sorry, fell asleep before posting.

All of the readings seem to approach the idea of system from different angles, with different strategies on the method of engagement with the system. The Kansai Airport inhabits a system of air flow, while the Swiss Re seems to be a creation and manipulation of a specific system of organization and structure. Fuller descends into the topic of the human system in a sort of Powers of 10 narrative, starting from the universe to the planet to the human to the plants to the animals to the actual DNA and RNA that form the basis of the system. In some ways his definition of a system is very spatial, with a system being a subdivision between the outside and the inside. This seems to lend itself to Bantham's idea of systems but Fuller introduces the idea of indeterminism as a way to perceive systems as they exist across dimensions and scales, which forces us to understand systems by trying to perceive the whole or the general in order to accurately perceive the specific. Bantham's description of architectural systems as separate and almost competing elements attempting to garner attention and study, then, is a very bitter description that fails to see the "all" thinking of the system of building.
It is important, I think, to see systems the way Fuller describes the universe. He recognizes the finite quality of the universe as a sum of finite parts, but also is able to accept it as a system continually under transformation or evolution. The perception of systems as both micro and macrocosmic, or perhaps even scale-less, is something that is directly applicable to the practice of architecture and design. The parti moment, then, can become more of a realization and opportunistic use of the system affecting the design, rather than a scale-specific gesture.