<Cesar Harada> In order to know where I was going, I started by drawing a subjective map of the research that claimed architecture openness or that I thought were offering such properties.


 
At the center is the “known”, the utterly obvious.
On the left is the “abstract”, on the right the “tangible”.
At the top is “simplicity”, at the bottom “complexity”.
The ellipse is the evolving domain of knowledge. The thin edge of the ellipse  is the edge of knowledge.
So for example :

- “religion” should be in the top left hand corner - trying to explain the meaning
of the universe in simple universal rules - whereas
- “philosophy” is also at the extreme left but at the bottom because it is infinitely
complex. In the top right hand corner there is
- “physics” - trying to resolve the mechanic of the universe by universal math-
ematical rules - whereas
- “Urbanism” is very tangible and complex.

Many other relevant “attractors” (subject matters/disciplines) such as “Ethic, Law, Politic, Economy, Social, Dance, Sculpture, Physic, Biology, Computing, Design, Architecture, Urbanism” are placed in this diagram, meanwhile we agree it is arbitrary and subjective. I like to think of a definition as a collectively reinforced subjectivity.

Some questions immediately emanate from this diagram:
- is open architecture the edge (ellipse) of knowledge? At the limit of what we know and what we ignore? Are we breaking the line and opening our architecture of knowledge to discover and expand the known territory?
- is open architecture all that we ignore outside? The knowledge we need to conquer?
- is open architecture right at the center of the ellipse of knowledge, the so extremely obvious and primitive, we have forgotten it? This infinitely simple space?

In the ellipse, human research pulls in every directions. Where is open architecture? What is it?