Recently in pattern languages Category

Nature is orderly. That which appears to be chaotic in nature is only a more complex kind of order.[1]

Ecology begins as an inkling—an acknowledgment—of the sacredness of life. It is an assertion of value: that life does not begin or end with humans, or even with plants and animals—but is a force, a flow, a pattern (a system of patterns, the source of patterns, the origin of order) that animates the whole of the universe.

It is important and useful to return, repeatedly, to the simple recognition inherent in this statement—the source is recognizable through feeling, impression. It may not be audible over the hectic clamor that propels and entertains us. It may (often) be a whisper, a fleeting glimpse of some original face peeking through the branches.

It may be a subjective impression. It may be deniable. But it is not deniable.

 

The opposite of aesthetic is anesthetic. If we can’t appreciate beauty, we won’t be bothered to care at which point anything (everything) is left to degrade.

 

“The connection between order and feeling is fundamental. In some fashion, profound order makes us feel our own existence,” says Christopher Alexander.[2] The reverse makes it clearer still: disorder and disorganization displace us from the possibility of attentive awareness. If we lack attention, we are nowhere. The self, the personal, only coalesces in awareness that is sustained from moment to moment.

Consider this: if you are unable to comprehend the order of the alphabet, there is no possibility of deriving meaning from the symbols.

Even more so when the symbols are patterns of nature—dynamic patterns, a system in process. We clearly become more alive as we are more able to witness the order inherent in nature.[3]



[1] Gary Snyder, in “Good, Wild, Sacred,” The Practice of the Wild, p. 93.

[2] The Nature of Order, Vol.1, p. 312.

[3] It is true that breathing can occur without attention. But breathing with attention intensifies the degree of participation in one’s own life.

Among the better known stories of our species is one that begins in a garden. Not wilderness--which in the particular tradition of this origin story is a harsh desert that may inspire visions but is not really habitable. The garden is a more or less domestic setting. It is full of life, all the animals and plants, fruit-bearing trees (the Hebrew word pardes, orchard, is the origin of the English word "paradise"), the source of abundant living water. It has a place and purpose for people. They tend it, study and categorize animals, talk to a serpent. It is contained. The dangers are ambiguous.


Never mind the reasons. The punishment is exile. Struggle and toil, hard labor and uncertainty. The worst part is being cut off. Longing to return, never being able to return to the source of life, the place of undifferentiated bliss (and easy pickings), no longer assured that the universe is a friendly place. The original suffering. 


Of course there are still gardens, there are places we can go, ways we can train ourselves to experience that sense of connectedness, return from exile. In North America, the original inhabitants have always known that the land is alive. Actually, indigenous peoples everywhere have always known this, only (too often) to be dissuaded by swindlers and brutalizers. But the land is alive.


As it happens, most of us spend at least half our time in buildings. In the industrialized worlds, the amount is likely to be much higher--perhaps 90 percent. When you factor in the time we spend in vehicles of some sort, the number is higher still. And if you look at the time we spend in the built environment in general, it's approaching 100 percent.


So it stands to reason that our built environment should be something more satisfactory than the boxes and cubicles that so often try to pass for homes and workplaces. If most of our lives are spent in dead and deadening physical environments, there's little surprise that people would seek out the seductions of television and other stupeficants, or of hysterical religious practices and mass spectator sports. In the first case, it's tuning in to oblivion (which is to say, tuning out). In the second, the attraction is the fervor--the excitement of being part of something beyond the limits of the self. In both cases it's a setting aside of the ego, temporary though that may be. There's an unspoken recognition that the ego arises with exile, is the source or product of it, or at least the recipient of it (a standard Buddhist definition of self is "experiences suffering"--which explains the preference for ending the cycle of rebirth).


The Hebrew word kadosh--typically translated as "holy"--really means set aside, separated. Apart. Not mundane. The idea is that we innately seek ways to move beyond our mundane material struggles and strivings (exile), and make a place for receptivity--for receiving the fullness of life that flows through and around us (the garden). But if deadness surrounds us, there's not much chance of a genuine receptivity. 


Deadness = exile. Aliveness = connection. Connection to fellow beings, to ground, spirit, soul. 


In this aliveness, this sense of connectedness, is the beginning of a working definition of "sacred." Without it we are vacant automatons capable only of craving excitement or oblivion.



If you do a search with the phrase "sacred architecture" you're likely to come up with academic monographs on churches, Buddhist temples, mosques and the like, as well as a hodgepodge of neopagan geomancy and dowsing, perhaps a reference to Egypt or the Mayans, books on the Golden Proportion, vaastu, feng shui and Le Corbusier. All of which have their merits (though in the last case, not many). But I'm interested in something arguably more subtle, less likely to be defined by any institution or particular tradition--though again, a number of ancient and traditional religious buildings are among the most available examples of the nugget I'm digging for. 

Essentially, a sacred place is a place conducive to a particular sort of experience. The experience may take on a variety of permutations, from ecstatic bliss to a quiet nanosecond of fully present awareness. There's bound to be at least an element of the subjective in the mix, but one of my contentions is that there's a consistency throughout the whole range of these experiences, and that it's possible to establish a set of patterns that enable confident design and construction of places that serve this purpose.

In due course I'll address in detail implications that arise from that contention. For example, Arvin Knettle may have found, while swigging his eighth cup of coffee after midnight under the blaring fluorescent lights of Dancing Donut at Tenth and Clement in San Francisco, a reasonable facsimile of the mind he'd previously lost at the Left Luggage desk of Chhatarpati Shivaji International Airport untold months ago. He stared into the groundless, bottomless cup and felt that, indeed, this was the moment he (or whoever it was inhabiting his body) had been waiting for.

Does this qualify the donut shop as a sacred place? You or I might be skeptical. We would likely imagine ourselves in the place and (if we didn't reject the claim outright) would suggest that our experience would not likely resemble Arvin's. Which brings us to a primary principle of sacred places: to some degree, any reasonably sensitive person (and even the occasional insensitive churl) will be susceptible to their effect--just as it is no surprise that many people experience some degree of stress (if not indiscriminate rage) when stuck in traffic. A notable (and I think supportable) corollary is that the presence of other stressed commuters compounds the stress of simply being stuck in traffic. Which holds a convenient negative implication that a community of revelers at the bacchanal (or, if you prefer altered states of a more sedate flavor, meditators in the temple) will increase the effect of the place. Not simply by bumbling in as oblivious tourists, but (actually almost as simply) by entering the place with an intent of being altered. That is, by participating in the transformative effect of the place, simply by being receptive to the possibility of such an experience.

So far we're nowhere near defining, or even really much in the way of describing, the properties of this effect. So far just tracking a scent, a hint of a scent.

Here's a twist, though not really so surprising: for most people throughout our meanderings as a species, and still now (if we're honest), an experience of the sacred is most likely to occur in a natural setting. Out away from buildings and human-made structures of any sort. Not in them.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the pattern languages category.

nature is the previous category.

permaculture is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

  • OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID