URtheoryDIGGING_fan071202

to update my vision I would like to trow in the though of intuition.
does a concept of intuition exist in the field of planning? could it be helpful to involve intuition or should planners rather move away from something that is not clearly related to genius? is planning always rational - hyper rational - ?

planning is about taking decisions at stages one doesn't really know about consequences. as it is a process one/team often doesn't evene have a clue how the final stage could look like [in a good case]. taking decisions demands some flexibility and a great deal of independence [in good cases].
to deal with unforeseen changes within the development process one/team has to take decisions on a frequent basis to ensure to keep the project on track. this means the process demands to maneuver the development trough unknown territory although one/team has taken the same route before. different developments within the process do demand a great deal of creativity whilst jumping from one step to the next one.
as there is no knowledge about the exact future decisions can be as rational as possible - hyper rational - but are still based in the time taken. so to say one/team has to guess the consequences.
in terms of time there exist different reasons for this. one is the "unpredictable" future as being constituted out of all the current [now] and former [past] decisions end the other one is parallel processes that influence one another whilst unfolding.
so to say one could argue taking decisions within a planning process is guessing.
intuition [I am guessing here] could be a concept to support and rationalize the guessing process. what do I mean by intuition, can it be more than some kind of gift [born with an ability]?
in the first instance intuition is widely known as some kind of natural knowledge just like instincts. animals are usually born with "knowledge" to undertake daily tasks such as what to eat if their unwell, how to hunt and kill, how to raise their babies. I don't want to go too deep into biology but the same instincts exist in the human nature. our modern world tries to overcome them in any field of human activity, although best business is probably made among suggested instincts, shopping, sex, safety, ... [I am aware that the context is a bit more complex and there exists an influential cultural context around those topics …] in this case intuition is down to natural instincts used without the rational - brain - being involved. since the industrial revolution and in planning definitely since the modern times around maestro le corbusier where the planners managed to imply all the power onto the plan itself. rationality was developed and turned into a striking argument that did not allow any other inputs. [as a note, they managed an almost unimaginable change that would not have been possible if not as a consequence of previous developments embedded within a social change. but most of all the amusing aspect is the status the planner reached as the plans inventor. he is good himself : ) sorry for this. but maybe this was the birth of the contemporary genius idea of a planner. trough his "rational" plan that is regarded as "trough" the planner became the nb one enabled with all the power. - in such a context the previous mention about the split in the oma ny office [see: U R vision F A N 071125] can be seen in a different light and explains the call for a change. to move away from the one genius idea towatds a team / collective is probably crucial. but this is just the celebrity aspect alocated to individuals. the main focus is on the distribution of power. there is too much power related to anonymous objects and sheets of paper.
there were initiatives to change this situation of superimposed power. say public involvment projects but they lack the genius aspect and therefor have diviculties to claim their relevance. also is it difficult to establish a collective rationality among a bunch of people with a diverse background. the combination of collective development and centralized power (plan) does not make sense in a rational environment. although most peoples intuition tells them this doesn't work out like this and not their intelect (brain).

>note: maybe the lack of modern movement in britain could be the reason why architecture and planning are slightly different here than in mainland europe? but maybe the differences are not that much to justify such a theory...

but what could intuition be in this context?
if borrowed from the concept of instinct it would imply that the supernatural interpretation could be replaced with a contextual meaning. the interpretation of instinct in this case would be as acting system related. say in the case of an rabbit digging a tunnel to raise babies this would be an ecosystem. this lens acting within the rabbits natural surrounding in order to keep its place and its good energy balance. there is not really something supernatural to it (all very very rational, although its not explained how a single rabbit acctually is aware of its relations to the surrounding) if intuition is related to such a concept it brakes down taking a decision in planing to a system related step.

it could be argued that planning is something completly different and can't be compared to a rabbit surviving in a natural surrounding. there can be two answers to this. the first thought could be that the concept of inventing has to be questioned on different levels. it I'd not clear that the animal actually doesnt invent something as it would definitely surrender if just repeating actions and not Bering able to adapt to

intuition has other attributes to it, there are also aspects of knowledge, experience, interest, luck, ... involved. but they are over shadowed by the supernatural touch to the word. in such a reading it is not too far to the idea of the genius idea as this must be the supernatural intuition that guides the genuis's mind. but this is exactly where I try to move the meaning of the word away from. I d read it rather towards a contextual interconnection related way of taking the next step.

in relation to the concept of "hyper-rational" the concept of intuition could be explained as a slight shift of the focus. not just all the aspect get talked down to its essentials, its gona be rather the projects interconnections as an element of the system.

to explore the words meaning from a different point of view, one could line up from a "hyper" rational point of view. intuition has to do with the ability to understand and "interact" with a given or imagined setting almost blind. almost as if one is part of it. coming from system theory this would mean to act within the relationships and cycles of the system objects.
intuition could therefor also be an ability to interact with the system as an element of the system. this could be kind of like flying with the birds.
root-hyper-rational could be its definition where everything gets talked down to its roots, but rather round the actual task than into it. the idea would be to be clear enough of the system one/team is working with to establish a common knowledge about its function [relations, cycles] in order to intuitively taking decisions.

what could intuition be in the field of planning. intuition has to do with the ability to understand and "interact" with a given or imagined setting almost blind. just t as if one is part of it. coming from system theory this would mean to act within the relationships and cycles of the system objects.
intuition could therefor also be the ability [time and work based] to interact with the system, as an element of the system. kind of like flying with the birds.
the idea would be to be clear enough of the system and to establish a common [among the team] knowledge about its function [relations, cycles] in order to intuitively taking steps. one couldn't do wrong in this case.
one could argue that there would be the need to understand the context in relation to the project at a certain instant in total - just like a frozen time model. maybe this is possible in the future but it is not clear whether this is necessary. if we look at structures in nature that actually that have exactly this ability if not purpose, we can learn that they actually don't work like this. the brain is such a structure with a great ability to navigate within a system. but it is not ale to understand itself. this would be much too complex and a waste of energy/capacity. thats exactly where the concept of intuition/instinct is based. there is not an exact understanding but more of a sense on how to go about it. the brain acts according to the context in a responsive/integrative manner. a rather soft version with some trial and error elements involved, but still straight forward. this cuts down the amount of simultaneous calculations and operations. quite a simple way overall.
the other argument that stands against the concept of understanding the model as such trough out is the process. a process is fluid and does not necessarily demand a hierarchal, step by step process in a defines order. one/team just has to allow some flexibility and creativity.

would that mean that the term of active decision taking would be ruled out in such a case? - something else to explore...

instinct as a term seems in this context to bee a bit too basic. thats why I rather go for the term intuition but I guess I have to cheque this with a dictionary to work out the differences between the two terms.


[1.0] K E Y W O R D S
.1 >intuition
.2 >instinct
.3 >modern
.4 >planning process
.5 >hyper rational
.6 >root-hyper-rational
.7 >process

[2.0] R E F E R E N C E S
.1 >the plan in the modern movement - implementation of rational power superimposed onto an object/tool, the plan

[3.0] L A B E L S
. >intuition