We have long been studying nature and decoding the language of nature, the form, pattern, structure and material, to construct culture and society with technology. Looking at the diachrony in both language and city, could Architecture and city be the syntax and the context of the language that we initially built for communicating with and sensing nature?
The architecture of today is being challenged for the buildings do not function symbiotically in the community, of the ecosystem or of the human. Buildings are consumable end products that are erected individually and act as the boundary between nature and humans. The biomimicry architecture seems to respond to the question of co-existence, whether civilization or the contemporary human living style can be sustained in a natural environment while not intruding into the life cycle of the natural habitat. (M.R. Bemanian, et al, 2012) It, still, grounds us to see the world from the perspective of Anthropocentrism.
Technology is interpreted as the extensions of the human body that extend human’s physical senses to simulate human consciousness to engage in a creative process in human society collectively. (McLuhan, 1966, p.19) Architecture and language are technology. If technology fails to lead us further beyond human society to the collective creative process in a wider sense, the nature community, should we question the direction or approach of how we develop technology? Has the progress of advancing technology reached its saturation point? Would returning to ancient technology help us to rethink contemporary technology and to envision its future?
Nature: Not a creature is alone. No sky, no land and no sea is not nature, and so are cities.
Technology, sensory,
