1. What motivates us to attain knowledge?
2. Why do people desire understanding?
3. If Peter Eisenman’s architecture may be considered to have a dialectical relationship with phenomenology, does this make his work fundamentally noumenological?
4. What is the critical difference and relationship between “reality” and “world?”
5. What is the critical difference between city and metropolis?
6. Is Stop City by DOGMA exclusively democratic or autocratic?
7. What other strategies can theorize projects besides critical, formal, textual, comparative, difference, and dialectical? (rhetorical, phenomenological, grammatical, archaeological, theological)
8. What would a grammatical analysis of architecture be?
9. Dialectically, if other is between two absolute things, does this make other a third absolute thing?
10. If so, is this trialectical?
11. Why does “something in us rebel against being inbetween?”
12. Is “Main Street” a limit? (insert: forum, citadel, square, piazza, plaza, portico, tetrapylon, tetrakionion, agora, arch, basilica, hippodrome, theatre, stadium)
13. What is the limit to limit?
14. What is the meaning of meaning?
15. Can architecture introduce order through urbanization, or only through the form of objects?
16. Can civic form actually stop urbanization?
17. Can urbanization be so relentless that it’s impossible to block?
18. Or does “stopping” it absorb its effects instead?
19. What is the balance between opinion and fact (belief and empiricism)?
20. What does my own architecture “ask”?