form is one in the same - that one is always struggling to become the other. As a result, I would say that we are most interested in things that don’t even make it to ‘form’ proper - that we are interested in state-change not stable states of matter – where wholes are a tricky business. With this approach, the unidirectional concern that was brought up in the last comment is a very interesting point. ‘Contextual feedback’ for us comes from the mixing of architectural systems, we never see the granular (small whole building a large whole) as an end in itself, but just a component for designing elements of spaces and structures that would need to interact with additional systems. If architecture is good at one thing - it’s probably at putting two things together. A scalelessness that can hold up to the test as systems come together seems like a tall but interesting order.
11 - Your interest in state-change seems to uproot traditional notions of stability and its role in architecture, not just in a structural sense but in an optical sense as well (through hierarchy and ordering). I am curious about how stability relates to your suggestion of ‘loose’ details or possibly ‘open’ connections. This seems more likely to fit with temporary structures that are predisposed to reconfiguration. But it appears to me you are not strictly speaking along those terms, but rather about how these mechanisms could be deployed at a building scale (and equally as ‘permanent’?). Do you see this applicable to larger structures that would as a result offer some new form of equilibrium? Or is ‘equilibrium’ antithetical to the scaleless (or in your case, the formless)?
02 - I think there are generally two states of scalelessness in the comprehension and conception of buildings.