book

active

book:the-process-of-creating-life-vol-2

The Process of Creating Life (Vol 2)

Book 2 of The Nature of Order, describing the unfolding process that creates living structure.

Extracted from this book

Claims (39)

20th-century design vocabulary asserted that structures should be 'interesting,' 'fantastic,' 'exhilarating'—anything but truly beautiful.
The claim that 'beautiful' has unalterable meaning and was systematically replaced by lesser aesthetic terms in modern discourse.
All of Book 2 may be understood as the definition of those living processes which occur when people learn to, or know how to, please themselves.
Retrospective reinterpretation of the second volume through the lens of pleasing yourself.
Berkeley architecture students did not genuinely like their own buildings in the ordinary sense that one likes a hamburger or a rose.
Alexander's diagnosis at the architecture jury; he led students to admit that they had never been taught to like what they make.
Book 3 shows the kind of world that will come into being when men and women act to please themselves, when they know what it means to please themselves truly.
Retrospective reinterpretation of the third volume's examples as embodiments of true self-pleasing.
Gauguin himself was slightly ashamed of the cow picture, just as students are sometimes ashamed of their greatest works because they are too naive, too direct.
Speculative claim that Gauguin felt the same vulnerability about Vache Accroupie that Alexander's students felt about their best work.
In order to create living structure, we must please ourselves.
The central thesis of the chapter: pleasing yourself is the necessary and sufficient prescription for creating living structure.
In the 20th century there has been something almost like a taboo against seeing the I, or true beauty, or God.
Historical diagnosis: modern architects and designers systematically avoided true beauty because it struck a nerve they could not tolerate.
It is only knowledge of the field of centers, and the practice of making it, which gives you a key to unlock your own heart.
The practical path: mastering the abstract structure enables the personal, vulnerable expression.
It is only when you finally are truly personal, when you really put your humanness into the things you make, that you genuinely reach the objective living structure.
The paradox that the most personal act yields the most objective, impersonal result.
Living structure may be identified empirically by the extent to which it is a picture of one's self.
Alexander claims there is an empirical method for identifying living structure via reference to the universal entity within each person.
Living structure might even be defined as 'that which pleases us'—that which truly pleases us.
A proposed operational definition of living structure in terms of genuine pleasure.
Living structure—the field of centers—really is a mirror of the human heart.
The structural correspondence between the objective field of centers and the subjective human self.
Making something that truly pleases requires hundreds of subtle judgments, each extracting what pleases more within the whole.
From the West Dean experience: the north wall alone required approximately 500 such judgments.
People do not know—emotionally—how to please themselves. In part, they are prevented by society. And in part, they are prevented by themselves, by their inner thought police.
Diagnosis of why living structure is absent from the world: a failure of emotional knowledge enforced by social and internal constraints.
Pleasing oneself, when it is truly done, leads to the most sublime, the most profound, the most truly spiritual art.
Alexander claims that true pleasing oneself is identical to the path intended by the greatest religious teachers.
Pleasing yourself and doing what is right are one and the same.
The most radical claim of the chapter: the subjective and the ethical are identical at the deepest level.
Professional architectural training never emphasizes that students should genuinely like what they are doing.
A structural critique of architectural education: pleasing oneself is not part of the professional discipline taught.
Real liking comes from childish truthfulness, in which one respects one's own feeling and does not pay homage to a theory or idea.
Definition of genuine liking as originating in a pre-conceptual, child-like authenticity.
Students often hide their most remarkable work because it is too vulnerable, too close to the bone.
From Alexander's teaching experience: the work students are most reluctant to show is often the best, because it is too personal and artless.
The cable-stay bridge is actually alienating; it does not root me in myself, it takes me out of myself and leaves me cold and fearful.
Alexander's aesthetic and existential judgment on the competing bridge design.
The cow is a greater work than Parahi te Marae because it penetrates deeper and is more that ultimate thing which Gauguin did to please himself.
Aesthetic judgment reversing the standard valuation of Gauguin's works based on the criterion of true self-pleasing.
The good stuff is always childlike, a pure thing which comes from the heart.
Generalization from all the examples: the finest work has an almost embarrassingly direct, childlike quality.
The I itself—this thing which seems so rarified, so philosophical and which somehow has a religious origin—is also entirely personal in nature.
The claim that the transcendent ground of existence is accessed through the most direct, childish, personal making.
The makers of image-ridden, ugly buildings did not truly please themselves; they acted out of wilfulness and a desire to conform.
Alexander argues that what appears to be self-pleasing in modern architecture is actually wilfulness and professional image-management.
The message that one must please oneself, perfectly, in order to reach God, was exactly the message of St. Francis.
Alexander's reinterpretation of St. Francis: pleasing God and pleasing oneself truly are the same thing.
The objective oneness of space which I have identified as the field of centers is also entirely personal in nature.
The startling conclusion that the deep structure of space is simultaneously the most intimate, vulnerable, personal thing.
The process of unfolding and the fundamental process follow from this pleasing of oneself, as night follows day.
Alexander claims Book 2's unfolding process is a consequence of people learning to please themselves.
The theoretical and factual substance of the world, its structure and its life, are congruent with the feelings we all have, not with professional architectural images.
A metaphysical claim that the true nature of order aligns with genuine human feeling, not with professional convention.
The thought police in architects' heads censor what they truly want to create, forcing them to conform to professional images.
Drawn from the unnamed professor's confession: even senior architects have inner censors that repress their genuine design desires.
The work has little to do with sweetness; it is about stark geometry—a geometry which is stark and simple, organized to create pleasure and relatedness.
Response to critics who think Alexander's work aims at 'something sweet'; the real quality comes from severity and toughness.
These glasses have something of the self in them. Because of that, Henk liked them. And because of that, they are truly likeable.
Alexander's interpretation of why the blue glasses were deeply liked by the glassblower.
To please yourself, you may have to make a thing in which God is visible.
The troubling consequence of true self-pleasing: it produces beauty so deep it reveals the divine, which makes modern people uncomfortable.
True beauty is the quality of being in touch with the I. A structure with true beauty is something in which we cannot avoid seeing God.
Definition linking true beauty to the visibility of the transcendent self or divine in a made thing.
Truly pleasing ourselves is not shameful. It is transcendent.
The moral revaluation: what society treats as self-indulgence is actually the path to transcendence.
We are cut off from ourselves, and cut off from the I, to a very great degree.
Diagnosis of the modern condition: the confusion between being modern and being true reflects a deep disconnection from the self.
We will never be able to contribute to the world's horrible buildings if we make things that we like.
A strong corollary: true liking is incompatible with creating ugly, lifeless buildings.
What pleasing yourself truly IS, is the process in which we create living structure.
The culminating identity claim: the act of true self-pleasing and the creation of living structure are one and the same process.
What truly pleases us is always living structure.
The equivalence claim that true pleasure and living structure are the same thing; the word 'truly' contains the whole space of the four books.
When we reach the innocence of the child where we only please ourselves, that is the closest we can ever come to the egoless state in which we see the structure perfectly.
The equation of childlike making with the perfect perception required for structure-preserving transformation.

Findings (6)

Alexander repeatedly observed that students kept back their most remarkable work during critiques because it felt too vulnerable, insignificant, or embarrassing.
Empirical pattern from Alexander's teaching career: the best student work was consistently the work they were most reluctant to show.
An unnamed Berkeley professor who publicly ridiculed the Mexicali project privately confessed he had always wanted to design buildings like that but never dared.
Direct evidence of the thought police phenomenon: a senior architect acknowledging the gap between his true desires and his public persona.
Berkeley architecture students admitted, after half an hour of discussion, that they did not genuinely like their own work in the ordinary sense.
Empirical outcome of the architecture jury intervention: students conceded that professional training had never emphasized liking what one makes.
Finite element analysis showed the pierced-concrete bridge had high structural strength with unexpectedly low weight and cost.
Engineering validation of the innovative bridge design; the structure performed well in simulations despite its unconventional appearance.
Glassblowers at Royal Dutch Glassworks reported that nowadays they rarely blow glasses that they truly like.
Multiple glassblowers independently told Alexander they liked making his blue glasses, implying they usually do not like their work.
Henk Verweg secretly kept one of the blue glasses for himself, saying it was one of the first glasses he had ever deeply liked in his career.
The chief glassblower's action and confession demonstrate the rarity of objects that truly please their makers.

Hypotheses (2)

If we can only learn how to please ourselves, that prescription by itself will always create living structure.
The conditional claim that true self-pleasing is sufficient for generating living structure in all cases.
If we reach the innocence of the child where we only please ourselves, then we will achieve the egoless state in which we see structure perfectly and make the perfect structure-preserving response.
Conditional claim linking childlike self-pleasing to flawless perception and action.

Neighborhood — ranked by edge-count

Chapters (2)

chapter

CHAPTER TEN: Pleasing Yourself
cites
The culminating chapter of Vol 4 arguing that the core prescription for creating living structure is to truly please yourself, and that this is identical to reaching the I and doing what is right.
Chapter 5: The Practical Matter Of Forging A Living Center
cites
Working chapter of Volume 4 of The Nature of Order; describes practical methods for creating living centers in buildings, carpets, walls, and color through connection to the I.