magazines,

social networking sites, television, movies,

advertisements etc. The desire to catch up

with all that is on offer means that our

attention span is getting shorter. Trends and

technology thus try to advance at a chronic

pace to be able to offer „novelty‟ that can grab

the short attention span. This chain reaction

feeds our lust for novelty and our mania to

keep up with change.

Identity crisis & disorientation

The network with it‟s worldwide reach has

created previously unthinkable connections

across political boundaries, languages and

traditions. While this has improved our

awareness, the exposure to the cross cultural

deluge of diversity has shaken the foundations

of our respective value systems. We are

confused and torn between our desire to

project a global image and our loyalty to

cultural identity & traditions.

We are invariably in transit and trying to keep

up with time zones half way across the world.

We are constantly trying to find our way in the

all pervasive web of networks and thus,

thoroughly disoriented.

Architectural transformations

The above discussion gives us a picture of the

condition of conflict that characterizes our

states of mind. It would now be useful to

understand what it implies for architecture.

After all, architecture is shaped by and reflects

broader social and cultural currents.

Collapse of inter relations of time-space-form- function The global scale virtual information realm has made possible our transactions, interactions and activities across time zones and spatial

uses. Thus, the resultant collapse of space – time limits. Our fundamental space types – home, workplace, shop, institution, amenity; are getting hybridized with any of the other types. This is because our activities are increasingly shifting to the virtual information world. Due to

the location free and atemporality of these activities, the fundamental relationship between form/space and function/use is collapsing; thus leading to the creation of the „anti-type‟ (that category of spatial-systems that do not fall under any typology)[4].

In such a scenario it becomes impossible to

have rational time-space-form-function inter

relations.

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’ 5

Blurring of notions of order, hierarchy, centre,

boundary

The architectural rationale of our preceding era

(20th century) was based on the logic of the

„grid‟. The grid embodies a set of rational,

finite, cause & effect relationships of time-

space-form-function; thus creating a

semblance of order amidst chaos. However, as

has been discussed, the network culture with

it‟s complexity has dismantled any such

rational relationships. Thus the blurring of

notions of order & hierarchy. The metaphor of

grid is completely deficient in grasping this

complex reality. A more appropriate metaphor

would be a network of relationships. A network

redistributes hierarchy and encapsulates the

formless amorphous nature of information

flows that now determine spatial relationships.

The network has no centre and no finite

boundaries. It only has nodes or points of

control and connections between nodes. Within

the logic of the network, order and hierarchy

gradually dissolve into juxtaposition of

contradictory tendencies.

The paper will now go back to the issue of

long-lasting architecture to suggest a valid

approach in light of the network culture

induced architectural transformations that

have been brought to fore.

AN APPROPRIATE ATTITUDE TO LONG LASTING ARCHITECTURE

Let‟s look back at history. The origins of

architecture were not so much in the

architecture of permanence as they were in an

architecture of a temporary nature. Yet it has

not received the type of attention or interest

given to architecture of greater permanence.

Much of this relates to the dawn of human

civilization in an agrarian system that

depended on continuity, stability and

permanence. Before agriculture, humans lived

as hunters and gatherers. They followed the

wild herds and good weather. Their

architecture provided a modicum of comfort

while allowing maximum mobility, freedom and

flexibility. These simple structures were

temporary and portable. The advent of

settlement as a way of life brought a new set

of architectural circumstances. Buildings could

remain rooted to a site. Since then,

permanence or long lasting quality has

remained fundamental to the way most of us

understand architecture. [5]

Architecture for network nomads

Having looked back at our nomad roots, we will

realize that with the advent of network culture;

we are, in a strange way going back to a

nomadic way of life. Only this time, we wander

around in the network, sometimes in the

physical world and sometimes in the virtual

world. The fact that we are headed towards

this nomadic state is demonstrated by

numbers which show that; even in the era of

terrorism alerts, international air travel

continues to grow worldwide. Numbers from

2002 show a 2% increase from the previous

year to 1.6 billion passengers worldwide. By

2004, the overall passenger traffic was 8.4%

greater than 2000. In 2005 the growth was

8.8% over 2004 [5].

However this condition of a „network nomad‟ is

not a pleasant one. It is an existential state

torn between the tendency to stay rooted to a

physical construct and a conflicting tendency to

be location-free & mobile. So, a relevant

architectural approach today needs to

encapsulate this conflict and also the

contemporary paradoxical state of mind

discussed in detail earlier.

Architecture‟s unprecedented paradox and

confrontations of time-space-form-function

along with the inevitable associated tension

means that architecture today is constantly

unstable. So in this context, does seeking long

lasting architecture mean that the paradox

should be resolved?

Beyond problem solving

The notion that problem solving (in this case, paradoxes of network culture) is the purpose of design leads to perceive design process as a system. This implies a systematization of tasks: first requirement of a system is a

boundary, so that setting the boundaries of the design system at the point where outside issues come to bear on the design task is to

6

ensure that the designer has a well defined and resolvable field of operation[6].

However, as has been explained in the previous section, the paradoxes brought about by network culture cause a blurring of the

notions of order, hierarchy, centre and boundaries. In such circumstances, a problem solving system or an attempt to resolve paradoxes would only end up camouflaging latent fundamental issues.

The only thing constant with a paradox is it‟s

simultaneous duality. An appropriate approach

for long lasting architecture would therefore be

to accommodate for this duality. One could

think of it as two broad spatial frameworks

(representing the duality of paradox) operating

simultaneously, in conflict and yet dependent

on one another. The design approach and

architectural manifestation of this would be

discussed further.

In light of the argument thus far, this paper

emphasizes that the way ahead in dealing with

the paradoxes faced by architecture, should

not be to resolve it or balance it out. It should

be an approach of using the paradox as an

armature to build upon.

PARADOX ASSUMÉ – THE WAY AHEAD

As has emerged, our state of paradox is a reality that we have to live with. It cannot be

eliminated or balanced out or resolved. The way ahead is „paradox assumé‟, to accept paradox for it‟s contradictory dualities and

work with it.

Philosophical connotations

The concept of paradox itself is not completely

new to us. It has been an important part of our

journey as a civilization towards maturing in

the spiritual, existential and cultural realms of

life [fig.3].

Hinduism: Shiva Nataraja

Shiva is Hinduism‟s paradoxical deity. One of

his most fascinating forms is „Nataraja – the

cosmic dancer‟. Shiva Nataraja simultaneously

represents tranquillity-inward calm absorbed in

the void of the absolute, but also total activity-

life‟s energy, frantic, aimless and playful. It is

a universal view in which forces of nature and

man‟s aspirations, limitations confront each

other and are blended together. [7]

Yin – Yang theory

Yin-Yang theory represents Chinese

civilization‟s view of simultaneous duality. Yin

and Yang represent occurrences which occur in

pairs and have complementary, yet opposing

characteristics. Some examples include: sky

and earth, day and night, water and fire, active

and passive, male and female and so on. It

was realized that nearly all things have yin and

yang properties i.e., paradoxical duality [8].

Roman god Janus & Janusian thinking

In ancient Roman religion and mythology,

Janus is a two-faced god, symbolizing his dual

nature. He represented the middle ground

Figure 3: philosophical connotations of the paradox

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’ 7

between beginnings & endings, barbarism &

civilization, rural & urban, childhood &

adulthood and so on. Named after Janus,

Janusian thinking (recognized in 1970s)

involves formulation of paradoxical ideas and

trying to work with them. [9]

This analysis reiterates that humanity and thus

architecture evolve and mature while dealing

with paradox as shaped by change with time.

Enriching the design process

In spite of it‟s ambiguous and complex nature,

we intuitively appreciate the multiple levels of

meaning that a paradox implies. To call a

thought construction a paradox is to imply that

a certain ambiguity is being conserved, that

there is an advantage in not stating things as

either “black or white”[6].

Paradoxes should be seen by the designer as

furnishing excellent opportunities for his most

creative and powerful work. They are rational

constructions which utilize the potential of the

irrational and indescribably complex.

Juxtaposing the two conflicting forces of a

paradox gives rise to the creation of new

integrated ideas. This phenomenon is to be

valued for it‟s ability to introduce

indeterminate thinking to the design process

The rapid rate of change in our culture

increasingly demands creative thinking tools to

deal with conflicting tendencies in the midst of

unprecedented complexity and diversity.

The paper will now synthesize the learnings thus far, to outline an architectural paradigm to help dwell in the realm of paradox.

TOWARDS AN ARCHITECTURAL PARADIGM

The struggle to come to grips with paradox in

architecture leads us to a fundamental

question – What does architecture hold on to in

a scenario where traditionally held cause and

effect relationships of time-space-form-

function and notions of hierarchy, order are

blurred. This question disturbs the very basis

of our view of the purpose of architecture. This

concern finds echo in Bernard Tschumi‟s

‘Architecture and Disjunction’. Tschumi states -

“I would suggest that there has never been

any reason to doubt the necessity of

architecture, for the necessity of architecture is

it‟s non-necessity. It is useless but radically

so.” [10]. This statement is not meant to be

understood as a dismissal of the role of

architecture in the dynamics of a society.

Rather it tries to provoke us to rise above our

common practice of working with architecture

as a static-logic based framework. We need to

work with it as a set of dynamic „network‟

based relationships of time-space-form-

function.

To begin to grapple with this phenomenon, one

could look at a four stage process leading

towards a possible architectural paradigm.

1. Deconstruction

Deconstruction is a strategy to break down

norms based on a static view of architecture,

in order to align it with the transformations

brought about by network culture induced

paradoxes. Above all, the aim is to attack

cause and effect relationships of time-space-

form-function-order-hierarchy. The idea of

deconstructing a given program is to show that

the program could challenge the very ideology

it implied, in turn reinforcing contemporary

paradoxes.

The strategy of deconstruction works by a

common denominator - rejection of the notion

of synthesis in favour of the idea of

dissociation and disjunction [10].

Let‟s look at the fundamental components that

make up the built environment – home,

workplace, shop, institution, amenity and open

space/green space. The strategy of

deconstruction intends to tear apart

traditionally held relationships between these

components. In such a scenario, the

components are not held together by any

rational rule or principle. This is when the

forces of network induced paradox take over.

The permutations and combinations that now

govern the working of the built environment‟s

components reflect the dynamics of the

network. Thus, home could become workplace,

8

amenity could become recreational, shop could

become home and so on; any configuration

could happen as and how demanded by the

network society‟s contradictory tendencies.

2. Juxtaposition

The next stage after deconstruction is to bring

together the deconstructed fragments to form

an ensemble. This process is based on the

following principles:

- Responding to conflicting forces of paradox,

by superimposition or juxtaposition of

contradictory tendencies. This brings about a

new set of spatial relationships.

- Emphasis placed, as a method, on

dissociation, superimposition, and combination,

which triggers dynamic forces that expand into

the whole architectural system, exploding it‟s li

mits while suggesting a new definition.[10]

3. Interface

After going through the processes of

deconstruction and juxtaposition, an

unexpected set of spatial configurations

emerges. What emerges is that the

deconstruction of spatial components and their

superimposed reassembling (based on the

forces of paradox), smokes out the latent

paradox from it‟s hiding and exposes it as

naked truth.

This physical exposing of the paradox creates

three basic types of interface

a) Reciprocity:

Sequences of spaces and their use can become

totally interdependent and fully condition each

other‟s existence. One then observes a

strategy of reciprocity in which each sequence

actually reinforces the other [10]. For example,

the use of home as home.

b) Indifference:

Sequences of spaces and their use can be

largely dependent on one another. However, in

this condition one observes indifference where

formal considerations do not depend on

utilitarian ones [10]. For example, use home

as a workplace.

c) Conflict: Sequences of events and spaces occasionally

clash and contradict each other. One then observes a condition of conflict in which each sequence constantly transgresses the other‟s internal logic [10]. For example, transformation of home to a casino.

According to the strict terms of logic, nothing

differentiates a) from c). However, the actual difference between the normative “a)” and disjunctive “c)”, generally depends on a moral or aesthetic judgement. Hence, according to circumstances, a functional building can become conflictual or vice versa. What counts

is the set of configurations as set in play by the network‟s forces of paradox.

Figure 4: Juxtaposition of deconstructed fragments

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’ 9

4. REAL-VIRTUAL NETWORK

The last stage to complete the picture is the

architectural manifestation of the network. On

the one hand the information flows of the

network take place in the virtual world. On the

other hand physical connections are created to

enable interactions between the reassembled

deconstructed spatial fragments.

Digital technology has now advanced to a point where it can be integrated into building technology. Using glass, light and digital media presents a rich palette of architectural possibilities. Glass with electronically charged polymers can now produce moving colour

images at any size. This apart from LED technology could mean that whole building facades could become interactive surfaces. All

this to suggest that the physical and virtual forms of the network could interact and reflect each other conflicting tendencies. Network and

it‟s paradoxes could then well and truly become part of contemporary architectural expression.

Figure 5 suggests a probable outcome of the four stages suggested above - deconstruction, juxtaposition, interface and real-virtual network. This generic diagram could imply

many different manifestations depending on different contexts and circumstances. A reaction to this contention could be that network society can dwell in existing scenarios (for example, high activity global network nodes like New York or Tokyo) by way of

adaptive reuse or other such means to mould

the built environment to suit the new dynamics. But that would only mean, underplaying or concealing the forces of paradox at play. The above discussion tries to show a direction towards recognizing complexity as an essential part of our life

today and to integrate it with architectural practice, as a means of coming to terms with the paradox and working with it.

CONCLUSION

Before summarizing the findings in this paper, it would be worth pointing out some parallels

with an architectural movement from the

second half of the twentieth century, „structuralism‟. Aldo van Eyck was a leading proponent of this school of thought. He was a thinker who tried to work with the complexity of society. He believed in embracing forces of paradox in a society, or as he termed it „twin phenomena‟ (apparently opposite phenomena

which depend on each other for their meaning). This complexity cannot be fathomed as a rational form. He believed that an

Figure 5: Manifestation of the network‟s paradoxes

10

architectural approach that tried to reduce this complexity into a more manageable model did not do justice to the dynamics of society. He raised the question, “If society has no form, can architecture build the counterform?” [11]

Structuralists searched for hidden systems, structures, powers or laws behind cultural or social phenomena; to drive their theories. In this case, the network and the associated paradoxes have been chosen to serve as the structure to hold together an architectural approach.

It emerges from the search in this paper that paradox can provide the impetus for a renewed

view of architecture and design process. The dynamics of contemporary architecture cannot take a polarized stance of the dual tendencies of the paradox. Rather, it has to be an

engagement of these opposing forces in an ever changing network of relationships.

The paradigm suggested by the paper simply implies a constant process of disjunction where time-space-form–function relationships are determined by the workings of the dynamic network, which in turn operates on the

interactions of the virtual information realm and physical context. This process involves a series of transformational relationships. The

analysis of our present condition as a dislocated one suggests the possibility of future regroupings, just as particles of matter in space will occasionally concentrate and form

new points of intensity, so the fragments of the dislocation can be reassembled in new and unexpected relations.

It is clear that resolving the instability caused by the network culture induced paradoxes, is beyond the scope of architecture. We need to

look beyond problem solving. In an era of unprecedented pace of change and technological advances, architecture has the responsibility to accommodate for these transformations and yet expose the hidden

reality behind these forces. Throughout history, the most long-lasting aspect of

architecture has been it‟s success in reflecting dynamics of society and in helping it negotiate them. Today, when all rational norms are under attack by the forces of paradox, architecture needs to take the stance that the paradox is a bitter reality which cannot be escaped or concealed. It needs to exposed,

expressed and accommodated for. What now

appears to be a volatile irrational condition could be better streamlined into our ways of life, only when we accept it for it‟s unpleasant reality. After all, that is how we evolve – by struggling with the paradoxes of life to emerge

wiser.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Notes:

1. Varnelis, K., Culture in the Age of Networks: a Critical History, http://varnelis.net/network_culture (8 August

2010, 4pm IST)

2. Smith, S.R., Postmodernism is Dead – Now What?, http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_polisci_smith.html (13 August 2010, 11am IST) 3. Varnelis, K., The Rise of Network Culture,

http://varnelis.net/the_rise_of_network_ culture, pp.1-5, (11 August 2010, 5:30pm IST). 4. Vipparti, A., Adapting to a Culture of ‘Transience’ – Design Methodology for the 21st Century City, Proceedings – Architecture in the Fourth Dimension Conference, Boston, 2011.

5. Chappel, B.D., Ephemeral Architecture – Towards a Definition,

http://courses.arch.ntua.gr/fsr/140724/ephemeral-architecture.pdf (21 September 2012, 11am IST). 6. Becher, T.J., The Importance of Paradox to the Design Process, pp. 1-15, 203-208,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1980. 7. History of Shiva and Shiva worship, www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/deities/shiva.htm, (28 July 2012, 4pm IST). 8. Yin Yang Theory, www.shen-nong.com, (27

July 2012, 10pm IST). 9. Janus, www.wikipedia.org, (28 July 2012, 8am IST). 10. Tschumi, B., Architecture and Disjunction, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994.

11. Smithson, A. (ed.), Team 10 Primer 1953-1962, Architectural Design, No. 12, pp.559-

600, December 1962.

Sources of illustrations:

- Figures 1, 2, 4, 5: Author

- Figure 3: http://images.google.com