نسبت ثابت و متغير انسان با گونه‌هاي انعطاف‌پذيري تكنولوژي معماري (مطالعه موردي: كولاسازي كشاورزان لرستان)

The Relation between Variants and Invariants of the Humans’ Nature and Flexibility of Architectural Technology: Case Study of Kulas of Lorestan Framers)

اين پژوهش به دنبال ارتباط بين ثابت و متغير انسان با تكنولوژي معماري از طريق مدل‌سازي نظري و استدلال منطقي است. پاسخ اين سؤال با جمع‌بندي از وضعيت ثابت و متغير جهان و انسان در رويكردهاي مختلف فلسفي و انسان‌شناسي و ارائه آن در يك مدل طيفي تشريح شده است. اين مدل به‌خوبي نشان مي‌دهد كه تمايز مكاتب فلسفي در مورد انسان در اين نيست كه يكي قائل به ثوابت انساني است و آن ديگري نيست؛ بلكه اين تمايز در موضع دقيق ثوابت هر مكتب در مورد انسان نهفته است. بر اساس يافته‌هاي پژوهش هدايت تغييرپذيري تكنولوژي معماري در سه حوزه قابل‌بيان است؛ حوزه نخست به گرايش‌هايي تعلق دارد كه به ثوابت فراذهني اصالت مي‌دهد. قطب مقابل اين گرايش، به اعتقادي به ثوابت فراذهني و ازلي ندارد بلكه اين ثوابت انساني را در عالم عينيت مي‌پندارد. ازاين‌رو به تغييرپذيري تكنولوژي اصالت مي‌دهد. در حوزه سوم تطابق الگويي تكنولوژي با انسان اصالت دارد. بررسي موردي انجام‌شده در مسكن كولانشينان خرم‌آباد لرستان نشان‌دهنده آن است كه در وضعيت بومي سه حوزه شناسايي‌شده، فعال است. در مورد پژوهي انجام‌شده به‌عنوان نمونه­اي از معماري بومي عدم وجود نظريه ابرازشده و قواعد صريح (بيان‌شده) سبب مي‌شود تمام طيف وجودي انسان از ماوراي ذهنيت تا عمق عينيت در اثر مصنوع به‌عنوان ابزار (تكنولوژي) زيست ظهور پيدا كند.

This study tries to establish a relationship between variants and invariants of the humans’ nature and flexibility of architectural technology through con­ceptual model making and rational reasoning. Therefore, at first a four-part model is constructed to describe extremes of flexibility concept in architec­ture. This model is based on two axes: the first axis shows the place of human constants due to its rela­tion to subjective space or objective one. The second covers the changes of human environment from its durability point of view. Then a basic model of hu­mane invariants and variants of different schools of philosophy and anthropology is proposed. Another basic theoretical problem is an architectural one that is how an architectural product responses to varia­tions of its surrounding, whether human or environ­ment. Here three fundamental views are deter­mined. In the first one, a building is condemned to destroying through time to time. This view is well known from John Ruskin. Such a demolishing process could only be delayed not diminished. There is an opposite view that considers the technology of con­struction as an ever-proceeding being that makes humane and the natural environment to follow it. Such a view was a norm through high-modernists such as Le Corbusier. Smart architecture approach of recent decade is a new version of this old approach. The third alternative is the one that puts human at the center of the problem of technological change of architecture. Here the building technology is consid­ered as a tool for the human to make a harmony with nature (his nature or the absolute nature). The main criterion of development of the technology of build­ing is its co-operating with human changes not vice-versa. In light of the findings of this study, flexibility of architectural technology could be achieved in three ways: the first approach builds on those views that put their emphasize on metaphysical invariants. The opposite approach derives from those that have no believe in metaphysical invariants and instead claim of existing objectified basics in the material world. This puts emphasize on changing technology. The third approach is a somehow moderate one. Here pattern-based flexibility is accepted to fit hu­mane pace of change. A case study is conducted in Lorestan on the dwellings of the local nomads, namely Kula. It shows that in vernacular setting the all three mentioned approaches are active. In fact, in indigenous architecture the absence of explicit theo­ries and rules makes it possible to all aspects of hu­man existence (from deep mentality to deep materi­ality) to be revealed in constructed thing as life-tools or technology of life. So, in architectures that have explicit foundations (such as traditional or modernis­tic ones) there is only one aspect of human invariant that finds its response in architectural com­ponents (that is, specified only to one of three men­tioned aspects of flexibility), while in vernacular architecture this response is a holistic but weak one. This weak­ness goes back to the inexplicitness of metaphysical horizon of the decisions. Whilst in man-made meta­physical systems (i.e. philosophical ones) non-social base of the vision leads to one-sided relationship.