"That is exactly why I hate this architecture, it is just philosophical crap, imperialism and statism and nationalism in its worst form." That, I like. But, be careful, as you are contradicting yourself... "I am arguing that it is completely devoid of any philosophical meaning and therefore is an artistic dead end" (If it is philosophical, then it is crap, if it isn't, it's pointless...)
I did try to explain OMA's design process, but either it wasn't well written, or you didn't read it (or maybe its a combination of the two). I don't think OMA's work is devoid of philosophical meaning. The whole idea of the manifest diagram is to present architectural abstraction in a rational manner which best caters to our society's obsession with logic and rationality. You seem bent on logic and rationality, which is what Dadaism responded to. Dadaism was made to be illogical and irrational, chaotic, to make a comment about society. Actually, the Dadaists thought that it was the logical and rational thinking which caused WW2.
At the risk of going off topic, all art is abstraction. And, your comment "the only way an abstract form can positively contribute to solving a problem is through aestetics [sic]" sounds ahistorical. Artists have, at least in modern times, relied on abstraction to solve problems of representation, or experience. Kandinsky's colourful paintings, devoid of subject matter (read: abstraction?), sought purely psychological responses to colours and forms. The Cubists (Picasso), tried to reconcile a conflict of pattern and solidity (according to Gombrich). Even the apparently non-abstract paintings, are in fact, abstract. A landscape in which every detail is visible ignores the nature of human sight which can only focus on a single object at one time. This formed part of the inspiration for Impressionism.
I want to try an experiment (if you will indulge me
). How abstract do you think this building is:
Patkau Architects
Actually, it's a bit of a trick question (open to argument though). The form of the building is derived from:
"The exterior form of the house is shaped by the intersection of two principal considerations: the first is the allowable building footprint and height, and the second is the need to shed snow from the roof into appropriate storage areas within the site. The sculptural volume that emerges from this intersection of extruded building footprint and folding snow-shed roof is occupied in a manner that maintains the inherent plastic properties of the building form"
Canadian Architect.
Maybe this is 'good' abstraction? But this is what I find disapointing about architectural theory. Unless you read about it, it's difficult to read the generating idea into the building.