I disagree, @Celtic.
First, it’s not elevating something to give it a name. You call yourself Celtic. Is that complicating the entire culture you’re referring to?
By using the word “pillar” we are simply indicating an act of elevation and in a particular way that warrants the choice of this word. It didn’t come from nowhere and some people have found that improves other vertical descriptions out there, particularly the Vaughn Cube. (Should Vaughn not use the word “cube” in you estimation?)
As for technique, that word means a method or way of accomplishing something. As with Vaughn’s Cube, he’s quite right if he wants to call that a technique because it describes both the manner and the ability one could develop to tap into spatial memory.
Second, The Pillar Technique is special on a few grounds.
When someone doesn’t know something and they come to know it, that is one of the most special things in the world. Some people call it education.
It’s also special to me. Having a name for it changed its properties, and here we can circle back to the role of the word technique.
To conflate this name with couches and chairs is a bit rich on your part, but the fact of the matter is:
Someone can and did derive principles from using spatial memory in this manner.
If they were to use tools like chairs and couches in a way that they felt warrants giving it a name, I’m quite confident they’re not going to wait for permission to name it. If they give it a name that helps others remember it or at least identify it in a way that shapes how they use it, this does not mislead. It creates clarity for that person, and has potential for creating clarity for many more people because there is an imagistic frame that helps us understand the concept at a mental glance.
If such a term does not add anything to your practice, is it not the time to make that decision after working with it?
How can you really judge a thing as creating complication without looking into it, exploring it and through the lens of experiencing making your statement?
I’m very curious, and if you’ve written any books on the matter of mnemonics, or books outlining the appropriate application of names to things, I’d be very interested to interview you about your knowledge based on your considered offerings. (Videos or articles you’ve created would be great too.)
If you don’t have such materials, I would suggest that you create them to validate your views on what is and isn’t warranted in the world of naming things.
In the meantime, thank you for your comments. I feel inspired to think more about couches and chairs and run some experiments. For example, imagine having three chairs on a couch (possibly in a Vaughn Cube). With four legs on each chair you already have a number of stations to work with…
If it works well… would it be alright with you to call it The Chesterfield Mnemonic? I’ve never been very fond of the word “couch.”