Hi Terry,

Actually the aim of Notes was not to eliminate the designer from the
process and Alexander states that very clearly, it was merely to use
the mathematics and science available to him/her to facilitate an
approach which is compatible with the whole of human capacity and
therefore likely to provide a more comprehensive solution to a
problem. A 'fudge' as you call it, and as I understand the word, is a
cheat. A cheat meant to disguise any problems by appearing to work
when it doesn't. I am saying that the combination of intuition,
science and math, plus the use of multi-modal processes does in fact
provide better design. Not only that but it provided me with the
framework to build a methodology for working on 'wicked' design
problems with multi-national, multi-cultural, trans-disciplinary
groups without getting side tracked into conflicts between participant
with different ways of thinking, understanding and doing. As for the
decomposition / condensation methods Alexander used, Owen developed a
more sophisticated process from it, as I am sure did others. However,
it is the way in which a problem's forces and tendencies can be
organized and understood without arbitrary human decision making that
makes a clustering program work effectively. This particular program
is based on the intensity of interaction, rather than guess and gosh.
But it is its assistance in accessing the human neural network and its
capacity for understanding and sophisticated meaning making that drew
my attention to it as important for today's world. I understand how
it works and some of what it can do when applied in the way I suggest.
As for what Alexander had in mind, I tried to find my well worn copy
of Notes but I am still looking I'm sure it will turn up (so many
books, all over, what a mess). I will leave you with this quote from
my forth coming book 'We have Gills for Dream life' (to hit the street
late in 2009 I think) which goes into the philosophy and methodology
of Comprehensive Form - Context Synthesis as well as clear and
practical examples of it in use.

"Alexander’s concern was that design problems were ‘reaching insoluble
levels of complexity.’ He felt complex problems would benefit from the
application of ‘logic’ in the search for the problem’s innate
frictions and fits, or natural order. What he proposed was not merely
the application of a logical set of rules, but rather a method to
uncover ‘a legitimate relation between a system of logic and the needs
and forces’ existing in a design problem. He appealed to designers to
embrace logic when designing, as he saw no conflict between the
demands of logic and ‘the designer’s greatest gift, his intuitive
ability to organize physical form’ (Alexander 1964, pp. 11)."


I am want to be on the road too, but am stuck until Sunday, when I
make the big trek from Adelaide to Melbourne for a little R & R.
Cheers Jan

Jan Coker, Phd
1 /174 East Tce.
Adelaide, SA
Australia
0403855539
[log in to unmask]

'Lift up your hearts above the present and look with eyes of faith
into the future!







On 10/12/2008, at 6:31 PM, Terence Love wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
>
>
> I feel we understand things very differently on this.
>
>
>
> As I see it, the whole of 'Notes' and its discussion and proposals
> derives
> from the decomposition model and its assumptions. A test of the is
> whether
> the derivation of wicked or any other problems into the
> decomposition model
> and difference tree is valid, representative and can be derived
> into a
> singular solution, without patching around the problems of the
> method using
> human intervention.
>
>
>
> In other words, it's a fudge that breaks the method of 'Notes' as a
> design
> method if one has to patch over its problems by using human
> intervention m-
> whether this is disc=guised as 'using the method to assist the human
> designer'. It appears that this is the way you have been going? The
> alternative, in the spirit of the method, is to make the
> decomposition and
> difference method work via better science and better mathematics. It
> is a
> pointer but to work requires a more sophisticated mathematical
> foundation
> rather than shifting the role of the method to the human problem
> solver.
> Others have since Notes gone the same path but avoiding the
> limitations of
> the simple decomposition - eg Coyne, Gero and others publishing in
> AIDAM
>
>
>
> At heart of this issue , is whether you see the aim of Notes as
> removing
> the human designer from the design process as much as possible. My
> understanding is that this was an underlying intention of the
> method. This
> also aligns with the spirit of what was happening in design research
> at the
> time 'Notes ' was written. I'm travelling at present but I'll try to
> get a
> copy of Notes and check as soon as I get to a Uni library.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Terry
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jan Coker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 3:32 AM
> To: Terence Love
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: another pattern language
>
>
>
> Dear Terry, Anne, and everyone on this topic.
>
>
>
> I have been wishing to respond to this thread but this is the first
> chance I
> have had. First off a bit of a weasel, I may have missed some
> essential
> point as I haven't read all on this thread. That said, this is the
> foundation of some of the theoretical and practical work I have been
> doing.
>
>
>
> First off there is a significant difference between Pattern Language
> and the
> work Alexander was first doing as explained in Notes on the
> Synthesis of
> Form. They serve different purposes. PL is a language for use in
> architectural and planning design. So it can be discussed as one
> discusses
> any language or set of symbolic representations of concepts or
> needs, or
> ideas.
>
>
>
> However in Notes Alexander talked about the use of another way of
> thinking
> and designing which engages mathematical, paradigmatic and systematic
> processes in combination with visual, metaphoric and intuitive
> processes. He
> proposed a way of doing this at a time when these two groups of
> processes
> were thought to be incompatible with each other. Alexander's
> methodology was
> taking advantage of the mind's ability to think in a linear
> paradigmatic
> way, a narrative way, a visual and aesthetic way, a non-prescriptive
> way,
> and allowed the mind to make full use of all these powers in a
> structured
> enough environment so as to actually systematically approach a
> 'wicked'
> problem with more probability of a better solution (in terms of
> outcomes
> that address the constraints of the problem). The process as
> described by
> Alexander allowed the freedom to define constraints without
> preconceiving
> organized categories for them to fit within; and described them in
> terms of
> forces which act on the system and 'tend' to stimulate reactions.
> Something
> which I see as particularly vital when approaching a problem which
> has no
> beginning, no discrete end point, and is constantly in the process of
> changing. It is a process which begins with force-tendency statements,
> evaluates the importance of the relationship of groups of two
> statement,
> creates sets of statements and the hierarchical semi-lattice which
> describes
> the order of the development of the movement of individual
> statements into a
> form description of the whole system solution. During the movement
> through
> the semi-lattice the problem solver(s) shifts their working process to
> diagrammatic metaphors of the frictions and fits of the constraint
> interactions which they resolve using the minds capacity for Aesthetic
> verisimilitude.
>
>
>
> On a practical level I have continued on with this direction (although
> Alexander may or may not agree) to develop and apply this
> methodology to
> collaborative work on 'wicked' problems. And by collaborative I mean
> developing actual consensus decision made solutions to design
> problems with
> a multiplicity of participants, interested parties, and those
> affected by
> any decision. These solutions have proven to be more innovative, more
> successful and more capable of maintaining the allegiance of all
> participants and interested parties to an un-compromised completion
> of the
> project throughout its entire development and evolution into a
> reality. This
> methodology is both one of group processes and design processes. The
> design
> processes derive from Alexander's original work in which he states the
> importance of the diagrams cannot be overstated. To assume they are
> merely a
> language however, and conform only to the rules of language is to
> miss the
> reality of their nature. And Terry as an Australia you may be able to
> understand what I mean when I say they are similar to the
> significance of
> the way Aboriginal "paintings" which carry the significance of
> culture,
> geography, history, the law, communication and are a living record
> of a
> society.
>
>
>
> Cheers Jan
>
>
>
> Jan Coker, Phd
>
> 1 /174 East Tce.
>
> Adelaide, SA
>
> Australia
>
> 0403855539
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> 'Lift up your hearts above the present and look with eyes of faith
> into the
> future!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2008, at 5:14 AM, Terence Love wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Anne,
>
> Thanks for your message and your clarification of what you are
> doing. Thank
> you also for the references.
>
> Thinking about what you wrote I feel work in this area requires
> especial
> ontological care.
>
> Alexander is talking about a pattern _language_
>
> You are talking about a categorization model of 'patterns'
>
> The term 'language' is significant. A 'language' requires nouns
> (names of
> 'things')) and verbs (operators). Nouns are the essence of
> categories and
> typologies. However, typologies, taxonomies and category schema are
> essentially 'noun-based' (they name things as belonging to a
> particular
> 'type' and do not require the existence of 'verbs'.
>
> It means that with a pattern _language_ Alexander et al were looking
> at
> things in terms of an 'entity-relationship' model in which the
> relationships
> were the verb, 'doing' words or operators. This is foundational if
> you want
> to link this work to the shape grammar research and the idea of an
> artificial intelligence engine that would generate building designs
> from
> premises. Another significant dimension of Alexander and colleagues
> work
> was that they proposed a) that the solution should evolve via
> 'rules' and b)
> that the 'pattern language' was syntactically similar to a procedural
> computer language and AI-base CAD system that could follow as a simple
> technical development and c) that they had scope for human
> interference or
> initiation of the rules chosen as the basis for evolving a solution.
> In a
> hidden subterfuginous manner, they offered non-technical design
> theorists an
> easy to understand introduction to AI-driven development of shape
> grammar-based designs.
>
> In contrast, what you are describing is a taxonomy, typology or
> categorical
> schema NOT a language.
>
> Essentially, however, the difference between them depends on the
> relative
> level of abstraction at which you view a specific taxonomy. Any
> entity-relationship model can be categorized in a purely typological
> fashion
> (e.g. we can give a verb a name thus capturing a 'doing' as a
> category. Of
> course, it completely loses its value as a language from that view
> point.
> Similarly, we can take any noun category and associate it with the
> actions
> necessary to achieve it. For example, the category of 'red' can be
> transformed into the 'doing' of 'redden'. In this case, in this new
> language-based viewpoint, we lose the benefits of the other category-
> based
> viewpoint (and we cannot be in both at the same time).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> A.B.Thorpe
> Sent: Monday, 8 December 2008 10:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: another pattern language
>
> Hi Terry and list,
> yes this is an interesting question and one that I am struggling
> with a bit
> in my current research on design activism. I now have to make the
> shameful
> admission that I have not read (any of) Alexander's work on pattern
> language
> (although it's on my list -- certainly moving up). As a side note
> regarding
> Damian's original DNA question, I wonder if the work of Stewart
> Brand, "How
> Buildings Learn" would also be of interest, taking the evolutionary
> idea a
> bit further--across time, or if the biomimcry guild (Janine Benyus
> et. al.)
> has looked into it at all.
>
> My own struggle seems somewhat simple in comparison to the discussion
> regarding DNA, but it centers on the issue of creating a viable
> typology.
> This question does not so much concern knowing that a pattern
> element does
> what is claimed, but more "proving" that there are indeed certain
> "types" of
> patterns. In this regard I've looked at a range of work on typology.
> As one
> author writing about urban typologies (Marshall) notes, "In general
> there is
> a balance to be struck between having too few broad categories or
> too many
> narrow ones." The types must actually mean something to the field in
> which
> they are situated.
>
> Along these lines one might have practical/actual types (eg building
> types)
> and theoretical types, as you imply Alexander et al.'s might be.
> Actual
> typologies are generally inductive, built through an iterative
> process of
> examining empirical cases, whereas a deductive approach relies on a
> theory
> that defines all the theoretically possible variables and types in
> advance.
> In most cases typologies do rest, at least initially, on empirical
> cases and
> in this sense typologies are as much art as science.
>
> In addition to theory driven typologies, I also learned that there are
> typological theories, for example in explaining historical events.
> While a
> historical theory describes a specific set of circumstances that help
> explain why an event happened, a typological theory explains the
> various
> pathways that an event might take based on set of available types.
> George
> and Bennett explain, "Instead of focusing on the 'Russian
> revolution' per
> se, a typological theory would explain this revolution as one
> example of the
> type of revolutions that, for example, follow an international war;
> replace
> weak state institutions; and take place amidst an economic crisis.
> Even if
> there is only one revolution fitting this type, by identifying the
> conjunctive effects of its underlying causal mechanisms, we can
> generalize
> in a limited way to possible future revolutions that fit the same
> type. Such
> generalized pathways are what is distinctive about typological
> theory."
>
> It strikes me that pattern languages are in a sense both theory driven
> typologies of patterns, but also typological theories, in the sense
> that
> they suggest pathways that a building (or a conservation economy)
> might (or
> perhaps should) take based on a set of available or acceptable types.
>
> Typologies of course can't ever be proven absolutely, as Schneekloth
> observes regarding the problem of the "odd" type. Typologies are both
> "prison and promise because they will always be open and closed at
> the same
> time." But then, the odd type can be a sign of innovation or
> evolution.
>
> In the end typologies can perhaps be judged as to their
> meaningfulness or
> usefulness given their purposes...does the typology help us order and
> compare things in systematic study?
>
> Here are a few references for what it's worth:
> Bailey, Kenneth D. (1994). Typologies and Taxonomies: An
> introduction to
> Classification Techniques. Sage University Paper series on
> Quantitative
> Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-102. London, Sage
> Publications Ltd.
> Franck, K. A. and L. H. Schneekloth, Eds. (1994). Ordering Space:
> Types in
> Architecture and Design. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
> George, A. L. and A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory
> Development in
> the Social
> Sciences. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
> Lawrence, R. J. (1994). Type as Analytical Tool: Reinterpretation and
> Application. Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design. K. A.
> Franck
> and L. H. Schneekloth. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
> Marshall, S. (2005). Urban Pattern Specification. London, Institute of
> Community Studies.
> Robinson, J. W. (1994). The Question of Type. Ordering Space: Types in
> Architecture and Design. K. A. Franck and L. H. Schneekloth. New
> York, Van
> Nostrand Reinhold.
>
>
> Best,
> Ann
>
> Ann Thorpe
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
> Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
>
> Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
> Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
>
> [log in to unmask]
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
> & blog: http://designactivism.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Fri 12/5/2008 12:41 PM
> To: 'A.B.Thorpe'; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: another pattern language
>
> Hi Ann,
>
> Thanks for posting about the Ecotrust website.
>
> An interesting question for me is to ask 'how does one 'prove' a
> pattern?
> How does one prove, know or guarantee that a pattern does what it is
> claimed
> it does? Hoiw does one know that a pattern isn't just something that
> someone
> thought was a good idea because of some moral, fanciful or
> idealistically
> conditioned beliefs about how the world works?
>
> Alexander et al made some speculative suggestions demonstrating how
> the
> start of a pattern language might go. For their introductory
> example, it was
> ok that the demonstration didn't prove every feature. They
> demonstrated the
> early basis of tool and indicated that it was only a starting point
> by their
> use of a star system indicating whether there was substantial proof
> for
> particualr theories underpinning some patterns or whether it was
> simply
> speculation.
>
> I read speculative claims such as 'Health is the most fundamental
> need of
> all' unjustified and uncontextualised and wonder whether I can trust
> the
> reliability of the patterns any more that a speculation of a pattern
> from an
> alternative ecological view that 'war is the primary function of being
> human'?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> A.B.Thorpe
> Sent: Friday, 5 December 2008 7:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: another pattern language
>
> perhaps this is a bit off the DNA topic but along the lines of
> sustainable
> development, Stewart Cowan (in association with Ecotrust) also
> developed a
> pattern language for a "conservation economy," see
> http://www.conservationeconomy.net/
>
> They say,"On this site, fifty-seven patterns provide a framework for
> an
> ecologically restorative, socially just, and reliably prosperous
> society.
> They are adaptable to local ecosystems and cultures, yet universal
> in their
> applicability. Together they form what we call a Conservation
> Economy."
>
> Regards,
> Ann
>
> Ann Thorpe
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials Open
> University, Walton
> Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
>
> Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London Wates
> House, 22
> Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
>
> [log in to unmask]
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-
> atlas.net) &
> blog: http://designactivism.net
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt
> charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
> 038302).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt
> charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
> 038302).
>
>