Rules are wrongly formulated and processes are too rigid to allow adaptation; they cannot allow life to occur.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Rules, laws, restrictions, are too exact, too restrictive to create living space; a shared vision is needed instead.claim0.827
  Argument that abstract codes cannot guarantee the emergence of shaped space with deep feeling.
• When the process is correct, the creation of life follows almost automatically, without effort.claim0.817
• Our present forms of planning, design, construction, and production are deeply flawed because they do not include step-by-step adaptation and cannot in principle do so as they are.claim0.814
  Sweeping indictment of current production systems.
• Every living process must necessarily be an adaptive, step-by-step process that creates unity by adapting the structure into harmony with what exists.claim0.812
• If a building is made by a process that allows fine adaptation through feedback, it will have life; if built from fixed drawings, it will not.hypothesis0.811
  Predictive conditional summarizing the chapter's argument.
• The issue is not whether the process will produce living structure if done faithfully — it will — but whether the maker has the stamina and will to keep rejecting versions that lack life.claim0.809
  Alexander's claim that the limiting factor in creating living structure is not method but the maker's persistence.
• The unfolding process allows—sustains—minute adaptation in every detail.claim0.802
  The practical benefit of unfolding.
• A living process only rarely creates living centers from scratch; it must use pre-established generic centers — patterns — encoding successful adaptationsclaim0.798
  Grounded in Holland's schemata theory and the biological gene analogy