before i get to your questions I wanted to include two more writers that i love (and forgot to mention): Hugo Kuekelhaus (which is more of a practitioner, a carpenter) and Bernard Rudofsky (I always think of the somewhat erratic and emotional Rudofsky as the spiritual father of Alexander’s “Pattern language”). IMO he never develops a real theory or philosophy about ‘the art of living’ as he calls it, but simply repeats his observations over and over again. Of Kuekelhaus I have only read one book, “Inhumane Architecture”. Its a thin volume and i can bring it along. It’s been printed in Auroville now and the translator kindly sent me a copy.

Certain systems might prove predictable at some point in (endless) time, yet if so they were always predictable by “nature”. The time factor posits a problem for us because we will never be able to be really sure if a specific system is inpredictable. However, am actually not really talking about this I think. What I am saying is that we tend to invent predictable systems because this ensures that they are at our service.

Perhaps it is that we live in the idea that predictable systems can be controlled and wont surprise us. But then what does surprise mean? With the train comes the train accident. Automatically. It shouldn’t come as a surprise. Taken by surprise we take great effort in trying to keep that system under control by inventing and refining control systems. To avoid in the end ‘human error’.

Whenever we invent systems we forget that they become part of already existing systems. No system, i can think of, stands alone. Its always part of a larger ecosystem. And then this larger system gets more complex and unpredictable. What i actually wanted to quote was Capra from my notes: Newton’s linear equations only can describe simple cases. They have difficulties already with three cases that influence each other. Most natural systems are non-linear. 1. Simple results can have big effects. 2. Prediction is often impossible. 3. Self-reinforcing feedback processes exist. So, complex systems are creative and form new structures. They self-organise and new structures let new behaviours emerge. Non-linear behaviour results from interconnections of the systems components and feedback loops. The secret of these non-linear system’s success is that they can adapt and evolve over time. Things that do not adapt disappear over time.

“Even if theories of architecture design have failed to address the inhabitant in all its emotionality some have tried.” — you are right, I should be more careful with the sentence you refer to. It needs further explanation. It is the word “address” which I consider important — it is meant in the sense of a “speak to”. Theories do not tend to speak in contrast to a myth, for example. I think somewhere in the text you will find a note that says “There are other fairy tales of Architecture”. Thanks for the Tanizaki – I will look into that. I think in both Stewart Brand and Christopher Alexander the fairy tale is present, but I really wished they would have left the Prince of Wales out of it. The provocation might prove fatal and I am not so sure if the reason is the lack of pragmatism in the Good Old part of the world. I suspect, to save their ideas from the mechanical grip is one of the rather difficult tasks. And, somehow I wished someone found the means to send the Prince over to California — at least that would carry the potential of proving kind of amusing.

I actually loved his RIBA talk. There is nothing in it one could not agree with.

What do you mean by “tale”? That it is told from a subjective point of view? But isn’t a ‘theory’ is just another type of text, a different format, also told by an individual with an individual voice, disguised according to cultural convention, in a different sounding language pattern? It could also be the pattern ‘novel’ or ‘poetry’. Why doesn’t a theory speak while a myth does?

It is possible that first order theories need someone to keep them alive. They appear vulnerable against the mechanical death. It is possible that second order theories carry the potential to render theories of first order immune.

Not sure. I just see that it could go on forever, from one order to another.

Thanks for the Hugh Brody. I was referring to Marc Augé’s “Non-Places”. Similar notions can be found in de Certeau’s “Practice of Everyday Life” – he calls space though what Augé calls place. I think, what you refer to with space is a geometrical interpretation (?).

Thanks for that. I have Certeau’s “practice” on my desk, but haven’t begun reading yet. I want to read Ingold first, it somehow resonates with my own perception.

No, not really. What we mean when we say ’space’. Mmhh, maybe yes. You’re right.
Our western idea of ‘Space’ must be new and a result of an abstract and quantitative worldview. Similar to when Heidegger speaks (in ‘Technology’) about the forest or a river. In the past the forest was a scary, dark and mystical place – and now its a quantity of trees of a certain value. The same for the river, it delivers that much electric power when a hydroelectric dam is being built. So before we called it ’space’ the word must have been used differently. (Apple dict: “ORIGIN Middle English : shortening of Old French espace, from Latin spatium. Current verb senses date from the late 17th cent.”)

Yes, am certainly not a nomad (and no Deleuze will change this). I am an immigrant (in the best case into the world).

Most of us will be. I think if we would ask the participants here, only a small minority will actually life anywhere near where they were born, or grew up.

The Roma in Romania now build houses — they are amazing to see. They do not do what we would expect from houses to do. They seem to behave rather as what we would consider a dress maybe — truly amazing, but nothing I would claim to be able to understand.

That sounds intriguing especially as it is NOT coming from an arts background. How do i google that?

I think there is a difference in saying “what we strive for is confirmation” in contrast to saying “what we hope for is confirmation” — hope does not need confirmation in order to present what you might call a solution, yet to our striving the kind of confirmation I am talking about would certainly present a solution because it ends it — it’s either a sweet death or we come up with something new to do. Perhaps we would then reach a state of pure play – difficult to imagine.

Certain systems might prove predictable at some point in (endless) time, yet if so they were always predictable by “nature”. The time factor posits a problem for us because we will never be able to be really sure if a specific system is inpredictable. However, am actually not really talking about this I think. What I am saying is that we tend to invent predictable systems because this ensures that they are at our service.

“Even if theories of architecture design have failed to address the inhabitant in all its emotionality some have tried.” — you are right, I should be more careful with the sentence you refer to. It needs further explanation. It is the word “address” which I consider important — it is meant in the sense of a “speak to”. Theories do not tend to speak in contrast to a myth, for example. I think somewhere in the text you will find a note that says “There are other fairy tales of Architecture”. Thanks for the Tanizaki – I will look into that. I think in both Stewart Brand and Christopher Alexander the fairy tale is present, but I really wished they would have left the Prince of Wales out of it. The provocation might prove fatal and I am not so sure if the reason is the lack of pragmatism in the Good Old part of the world. I suspect, to save their ideas from the mechanical grip is one of the rather difficult tasks. And, somehow I wished someone found the means to send the Prince over to California — at least that would carry the potential of proving kind of amusing.
It is possible that first order theories need someone to keep them alive. They appear vulnerable against the mechanical death. It is possible that second order theories carry the potential to render theories of first order immune.

Thanks for the Hugh Brody. I was referring to Marc Augé’s “Non-Places”. Similar notions can be found in de Certeau’s “Practice of Everyday Life” – he calls space though what Augé calls place. I think, what you refer to with space is a geometrical interpretation (?).

Yes, am certainly not a nomad (and no Deleuze will change this). I am an immigrant (in the best case into the world).
The Roma in Romania now build houses — they are amazing to see. They do not do what we would expect from houses to do. They seem to behave rather as what we would consider a dress maybe — truly amazing, but nothing I would claim to be able to understand.

Not being familiar with Gotthart Günther more pragmatic – as opposed to rhetorical – comment come to my mind.

Even if theories of architecture design have failed to address the inhabitant in all its emotionality some have tried. Jun’ichi Tanizaki, Stewart Brand, Christopher Alexander?

Stewart Brand in “how buildings learn” thoroughly analyses and critiques what makes buildings (not ‘architecture’) adaptable to future use: That they can easily be modified, adapted to changing requirements and needs. Almost like an empty container into which people can project their needs & personality. Again it reminds of von Foerster’s maxim of ‘your actions should increase future possibilities’. Brand’s layers were: Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Spaceplan, Stuff.
I still remember Building 20, this wooden container block on the MIT campus. It was marvellously adaptable because it wasn’t ‘worth’ anything, so people could tear down walls, paint and be messy.
Hope I’m not missing a point here.
Doesn’t Alexander in ‘pattern language’ beautifully unravel ‘qualities’ of buildings emotional inhabitability? Pattern 134 “the zen view”, or Pattern 180 “window place”?
Or think of the Japanese concept of space where a room can be any room. A flexible space for living, eating or sleeping – just not at the same time. One function after another.
“A place, writes the anthropologist, is actual to those who constantly perform its borders.”

Hugh Brody as a beautiful paradox in his ‘maps’ book. He states that nomads are the people that stay at a place – while the sedentary were the homeless, always on the move. It depends on the perspective of time. If i remember right Brody’s reasoning went like this: In western mythology it always was better in the past. The reason for this was that the eldest son inherited the fathers farm the brothers had to leave and find a new home somewhere out there. So every second generation was on the move again. Leaving behind home and making a new home, remembering home as being somewhere else.

The family of nomads instead ‘own’ a large – but clearly defined – area with rivers, mountains and forests that are visited in different seasons of the year and with ‘breaks’ in between so nature can recover. It is defined by their “performing the borders”, and the their neighbours doing the same creating overlaps. There is no wilderness – it doesn’t exist, its a western concept. (It is us that think it needs a railway line that divides a middle-of-nowhere landscape to turn this featureless landscape at least into the space to the left and right of the railway line. Thus upgrading it to what we call space (while there is no such thing as ’space’ in any other language. Its all about function and relationship, says Tim Ingold.)
But back to our homely nomads: The landscape comes in fact into existence through performing the borders. The spend one Summer here, and Autumn at another spot, but return to their seasonal spots regularly, knowing every landmark, details, springs, and also applying long term ecological stewartship. Brody’s families describe can describe in high detail the features of their home, history of placenames and events for hundreds of years. Something not possible in populated Europe for a long time. So actually the sedentaries are the real homeless while the nomads are sedentary.
You who is reading this, do you still live in the town you were born? The country? The same tectonic plate?
Inhabitable patterns of possibilities?

They convince, without their meanings.

I think you’re trying to expand possibilities of thinking about, and of thinking in.

I am intrigued.

I am reminded of a story John Cage tells about DT Sukuki, who on ebing asked about zen said

Before studying zen, man are men, and mountains are mountains
While studying zen, all in confused
After studying zen, man are men and mountains are mountains.
The difference is, that in the first case, the feel were a little bit off the ground.

Unfortunately, I know very very little about Zen Buddhism. Am ready to learn.
I might have an idea of this oneness you speak about but I suspect I might be unable to grasp it. If a higher entity spoke to me I would receive (absolute) confirmation. This would not result in understanding it, but I could understand me then — if it spoke. (so, the summary of my comment to your comment is: yes and no
Am wondering: For a student of Zen Buddhism would any of the following conditions be considered more basic than the others:
the wish to know
the wish to learn
the wish to pass knowledge

or is it irrelevant?