Participating in the celebration for Paolo's 90th (91st?), I noticed that a discussion of Arcosanti's finances was scheduled. I was amazed, and said to myself "I want to attend that!" It has long been my habit to think a great deal about how to move the mission forward - I'm, with some justification, criticized for doing nothing but thinking, but I like to do that - and - I like to take something of a maverick stand in my thinking - I liked to think finance would have a lot to do with it. Mary synopsized Arcosanti's financial plan, suggesting that we attempt to raise $100,000. I thought "just as I thought". I managed to commandeer the microphone - the only time I've spoken into one of those - it was kind of fun - and said something to the effect that we will accomplish what we set out to accomplish, and it was my opinion we should raise not hundreds of thousands of dollars but hundreds of millions of dollars. I am not at all kidding when I say the crowd went wild. People were shouting things out all around the theater. When the hubbub quieted, Paolo, who had his own microphone - very nice - laughed and said "Well, when that kind of money is involved, it requires ruthlessness." He rolled the r melodiously. Making a joke, I shrugged and said "OK." But I was prepared and added that there are other ways to approach it, too, planning, vision. Paolo wasn't expecting a reply. He squeaked "Huh!" Then he told me to keep in touch. (That wasn't going to happen. I spoke with him again on one or two occasions, briefly, about nothing much. That's OK. It was still fun. I am a bit in touch, sending messages to one person or another, occasionally hearing back, occasionally seeing someone, socially.)
I am not part of the current planning process. I'm thinking about writing a little statement about why, or why not, about my personal shortcomings. But I suspect my maverick tendency has something to do with it, as well. Back in the day, before that event, I attempted to speak with a number of people about my ideas. I learned it was a losing proposition. (After my little speech, a couple of the more professionally established alums approached me, eager to engage. They soon, however, became almost hateful towards me. I'm just so weird, I guess. Plus, I'm talking realistically, and these are not easy challenges we face. I'm pretty sure if I ever succeed in making something happen it will be by dint of extreme persistence ... as much as anything.) I also wrote quite a bit. I gave Paolo two quite extended manifestos. I know the first one made it into the archives, and one person read it, and told Paolo, at a "Minds" session about my neologism, arcologistics, which Paolo did think was interesting. When I gave Paolo the second, which was quite a stack of pages, he said - with a warm smile, which surprised me - "Oh, I can't read all this. I'll give it to Mary." Mary later said she couldn't understand it at all. Perhaps it's in the archives, too. At any rate, I don't have copies of either of those myself, any longer.
No matter. I just keep writing, searching for ways to actually communicate. Some of my recent e-mails have slightly amused Mary and Russell ... they acknowledged a couple of messages. Still, it wasn't like they were outright inviting my thoughts. I rather understand. I told Mary it would be more proper if I were to publish, instead of relying on the board ... i.e., friends. With that said, I don't really know how to proceed. This is obviously why I asked Mary where you were, not seeing you on the listing of board members, now. She gave me your address.
I don't even have much hope that my writing is publishable. My main purpose in writing to you here is, I think, just to share a thought, which is my longstanding feeling that Paolo's efforts as a writer are such a large part of his accomplishment, of his method, and that we (his acolytes) ought to keep that up, writing and publishing. I imagine the board would agree. Unless I really don't know those people, it is part of their plan, and they take it seriously. Perhaps I ought to just wait and see what they come up with. I hope they strive for the same level of excellence that Paolo achieved. One very respectable person commented to me that, in his opinion, Paolo was a very poor writer. It is true, Paolo's writing is extremely difficult - I think that is what he meant - and, also, his logic is irritating, but I don't agree he was a poor writer. The aesthetics of his writing, though not without its flaws, achieves at a very high level, and, also, there's the fact that it is so very theoretical, by which I do not mean that I agree with him on matters of theory, more than some of the time, or that I don't disagree quite vehemently with a good part of it. What I mean is that its utterly theoretical quality is something I greatly admire. Well, there's the possibility I could improve my writing, or my thinking. You probably know. Perhaps you will advise me. Or, maybe I'm underselling myself.
Way back when I was a workshopper, just a kid, with no business thinking I was special - my passion for Paolo's thought burned with, I still think, and even in the context - unusual fierceness - I had the impression I was the only one at Arcosanti, including Paolo, who actually thought arcology was something we could do. Acknowledging that that is a design problem - a tricky thing to talk about - I also thought it was an engineering problem. I approached Paolo with this thought, but he wasn't inclined to discuss it. He said the engineering is in the drawings, which I wholly agree it is, up to a point. I thought it was a good answer, actually, but I wanted to take it further in some way. At the time, I had some vague ideas about how to do that. They weren't very useful. I kept thinking about it, though, and one day I had a real revelation. This is already two decades ago, and since then I have, you could say, continuously struggled to articulate that concept ... and, though, also, in a sense, to not articulate it, because what it comes down to is, it's intellectual property. That's a synopsis of my ongoing circumstances. I'm struggling to say "this is what I want us to be able to do, and if you engage with me, in a business venture, I know how to do it." It has, in fact, just in the last couple of days, occurred to me that one of my long held constructs of purpose is actually the right way to synthesize the idea. Even during my workshop I was thinking: if we can make the building of arcologies (again, an aesthetic problem as well as a technical one, if that distinction can be made) extremely easy and affordable, they'll get built. This system that I suddenly saw in my mind's eye, one hot moment in Tempe, has, I think, very much, that potential. There is another construct that I arrived at - saw, at least saw more fully - a bit later, which is that building arcologies is a political problem. If we propose things which will, as everyone (speaking somewhat metaphorically) will clearly see will rather ruin their day, even if it is saving the world, even if it is quite beautiful, there will be political opposition, on a great scale. But, if our proposal is, on the one hand, clearly quite doable, and, on the other hand, if it in some visible sense does not impose itself on the small worlds in which people live, and which they treasure, then the political barrier towards doing it might melt away. It might be replaced by broad support.
Politics is actually a technology itself. It can be used to get things done. Literature, theory, and aesthetics are technologies. Imagination is a technology. Finance is a technology. I am particularly a student of the latter. I won't tell you that whole story, here, but I wanted to correct Paolo on his views on the subject. Properly understood it is not synonymous with greed, avarice, but is more a manifestation of prudence. True, finance is an aspect of reality, and avarice and ruthlessness are aspects of reality, so they do intersect, but the foundation of finance is, in fact, frugality. Frugality is actually built into the mathematics of finance, and it is why those mathematics can actually work, actually produce something. Even though those mathematics are very, very simple, clearly, only a few people understand them, and most people misunderstand them. I have heard a word or two to indicate that the board (Cosanti Foundation) actually does, or might understand them. They are like a clam that has shut itself up fast, promising to open again in a few years with a report. I wonder if it will reflect my hope that they do understand finance. Still, I am inclined to verbosely beat around the bush, here and there, in essays, not because I am reluctant to discuss the mathematics of finance (except inasmuch as the response when I mention the subject is not interest and further inquiry, but rather the opposite), but, because, as I say, my own plan revolves around intellectual property, and thus a kind of secrecy.
So, this thing I suddenly saw is a technology. It's a product, to be mass produced, which people can buy, and out of which they can build arcologies, or, if they prefer, towers, and bridges, at exceptionally ambitious scale, and, really, a host of other things, in fact, in a sense, anything, with the utmost ease and economy. It has the unique quality of facilitating scale and intricacy, in design and construction. (True, it's untested. In principle it has this quality.) That, then, is my scheme: a licensing scheme, by means of which I hope to make a new, most ambitious kind of construction widely possible, and even real, and to bring to myself and - dreamily - Arcosanti, immense wealth, which I think would be a good thing.
OK. I recently, thrashing about, sent a letter to Michael Crow about my invention, which I want to link you to here. I also sent it to Mary, and she wrote back a bit later asking whether I had heard back from Mr. Crow. I had completely forgotten about it. No, I did not hear back from him. But I heard from Mary! Additionally, I have, over the years, developed some schemes for Arcosanti proper. Those I have not shared with Mary, or the board, fearing they would feel I am intruding, but I did write them up, in one form, on a blog post, so I'll link you to them. I feel I have not heard this kind of thought, or thinking, from Arcosanti. I mean, it originates, I think, this kind of thinking, in Paolo's thinking, in particular what might be called his early thinking, but I feel he went in one direction from there, and I am going in another direction, very much from there, but another direction, even one he later rejected, for reasons I don't entirely agree with (not that I entirely disagree, though). At any rate, if Arcosanti were already communicating such thoughts, there would be no reason for me to attempt to do so, other than to assert concurrence. But, perhaps, since they are possibly not ... well ... seemingly not ... not communicating such thoughts ... maybe there is a reason for me to do so in that. And, finally, at a certain time I thought the key to getting traction with my thinking was to do drawings, and I did some. They didn't help me gain traction, and the ones I published represent something incomplete, and the essay on Arcosanti proper describes what I attempted to describe in them, but at least they might add a bit of color. Well, I'm almost done, but not quite. It was quite a triumph for me to get a reply or two from Mary. Mind you, Mary is a dear friend, a close friend, but, in the interest of that, I have avoided pestering her with these matters. Still, at a certain point, I had to. Well, she encouraged me a little, then, but I found myself, after that, in a state of almost trauma, and for several weeks I haven't done anything. Then, for whatever reason, this morning I found myself writing again. First (4am) I wrote two short essays (1) (2) ... and now this.
