Debate on the papers of Session 3 343
Per Olaf Fjeld, Oslo, Norway
This is an interesting discussion, for it is in some ways full of optimism, in that we
are all very well fed and can sort of rethink our world, which can somehow be even
better than what we have here today. What I am trying to search for, then, is that
we somehow take on all the complexity and the possibilities that our world has. We
sort of take everything we know into our discussion, which of course is very positive
in a way, because as I said we are all very well fed, but at the same time we drive
this complexity into some sort of architectural concern. But we do not necessarily
have any ideas, which may be too strongly put, or even any interest, which may be
even more so, in how to simplify that complexity, to bring it out of its own realm
and into an architectural concern. It seems as though the only tool we have in that
sense is a different type of abstraction; and it will be interesting, I think, and a
future challenge to bring all the complexity that we talk about into whatever the
simplicity, if I may say so, of an architectural concern. I do see that there is a dif-
ference between the two.
Dimitris Papalexopoulos, Athens, Greece
I think that if there are no more interventions or questions we can close on that.