:

DE sign:
(Deconstructing in-order to find new meanings)

A blogging space about my personal interests; was made during training in Stockholm #Young Leaders Visitors Program #Ylvp08 it developed into a social bookmarking blog.

I studied #Architecture; interested in #Design #Art #Education #Urban Design #Digital-media #social-media #Inhabited-Environments #Contemporary-Cultures #experimentation #networking #sustainability & more =)


Please Enjoy, feedback recommended.

p.s. sharing is usually out of interest not Blind praise.
This is neither sacred nor political.

Tuesday, September 12

#Unite4Heritage

#Unite4Heritage is a phot-competition launched by UNESCO in aims of documenting built Heritage around the world, it is organised by WikiMedia with ten international Prizes & awards.
"All winners of the international contest will receive a Wiki Loves Monuments t-shirt, pin, sticker, and a certificate. On top of these, the following prizes will be awarded to the international winners:
  1. Canon DSLR EOS 5D Mark IV plus Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens * and a printed copy of their winning photo signed by Maestro Plácido Domingo, the president of Europa Nostra. ***
  2. Up to €1500 in in-kind prize**
  3. Up to €1200 in in-kind prize**
  4. Up to €1000 in in-kind prize**
  5. Up to €800 in in-kind prize**
  6. Up to €500 in in-kind prize**
  7. Up to €400 in in-kind prize**
  8. Up to €300 in in-kind prize**
  9. Up to €200 in in-kind prize**
  10. Up to €100 in in-kind prize**
*Thanks to the anonymous donor who has made this prize possible
** This amount can be used for buying equipment or other materials related to photography or built cultural heritage (camera equipment, subscription to relevant journals, books, etc.), chosen by the winner and the prize coordinator jointly, before 2017-12-23. The winner will be able to propose the exact prize and vendor, pending approval by the prize coordinator (considering convenience and scope reasons). The value of the prize includes any customs or taxes that may need to be paid at the time of purchase to send the prize to the recipient. Any additional (customs) charges that are due later will be the responsibility of the recipient.
*** Kindly provided by our partner Europa Nostra."



Saturday, September 9

Ford #CityofTomorrow

Ford City of Tomorrow
This is probably the most realistic city upgrading made so far, with a slogan "Move Freely" Ford is prposing ways to change how cities move with less car use.



The City might Win!

The City might win after all, if it doesn't follow after Damascus Urban Organisational Planning Model! If one can make such a description 
(Praying, God might help Middle-Eastern cities) 
I'm sharing a session on Rethinking the City of Aleppo post-war future... 


Rethink Aleppo: The City Always Wins (EN) from Pakhuis de Zwijger on Vimeo.
Imagining and designing a city of the future. With talks, a variety of workshops and an Eat to Meet 'vrijheidsmaaltijd'.

Aleppo is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been rebuilt many times before. We will dive into history and the elements that make Aleppo, a distinct city with AlHakam Shaar from The Aleppo Project and Dutch Historian Geert Mak. Then we look into historical examples of rebuilding cities from Afghanistan to Macedonia. After that, young Syrian designers will share their sense of design of Syrian homes. We are then ready to imagine future scenarios for Aleppo. You can choose one of three workshops on future city making. Join us and contribute to cutting edge ideas, disruptive innovations, out of the box efforts, hardcore research and diverse networks about place making and building future cities. Naturally, exercises in hopeful futures include music, films, beauty and dinner!


https://dezwijger.nl/programma/the-city-always-wins

Saturday, July 15

Debating Speech

Debating Hate Speech, following "When is hate speech violence"

Twitter Feed on the subject https://twitter.com/search?q=%22When%20Is%20Speech%20Violence%22&src=tren

When Is Speech Violence?By  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html?smid=tw-shar

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?
The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Your body’s immune system includes little proteins called proinflammatory cytokines that cause inflammation when you’re physically injured. Under certain conditions, however, these cytokines themselves can cause physical illness. What are those conditions? One of them is chronic stress.

Your body also contains little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes. They’re called telomeres. Each time your cells divide, their telomeres get a little shorter, and when they become too short, you die. This is normal aging. But guess what else shrinks your telomeres? Chronic stress.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?

This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions ofcertain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”

This idea — that there is often no difference between speech and violence — has stuck many as a coddling or infantilizing of students, as well as a corrosive influence on the freedom of expression necessary for intellectual progress. It’s a safe bet that the Pew survey datareleased on Monday, which showed that Republicans’ views of colleges and universities have taken a sharp negative turn since 2015, results in part from exasperation with the “speech equals violence” equation.

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture.

Entertaining someone else’s distasteful perspective can be educational. Early in my career, I taught a course that covered the eugenics movement, which advocated the selective breeding of humans. Eugenics, in its time, became a scientific justification for racism. To help my students understand this ugly part of scientific history, I assigned them to debate its pros and cons. The students refused. No one was willing to argue, even as part of a classroom exercise, that certain races were genetically superior to others.

So I enlisted an African-American faculty member in my department to argue in favor of eugenics while I argued against; halfway through the debate, we switched sides. We were modeling for the students a fundamental principle of a university education, as well as civil society:When you’re forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process feels unpleasant, but it’s a good kind of stress — temporary and not harmful to your body — and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning.

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

On the other hand, when the political scientist Charles Murray argues that genetic factors help account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores, you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided, but it’s only offensive. It is offered as a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not thrown like a grenade. There is a difference between permitting a culture of casual brutality and entertaining an opinion you strongly oppose. The former is a danger to a civil society (and to our health); the latter is the lifeblood of democracy.

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, is the author of “How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain.”

“‘Hate Speech’ and Incitement to Violence”

Given the evils of hate, any argument for protecting is, at best, an uphill effort and, at worst, simply misguided. Many people either accept or, at least, wonder whether they should accept, an argument that goes something like this: Anyone sensitive to the horror of genocide knows that hate pervades the atmosphere at such times. Few goals can rank higher than preventing genocide and the murderous racial conflicts presented to the world during the twentieth century. Moreover, it is difficult to find any value in the freedom to engage in racist hate speech. Important but ultimately less significant values such as free speech cannot, for any sensitive person, lead to any pause in outlawing the speech that contributes to these horrors. Whether or not the ban will be effective in even a few cases at preventing genocide or racial violence, the mere possibility that it will more than justifies the ban. As an advocate of almost absolute protection of free speech, I should explain the grounds for my valuation of free speech and rejection of the above claim. That explanation, it turns out, is too ambitious for this essay. Nevertheless, Part I describes but does not defend a theory of why racist or hate speech should be protected – a theory that I believe provides the best, though often unrecognized, explanation of existing American case law but one that is surely a controversial, probably minority, view even in the United States. Most readers will realize, as do I, that these theoretical grounds do not really answer my imagined proponent of regulation. Thus, Part II describes the empirical evidence that would cause me to abandon the theory described in Part I, at least in the context of some category of racist or hate speech, but then gives reasons to doubt that this evidence will be forthcoming. In the end, this essay is more a call for more knowledge – I stand ready to be shown that the relevant evidence overrides my doubts about the efficacy of suppression. But given the inevitable empirical uncertainties in evaluating such evidence, Part II does not answer the last sentence of the imagined argument for regulation set forth above about the mere possibility of making a contribution toward prevention. Thus, the final part of this essay offers a different answer: it considers reasons to expect, as a practical matter, that hate speech regulation is more likely to contribute to genocidal events and major events of racial violence than to reduce them. These historical horrors help justify, or so I suggest, greater protection for speech. My hypothesis is that the empirical investigation supports the gamble that strong speech Baker - hate speech - protection leads to better results. 

https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-culture/files/hate-speech-files/Hate-Speech-C-Edwin-Baker.pdf

Friday, July 14

Requiem for Aleppo




Requiem for Aleppo



Kindly support http://requiemforaleppo.com/ raising funds for Syria through two organisations SyriaRelief & Techfugees 

http://www.sadlerswells.com/whats-on/2017/requiem-for-aleppo/




http://requiemforaleppo.com/for-charity/

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/requiemforaleppo

Saturday, July 8

Architecture of Refugees II W.A.Ve 2017

W.A.Ve 2017 Syria





on Ethics of Intervention and Insta follow-up




VENICE CHARTER ON RECONSTRUCTION 
The VENICE CHARTER ON RECONSTRUCTION aims at the establishment of clear guidelines for post-war development. Though generated in response to the Syrian conflict, the charter aims to be useful in any other similar possible scenarios. The nature of modern conflicts challenges our understanding of conventional war: they manifest as permanent, asymmetric local and mobile wars between numerous transnational actors, and they extend beyond geographical boundaries. The Syrian case presents an example of how local conflicts involve the whole international community: epochal migrations, global terrorism and widespread violence affect globally every person regardless of any economic, social and religious boundaries.

Tuesday, May 16

The Architecture of Refugees I

The Architecture of Refugees: The Question of Ethics


Uploaded on May 12, 2017
Hosted by the MIT Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture

Significant transformations in the world's political landscape are signaling the emergence of a new world order that undermines the
certitudes established at the end of World War II. At the core of such discussions, the concept of human rights is significantly challenged, calling for a discussion at the core of ethics for the revisions of the principles and mechanisms of intervention. In reaction to these new transformations some have called for a World Parliament representing the people and not governments to replace the UN General Assembly.

The workshop addresses the agency of architecture and design in a context where the disrespect of human rights is aggravated by
the incapacity of global institutions to react efficiently. What are the ethical questions regarding the architecture of refugees? What timescales, short or long terms, represent a priority for architecture and through which agenda – refugee relief, historical preservation, camp upgrades and daily life, or rebuilding and resettlement? What is the role of design in front of the degradation and destruction of cultural artifacts? How can design be channeled towards peace building objectives and possible resettlement projects? What are the material, technological, systemic responses to address emergency needs in the context of refugee camps?

Speakers:

Ethics of International Law as a Framework for Displacees and Refugees
Balakrishnan Rajagopal

Ethics and Politics of Post-Conflict Repair
Delia Wendel

Material Culture and Historical Conservation
Admir Masic

After Belonging
Carlos Minguez Carrasco

Architecture of Exile: The Permanent Temporariness of Refugee Camps
Alessandro Petti

Panel Discussion moderated by El Hadi Jazairy