The "computer" of Ramon Lull (founder of computational science, later expanded by Leibniz) is definitely geometric, so perhaps of all of computing is tainted. The computer was actually moveable disks sharing a common center point; allowing "computation" of answers to theo-philosopical questions.
included diagram, but forgot text in previous email. davew On Mon, Oct 3, 2022, at 4:01 PM, Prof David West wrote: > In my personal opinion, I am closer to your conviction than the > academic/objective perspective I presented; at least to the extent of > being able to find a "geometric" core surrounded by lots of ambiguity > and ineffability. > > I even believe in the generative potential of geometric patterns like > sacred geometry, platonic solids, et. al.; with generativity going a > long way towards resolving some of the non-core elements of patterns. > Alexander's NO Properties do have some of this same quality. > > in the early days of software patterns, a huge discussion point was the > "geometry" of programs and if it could be found in: a dependency graph, > a control flow / state diagram, or with 'artificial' metrics like > cyclomatic complexity or even LOC/speed of execution. > > Within that discussion was an equivalent of QWAN and > Liveness—"Habitability." The latter being somehow related to the ease > of understanding, 'moving around, relating-to, and ease of modification > and other things that were pretty much emotional and definitely > idiosyncratic. > > Then, if you could find a geometry, was there any way to differentiate > its "goodness," "badness," or indifferent-ness? > > I am spending next weekend with Jenny Quillien and Richard Gabriel and > will bring up this topic. > > davew > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2022, at 11:28 AM, glen wrote: >> Thanks! I think I get it, now. I don't intend to quibble over the >> meaning of the word [geo]metry. But just for provenance, I have >> (roughly) 2.5 conceptions of "geometry": 1) metric spaces, 1.5) metric >> spaces "normal" to earth and its inhabitants, and 2) anything that >> arranges points, lines, solids, etc. Under concept (2), all 15 >> properties seem geometric to me, though perhaps only *reductively*. >> Under (1) and (1.5), I can see how many of them extend to >> unearthly/abnormal/pathological metrics and, of course, to non-metric >> conceptions of distance/similarity. >> >> The nameless quality and liveness also seem metric to some extent. Time >> is nothing but a special kind of space. But I can easily see why one >> would reject that. The real trick for *my* engagement is to avoid all >> this talk of architecture, about which I don't care in the slightest. I >> guess I'm just confused why these people are so anthropocentric. If >> it's *actually* theoretical biology, then it seems like termite mounds, >> rain forest structure, etc. would dominate more than "buildings" and >> such. It's so anthropocentric, it's difficult for me to believe it can >> be retooled to fit comfortably within non-human biology. >> >> I'd also like to quote from Quillien's book just to push back on how >> geometric these things are. In the section "Possibility of a New >> General Law, we see: >> >> "It could be that there is essentially something in the geometry of >> living systems that creates order by itself." >> >> "New views on the evolving system of genetic material suggest that >> evolution may follow certain pathways, not because of extraneous >> pressure, but by virtue of ordering tendencies of internal dynamics and >> the requirements of geometry." >> >> Hopefully, I could be forgiven for thinking geometry plays a huge role >> in at least this take on NO. But I'm starting to see why one might >> think it's applicable without metrics. I can't steelman it, yet, >> though. 8^D >> >> On 10/1/22 15:19, Prof David West wrote: >>> RE: Alexander and Geometry >>> >>> First, my notion of 'geometry' may be too simplistic and too Euclidean. If >>> so, please point out what I may be overlooking. >>> >>> I did a quick review of Alexander's major works and found few mentions of >>> 'geometry' as I understand the term. One of the major ones was in Timeless >>> Way where he deals with Pattern *_Languages_*. The notion that you could >>> compose architectural insights/truths/novelty by combining patterns much >>> the same way you would construct a sentence using nouns and verbs. He seems >>> to be conveying the idea of a geometry-based "grammar." >>> >>> If you count APL patterns that seem to have any naive geometric aspect, >>> e.g., "Light From Two Sides" it is less than 10%. If you look at the >>> Fifteen Properties (listed below), most (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and maybe >>> 13) are conceivably 'geometric'. But the most important concept in APL/TO >>> is "QWAN" and in NO, it is "Liveness"—neither of which have any, that I can >>> see, rely on the "geometric" properties as much as they do properties like >>> Deep interlock and ambiguity, Simplicity and Inner Calm, and >>> Not-separateness. In terms of patterns from APL, this would include things >>> like Dancing in the Streets, Sleeping in Public, and Storefront Schools >>> which, like most APL patterns, have little or nothing to do with spatial >>> arrangement/geometry. >>> >>> I asked Jenny Quillien and Richard Gabriel (both of whom worked extensively >>> with Alexander and Gabriel was responsible for arranging Chris to be >>> keynote speaker at OOPSLA) about the importance of Geometry in Alexander >>> and neither thought it was more than an afterthought or an artifact. >>> Geometry might be inferred because Alexander liked visual images like the >>> ones attached and they do show spatial arrangement, a kind of geometry. >>> >>> [ I think Alexander made a major error with his property, Alternating >>> Repetition, precisely because he expressed it "geometrically" rather than >>> in "living' terms as rhythm.] >>> >>> Nick Salingaros was a far more accomplished mathematician than Alexander, >>> and did, in much of his writing address more geometric issues/ideas. And >>> Salingaros did work with Alexander. But both of them despised contemporary >>> minimalist, functionalist, deconstructivist contemporary architectural >>> theory which dominated (and dominates) the profession. In this stance they >>> appear to be anti-geometry (and any similar formalism). >>> >>> Salingaros interviewed Alexander as to the central or most important ideas, >>> and the revolutionary nature of Alexander's work. Both men seem to agree >>> that the essence is: >>> >>> >>> /Your point is that architecture is not about// >>> / >>> /building style, but is really a state of mind, and// >>> / >>> /that good architecture is any structure, however// >>> / >>> /modest, that generates an identifiable positive// >>> / >>> /state of mind that allows you to be alive to the// >>> / >>> /fullest extent possible. This idea is profound as// >>> / >>> /well as revolutionary, since it stands architecture// >>> / >>> /on its head. You validate our most basic feelings// >>> / >>> /as human beings and insist that the built environment// >>> / >>> /must nurture our inner joy, sadness,// >>> / >>> /vulnerability, unselfconsciousness, and so on. All// >>> / >>> /the formal architectural concerns — and names// >>> / >>> /like Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe,// >>> / >>> /Frank Gehry, and Daniel Libeskind — are thus// >>> / >>> /thrown out of the window./ [Salingaros] >>> >>> /The new form of// >>> / >>> /architecture that I am speaking about is beginning// >>> / >>> /to be understood by engineers, by ecologists,// >>> / >>> /by computer scientists, by builders, by// >>> / >>> /artists, by biologists, by economists. Many of// >>> / >>> /these people recognize that architects are simply// >>> / >>> /not dealing with the problem of the en-// >>> / >>> /vironment in a realistic or useful fashion, and// >>> / >>> /that the task of building now falls on their own// >>> / >>> /shoulders. Under the impact of that kind of// >>> / >>> /thinking, people are now developing new ways// >>> / >>> /of banking, new ways of development, new// >>> / >>> /forms of social reconstruction, and new forms// >>> / >>> /of housing, new forms of sustainable settlements.// >>> / >>> /In many countries, the primary way of conceiving// >>> / >>> /and making buildings and settlements// >>> / >>> /is already people-oriented. It is not recognizable// >>> / >>> /within the existing paradigm as architecture,// >>> / >>> /and architects despise it because it looks// >>> / >>> /low budget, low tech, and is oriented to people’s// >>> / >>> /desperate needs — yet all this is, within// >>> / >>> /the perspective of our new architecture, a major// >>> / >>> /contribution to the new, life-based paradigm.// >>> / >>> /All this is only its beginning. These new// >>> / >>> /kinds of professionals, and new social forms,// >>> / >>> /are beginning to develop and propagate new// >>> / >>> /ways of doing things.// >>> / >>> /And what architects now claim is simply being// >>> / >>> /laid aside as the nonsense it really is/. [Alexander] >>> >>> Still not seeing much in the way for formalism, let along geometric >>> formalism. >>> >>> davew >>> >>> Alexander's Fifteen Properties from Nature of Order >>> 1. Levels of scale >>> 2. Strong centers >>> 3. Thick boundaries >>> 4. Alternating repetition >>> 5. Positive space >>> 6. Good shape >>> 7. Local symmetries >>> 8. Deep interlock and ambiguity >>> 9. Contrast >>> 10. Gradients >>> 11. Roughness >>> 12. Echoes >>> 13. The void >>> 14. Simplicity and inner calm >>> 15. Not-separateness >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 3:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> > For construction and repair tasks, I would usually need to do some >>> > planning and reflection. Work out ahead of time what is needed with >>> > some help from Google. Or just hire out the work to someone that is >>> > an expert. Anyway, more power to you and your hardware store friends. >>> > I don’t feel their absence. >>> > >>> >> On Sep 28, 2022, at 11:55 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> And there're other things you don't get from delivery businesses: 1) >>> socialization and 2) tacit knowledge. When we set up our "office" in an >>> industrial space in Oregon, the ceilings were very high. We had no real >>> ideas for how to build the welding barriers and other things. We broached >>> the problem to the handy dudes at the local hardware store and all 4 of us >>> came up with an easy and cheap solution. We 1) made some friends 2) with >>> different knowledge from ours. >>> >> >>> >> I know such things may not matter to some who are anti-social and/or so >>> wicked smart they never need anyone else's ideas. But for this less >>> socialized moron, they're important. >>> >> >>> >> Amazon is definitely *not* easier or faster at either of those things. >>> >> >>> >>> On 9/28/22 10:01, Steve Smith wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/28/22 10:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> >>>> Amazon is almost always easier and faster than a local business that >>> have thin inventory and higher margins. A local business is a place get >>> COVID. I find I usually order hardware and equipment online from Home Depot >>> because the store inventory is kept thin on purpose (like because it is >>> stolen). This is why Amazon is on top. It is a better way to do business >>> and they are really good at it. >>> >>> I still buy from local businesses as much as I can *so they will be >>> there when I want/need them*... I also find ordering online and picking >>> up at my front door exquisitely more convenient "in the moment", whether it >>> is Amazon or Home Depot or Autozone. But then there are those times when I >>> don't want to wait a day or three for the plumbing part that gets my >>> bathroom back to working and it would really suck if the (Ace) Hardware >>> store run by the local pueblo were closed (they closed a *lot* during COVID >>> and during the "great resignation" we are still in). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Not everyone is a cow. We are selected and self-selected into >>> organizations were our personalities and abilities work. Some are farmers, >>> some are cows. When the cows are left to wander, they get frustrated and >>> call for farmers. Il Duce! >>> >>> You sound a lot like John Galt! >>> >>> And just to double-down on the "aphorisms": "when you own a cow, the >>> cow owns you". I think it goes for golden geese also. And I think maybe >>> Mr. Putin is maybe going to get a kick in the teeth by the golden-goose-cow >>> he has owned now for 30? years... >> >> >> -- >> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > Attachments: > * lull.jpg -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
