Özet
This paper is part of a research work which aims to lay the epistemological grounds of architectural writings of the Ottoman and early Republican periods, blamed of not creating any theoretical attempt within the field of architecture. The basic argument of the research is that there is the possibility of different epistemologies for understanding the knowledge of architecture and different ways of knowing in different parts of the world, which may in turn enhance the development of other forms of knowledge and new ways of knowing within the field of architecture.
Conventionally, it is believed that knowledge sits in the brain and can be understood independent of the outside world, and has representative characteristics. Yet, with the development of new approaches to the thought processes, classical AI theories have been replaced by more complex theories which include both the body -embodied cognition- as a means of knowing and the environment -situated cognition- which the mind interacts with; and non-representative or other forms of representation of knowledge have been proposed. Moreover, knowledge and knowing are not identified with merely rational processes; sensations, dreams, imaginations, myths, and other ways of knowing also exist, and they are considered as different ways of knowing and sum up to what we call knowledge.
The motivation of this paper comes from two basic sources; one is interest in the non-representative or other than language representative qualities of architectural knowledge, and the other is a curiosity for different ways of knowing. When one becomes interested in those non-representative or non-linguistic characteristics, other sources of knowledge become a point of attention. And how this knowledge -which is definitely not explicit- is acquired, becomes another concern. Ottoman texts related to architecture, can be interpreted in the light of these two instruments. Object oriented and language driven knowledge of architectural objects can be replaced by knowledge of existences, which cannot be represented but experienced, e.g. maqams and music; or an abstract/symbolic representation of these existences in geometry or with numbers. These would in turn, refer to “lived-in” and “thought of” models of knowing. We will discuss these two ways of learning and knowing through the dichotomy that Mehmed Aga experiences, first by musical education, then by being told that he should learn geometry, which we are informed about by Risale-i Mimariyye. [1]
We will base our discussion on propositions of Tasawwuf (mysticism) philosophers, e.g. Kındî and Farabî. [2] Kındî’s ontology explains the circular motion of spheres that generate a specific music, in other words, non-conceptual melodic units instead of a conceptual language being the base of a philosophical thought. The other representative yet not conceptual language of thought to our interest would be geometry. These two tools of thought and experience will be discussed as a potential source for other forms of knowledge and knowing in architecture.
