Connection to Alexandrian patterns & sequences - Centers as essence of life

The PLAST has a role to play in the empowerment of communities of practice as centers of transformation, and nodes of embodiment of commons logic.

Christopher Alexander refers to "centers" (Alexander 2002) as the 'why/what for' determinant of the attributes of a design. Centers are the essence of life. "Patterns" are combined in 'generative sequences' to create/(re)design better "centers."

Seeing centers as essence of life, as nodes of embodiment of commons logic, sits quite well with the definition of commons as archetype: the diverse, multi-dimensional and distributed factors of opportunity and thrivability, the factors of livelihood and enablement, generative of abundance, that ensure the conditions for existence, to be nurtured, (re)generated, (re)produced.

Centers are constitutive of systemic health, designed or 'constructed' not as representation of a desired order in a state of homeostasis, but as generative systems, where generativity flows to where they are needed to provide on-going opportunity for thrivability and renewal. And the patterns, assembled for each center/social object according to its own internal drive or engagement logic would be aimed at 'bettering' the commons in whole or in part in all its forms and dimensions, in a dynamic manner.

Centers as nodes of embodiment of commons logic are not only commons as identified forms such as Ostromian commons or digital commons: a common pool resource, or social object managed by a community that builds its livelihood upon it (commoners), when they are associated to this management in a participatory way (commoning).  They are systems that produce, nurture and protect the seeds of what ensures the thrivability and renewal of the system as a whole, and that aggregate into patterns of generative behavior.

Kurt Laitner 12:38 AM Nov 5

Helene Finidori 10:14 AM Nov 5

Agreed. Inelegant shortcut... Maybe capital is a bit restrictive. How about factors of generativity?

Kurt Laitner 8:47 PM Nov 5

sorry the question was not a request, but rather a criticism - if what we suggest is directly mapped to the existing system, what is it that we are proposing as change.. so I am asking really for elaboration of the notion of 'generativity', how it flows, how rights to it are determined if it is a rival good (perhaps by definition it is not)

Helene Finidori 7:56 AM Yesterday

Kurt Laitner generative behavior alexandrian centers, and in fact the patterns that generate them are ultimately based on common 'mythology' or the assumption that things are the way they are because they support human thriving - in this sense Alexander is an empiricist not a theorist and leaves the theory to the side in search of a pragmatic system of 'building together toward a coherent whole without having to explicitly coordinate by referring to a common set of architectural rules that are presumed to be based on thousands of years of practice and evolution and so are stable' - there is an iterative feedback between the rules in use and the needs that they supposedly represent that must not be lost - for example some of alexanders patterns have become 'dated' - I know you are very clear about this being a living language

Helene Finidori Yes indeed. I think that by referring to the commons as archetype and distributed factors of opportunity / regenerativity / reproduction in / of the system, you give some 'materiality' to the mythology. So it becomes something you can vet claims for sustainability and thrivability against. What piece of the commons does this pattern generate, regenerate and how?

Helene Finidori Also, I had an excellent question from Philipp Grunewald (in convo with Bob): How will you prevent PLAST becoming a synthesis of patterns? This relates to keeping the language alive (reminds me of the blog 'dead Ushaidi' with maps that become obsolete after a short while, or wikis that are not updated... I'm thinking indeed that there's a great risk of 'ossification'.... The output taking the predominance over the process... So the process would comprise the ongoing monitoring of the validity of the patterns...

Kurt Laitner I think the difference between descriptive grammars and generative grammars is important here - generative grammars, especially those that provide operations such as matrix multiplication, not only form (potentially) synthetic structures, but through dispassionate logic, point out holes in our awareness - as the combinatorial process is infinite, there is no danger of a steady state - not belittling the problem just suggesting the nature of the pattern language is important