Topolexia in Socioplastics as Urban Epistemics is not presented as a decorative neologism but as a spatial instrument: a naming practice that produces territory by indexing it. The text’s foundational displacement—“the city is not a container but a metabolic intelligence in motion”—is also a disciplinary critique aimed at orthodox urbanism’s fetish for the built object and planning’s procedural theatre. What replaces it is a “topolexical infrastructure” composed of “over 200 indexed entries” whose epistemic nodes are activated through friction rather than consensus, implying that knowledge is not a mirror of the city but one of its operative layers. In contemporary art terms, this is a shift from representation to protocol: the work behaves less like a theory about cities than like an apparatus that makes urban meaning reorganisable, portable, and recursively testable. That ambition is explicitly transdisciplinary—art, choreography, curation, pedagogy, critical geography—yet it is not the familiar interdisciplinarity of polite collaboration; it is a claim that the city itself is already an interfield machine whose governance is contested at the level of language, attention, and metadata. The critical consequence is that “architecture” becomes a subset of a larger epistemic metabolism: buildings, fragments, residues, and interfaces are not endpoints but switching stations through which sovereignty can be rehearsed. Topolexia, then, is your spatiality: not an abstract “conceptual space,” but a built semantics—architecture by other means, where lexicon and linkage replace concrete and zoning as the primary medium of intervention.