Indeed it turns out, in the end, that what this method does is sizply free us from all method.
meta-method
Indeed it turns out, in the end, that what this method does is sizply free us from all method.
meta-method
But though ihis method is precise, it cannot be used mechanically,
I wonder if "mechanical" is opposed to some term like "organic" here or "gradual" or...
The fact that the kettle is for use by human hands makes this no more than common sense. At the opposite extreme, if somebody suggests that the ensemble is stressed if the kettle wiil not reflect ultraviolet radiation, common sense tells us to reject thisunless some special reason can be given, which shows what damage the absorption of ultraviolet does to the ensemble.
It seems there might be a large number of things that might fall in the middle region of this `spectrum', i.e. things which are not so clear by "common sense" whether they are a misfit or not. The (tricky? difficult?) question of how to deal with such cases seems to be excluded from the scope of this book.
This concept of stress or misfit is a primitive one. We shall proceed without defining it.
I like that this is being stated explicitly. The notion of stress or misfit seems a very critical one, and one that might look quite different depending on who is choosing/defining what the term means in a given context or specific case. (The way people were declared "crazy" and locked up in psychiatric wards comes to mind.)
compound diagrams
Are there specific principles/methodologies suggested for the process of compounding/combining? The example in the appendix I, on page 153, is helpful to get an idea of how this might work.
problem
I think this is a typo, and should be "program".
The way to improve this is to make a further abstract picture of our first picture of the problem, which eradicates 7 7
Feeling doubtful about the eradication of bias.
The moment the student is free to question what he is told, and value is put on explanation, it becomes important to decide why "this" is the right way rather than "that," and to look for general reasons. Attempts are made to aggregate the specific failures and successes which occur, into principles.
Interesting aspect of the dynamic of wanting to explain / give reasons.
"No, not that way, this way." No attempt is made to formulate abstractry just what the right way involves.
parallels to learning a language as a child?
strangely enough these steps themselves exert a very positive bad influence on the way he develops
had to laugh.
Clearly it is at this stage too that the activity first becomes ripe for serious thought and theory.
But I suppose I can imagine it possible that a society might not have such a stark division of labor, but still thought and theory might flourish. Though perhaps there is a tension here.
If one doesn't specialize so much, perhaps individuals do not go as "deep" or get as much "experience". Might that work just fine though? Might progress be slower?
Since these carpenters need to find clients, they are in business as artists; and they begin to make personal innovations and changes for no reason except that prospective clients will judge their work for its inventiveness.
This seems to be trying to identify a key mechanism which differentiate the unselfconscious and selfconscious modes of building. It seems in this example related to indivualisation in terms of economical relationships.
Question: why would a single "client" value inventiveness, but a communicty not? Maybe they both value it, but "inventiveness" only comes about when there is an individual responsible for the building process and that individual has an interest in building a reputation? An individual can be traced as a unique entity over time, while emergent community actions perhaps don't have this property.
All that matters, actually, is that sooner or later the phenomenon of the master craftsman takes control of the form-making activities.
I guess this is meant as an assertion of historical fact?
the process of adaptation and selection which we have seen at work in unselfconscious cultures has plainly disappeared. But that is not in itself enough to account for the fact that the selfconscious culture does not manage to produce clearly organized, well-fitting forms in its own way.
I appreciate this logical attentiveness.
active equilibrium
seems to be a keyword
In the case of requirements, no sensible way of picking this finite set presents itself. From a purely descriptive standpoint we have no way of knowing which of the infinitely many relations between form and context to include, and which ones to leave out.
Am I really convinced?
physically clear
I'm not exactly sure what this means.
adequacy
A synonym for "good fit"?
architectural Darwinism
Interesting link to "Darwinistic" forms of "explanation". Analysis of this paradigm seems a rich topic connecting various disciples/contexts.
homeostatic (self-organizing), and that it therefore consistently produces well-fitting forms, even in the face of change.
This seems a key point / idea of his viewpoint.
[[homeostasis]] [[self-organization]]
Sooner or later the system of lights will reach it.
I think there are very probably counterexamples to this. Not sure how much that would be technical nit-picking or important to keep in the back of one's head. But ok, perhaps under some mild assumptions or exclusion of special cases, I find it intuitively likely that such equilibria do exist.
No complex adaptive system will succeed in adapting in a reasonable amount of time unless the adaptation can proceed subsystem by subsystem, each subsystem relatively independent of the others.31
Seems important and insightful.
It is a purely fictitious system. Its variables are the conditions which must be met by good fit between form and context. Its interactions are the causal linkages which connect the variables to one another.
[[abstract]] [[variables]] [[causality]] [[model]]
On the other hand, since not all the variables are equally strongly connected (in other words there are not only dependences among the variables, but also independences)
Love the eye for the duality of "dependent" and "independent" here; how they are somehow treated on equal footing.
We shall not be able to see, directly, whether or not the unselfconscious and selfconscious form-making processes operate by subsystems. Instead we shall infer their modes of operation indirectly.
Empirical approach.
Focus is on whether there is "operation by subsystems" or not.
But from the point of view of its effect on a form, change only becomes significant at that moment when a failure or misfit reaches critical importance-at that moment when it is recognized, and people feel the form has something wrong with it. It is therefore legitimate, for our purpose, to consider a culture as changing in discrete steps.
Interesting sociological point.
And interesting link to the mathematical theme of "discrete" vs. "continuous" changes and descriptions...
cannot
Why not?
inner nature
I wonder if this could be made more precise.
he reaction of the system to the disturbance is the reaction of the form-making process to the misfit. If we detect the active presence of subsystems in a process, we may then argue (by induction, as it were) that this is fully responsible for the good fit of the forms being produced by the process. For if good forms can always be adjusted correctly the moment any slight misfit occurs, then no sequence of changes will destroy the good fit ever (at least while the process maintains this character);
Not sure if I followed/understood this argumentation 100%.
Also: the 100 light-bulb example seems to me about the internal "structure" (i.e. which connections of dependence and independence exists, and the patterns/structures of subsystems) of how a form and context fit together. Here Alexander is talking about the "form-making process". I'm not completely clear on the link between the two.
These diagrams, which, in my more recent work, I. have been calling patterns, are the key to the process of creating form. In this book I presented the diagrams as the end results of a long process; I put the accent on the process, and gave the diagrams themselves only a few pages of discussion.
diagrams at the end