A new language for houses in Peru

I found that if I looked at life from the point of view of being one of them, my own feelings, and my own knowledge of what had to be, was more reliable than anything else as an indicator of what was needed for a Peruvian family.

Empathy.

I barely needed to ask any questions about this: I could feel it, all of it, but I could feel it only by being one of them. I, myself (as Chris Alexander) didn’t have a house like that, and I don’t want a house like that — because for me, in Berkeley, with my family, it would not have made sense — it would not have been part of things, or part of the way my life works. But as a member of that Peruvian family, in the Peruvian culture, in the context of that family which I was a part of, it did make sense. It was natural, necessary, and I could feel its necessity, as part of me.

The essential technique in the observation of centers, in any social situation, and in any culture, is to allow the feelings to generate themselves, inside you. You have to say, “What would I do if I were one of the people living here, what would it be like for me?” thus inserting yourself into the situation, and then using your own common sense and feelings as a measuring instrument.

Of course you must always check with people, explicitly. You cannot assume you are right. You have to check. On the other hand, checking doesn’t mean just do what people say; their own sense of what is involved can also be in error. One must always go to the root, asking what is likely to create the most life, and maintaining a cautious skepticism, even while pursuing these difficult and soul-searching questions.

The culture-borne centers play a genetic role, not unlike the role played by genes in an organism. They describe what is — in a deep, inner sense. And they also describe how the world can be generated, to become congruent with people’s inner feelings, aspirations, habits, and society.

#book/The Nature of Order/2 The process of creating life/13 Patterns#