Hello, Ian and colleagues!

You wrote: 

«I imagine an animal adapting to a changing environment / 
relationships... some how I relate that to the way design and 
designers are adapting too.»


I would rather say that the difference between an animal and  "the 
way design and designers" adapt to "a changing environment / 
relationships" resides in our human faculty to "intentionally focus 
on situations" (Re: recent exchange between Chuck and Fil), with a 
view to comprehend hidden and complex relationships making up those 
situations, prior to acting upon them; or better, in Vico's terms, 
comprehend those relationships while practically and progressively 
acting upon them. "To understand while doing" (Biggs's "Research into 
Practice"?), as opposed to rational understanding and then, 
eventually or not, engage into doing.

Based on my recent readings on VICO (I owe this to Prof. Jean-Louis 
Le Moigne's notes and Prof. Alain Pons's translations of VICO's 
writings, references available to thus understanding French 
or...Latin and old Napolitan!), the above typical human behavior is 
what VICO meant by "ingenium" (Latin) or "ingegno" (Italian). For 
certain "desired outcomes" (H.A. Simon), we humans undertake 
to "methodically" "relate" (hence "reliance") perceived events and 
phenomena. Animals do not adapt to situations the same way.

The approach suggested by VICO in his "Principle for a New Science" 
(1744), in opposition to the then dominant Cartesian analytical 
rationality, is that of the synthesis of action upon the elements,  
through their potential relationships. And the synthesis method 
advocated by VICO is that of establishing distinctive "topoi" (shall 
we say "situations" ?) of each perceived element and its various 
possible relationships with other elements, and thus gradually and 
orderly building up a course of action towards the emergence of 
desired outcomes. 

Only we humans, all humans, and not animals, are endowed with such a 
faculty to perceive the attributes (the "sensible universals") of 
those elements, and use them as building blocks to establish 
relationships and regroupings of elements into desired and "situated" 
artifacts. In order to do that, we seek and devise appropriate means 
that we use to reach the pre-established ends. That is the whole 
notion of "project". And it is the nature and scope of those oriented 
human projects, the way they are conceived and implemented that makes 
humans distinct not only from animals, but also lead to differentiate 
laymen from skilled artisans, wage workers from managers, dilletante
(fine) artists from commissioned professionals, and draftspersons 
from the category of individuals we are here on this list trying to 
define.

To me, these latter are certainly not "opportunists". Rather, echoing 
VICO's definition of "ingenium" or "ingegno", they are "young" people 
endowed with (free translation) "the mental faculty to rapidly 
relate, in an appropriate and happy manner, separated elements into a 
composition, an invented synthesis..."  The key here is not in merely 
drafting, drawing or prototyping the composition (your first 
category). It is rather in devising principles ("arkhai") for such a 
composition and ensure that the projected synthesis is happily 
accomplished and corresponds (the final and overall relationship) to 
desired outcomes. Quite obviously, this can not be done 
through "opportunism" (your second category), not even in the 
positive sense. It is rather a "science", the "New Science", 
the "Science of the Artificial" for which, following our eminent 
predecessors since Leonardo da VINCI, VICO, Paul VALLÉRY, SIMON and a 
few others, we all are striving to establish the foundation.

Regards.


François-X.
Montréal