@JaneDevin Said
Well they must have see the urban pathologies as a study of the endemic nature of the urban to the project of modernity itself. For example, Latin America was founded under the aegis of the burgeoning world system that is only now teetering on the borders of the abyss. This world system established a matheme, or world ordering axiomatic principles that continue to act as the symbolic framework through which critical thought can engage the real. Under these conditions, especially in marginal zones of this world system, the structuring of this world system becomes exposed and openly negotiates in a completely different way than from within the core. Nonetheless our access to these negotiations is always already foreclosed upon because we never become coincidental to the multiples being negotiated even though these same multiples make it visible to us at the margins. Thus, the appearance of such incidences, what would amount to the operational conduct of urbanism itself in this context, coalesces as complexes and symptoms rather than fully endowed bodies. Hence our 'science' becomes an ontological pathology of contentless forms, voids and points of pure immanence that nonetheless expressions of Being itself, in which the Tea Baggers, Gandi, and King agree.
I think they would agree that the above passage has little meaning!