No abstract

The present research investigated individual differences in individualism and collectivism as predictors of people's reactions to cities. Psychology undergraduate students (N = 148) took virtual guided tours around historical cities. They then evaluated the cities' liveability and environmental quality and completed measures of individualism and collectivism. Mediation analyses showed that people who scored high in self-responsibility (individualism) rated the cities as more liveable because they perceived them to be richer and better resourced. In contrast, people who scored high in collectivism rated the cities as having a better environmental quality because they perceived them to (1) provide a greater potential for community and social life and (2) allow people to express themselves. These results indicate that people's evaluations of virtual cities are based on the degree to which certain aspects of the cities are perceived to be consistent with individualist and collectivist values.

No abstract

ForewordArchitecture is certainly not a field that comes to mind when we think of Isaac Newton. This is precisely why this present volume is so important. It not only shows us a little known side of one of the greatest minds in human history, but also helps us understand entire areas of inquiry that have fallen into oblivion, those of "chronology" and "ancient wisdom".Because we are all intelligent beings, intelligence itself is of interest to us. Genius, which is superlative intelligence, is greatly interesting to us. But because genius is not always accessible, myth takes over. This is as true for historical figures like Newton and Leonardo da Vinci, as it is for more recent geniuses, like Einstein: the scientist is obscured by the myth. In the case of Leonardo, the myth grew to such proportions that the tendency is to credit Leonardo with the invention or prototype for almost everything, in spite of the fact that in many cases careful study of his notebooks demonstrates that, even when he correctly observed the phenomena he was studying, he drew the wrong conclusions, or when, in the attempt to build his "inventions", they are discovered to have irremediable flaws. The case of Newton is just the opposite. Newton's myth was forged by neglecting or denying the activities that actually occupied the largest part of his intellectual life. Recent interventions have aimed at restoring to Newton the parts of this work that earlier periods had deemed unimportant or even scandalous. This present work falls in that category.Uncovering and making accessible the work of scientists and scholars of the past is much more difficult than it might appear to be. Newton himself knew that: had these challenges been easy, he needn't have spent a lifetime working on ideas surrounding chronology, ancient wisdom or Solomon's Temple.One of the obstacles is language. In order to interpret the biblical passages he was interested in, Newton had to grapple with the Hebrew. But for many of today's scholars, a Latin text presents equal difficulties. Latin was, of course, the language of scholars. Not having had an education of the kind reserved to young noblemen, Leonardo da Vinci found that many mathematical and scientific treatises remained closed to him because of the Latin, but they are equally closed to today's scholars. In our present age, knowledge of Latin is limited almost exclusively to specialists. Even Newton recognised the limits of Latin. He himself was interested in the creation of an international language that could more accurately interpret the prophets that concerned him. v

The second volume of In Ezechielem Explanationes by Juan Battista Villalpando was published in 1604; it contains a re-creation of the Temple of Solomon that is illustrated by a portfolio of exceptionally detailed architectural drawings. His designs were built on the principles of Platonic musical harmonies and his interpretation of ancient measurements. The floor plan of the temple was prefigured in the layout of the tabernacle and the surrounding camps of the twelve tribes of Israel. Each of the camps raised their flags and banners that symbolized their house. The position of their camps around the tabernacle and the symbols of their banners corresponded with the symbols and positions of the zodiac as positioned by Ptolemy in the Almagest. He created a plan of the Temple that was a microcosm of the geo-concentric universe. This concept of microcosm -macrocosm became entangled in a powerful and enduing architectural metaphor. This paper examines Villalpando's plan of the Temple, and the architectural metaphor of the microcosm -macrocosm.