Backward thinking, forward moving?

Hindsight is 20/20. Every theory we read and movement that we study is analyzed with a critical “what could have done better” approach that brings up new questions and “what ifs” due to our current circumstances. This quantitative approach rates every factor and analyzes is success or failure based on an arbitrary scale. We rationalize and think of motivations, usually as an afterthought, for why a design is this way or that way and we look to other architects as precedent who probably did the same thing. There is this accepted understanding that architecture needs to have meaning to be significant. Eisenman strongly rejected this saying “My architecture means nothing. But the experience is something else.” He seems to look forward, unapoligetically. He doesnt make excuses, need a meaning, or really care about what others are doing or saying. He plays the devils advocate to the architectural norms and it hard to see how architecture can be completely autonomous. Without going to his extreme, there are many relavent questions for us as architects.Do we give the narrative too much credit on a project? Are there ways to look forward in design with out relying on the past? Does architecture always need meaning?