Christopher Alexander and the Nature of Order

[@todmann67]

The moral arguments by Alexander are a positive.

[@JC-yc2sz]

Good presentation but you lose me when you when sort of equivocate the two architects' positions and you say well Alexander was quite moralistic and that's just not how us sophisticated people think... This is such a craven position. How can you not oppose Eisenman? Eisenman said in that debate that he prefers disharmony, he wants to create discord and feelings of angst in people with his buildings. How can any self-respecting man not come out against that? And you sort of criticise Alexander because he became angry during the debate - is he the only human being in this whole video? You seem to take this position where you don't take sides, because well you're above that, aren't you? Well you are taking a side by not standing against the projections of the putrid blackened soul of a criminal like Eisenman. How many people suffer with the thousand paper cuts brought about by Eisenman and his side's anti-architecture? Shame on you for siding with this sick rotten people!

[@jojoandthecats]

JC, although it might not have come across clearly, my comments about Alexander's moralistic stance were to a great degree ironic. I entirely agree with Alexander's sentiments, ontology, morality and advocacy. I am surprised that someone can watch this admittedly discursive video and think I am not taking sides. Alexander was a serious, talented and influential person. His pugnacious stance was arguably useful to some degree but I also think that in a field, like architecture, where there is clearly a powerful ruling orthodoxy an adversarial personality and approach can sometimes work against one’s aims. Debate in professional settings is not conducted as on social media, as I suspect you will have noticed in your own working life. Eisenman’s architectural approach and work seem poor, wrong-minded and rather arrogant to me, on many grounds. But your own language (“putrid blackened soul of a criminal “) is so disproportionate as to make you seem shrill and ridiculous and therefore undermines whatever good point you might have made about architecture or a genius like Alexander, don’t you think?

[@JC-yc2sz]

@@jojoandthecats You are fully right, and I think my emotions got the better of me. This particular feature makes us great warriors on the battlefield but wholly inadequate in the courtroom or media world where those powers dominate. I admit I expected some gusto from you, some OOMPH to hit back against Eisenman and his ideology. I must admit that frankly his ideology is evil. He admits in the debate that he feels his purpose is the create angst and dread among people. Sorry, but this is sadism. It is a cruelty to inflict this on ordinary people who are already suffering under the yoke of the usury regime. I must apologise to you good sir for having misread you. You made a wonderful presentation. I just wish, at the risk of repeating myself, that you came out more strongly on our side. If I saw a healthy child limping along because he saw it was the fashion on the television I would set him straight. "This is how you should walk, because this is how you were made to walk." I think you can see that CA, at least in later interviews, more directly alludes to God, without which none of anything makes sense, which is perhaps why we have this essentially antichrist architecture in the Western world in the absence of this fundamental element, if I could be so crude as to categorise our Creator in those terms