Virtual and Physical:

architect Christopher Alexander

on living spaces

Dr Bonna Jones
Senior Lecturer
RMIT University
bonna.jones@rmit.edu.au

Yen Wong
Learning & Technology Librarian
State Library of Victoria
ywong@slv.vic.gov.au

Abstract:
Christopher Alexander is a controversial architect who believes that those who build
physical spaces must address the question of human feeling. When combined with
some ideas on metamedia literacy, there are implications in his work for the building
of social online spaces such as Inside-a-Dog, a new site being developed by the
State Library of Victoria fro young readers.
Introduction

Initially, as the technological revolution took hold, we made much of the distinction
between virtual spaces and physical spaces. In library and information studies, there
have been good reasons for doing this, as we had to learn how to manage new kinds
of social spaces. Their very ‘newness’ warranted an emphasis on differences; we
had to think about efficiency and how best to make new kinds of spaces. Now, we
need to revisit the idea that social spaces are centres of life. One only has to
physically walk into the State Library of Victoria to be immediately plunged into a
lively space. Whether or not you feel you belong comfortably in this space is another
question you can still appreciate its aliveness.

Despite the differences between online spaces and physical spaces, in our view it is
time to consider their similarities. As a major benefit of this shift in thinking, it will be
possible to appreciative how virtual spaces are in some instances a development of
a physical space, and to research their qualities as living spaces or ‘spaces of life’.

Christopher Alexander is a controversial architect who believes that our built

environment fails to address the question of feeling. He argues that physical spaces
are not just objects; they are alive. He speaks of ‘structure preserving
transformations’ in architecture and he seeks to identify the fifteen properties of living
structure, so that we can build more beautiful spaces. His emphasis is on the design
process as much as it is on the end product of the process; people are understood
as active participants in the world and architecture is understood as the means by
which spaces can be made for people to feel at home (Alexander 2002; 2003).

In a different domain, that of semiotics (or the study of the making of meaning), Jay
Lemke describes metamedia literacy as the competency to make socially
recognisable meanings using language. He particularly refers to multimedia
authoring. That is, people will be linked via their strategies to various media objects
in a process of meaning-making. Given the availability of multimedia authoring and
the distributed nature of this process, online learning communities become an
attractive proposition for libraries. People will be able to live in these communities
semiotically, both experiencing and creating beautiful spaces – and to some extent
this process will be self-organising. Literacy can also be described as the mediator in
our process of becoming; to be literate means we can read, imagine and interpret
across a broad spectrum of objects. Being more literate means the capacity to read,
imagine and interpret becomes more sophisticated; for instance, one may be better
able to read images in the context of their references to other images.

The State Library of Victoria is about to embark on the creation of an online learning
space for young learners and has already established a site for young readers called
Inside-a-Dog. Library staff will not only be stretched in terms of their knowledge of
metamedia literacy, they will also face the challenge of what it means to make
beautiful spaces in collaboration with an online learning community. We regard
Alexander’s work as a lens or worldview that could be applied to these developments.
Furthermore, we suggest that Lemke’s ‘metamedia literacy’ will be helpful to
describe the kind of expertise that staff members of the State Library of Victoria will
need to develop.

VALA2008 Conference 1
Living Spaces and the architect Christopher Alexander
Over a period of years, Alexander wrote a series of books called ‘The Nature of
Order’. He wanted to lay the foundation for a science of architecture, but he also
hoped to offer a theory of creativity from architecture back into other fields of science.
He is interested in complexity theory as it applies to the complexity generated out of
a process of building. He laments that architecture is now in an atrocious muddle. As
a builder of buildings and communities, architecture has managed to achieve
“ugliness and soul-destroying chaos” (Alexander 2003 p 2), especially in twentieth
century cities and environments. The built environment as we know it has evoked
“mixed feelings of dismay…in nearly every thinking person” (Alexander 2003 p 2).

Instead of the “dry positivist view too typical of technical scientific thinking” (2003 p.3),
Alexander argues that we cannot confront the problems inherent in the design of
complex spaces without also facing some fundamental questions about human
feeling. What does it mean to build with spirit and beauty? What is a configuration
and what does it mean to generate new configurations? That is, what is involved in
the processes whereby buildings are conceived and made? These are the difficult
questions at the heart of architecture as a discipline and tradition. Regardless of
what happens in the harder sciences, architecture cannot avoid the question about
how to construct beautiful spaces. Curiously, however, once some of these
questions are turned on their head, as they have to be in architecture, there is the
possibility that a discipline like this can actually inform science more generally. That
is, architecture must be concerned with questions of value that cannot be separated
from function. Aesthetics, which is usually dismissed as subjective, has to be a
central concern of architecture, and there is also the question of context: buildings
have an environmental context and are made whole with the place in which they
exist, not despite it. Then there is the creative process: there have to be processes in
architecture that are capable of generating qualities, such as unity. Human feeling
must also be addressed: the quality of the built product must somehow connect with
human feeling. Turning to the issue of connection with the land, there are questions
of ecology and sustainability. Some scholars are now emphasising how culture is a
development of nature, not separated (Gare 1996; Salthe & Fuhrman 2005), but for
many contemporary sciences, this connection has been lost. Added to this, there is
the social agreement necessary to construct human environments; architecture is
one of those professions that works with the level of groups of people and rarely
works singly with individuals. Then there is the “beauty of shape”. Alexander regards
this beauty as the “goal and outcome of all processes” (2003 p.3).

Because of these questions and issues, “[a]rchitecture presents a new kind of insight
into complexity…[and] it is one of the human endeavours where we most explicitly
deal with complexity and have to create it” (Alexander 2003 p.3). He also cites
creation of software in computer science as similar arena of endeavour and
organisation theory as another. Indeed, his earlier work on patterns was eagerly
referenced by computer scientists and in that field. his work has a significant
reputation (Alexander 1996). He correctly highlights the importance of this issue of
complexity, as this is confirmed by studies elsewhere. There is a form of complexity
theory in computer science and the mathematics of dynamical systems, and another
in the study of complex systems including chaos theory, artificial life and the kind of
work being conducted at the Santa Fe Institute. There is also a third form, which

VALA2008 Conference 2
takes a systems approach to complexity. We can read about this in the literature of
engineering, biology, ecology, and philosophy. It involves the study of large systems
that are generally characterised as a collection of objects or processes, considered
to be of interest for some particular purpose (Gare 2000).

In talking about the creation of complexity, Alexander gives, as an example, the

number of key decisions about adaptation that are made per hour in the process of
constructing a house. If handled wrongly, the number of potential mistakes is
manifold; if handled well: “the house can have a beautiful and perfect fit among its
parts, and to its environment, and to its users’ needs” (2003 p.4). By way of contrast,
for the most part scientists have observed their environment and been objective;
they have not yet been confronted by this question of creativity. They have tended to
work on suppositions about the nature of objective reality, which then inform their
methods. “Architecture…is…one of the first cases we have encountered collectively,
as a civilization, where it matters whether you do things right or not” (Alexander 2003
p 4). Notably, this quote shows the emphasis on doing, yet Alexander does not refer
directly to the discipline of philosophy to support his argument.

In the Eighteenth Century a German philosopher, Friedrich Schelling, researched the

idea that ‘being’ is best described as ‘freedom suspended’ and ‘becoming’ is best
described as ‘eternal becoming’ or ‘producing without limit’ (1978 pp.32-33). In this
view, any attempt to say that the world can be divided into ‘things’ and ‘nothing’ is
ridiculous, because there is a higher concept than these: there is doing or activity.
Schelling did not ignore things, but he did define them somewhat differently from
other philosophers. He argued that things are modifications of an activity, which is
being limited in various ways. It is activity that is real; and a number of activities
make up a process. In this view, products or things are simply derivatives of
processes. For example, a version of a website is instantiated as a thing for a limited
period of time and it may be alive with ongoing versions; it is the process of
producing the website that is the reality. Put another way we could say that the site is
only ever semi-autonomous of its process of production. Alexander is making a
similar argument about how we regard buildings.

According to Alexander, architecture is about being active in the creation of physical

spaces. “If we are wrong, we create a mess” (Alexander 2003 p.4). The insights
gained from architecture, in Alexander’s view, are therefore more powerful and more
practical than those gained in more passive disciplines and traditions. Furthermore,
he contends that our ability to master the creation of complexity is crucial to our
survival; other scholars mount a similar argument, saying that it is even crucial to the
health of the planet (Gare 1996).

Granted, this is a brief introduction to Alexander, but we can take note of particular
points he makes. For instance he highlights how architecture is not able to manage
without “a common sense shared criterion of good quality” (Alexander 2003 p.5).
Good quality does not come out of chaos and yet the scientific community has
virtually forbidden its members from talking about value as though it actually exists.
Alexander contends that wholeness and value are necessary in a complex system.
Then he extends this idea to include the other systems, where these are
achievements of the processes in train. A good system is marked out by the way that
it makes other systems good as well; this is akin to the argument that a good book
not only makes us a good reader, ultimately it facilitates us into being a better author

VALA2008 Conference 3
of our own personal story (Ricoeur 1991b). Therefore, a good system is helped by
the larger systems around it and the smaller ones that it contains. In this way,
wholeness can be described in terms of the recursive manner in which systems are
created. For instance in a street, every house can help the street and every garden
can help the house, but the amenity of the public spaces is also enhanced by smaller
systems of gardens and houses.

He targets the divide between facts and aesthetics. One has been deemed to be the
province of science and one the province of art, yet a single viewpoint does not work
in the face of complexity. In ancient times, aesthetic judgements were not denigrated
for being subjective. There was scope for shared understanding and reliable results.
A science of complexity has to account for subjectivity, not in the sense that there is
idiosyncrasy of judgement but rather that subjectivity is connecting. Gare (2000),
who is a process philosopher, states this appropriately. He says that we experience
the object in an objective way, but this is not the end of the story. As he points out,
we are inside the productivity of nature as well when we interpret, read, imagine and
so on. These are natural activities and that must be accounted for. Similarly, we
cannot step outside of feeling, as this is the lesson learned from the humanities. Yet
to some extent we do have the ability to be objective, as we have learned from
science. We engage in both subjectivity and objectivity when we make a product that
then has a life of its own to some extent; for instance, a building stands as an
invitation to interpretation, an invitation to the experience of feelings and so on. An
online site is similar. Both are the object of communal interpretations and communal
valuations. As soon as we start to think like this, the division forged between
objective and subjective starts to sound like nonsense, but we can also see the
beginnings of a theoretical lens that we could use to ask about the creation of online
spaces.

Alexander talks about structure-preserving transformations whereby a complex

system evolves and adapts over time. “How does a complex system find its way to
the good configurations?” (2003 p.19). He makes the point that we cannot find good
configurations just by looking for them; we have to know how to engage in the
process whereby they are achieved; and we have to be able to get to good answers
to design problems.

State Library of Victoria

The physical spaces at the State Library of Victoria were built in an earlier era and
have been recently renovated to accommodate the greater range of activities that
clients of the library now engage in. It is undeniable that the spaces are beautiful, for
we can attest to that. They are also in tune with the aspirations of the grand era in
which they were built; this was a time when architects operated according to the
grand narratives of their era. For instance, we can see their emphasis on awe
coupled with a social emphasis on self-improvement. The State Library, as we now
know it, has clearly benefited from the structure-preserving transformations that
Alexander talks about.

With the development of the World Wide Web, a library can now have a presence in
the social spaces that are available online; for instance, the State Library has
extended its reach to clients who would not have come into the Library often in the

VALA2008 Conference 4
past, if at all. Even more recently, the State Library of Victoria website has entered
the realm of interactive services; for instance, the Library has operated a virtual
reference service along with other state and national libraries. Of particular interest
for the purposes of this paper, are a number of new developments, such as the site
Inside-a-Dog, the proposed online learning site for school-aged clients and the
emergent Culture Victoria. The latter will connect the library via high speed
broadband to other cultural institutions such as art galleries and museums in Victoria.

Inside-a-Dog is a reading and literature site for young clients. It engages young
readers through debate about the books they are reading, and it has samples of
books and competitions. There is also a proposed State Library of Victoria site for
online learning that will see the Library enter the realm of education more actively
than it has been able to do previously. Culture Victoria is another, broader
development phase that the Library is also involved in.

Usually with these kinds of developments, we concentrate on how they are

distinguishable from their antecedents: we concentrate on their differences. For
instance, we may draw a heavy line between ‘virtual space’ and ‘physical space’, or
we may suddenly claim that a new service has a capability to be interactive and that
this has not been available before.

Perhaps it is time to entertain the idea that there are similarities between online
spaces and physical spaces. Certainly, we acknowledge that the Library is looking to
an expanded client group and is looking to make greater use of its collections in a
variety of spaces, but this is not necessarily our emphasis in this paper. We are
interested in how the library staff will plot a new narrative that takes them from an
emphasis on the functionality of the online spaces (how are they actually made to
work and function the way they are supposed to?) to an emerging consciousness
that online spaces can actually be as beautiful as the building that has been worked
on by a succession of architects. As we can see now with the site Inside-a-Dog,
which, in a short time, has substantially grown in popularity, there is this initial
emphasis on function. But will the site, because of its interactive nature, eventually
reflect metamedia literacy? And will this signal the move from a logocentric position
(word centred)? What will facilitate this? In particular, we are asking: will the
narrative-making process of the staff facilitate this? We also emphasise that we are
not positing a massive change, but, rather, incremental change along the lines of the
structure-preserving transformations as described by Alexander. The online spaces
facilitate interaction, attract clients who are already, to some extent, metamedia
literate, possibly attract a new generation of clients who will bring with them
metamedia authoring skills and allow some of the staff/client interactions to be more
immediate. There are constraints of time and space that are overcome to a greater
extent with the emergence of online spaces. We acknowledge all of this, but ask
more broadly what these developments mean in terms of the ongoing development
of the State Library of Victoria from a physical space to one that is both physical and
online.

In order that we can understand the activity of ‘restorying’, it is helpful to think about
the process of organisational change as the making of new narratives. It is also
helpful, given what we have said above, to think about the concept of ‘metamedia
literacy’. For both of these we can turn to semiotics, which is the study of meaning-
making generally across nature.

VALA2008 Conference 5
Semiotics
Jay Lemke makes the point that there is a myriad of ways to conceptualise ‘literacy’
(Lemke n.d.). In Library and Information Studies (LIS), information literacy is a
central concept and we note that in semiotics Taborsky (1999; 2000) has argued that
information is always a product of the process of semiosis (the making of meaning),
whether we are speaking of human semiosis, or indeed semiosis in nature more
generally. However, in the culture of LIS, which is constituted by the ongoing
conversations that allow the field to operate as a coherent whole, it has been hard to
shake ‘information’ from its strong association with the written word. This is
understandable. We note, for instance, that many employed in the field work with
images and the complex process of making new images. Indeed, you could say that
some librarians have traditionally worked much closer to the rawness of the symbol,
while others have tended to work with narratives that have already interpreted the
symbol, so-to-speak.

Rather than just adopt the notion of ‘visual literacy’, a concept that could be
associated with Alexander, it is clear that we need a broader concept. In defining
literacy, Lemke argues that each literacy “consists of a set of interdependent social
practices which link people, media objects, and strategies for meaning-
making….each plays a role in maintaining and transforming society because
literacies provide essential links between meanings and doings. Literacies are
themselves technologies, and they give us the keys to using broader technologies.
They also provide a key link between self and society: the means through which we
act on, participate in, and become shaped by larger ‘ecosocial’ systems and
networks” (Lemke n.d. p.1). Lemke, who follows a similar line of thinking to others in
semiotics, points to the idea that our identities, perceptions and even possible
futures, are transformed through the literacies we engage in. One could say that
literacy is the mediator in our process of becoming; in terms of action we are literate
when we can read, imagine and interpret across a broad spectrum of objects. As we
become more literate, our capacity to read, imagine and interpret generally becomes
more sophisticated. Ultimately we become better co-authors and not just readers;
that is, we are active in the authorship of our stories and of our social spaces. Under
this view, meaning is an achievement of the various activities and processes we
engage in. We make new meanings, and these are achievements of the processes
and their mediator, which is literacy.

In an attempt to articulate this, and perhaps to counter the perception that literacy
has to be narrowly applied to words and print-on-paper, Lemke argues in favour of a
concept of ‘metamedia literacy’. He suggests that the notion of literacy on its own is
too broad to be useful, as it really refers to “a set of cultural competencies for making
socially recognizable meanings” (Lemke n.d. p.2).

At this level of theory-building there are many vexed questions. But as we see above
with Alexander, it is the practitioners, whether these are architects or librarians, who
will have to make decisions based on the very practical skill of building. This is the
challenge for us in LIS.

In human semiosis we engage in semantic innovation; that is, we make meaning

through activities such as interpreting, reading and imagining. These are mediators
in the process whereby symbols, words, narratives, genres and libraries are

VALA2008 Conference 6
achieved in our culture. Application of these ideas brings us to the practical social
spaces of management and organisations (whether these are so-called ‘virtual’ or
‘physical’ or ‘social’). In our profession, we manage the objects that are products of
the process, but we manage them to facilitate further creativity, usually on the part of
our clients.

Lemke argues that one can never make meaning with language alone, yet surely this
is a question of how we define ‘language’? The language of art and of architecture,
as shown by Alexander, gives us a broader definition of language. Indeed, a reading
of ‘The Nature of Order’ shows the language of images in operation. The reader
interprets, feels and imagines with the help of Alexander. It is not just about words,
sentences, and narratives, for there is the level of symbol to consider. A symbol calls
for interpretation – we can put words to this interpretation, but also feelings. Feelings
too can be expressed as words, but they can also be expressed as images or body
movements. We must think of language more broadly and librarians will need to
become knowledgeable about its various forms. This is especially so now that
images are not just the province of art, photography or film librarians. As images
become more ubiquitous, their capacity to be transmitted over networks improves,
and they are dynamic as well. Visual literacy is a skill that we all need to develop. By
this we do not just mean the mechanics of the process of creating an image (still or
moving).

It seems to us that if the level of observation is switched from words to symbols,

there is then some hope of making the connection from Lemke back to Alexander. A
symbol, broadly defined, calls for interpretation; there is a fundamental gap inside a
symbol – a gap between the symbol itself and what it stands for. An act of
interpretation is called for by the symbol (Ricoeur 1991a). At this level, we have all
kinds of symbols, including images; we put an image into play by way of the
imagination (either individually or socially). We can say that imagining is the mediator
in the process of meaning-making, and while we will grant that it is not the only
mediator, at the level of symbol it is nevertheless a powerful action.

Rather than concentrate on imagining, interpreting and the process of plotting new
narratives, Lemke points to multimedia semiotics, which he says may need to rely on
three universal semiotic functions: presentation (whereby a world is created or
described), orientation (the stance taken towards the audience) and organisation
(whereby parts and wholes are linked). In this regard, he is similar to Alexander.

Up to this point, there is some value in Lemke’s ideas, but later he seems to subvert
his earlier stance that we must think in terms of ecosystems and their dynamics. He
fails to acknowledge that we make meaning by experiencing a world that is different
from our own and then crossing over, even if temporarily, to live in that world. When
we return to our world we may be more than we were to begin with; we have
developed in ourselves, to use the language of psychology. If librarians are going to
engage with others in their growth, and this seems to be central to our profession,
then they cannot be limited to a narrow interpretation of what meaning-making is.

Like many both before and after him, Lemke argues that “[n]ew information
technologies will make it possible for students to learn what they want, when they
want, how they want, without schools” (Lemke n.d.). More importantly, and this is not
emphasised enough by Lemke, they will enable students to be in a position of

VALA2008 Conference 7
greater authorship. The language of architecture offered by Alexander is more likely
to accommodate the idea that clients are participants in the process of building.
There are likely to be fewer opportunities for experts to impose constraints that
prevent clients from acting back into the space of production. They will be co-authors,
or co-creators. In this process of co-creation, the notion of metamedia literacy has
some value in our view, especially when used in combination with the ideas of
Alexander.

Online Spaces as developments of physical spaces

There is no doubt that the State Library of Victoria is a beautiful building, for we can
attest to this even as we also acknowledge that this is far from being the whole story.
After all, a physical space is not the sum of this particular organisation. Even the
ongoing activity of creating that space, as seen in recent renovations of the building
and its internal spaces, is not the whole story. We also know, as with many libraries
in recent years, that the social space itself has become more complex with the
addition of online spaces. Yet we could hope that the online spaces will be an
extension of the beauty experienced in the physical spaces of the Library.

Inside-a-Dog is the kind of online space that has emerged in an organic fashion from
the desire to offer online spaces to clients of the library. As a social space, it has
been an initiative of certain enthusiastic library staff in collaboration with young
readers. Unlike many library websites that have been purpose-designed, perhaps
even outsourced to a design company, there have been staff at the Library who have
championed its development. They have taken the view that it will grow and develop.
To date they have not referenced the ideas of thinkers from architecture like
Alexander or of semioticians such as Lemke. Hence, this paper raises a number of
questions. While it can only be offered as an exploratory paper, it is clear that these
questions are timely. For instance, the librarians at the State Library are initiating
online spaces at a time when many librarians are facing similar questions. These
include: how does this thinking affect the design outcomes? how will it affect the
process of design? what is different about thes approach that Alexander advocates?
how will it be possible for State Library staff to recognise the issues of importance to
its future development? It is too early to say for Inside-a-Dog how these questions
will unfold. Nevertheless, we can say that the narrative-making process used by the
staff is likely to influence the way the site develops. These questions will be asked
recursively as the site is developed and they are central to the ongoing narrative of
the site and its purpose. We can also anticipate that the Library staff will develop
metamedia literacy, as there is another set of questions to be asked recursively.
These include: what constitutes beauty of shape? what constitutes a good design or
good decisions? how is this to be evaluated using shared understanding and reliable
notions of that? where does unity or wholeness come in? what makes good
configurations? does this equate with the notion of ‘wholeness’? how do the
metamedia skills of the clients come in?

A classic scientific approach can only analyse the online site once it has already
emerged as a whole entity. We are suggesting that co-authorship of sites will make
other approaches necessary and that along with this comes the opportunity to ask
these questions. Ultimately, one might hope that the beauty that is apparent in the

VALA2008 Conference 8
current architecture, although it has been arrived at through a different route, will
prefigure some developments in the online social spaces.

In this paper we have drawn attention to the idea that online spaces will share
certain characteristics with architectural spaces, but, more importantly, certain
activities such as building beautiful spaces and making meaning could converge.
This will happen because clients will have co-authorship or co-creatorship of the new
spaces being created through the facilitation of the librarians in the State Library of
Victoria. As shown by Alexander, there must be processes in architecture that are
capable of generating qualities, such as unity. Human feeling must also be
addressed; the quality of the built product must somehow connect with human
feeling. We contend that State Library of Victoria staff will themselves need to be
authoring a new story about the kinds of online spaces they are facilitating. Their
own metamedia skills will need to take account of the activities of imagining,
interpreting and building of spaces for feeling. But we are also confident that the
beautiful spaces that can be seen in the current State Library of Victoria building will
be an inspiration once the early emphasis on mechanics of creating online spaces is
transcended.

We noted above Alexander’s argument that a good system is marked out by the way
that it makes other systems good as well. This is akin to the argument that a good
book not only makes us a good reader, ultimately it facilitates us into being a better
author of our own personal story. Extending this to Inside-a-Dog, we could say that it
will be helped by the larger systems around it. In particular, it will be helped by the
narrative-making of the State Library staff, which is recursive and also constitutive of
the process whereby the online site emerges into wholeness.

VALA2008 Conference 9
References

Alexander, C. (1996). The origins of pattern theory, the future of theory, and the
generation of a living world. Paper presented at the Association for Computing
Machinery Conference on Object-Oriented Programs, Systems, Languages and
Applications, San Jose, California. Retrieved 30 November 2004, from
<http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee/ieetext.htm>
Alexander, C. (2002). The process of creating life (Vol. 2). Berkeley, CA: The Center
for Environmental Structure.
Alexander, C. (2003). New concepts in complexity theory arising from studies in the
field of architecture: and overview of the four books of The Nature of Order with an
emphasis on the scientific problems which are raised. Retrieved 9 October 2007,
from <http://www.natureoforder.com/library/scientific-introduction.pdf>
Gare, A. (1996). Nihilism Inc.: environmental destruction and the metaphysics of
sustainability. Como, NSW, Eco-logical.
Gare, A. (2000), “Systems Theory and Complexity Introduction”, Democracy and
Nature, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 327-340.
Lemke, J. L. (n.d.) Metamedia literacy: transforming meanings and media. Retrieved
31 August 2007, from <http://www.schools.ash.org.au/litweb/page500.html>
Ricoeur, P. (1991a). From text to action. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Ricoeur, P. (1991b). Life: a story in search of a narrator. In M. J. Valdes (Ed.), A
Ricoeur reader: reflection and imagination (pp. 425-437). Toronto: University of
Toronto.
Salthe, S. N., & Fuhrman, G. (2005). The Cosmic bellows: the Big Bang and the
second law. Cosmos and History: the journal of natural and social philosophy, 1(2),
295-318.
Schelling, F. W. J. (1978). System of transcendental idealism (P. Heath, Trans.).
Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
Taborsky, E. (1999). Evolution of consciousness. BioSystems, 51, 153-168.
Taborsky, E. (2000). The complex information process. Entropy, 2(3), 81-97.

VALA2008 Conference 10