I worry myself about whether I would just be injecting my own bias into situations when I ask someone to see for themselves the deep feeling, but I also think a designer is nothing special; I have no exclusive claim to the ability to see past a bad reactive proposed (or demanded) solution to the deeper feeling. If I look at something like this as a designer (is that even the right word? I need a better word), do I involve the person making the complaint or do I carry on without them?

It is a more living world in which I can speak frankly to the person about what I think they really feel. Then that is what I must do.

However: it also depends on the context. If it is someone who doesn't really care, who has no reason to care, no investment in the process, then I do not need to involve them in the process. I just need to discuss with them their own feeling, not . . . the whole entire thing.

According to people's experience of what makes the world around them living. I think about this. Complaints about the world and how it works and people's place in the world . . . I look at these like a designer looking at playtesters' comments. It's not the specific complaints and certainly not the specific solutions that a person says they wish were applied . . . But what is the deep feeling of such complaints?

P. 545
. . . a system of processes . . . evolving gradually according to people's experience of what makes the world around them living . . . the environment can gradually be healed.

This next bit is about processes 'triggering' each other. A living house layout process may evoke a living street repair process, or describe its layout to a living neighbourhood.

I think of this as part of the process gene piecemeal strategy; the gene might be usable in the context of usual 'modern' processes but explicitly calls out better 'living' processes in order to hopefully have a cascading effect . . . It should, i think, do so in a way that is inviting rather than prescriptive. E.g. 'while building a house you may need a process for designing and making windows, one that does x and y and z, and would you look at that,  here's a good one that does all of those things. . .'

P. 542
. . . If my predictions are fulfilled, the PATTERNLANGUAGE.COM site will in the end be only one of many similar sites: all carrying evolving sequences. And we must hope that the movement and evolution of the sequences goes, by common public agreement, towards those which do sustain life.

How do people learn game design? What is game design?

"Where is the gene pool located? . . . The natural answer to this question for the 21st century is, of course, the Internet." (P. 541-542)

This website is very cute: www.patternlanguage.com

Process gene.

Alexander gives an example of a process gene. I'll summarize rather than quoting.

He ran an architecture + construction firm for a long time, the two parts together, but this is rather overwhelming for an architect to handle. It is a lot of responsibility.

However the snippable "process gene" which bridges the gap between isolated-architect and architect-and-construction unity is the idea of the architect taking responsibility over one small aspect of construction, say, window-making or tile-setting.

This brings more income to the architect themselves (or through them, this part is not clear to me - is the architect doing the window-making, the tile-laying, or are they simply working directly with the subcontractor responsible?), and the architect gets to be involved with the actual construction of the building rather than only sitting at a drafting table drawing which is "not so much fun."

Actually, I will quote his concluding statements.

P. 538
     As a result of injecting it into the normal process, daily life for architects, clients, and tile-setters, becomes more meaningful. And the buildings get better.
     The chance that this process gene will spread is quite considerable.

P. 536
     Many of [my and my colleagues'] experiments succeeded. . . . [but these experiments] demanded too much. In our early experiments, we often went to almost unbelievable lengths to get some new process to be implemented, and to get it to work. But the amount of effort . . . was also the weakness of what we achieved. In too many cases, the magnitude of special effort that had to be made to shore up a new process was massive --- too great, to be easily or reasonably copied. ". . . the processes defined so complex internally, that they are hard to transplant separable parts, and one has the strong impression that to work, they need to be taken lock, stock and barrel, as a whole" (p. 549, end of chapter notes)
     We succeeded because we replaced an existing system with a large system in which every aspects of procedure, process, attitude, rules, were changed: it worked.

. . . [But] Stated in abstract terms one might say that our new or revised living processes were too "large" to be widely copied. [// Might one even say the process of deploying the processes was not structure-preserving enough?]

. . . In co-housing, families meet. They lay out the commons with the architect. But . . . within today's paradigm, the results come out much too much like the half-dead environments typical of upscale 20th-century housing tracts. The co-housing process contains a few good features that make it slightly better . . . Nevertheless, in spite of its limitations, the co-housing process has been copied all over the United States because it is compatible with 20th-century professional definitions of architect, contractor, and so forth[.]

Unlike the patterns in A PATTERN LANGUAGE, which are copied widely because they are small and snippable, our process innovations --- though far more profound --- remain largely unknown. . . . we may summarize like this. When models of a new process are too intricate, too complete, too indivisible, they require specially trained people to carry them out, they put unworkable demands on the practical social system in which the innovation occurs.

P. 535
. . . Suppose, for instance, that a new contractual process is invented for construction. . . . the sequence is long and complex with many interlocking features. A move to adopt this new construction system will put stress on [everyone and everything involved] . . . making it less likely that the innovative process will [be adopted].
     It is difficult to find social conditions in which all the features . . . can change at the same time . . .
     But suppose that the same improved process of contracting is broken up into, say, twenty separable sequences. Together the twenty smaller processes define the new system in its entirety. But let us also assume that these twenty sequences (or genes) are carefully defined, and chosen, so that each one, individually --- any one of them by itself --- is separable from the nineteen others, and can therefore be successfully injected by itself into an otherwise normal or mainstream system . . . essential, new, morphogenetic ingredients can flourish one at a time. They can be tested, improved --- and can spread deep into society and existing social processes --- simply by virtue of the improved performance they create "without rocking the boat too much."

. . . What is needed is simply a way of "cutting up" the original innovative process, into a small set of process genes or small sequences that work individually, and that are robust enough to work in wide variety of contexts, even when not supported by other parts of the new system.

P. 533, "SNIPPABLE GENES"
. . . Amazing, but true, that a gene which causes a certain desirable kind of enzyme activity can be transplanted from a fish to a person, sometimes even to a mushroom. Most genes are highly general in what they do. What they do is limited, but "snippable" --- each one can be cut out and used, individually, by itself. . . . small, interchangeable, and can be transplanted effectively from one system to another --- in many cases with success.

P. 532
We shall now turn our thoughts to the practical problem of effecting a gradual transition to a world governed by morphogenetic processes. It is perfectly plain that an effective solution to this problem can only work by piecemeal means.

P. 515-516, "INTENTIONAL RIGIDITY OF RULES; THE INFLUENCE OF FREDERICK TAYLOR"

What we know as the modern organization with machinelike repetition of processes, came from Frederick Taylor [an American machinist]. . . . It is amazing to realize that Taylor himself very well understood the positive social and human conditions of the living process . . . And then, for reasons of money and efficiency, he deliberately set out to destroy it. Three principles of Taylorism are: (1) Disassociate the labor process from the skills. . . . (2) Separate conception from execution. (3) Gain monopoly over knowledge to control labor process. . . . Taylor himself wrote: "The full possibilities of my system will not have been realized until almost all of the machines in the shop are run by men who are of smaller caliber and attainment, and who are therefore cheaper than those required under the old system."

P. 530, footnote on Taylor

I have given a short summary of Taylor's ideas because even those of us who are thoroughly sick of the bureaucratic and machinelike character of modern society will, in general, not be aware of the extent to which it all started with the work of one man, nor the extraordinary extent to which these changes were deliberate, conscious, willful. Obviously, if all this was created by the deliberate thought of an individual --- as indeed it was --- it becomes easier for us to conceive the possibility of changing it. It becomes conceivable that within a short space of time --- perhaps, no more than another fifty years --- another, entirely different system of processes can be made to grow in society.

P. 529

     The very methods that render bureaucracy efficient [are] namely, the application of fixed rules in the wrong kind of way, and the early 20th-century version of systemization of rules and procedures so that people can be replaced[.]

     The advent of computers has changed some of that [static systematization]. For the first time, mechanized procedures are available with are inherently flexible, context-sensitive, capable of responding uniquely to differences, and thus approximating, in human-created fashion, the organic living processes of nature and of traditional society.

//

How weird. But in some way this mirrors some of my own hopes about the internet, especially around the years this was published (less so now, in the strange ad-laden internet that appears dominated by the megasiloes of social media).