ABSTRACT
We live in an era of late positivism. Our historical phase is dominated by the supremacy of science. According to Comte (1830/1936), each branch of our knowledge passes successively through three different stages: theological (religious), metaphysical (philosophical), and positive (scientific). The first stage is the necessary point of departure of intelligence, the second only represents the transition, whereas the third stage is the stable, definitive one. In this rigorously linear and mono-directional hypothesis, our indus trial society finds it very difficult to determine new goals. In a circular hy
pothesis that is much closer to Eastern philosophy, the point of arrival could also be the point of departure. Having gone through science, we could direct ourselves anew toward a theological stage and research the inti mate nature of beings. Our culture, especially design culture, would be en riched by this unforeseen, dynamic hypothesis. The issue thus involves determining who shall guide this change of path. Designers are particularly appropriate because they speak two languages: the technological language of central power, and the dialect of the periphery. The only language that science speaks is mathematics: the linear, digital language. But the human world, where design is located, is made of unforeseeable things and speaks an impure language. Not everyone knows how to move between these two worlds and understand their two languages; design can do it if it assumes the role of the “Trickster. ”
