Bringing Man back into the Picture?

The Doppler Effect, in relation to architecture, seems to be drawing a parallel between a scientific phenomenon and the constant exchange of fragments of information between the architecture and the user experiencing it. Through this metaphor, Projective architecture claims to be demanding participation from the user and relying on pieces of prior memories, experiences and background information to bring to life the architecture.

Where Peter Eisenman’s argument behind critical architecture or the neo-functionalist (absence of functionalism) architecture relies of creating an architecture devoid of function shaping it and in this process trying to become autonomous by itself, independent of any relation to a singular aspect (as ‘form’ is for deconstructivist architecture; ‘material’ and ‘function’ are for modernist architecture), projective architecture claims to rely on the performance (and is not self-reliant) of many varied facets of architecture (form, material, program, technology, etc.) while also dealing with the intangible qualities of architecture. It claims to depend on the user to complete the experience of the architecture through all his/her senses (visual, auditory, etc.*) and memories past (where information from our known knowledge helps complete the experience of this ‘Projective’ architecture.)

I can understand why W.G. Sebald would say “…but it seems as if I had already heard the same opinions expressed by the same people somewhere or other, in the same way, with the same words, turns of phrases and gestures…” I think we as humans, in our everyday life, build our experiences based on memories, what is familiar to the senses and link/add more information to our treasure trove as we have new experiences. 

Early Scientific View Of The Brain

But the thought of applying this concept to architecture seems strange and yet I’m interested in understanding the physical interpretation/ implications of this architecture.

At the same time, I wonder... don’t we experience our built world/ surroundings defacto in the same way that the architects of Projective architecture are aiming to design for?

And yet, this comes as a bit of a relief to understand that after Humanist architecture (where the human was used as the measure for proportion but completely disconnected from the actual architecture created through it), Modernist Architecture (based on a rational analysis of function, material) and Deconstructivist (critical?) architecture (which sought to be devoid of function and in doing so became separate from the user), Projective architecture aspires to integrate in the design the user and his/her thoughts, memories and reactions. For once, the entity that is supposed to matter the most is at the center of design (and it's the user, not the architect!)

*{query: Isn’t that the basis of Positivism?}