|
Introduction
This paper puts forward
a fractal theory of the human mind that explains one aspect of how we
interact with our environment. Some interesting analogies are developed
for storing ideas and information within a fractal scheme. The mind establishes
a connection with the environment by processing information, this being
an important theme seen during the evolution of the brain. In particular,
in this discussion we assert that pavements play a role in connecting
human beings to surrounding structures by acting as a vehicle for conveying
meaning. We will argue that the design on pavements transfers meaning
from our surroundings to our awareness. Such a connection establishes
a positive psychological and physiological state. As an example, the contemporary
patterned pavements of Tess Jaray are discussed. We argue that their success
is due to the fact that they connect hierarchically, which in turn triggers
positive emotions.
Some of these
ideas grow out of an earlier discussion on how human beings interact with
their surroundings [1]. The perception of public space is linked to the
design of its pavement, and the perception mechanism is a natural part
of how the human mind operates. The mind establishes connections automatically.
This process occurs in any physical space, and it is either helped or
hindered by design and texture. We will build up a case for a psychological
link between an observer and an open space that depends in part on visual
patterns. We claim that the environment links directly to our consciousness,
which extends to embrace open spaces via patterns in the pavement. Finally,
we provide some very broad guidelines of how pavements ought to be designed
in order to achieve this linking.
If we wish
to preserve our intelligence in a more permanent form than electrical
impulses in biological tissue, we can transfer our thoughts to books;
or engrave them on a physical medium such as stone. On a much more fundamental
level than language, however, we could impress on open space a geometrical
pattern that reflects structures in the mind. A patterned pavement has
information content and is durable; it is therefore a sign of intelligence
encoded in a structure that uses very little energy, hence is relatively
permanent. Moreover, since a geometric design doesn't need language to
convey meaning, it is universal, i.e., it can be understood in some sense
by any mind that can detect it.
Fractals
and Hierarchical Linking
A fractal structure
shows some non-trivial substructure at every level of magnification [2].
Fractals define a scaling hierarchy that is complex at every level. (Complexity
as used here denotes presence of constituent parts, being the opposite
of purity or emptiness). The special case of "self-similar fractals" has
the additional property that structure revealed at each level of magnification
is related by scaling [2]. That is, the substructures when magnified by
the appropriate factor are all similar to each other. Self-similar fractals
are mathematically simple; since their structure is repeated at different
magnifications to create the whole, they require only one basic algorithm
(design) to generate.
Biological
forms are often fractal [3]. Many are obviously self-similar, but we do
not exclude complex structures that are not. For example, the mammalian
lung is a self-similar fractal in several of its larger levels [3,4,5].
There is a clear dendritic (tree-like) structure that optimizes -- and
is a consequence of -- the subdivision of the airducts forming the lung.
As one gets down to the smaller level of the alveoli, exact self-similarity
is lost, because different complex substructures arise as the physical
needs for gas exchange and blood circulation take over. The lung is a
fractal all the way down to the molecular level according to the broader
definition of "statistical self-similarity".
A fractal connects
several different levels of scale. There is one basic design in a self-similar
fractal that is repeated at different magnifications, and this links all
the scales together. In a statistically self-similar fractal some structural
property is similar at each scale, thereby linking the different levels
of scale. Whether established via similarity of form on each scale, or
through some other common qualities such as texture or symmetries, this
scale-connectivity property of fractals creates a hierarchical linking.
Hierarchical linking attaches forms and textures to geometry, and so to
an observer. It is impossible to link forms hierarchically if they are
empty, since in that case the absence of substructure leaves too few subscales
to link together.
A hierarchically-linked
system can encode complexity in a simple fashion. If we relate complexity
to the length of an algorithm required to generate a pattern or visual
piece of information, then, if the algorithm is short, the pattern is
termed simple. For example, if one wishes to draw a fern leaf or cauliflower
(normally considered complex structures) using a fractal algorithm, the
algorithm is very short, because their design embodies hierarchical scaling
(as described in many textbooks [2]). We are going to utilize this concept
to propose that what appear to be complex processes in the human mind
and its interactions with the environment could in fact be very simple
in a fractal sense. Fractal processes and designs can provide the basis
for connecting ideas, memories, architecture, and urban elements [1].
The
Concept of Mind
The brain is known to
be a structured system of hierarchically-organized modules. These interacting
modules communicate with one another. In turn, the modules contain within
them yet other sub-modules which communicate among themselves. This pattern
is repeated at several different levels of scale, culminating in what is
a molecular and biochemical fractal of interacting and communicating systems
[6]. In a similar way, we can conceive of the mind as consisting of self-similar
complexes of hierarchically-arranged modules linked together in a way that
can be expressed according to some algorithms. The relationship of mind
to brain can be characterized as a mapping problem in which mind and brain
map onto each other.
In this conception,
the brain can be regarded as a relatively isolated system that communicates
with the world via nerve impulses generated by sensory receptors in the
periphery. The main discourse among the different elements of the brain
accomplishes a synthesis of the information coming in, resulting in the
internal generation of what we call "reality". We suppose that the systems
of organization that characterize both mind and brain are at least partially
fractal in nature. That is, each contains a hierarchically-arranged system
characterized by some algorithmic continuity between the successive functional
levels of activity.
Must the linking
between successive levels of the hierarchy always be the same; i.e., does
the mind represent a self-similar fractal? It is possible to imagine a hierarchical
system in which clusters of levels may be connected according to one algorithm
and others according to some other algorithm. One of the most interesting
aspects of the human brain is that it is capable of generating new hierarchical
systems as needed. For example, a synthesis of ideas can result in a new
collection of ideas. In this setting, we have one hierarchical arrangement
of concepts giving rise to another hierarchical arrangement of concepts.
Our essential
thesis is that when a fractal system generates a new system, it has the
same attributes and characteristics as the generator -- especially hierarchical
linking. Thus, mental associations that would appear at first to require
enormous lengths of code (and consequently be termed complex) may in fact
be handled by very short codes. If that is indeed the case, then the human
mind could be using fractal encoding as a standard way of coding enormous
chains of related thoughts into a single fractal entity. The evidence for
this claim comes forth when we see how thoughts are naturally linked to
each other internally. A design pattern may well be a representation of
an artist's natural expression of these chains of thought in a tangible
form.
Memory
and the Fractal Mind
There exist
striking parallel properties in neuronal and thinking processes. The mind
is synonymous with mental activity and is a subset of neuronal processes
[6]. Since the brain consists of neurons for both involuntary and voluntary
activities of the individual, the mind is also aware of both types of
processes. Cognition depends on how well information is stored, retrieved,
modified, and translated into commands. The memory process is central
to neural function and is an example of the basic algorithm that links
the brain and the mind. Evidence that comes from memory will help to support
our model of meaning and perception developed below.
The nervous
system has a massively parallel architecture (i.e., different linked circuits
on multiple scales of organization all working simultaneously) based on
numerous simple processors called neurons. Memory depends on the network
formed among neurons, and artificial neural networks have been able to
simulate primitive forms of memory function [7]. Neuronal pathways linking
regions of the cerebral cortex correlate with the construction of long-term
memories [7]. It is evident in a diagrammatic representation of connections
within the brain that there are layers of structures with projections
from one to the other [6]. The presence of these prominent recurrent linkages
has been correlated with the associative memory operated by neural networks
[7].
Associative
memory can be responsible for powerful emotional experiences. In response
to a small cue, which can be as trivial as a fleeting odor, we selectively
retrieve a specific set of linked memories quickly. Evidently, the
architecture of the network is designed in favor of fast information retrieval
from multiple locations. In addition, there must be a flexible mechanism
that allows new information to be added without losing old memories completely. The
brain's multilayered structure has previously been suggested as providing
a framework for associative memory [8]. We suggest that a fractal-like
neuronal architecture provides a filter for selected memories to be stored
in a stable layered configuration.
Fractal
Tuning and Communication
Fractal
systems give rise to fractal-based communications signals. These, in turn,
travel through fractally organized channels. A simple illustration of
this would be communications within a biological system. The entire system
is fractal-based: the organs that generate the communication signals,
the signals, and the receiving devices (the recipient organs) are all
fractal in character. A key idea behind this is the concept that the body
contains "receptor sites" which are, in effect, "tuned" to recognize certain
chemical signals as opposed to others. For example, when the pituitary
gland releases thyroid stimulating hormone, the thyroid gland responds
to this hormone but other organs of the body have no discernible response.
We have hormones being generated by glands, the glands in turn impacting
upon the organs at a distant site via the bloodstream, and finally arriving
at the target organ where they manifest their actions in a biological
way. All these require fine tuning of signal generation and reception
at different levels, so as to provide a balanced control of all physiological
processes in harmony with the nervous system [9].
Systems in
the body are "tuned" to generically recognize different kinds of fractal
hierarchies. We contend that the brain has special systems which are tuned
in exactly this way. The brain's neural patterns are responsible for recognizing
structured systems that have a hierarchical organization in which the
levels in the hierarchy are defined in a systematic, algorithmic way.
Such recognition has an emotive value for the organism in question. In
general, when a system recognizes a structured entity in the environment,
it attributes "meaning" to it. Organisms create communication signals
that have a special structure, which is to say that they share a common
language. Languages are characterized by collections of rules defining
syntax and semantics. In a system of fractal-based communications, those
rules are tantamount to the algorithmic connectivity among the hierarchies
in the fractal structures used for communication.
Following the
analogy of radio transmission, where tuning the receiver depends on matching
a single frequency, fractal tuning represents a more sophisticated process
that matches complex signals having a similar hierarchical structure.
Brain mechanisms would be especially receptive to such signals, and would
screen other signals that have a different algorithmic structure -- i.e.,
any signal that shows no hierarchical linking among its components. This
would represent a "filter", allowing us to connect selectively to fractal
forms. It also explains instantaneous cognition as a kind of resonance
between an external structure and the internal structure of our cognitive
system. Such a mechanism has already been suggested by Gibson [10,11]
in his psychological model of "direct perception". Our theory of fractal
encoding is thus consistent with Gibson's work.
|
Problems
of Miscommunication
Evidence for structuredness
in communications is seen in the use of metaphor as a tool for communicating
among people. Metaphorical structures impact the way that people communicate
complex ideas [12]. In our system, in which we define linked hierarchies
as the central element in communication, a metaphor represents the act of
completion of a partial structure which is offered by way of explanation.
Confronted with a complex concept, an individual might use only a component
of the structure consisting of a set of communicating elements to make a
point. Unfortunately, the listener in this dialogue then attaches to the
entire construct whether or not this is appropriate in the particular setting.
Thus, metaphors give the illusion of meaning and "truth" because they also
give the illusion of completeness of structure. When communications channels
utilize fractal structures, it is possible that a mixture of rules is being
applied at different levels in the hierarchy. Such structures can give rise
to ambiguity in communication.
A frequent cause
of miscommunication is the certainty of one party that what the other party
said is completely understood. One piece of information provided triggers
recall of a fractal construction in the other's mind. As different fractal
encodings will have common cross-over points, however, it frequently turns
out that the completed fractal is not the intended fractal, which results
in miscommunication. The problem lies in the completion process itself,
which gives a feeling of satisfaction, hence the illusion that one has understood
what was said. The emotion associated with fractal generation could be the
same thing as the feeling of understanding. This idea is consistent with
the observation of a definite physiological (emotional) state correlated
with a mental state such as "understanding" [12]. As thinking processes
evolved from sensory and motor systems, it is plausible that the brain still
uses those networks as a framework for higher functions.
Clearly, the
mechanism for miscommunication outlined above depends on the fractal encoding
of thoughts, and thus strengthens the idea that the brain could operate
in the proposed manner. A fractal encoding scheme can be completed from
a single component; other schemes of association will not necessarily work
in this way (because they cannot be encoded so compactly). Such miscommunications
may also share similar algorithms as the variable emotional responses of
different individuals evoked by identical design patterns. The emotional
response of the same individual may also vary at different times. Perhaps,
different fractal encodings with common cross-over points would create such
flexibility.
Shaping
the built environment
The built
environment reflects structures in human thought, in that it is created
by human minds. Thought works by establishing connections between concepts,
creating conceptual structures and ideas. We suppose that fractal structures
in nature influenced the development of neuronal mechanisms in evolution
that could encode and decode these structures automatically. If true,
it is reasonable to suppose that the mind, which uses these mental mechanisms,
seeks to shape its environment according to the same rules for structural
connectivity. Internal patterns of neural nets that form our sensory and
thinking processes are organized in a way that reflects similar patterns
of organization in the external universe.
People have
a basic need to naturally extend their consciousness to their environment,
something that occurs effortlessly when surrounded by nature. We normally
try to shape the artificial environment in a way that we can connect to
it. This makes the reasons of why we build complex things, such as cathedrals,
less mysterious, because we cannot connect to objects that are either
too random, or too simple; we subconsciously use as a template the ordered
complexity of our own mind so as to extend our consciousness outside our
own body. Human consciousness is linked, through a hierarchy of structures
on different scales, to what we build. Such visual connections extend
the mind fractally to the physical environment.
Having put
forward a theoretical model of how the mind might operate, we now apply
the model to evaluate different visual structures such as designs. Passive
input creates meaning in the brain, which then generates an emotion. In
principle, we have no control over input except movement; one can approach
a source that generates positive emotions, and avoid a source of negative
emotions. We can control the sources in the man-made environment. We would
normally build structures that generate an optimal emotional response,
using our experience of what is the most beneficial input. Paradoxically,
our intelligence allows us to override negative emotional cues and build
structures that repel us.
Pavements
and Hierarchy
Architecture
has in the past felt a need for pavements that are either patterned, or
that embody figurative art. Our perception of space is founded on a connection
with the ground via design. In creating an artificial built environment
to house themselves and their activities, human beings have always been
careful to connect with the ground visually. Methods that connect a pedestrian
to the floor, whether inside a building, or in an open space outside include
pavements, tilings, textures, mosaics, etc. A pioneering study of interior
pavements has been undertaken by Kim Williams [13]. The authors are in
complete agreement with Williams that pavements are central to mankind's
architectural -- and intellectual -- development. Most twentieth-century
pavements are plain and empty, arguing the case that there is no functional
need for either representation or pattern in a pavement. We will argue
the contrary: that pavements can serve the crucial function of connecting
an observer to all surrounding structures. The connection becomes necessary
for larger spaces, so this effect is most dramatic in external pavements.
Everyday experience
-- which calls upon visual scales between 1mm and 1m contained in the
human body -- serves as the foundation for any fractal design hierarchy.
We connect visually and psychologically to an area surrounding our feet.
This region defines the first fractal scales in a pavement design, and
these external scales become linked to internal scales within our consciousness.
Without a deliberate design here, there is a chance that no connection
will be experienced. Regardless of the smallest unit employed, whether
it be a piece of mosaic, a brick, or a tile, contrast should be used to
identify the smallest scale unambiguously. Nevertheless, most urban plazas,
and indeed, brick and stone walls of all kinds built in the twentieth
century, disguise the smallest scale by repeating a single unit monotonously
(e.g., so-called bonded brickwork, which creates a uniform surface).
Spatial coherence
requires internal definition on successively larger scales, going up to
the size of the entire region. A patterned expanse needs to define several
distinct scales to create hierarchical linking. Therefore, while a detailed
pattern might connect to the user at the smallest scale, simply repeating
the design indefinitely without using intermediate scales will fail to
connect the user to the larger space. Successful pavement designs contain
similar but not identical regions. An urban space lacking a hierarchical
linking can never connect to surrounding buildings at a distance because
the jump in scale is simply too large. For this to happen, the buildings
must define an additional, larger scale in the same hierarchy.
It is therefore necessary for the pavement texture, color, and design
to harmonize with the surrounding structures. Similarity between the pavement
and buildings relates the scales.
|
The
Importance of meaning structures in the flooring of Urban Space
One of us has already
discussed the properties of urban space, and how patterned flooring helps
to define it. Commenting on contemporary examples, we said [14] (page 44):
Sidewalks,
city streets, and street corners
An incredible opportunity
to connect the pedestrian to the pavement has been missed all around
the world, by using plain, featureless surfaces (even with expensive
materials). The standard concrete sidewalk contains no visual information,
and anyway, it is far too narrow. Even when brick is used for paving,
perceivable patterns are usually avoided. Yet, patterns on the surface
of pedestrian paths can make a great difference. Recall, for instance,
all the wonderful mosaic and tiled pavements of the Roman world. Among
notable historical examples are the pavement of the Piazza San Marco,
and the Portuguese architectural tradition of lively sidewalk designs.
Some of the most famous modern patterned sidewalks are in Brazil, a
former Portuguese colony.
The design of flooring,
as in an open plaza, has to obey the same principles as other, time-honored
designs, such as oriental carpets. Methods for connecting different scales
are outlined in a model of complexity by one of the authors [15]. The
basic mechanism for linking among units separated either by distance or
by scale is similarity in texture, color, and form. Similarity works via
translational, rotational, reflectional, and scaling symmetries in the
plane [16]. This is known by all sensitive artists trying to establish
visual and emotional harmony. The coordination responsible for the visual
coherence of the whole requires complex ordering, but not simplistic alignment.
Symmetric arrangements on a plan do not connect elements across scales.
Great urban
spaces were built before the twentieth century, before the wholesale replacement
of traditional design criteria. Discarding techniques for connecting human
beings to the built environment developed over the previous several millennia,
architects now follow a design philosophy that values an emotionally uncomfortable
novelty, and which disconnects people from surrounding surfaces [14].
It is therefore a welcome surprise to see successful contemporary plazas
built by the British artist and urban designer Tess Jaray [17]. One sees
in her designs a well-defined smallest scale; distinct yet connected designs
on different scales; and careful harmonization with the surrounding buildings
[17]. This paper tries to analyze why her designs are so successful, using
the fractal encoding model outlined above. Jaray's pavements provide a
satisfactory experience on a number of different scales.
From the informational
point of view, an open plaza offers vastly decreased input from surrounding
walls compared with a totally enclosed, roofed space. It is therefore
critical to connect to the ground via geometry. Thus, the most expressive
pavements are to be found in public open spaces around the world. When
successful -- as in the case of Tess Jaray's pavements -- they connect
the pedestrian to the ground, and thereby permit the psychological freedom
to be alive and move around. This is what determines the success of an
open space independently of other factors such as exposure, surrounding
façades, and density of cross-paths.
Connection
establishes a physiological state
We postulate that the
intensity of fractal connection corresponds directly to the degree that
human beings intuitively feel a space or design to be meaningful or "alive".
This model therefore identifies the visual connection of designs and structures
with a viewer's emotional state. It is becoming increasingly clear from
neurophysiological research that the human conceptual system and the possible
forms of reasoning are limited by the wiring of our brains [12]. Moreover,
mental activity turns out to be emotionally engaged; i.e, it is likely that
we actually feel our thoughts [12].
There exist subconscious
processes going on inside our brains, which probably encompass the fractal
connections discussed above. Our model of fractal encoding helps explain
why we feel emotionally elated standing in a great historical plaza which
is paved with some design that harmonizes with surrounding buildings. If
all components work to connect and harmonize, we become an integral component
of an enormous space because we link hierarchically with it. This could
represent one of the greatest architectural-aesthetic experiences for an
observer.
The corollary
is also of interest. Urban spaces that conform to the contemporary design
canon tend to be dead, because they fail to establish a positive emotional
connection with the user. One can argue that this effect is not unintentional.
A person feels ill-at-ease in such places, and consequently avoids them.
This is not simply a matter of choice; as proposed in this paper, non-fractal
structures clash with our perceptive process. Not only is our environment
thereby impoverished, but the design rules that generate such environments
deny and suppress fractal connections. We now have a widely-embraced design
philosophy that ignores the need to create structures that elicit a sense
that we are in a meaningful place, thereby severely narrowing the range
of our emotional experience.
The environment
is not separate from us, offering only objects and external sensations that
we encounter: it is part of our being [12]. A balanced, healthy mental state
requires an understanding of nature that is linked to our human emotions.
The mind is much more than a computer; it is also passionate. How are we
to understand our sense of belonging to a larger whole? In this paper, we
have discussed the experience of meaning from the environment, yet our explanation
is limited compared to what is described very well in mystical and spiritual
literature. Connecting to a larger, all-encompassing whole can lead to ecstatic
participation, or a spiritual experience. Such a state has frequently been
described as transcendence.
The
nature of meaning
We wish
to concentrate on the perception of meaning coming out of visual complexity
in the environment. Visual information presented as a coherent image or
coded pattern is accessible in a direct manner. There is a mapping function
between structures in the world and structures in the mind. When the mapping
is faithful to the hierarchical linking (i.e., it preserves the information
and its interconnections rather than any overall form), it creates an
experience of meaning. Neural structures use information on connectivity
to create meaning as an internal state: in our model, meaning is not assigned
to external forms. The degree of conformal fit or coherence determines
the strength of the sense of meaning and also the strength of the emotional
experience. In its simplest aspect, meaning corresponds to a valence in
emotion, which is either positive or negative. When two or more meaningful
structures are linked together in a meaningful way, we begin to build
a system of beliefs.
If an image
is incoherent, then the information it contains cannot be perceived easily
as a whole. There is less meaning because, even though there may be considerable
information there, the information is difficult to synthesize. This in
turn generates a negative valence which is manifested in negative emotions.
Viewers are more receptive to information that is presented in a pattern
that is strongly connected to them. Information structured in this way
is typically called "natural" or "intuitive". One of us has previously
argued that intuition is actually a process involving reasoning with structure
[18]. By contrast, a viewer will not be receptive to information that
is presented via a visual pattern (or lack thereof) that fails to establish
a strong connection with the viewer. We believe that environmental structures
need to be fractal to satisfy the human brain.
Our sense of
understanding arises from the way we form conceptual structures in the
mind. When a collection of ideas has coherence and a sense of relatedness
among its elements, we perceive its structure. When we perceive the structure
of thoughts and ideas as a coherent whole, we conclude that they are correct
and that the construct is valid [18]. We remember it as a guide for further
thought. We also use it to guide our behavior. Ideas that are neatly linked
and have a coherent structure are judged to be valid or "true". The nature
of intuition may be understood as the ability to match the structure of
a present situation with the structures of problems that have been experienced
before. Intuition represents the general ability to reach a conclusion
on the basis of less explicit information than is ordinarily required
to reach that conclusion [18].
Conclusion:
Some Guidelines for Pavement Designs
Rules for creating a
memorable open space can be abstracted from studying historical examples.
The lesson from our fractal encoding model is that there exists a fundamental
similarity between complex structures in the environment and structures
in the mind. Designing an open space can be successful if one follows one's
basic instinct to ornament, connect, and harmonize different levels of design.
In principle, therefore, there is really no need for rules if one is guided
by one's deepest feelings. Indeed, one can argue that the closer the match
between the architect's felt intuition about a space and the structure that
is finally created as an expression of that intuition, the greater will
be the meaning of that space for the observer. In a sense, the built place
becomes the vehicle for the mental structure of the architect to be instantiated
as a mental structure in the observer.
Nevertheless,
some pointers are necessary because of the plethora of negative examples
of structures in existence. Even though the best pavements depend on engineering
principles, they have to balance and synthesize so many factors that the
result should be considered a "work of art". A successful pavement will
have the following characteristics, and satisfy hierarchical linking.
- Human-scale design
to connect immediately with a user.
- The smallest units
defined by contrast and symmetries that allows the units to be detected.
- A smallest design
scale that is compatible with human dimensions -- anywhere from 1cm
to 1m.
- Several levels
of design before reaching the full extent of the open space.
- Intermediate levels
of design that are distinct yet strongly linked via similarity.
- Larger levels
formed from ordered combinations of elements on smaller scales.
- Balance among
all regions and scales -- every element acting as a connector for the
other elements.
- Harmonization
at a distance to link all scales with the surrounding buildings.
If these conditions
are satisfied, then a user, on entering the environment, will experience
a sense of meaningfulness as all of the scales in the view are seen as
a unified whole. There is a fractal (i.e., hierarchical) connection to
the entire space. The strength of the component connections determines
the coherence of the whole. In a poor design, the smallest elements are
not symmetric, and appear as amorphous smudges to which we cannot connect.
The connection proceeds from the smallest scales to the larger scales,
up to the largest scale which is defined by the surrounding structures.
While our description of the connection process was sequential, the actual
connection through perception is sudden. This experience is frequently
dramatic, and creates a definite and sometimes intensely positive psychological
and physiological state.
In conclusion,
we have proposed a theory of pattern perception that can explain how patterns
generate meaning in the environment. Although this theory is entirely
general, it was applied here to discuss pavements. A strictly utilitarian
approach to pavements requires no sign of any promise of destination or
completion that attaches meaning to built forms and spaces. When the environment
becomes more complex, the pavement becomes the guarantee that the environment
is planned to embody destinations and connections. A pavement that is
designed to have meaning ought to obey the eight rules given above. Pavements
as a definition of space represent the highest order of mapping between
an architectural theme and a theme that the human mind can understand.
Meaning in the pavement thus allows one to "know" the place without seeing
all of it.
|