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).
|
