I've arrived at the end of book one. I think I'll make a new thread for book two--I've already got a hold on it at the library.

P.442
. . . the last hundred years in architecture . . . lack . . . a coherent basis which is rooted in common sense, in observation, and which is congruent with human feeling.
. . . modernism, postmodernism, organic architecture, the architecture of the poor, architecture of high technology, critical regionalism --- the different positions [taken by modern architecture] --- have been discussed much as one might discuss the latest clothing fashions [and "not, on the whole, been pursued by experiment, or logical reasoning"].
. . . in the intellectual atmosphere of pluralism, celebrated in the 20th century, it has been easy to say what one believes, but nearly impossible to say what is good or true.

It is why, I suppose; I will avoid falling into the ontological trap of questioning what it is to be blue; my stance is more on the philosophical scope of epistemology in general: why ask why? I asked "why is the sky blue?" and received a bit of mechanistic trivia. "Why" is so simple; we have a single word that allows us to ask for an explanation of phenomenon. The sky is blue. I know this. What is the next piece of knowledge that I need, in order to move in a more useful direction, a better direction. The sky is blue: what do I think of the blue sky?; how is the sky?; who is the sky? which sky is my favourite?

Why is the sky blue?

When I was a kid I remember asking my dad this question, and he explained it to me: the sky is blue because sunlight passing through the atmosphere is refracted. But is that really why?

Why is the sky blue?

[pingback: http://newforum.droqen.com/index.php?topic=389.0]

Teleology and the mechanistic viewpoint, or top-down VS. bottom-up.

Why is anything? Why does a flower grow?

The mechanistic viewpoint says that a flower grows because of what is smaller than it, interpreting the question as a prompt to explain . . . the mechanisms at play. What causes the flower to grow?

This other viewpoint says that a flower grows because of what is larger than it, interpreting the question as one of purpose, of teleology . . . the systems which the flower serves and which serve it. For what reason does the flower grow?

The simple question, "Why?" is ambiguous between these two cases. This ambiguity is something.

P. 431
1. Each center gets its life, always, from the fact that it is helping to support and enliven some larger center.
2. The center becomes precious because of it.

 There is a wonderful idea earlier that I failed to quote-capture, that artisans often produce good work by following intuitions which Alexander says follow his properties, his idea of life. I am inclined to agree... is it strange that I'm beginning to believe that strong centers are a great metaphor that following produces better physical work? I expect a nontrivial portion of this is that we do better work when we do work that appeals to our natural pattern recognition. Work that suits our brains. Human work.

I have not found any simple quote to capture Alexander's idea/argument that 'ornament' and 'function' are inseparable parts. As with Kastrup, I find the appeal to ontology quite extravagant. I have thought of these as lenses, not ontologies. E.g. MDA is a way of thinking about things, not a way to believe things fundamentally are. Perhaps this very approach to ontology is bound up in the 20th century mechanistic viewpoint? What is the meaning of 'ontology' itself, under the mental world model, or the world composed entirely of centers? I'll have to revisit this idea.

Here Alexander moves on from the unity of ornament/function to an argument which I find more compelling - the unity of space/function, which I believe comes close to the nature of patterns, which are the unity of problem/solution. As a lens, and bearing in mind that lenses are in some senses temporary ontologies, it is useful to perceive the entire system (the object and its living usefulness) as a whole, rather than dissected necessarily into the physical and the conceptual parts.

P. 428
We do not have function on the one hand, and space or geometry on the other hand. We have a single thing --- living space --- which has its life to varying degrees.

P. 427
. . . life --- an emergent thing in the space itself --- appears as the space wakes up. When something works, or is "functional," its space is awakened to a very high degree. It becomes alive. The space itself becomes alive.
. . . I do know that it simply is so.
     The fundamental functional insight is to realize the mechanistic functional analysis is all a myth anyway --- since there is no stopping in the endless regression of reasons for why something works.

On P. 393 Alexander uses the phrase "the lethal disembodiment of the human being" to describe what is done by inhuman architecture, and an inhuman world, which removes 'real problems' from the realm of humans. That is, in more recent times people are "not suffering from a real problem, more from a lack of engagement, a loss of connection to the earth, to their fellow creatures, even to themselves."

P. 392
. . . If the flowers on the trees attract birds, and the singing of the birds then intensifies the beauty of the bench, the birds contribute directly to the wholeness of the bench. The flowers may contribute indirectly, by contributing to the wholeness of the bird-filled trees. Thus the wholeness is a complex living structure: it may be sustained, or not, by countless aspects of the various systems which surround and fill the space where the wholeness occurs.

//

Videogames are a lot. There are none of the material concerns of architecture, but "the various systems which surround and fill the space" are not pre-existing as they are in architecture. I guess level design is in some sense 'architecture for another world of systems'. I love doing this type of work. It's harder when those systems are still in development.

P. 382
. . . so long as the configuration is wrong, the conflict remains underground. Yet there is no benefit to keeping the conflict under the surface. All that does is add to stress. It does not contribute challenge. It is, in any case, invisible, experienced only in the built-up stress, not as a creative challenge.

P. 380
[A living environment] releases you, allows you to be yourself, allows you to be free. Ease. The yawn, a smile, a perfect ease which allows you, above all, to be yourself. . . This ease, this freedom, depends on configurations which are opposite from the conflict-inducing, stress-inducing configurations I have been describing earlier. Rather it depends in part on "opposite" configurations, those which remove energy-wasting conflict from the environment [and] release human effort for more challenging tasks, for the freedom to be human.
     The 253 configurations in A PATTERN LANGUAGE are of this type. Each pattern . . . describes some conflict --- better said, some system of conflicting forces --- . . . which can be tamed, resolved, when the environment is right.

Alexander is preaching to the choir over here. I'm already on board with this definition of freedom, so I should probably stop basking in agreement. I'll allow myself to indulge in one more quote along this line though.

P. 380
. . . A living environment is one which encourages, allows, each person to react appropriately to what happens, hence to be free, hence to encourage the most fruitful development in each person. This is an environment which goes as far as possible in allowing people's tendencies, their inner forces, to run loose, so that they can take care, by themselves, of their own development. It is an environment in which a person is free to grow, if she wishes to grow, and to do so where, and how, she chooses.

// This assumes something that I also assume, which is stated on an earlier page:

P. 374
One may assume. . . that each person naturally does everything possible, to be alive. The tendency to enjoy life. . . is a natural human force. It is the thing a person most naturally aspires to, and seeks.