1. Moneo lays out a proposal for a system to organize a collection of distinct objects, positioning it as a design problem. This enables us to consider what the needs for a particular type are and how we can adapt it for that purpose. It is open to change, and acknowledges that types differ in “substantial” ways. However, it’s unclear to me what substantial would mean in this context. He writes about time and cross-cultural differences, and extends this to say these are “not as autonomous objects but as ele­ments given life by the process of history itself.” These discrete objects flow up to types that are the history of the world. How can we find this history without identifying the discrete differences between types?
2. Can Moneo’s thesis be thought of in the same way as object oriented-programming, in which there’s a base object that is never directly expressed, but its data and functionality are manifest in unique instances?
3. Kwinter’s Landscapes of Change deals with flow and catastrophe. It’s almost an extension of the cybernetics and systems readings, but with a notable difference. When ‘catastrophe’ occurs, the system undergoes a dynamic shift, and must find a new state of equilibrium. However, Kwitner makes a point that catastrophe changes a system so thoroughly that it is not the same as it was before. As information flows in and out from a form, is it possible to imagine this as a regulatory feedback system, constantly shifting from one singularity to the next, with the catastrophe being the event that drives equilibrium, but conversely forcing a change in the state?

As an aside, I’ve always wanted to fabricate an installation similar to an epigenetic landscape with a series of linear actuators that responded to the accumulated movement of people through a space over a long period of time.