It doesn't seem to matter that Eisenman's buildings are hated by the public, fail as mature works of urbanism and are founded on an adolescent-grade ('Philosophy 101 for Juniors') theoretical basis. Eisenman's sucess is largely within the cliquey New York-European quasi-intellectual circle of professionals whose status is largely self-serving within their own limited circle. If you want to learn about architecture and urbanism, try Camillo Sitte, James Howard Kunstler, Jane Jacobs, Ada Louise Huxtable, William H. White, or any of the urban theorists who'se work is based on observation of actual human behavior, not speculations dreamed up to match a catchy diagram.
Eisenman is at best playing with himself (and we all know what a sign of maturity that is!). If you are young and impressionable, this sort of activity might grab your attention. But if you are seeking intelligent discourse, look elsewhere ... almost anywhere elswhere will do. Eisenman's books are not worth the toilet paper they are written on.