In his Message #208 Jorge writes:

"I might be taking too many liberties with Norberg-Schulz' characterization of  the Cosmic Landscape but I'd venture to say that a landscape may convey the impression of the cosmic style even if it doesn't conform with much of the criteria enunciated by him. "

    I tend to think that, yes, Jorge seems to be taking "too many liberties" with the characterization proposed by Norberg-Schulz (N-B for short) … or with classifications in general.

    On the lines of what I wrote in my Message # 197 about Kaplan's ideas on Categorization, the question is not only whether something "does not conform with much of the criteria" (criteria used in the categorization) but how much is left out. If what is left out are important criteria then we might be taking "too many liberties", that is, forcing a particular case into a category where it does not belong. 

   In the case of the Cosmic Landscape, N-B enumerates a number of criteria  to which a particular instance should comply in order to be considered  'a Cosmic Landscape' . In the instances given so far (those of Glen Etive, Tussock and others mentioned) the following criteria given by N-B seem to be conspicuously absent:

 "The infinite extension of the monotonous barren ground; the immense embracing vault of the cloudless sky (which is rarely experienced as a sector between rocks and trees); the burning sun which gives an almost shadowless light" …" The course of the sun thus describes an almost exact meridian,"  " Sunset and sunrise connect day and night without transitional effects of light, and create a simple temporal rhythm". 

  If the above criteria are considered important enough then those landscapes not conforming to them (whilst conforming to others in the list) should not be included in the set  <cosmic landscape>.