Probable Geometries and Blobs - The Greg Lynn Readings

Probable Geometries –

This reading was a bit difficult to follow but after a couple attempts I think I understood most of it.
I thought the reading did well in outlining previous architectural attempts to free formal spatial organization from the exact geometries. But it seems that Corbusier and the deconstructionists are attempting fluidity with ideal forms. If architecture is an anthropomorphic art, then why do we use exact geometries and ideal forms to represent the human body which is asymmetric, fluid and subject to its environmental condition? But the Greeks didn’t have MRI machines that they could measure from. Can we even perceive the subtle irregularities in our bodies? Then why not reduce to ideal forms?
I also liked the way Lynn brought up biological and geological sciences. I think it helped me realize that nature cannot just be reduced to ideal forms and that the beauty of nature is that it isn’t exact.


Blob Tectonics –

This reading made me wonder if the reason why architects are partial to ideal forms is due to the ease of drawing and then building? It is much more simple to build a square than it is to build a blob, of course with technological advances it will be much easier.

The thing that completely confused me about this reading was the multiplicities and irreducibility, and stability or lack of, so I have some questions.
A blob is irreducible because it can only attract mass? So then what happens if the blob is split?
In accretion of blobs, can blobs completely ingest other blobs or will they always just intersect? They then are a singularity in the surface? And the multiplicities are a result of the internal geometric intersections because the internal forms of blobs do not change? More intersecting blobs means more complex geometries but a more stable object? Is geometry even the right word to use in describing blob aggregates?



So, if anybody can help me understand all this that would be great!