Design Discussion; Buckminster Fuller on Form

Buckmister Fuller devoted a lifetime to his work and I have only a surface level understanding of the principles he has formulated, but this is the first time I have taken any interest in discovering the nature and impact of his thoughts and am only doing so as I feel his work relates strongly to the exploration I am also doing at this time. For instance, as I have previously expressed a dissatisfaction with the principle of "form follows function" Fuller has concluded something of a similar nature, which reads, 

“World society has throughout its millions of years on earth made its judgments upon visible, tangible, sensorially demonstrable criteria. We may safely say that the world is keeping its eye on the unimportant, visible one per cent of the historical transformation, while missing the significance of the ninety-nine per cent of over-all, unseen changes. Forms are inherently visible and no longer can 'forms follow functions,' because the significant functions are invisible.”

So here Buckminster is going way over my head, but what I do understand of it is a call to rethink design and to rethink our treatment of form. Fuller’s statement concerning unseen historical transformation is I believe referring to the advancements in thought and our understanding of functionality we as a race have made over the centuries. In this way forms cannot follow functions as functions are an inferred, ever-changing understandings of the capabilities of certain forms. Forms are physical, functions are just ideas. 

In the video below Fuller states, “When you get a complex of clearly differentiated behaviors that all accommodate one another this would be called a design,” and, “The human mind has been pulling the curtain aside discovering some of the great design of the universe itself.” These views both express an understanding of design as a natural result of our comprehension of the organization of the universe around us. In this way all design of which we are capable follows the example set by nature, as nature defines for us what design is. This is only my understanding of what he has said, but below is the video so view it for yourself and come up with you own ideas if you like. 

I imagine there are thousands of arguments which can be leveled at all I’ve said here and thats fine, feel free to voice opinions, facts, anything..