Dear Victor and apparently Richard, (since I was one of the guys that "seem 
rather quick and content to turn to other disciplines for information").

Let's try a somewhat J.L. Borgean taxonomy of objects: Inconsequential 
objects, consequential objects, design objects, objects that please the 
emperor, objects that are made for the hand, objects at the hand, handy 
objects, objects that move incessantly, uncanny objects, blue an green 
objects, small and beautiful objects, imaginary objects, strange objects of 
desire. the list is endless. (Borge's China emperor, in another tale, also 
ordered a map so detailed of its empire that unfolded it covered perfectly 
the whole territory).

Let's try also the total absence of objects. I would turn to Hans Castorp, 
Thomas Mann character, lost in the snow and fog. Lost to an unimaginable 
dimension of lostness, with no objects as references with any linearity to 
guide him.

From Borges we learn that any scientific approach needs representation and 
classification of representations. But the most accurate representation is 
the one that matches exactly the represented thing, useless as 
representation, consequently.

From Mann we learn that our humanity lays in our presence, and that without 
the visual objectuality related with, at least the linearity of directions, 
we are lost in its ultimate sense.

Both Borges and Mann are not design researchers but tell us a lot about the 
'dasein' of objects.

This reminds me of the sentence that is the foundation of Design as we 
discuss it today:

"Signum hoc loco apello quicquid in superficie ita insit ut possit oculo 
conspici" ( Sign, I call here, any thing in a surface that our eye may 
perceive) in the first page of Leon Batista Alberti's treatise "De Pictura". 
Later translated by the same Alberti to the Florentine language, he 
translates signum by "segno" thus making sense of the word "disegno". Di is 
a prefix that indicates action. Disegno means literally signs in action.

The English word design came from a different branch of sign related words 
"Designare", to name or point, or to mark. I found no evidence that this 
word Design was used in English before the 1500's to indicate any kind of 
object production. Even to the beginning of the 1800's the common use of the 
word was as 'whish' or 'will' although it was really commonly used to 
designate projectual drawings (thus after "disegno").

There is no doubt that we may think objects as design objects or simply as 
objects. When we think them as design objects we are forced to understand 
them as a result of an intention. I agree that designers or design theorists 
or design researchers are better equipped to deal with that relation because 
they, as Victor wrote, have better insights. But if you think about it, this 
is reflexive to the design process, where the intentions lay.

In order to know more about objects we need the observation, classification, 
mapping of objects of other sciences if we want to be scientific about it. 
Another thing is the urgent need of a Critic about design objects that I 
find irrevocably needed for Doctoral studies or, for that matter research in 
Design.

An sorry Ken, but I think that Simon's definition of Design "[devise] 
courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones" 
is wrong. It should be like this "[devise] courses of action aimed at 
changing existing situations into preferred ones DIFFERENTLY".  Meaning 
differently according to a methodoxy or against a methodoxy. To design 
Design is different from designing anything, it demands a disciplinary 
consciousness. Meaning differently a disciplinary awareness, of a discipline 
indefinable but existing.  And existing because, still, there are Design 
Schools, Design Departments in Universities, Higher Education In Design, 
that, willing or not, are shaping, copying, following or fighting 
methodoxies. Please don't confuse me with a Design Methods Movement 
advocate. Even the Design Methods Movement was nothing but a Methodoxy.

Ranjan MP and Paul Rodgers just come out with posts about the outside limits 
of what Design objects are. Objects so, so design that become trans design 
and migrate to art that become interesting for design research and objects 
so undersigned that become interesting to Design researchers and designers. 
Any critical argument about them is welcome but most likely, inevitably will 
come back to the intentions and the process of prefiguration and 
configuration of such objects.

A last word for Richard:

before anything else, Design researchers and Designers must be Intellectuals 
(Bonsiepe said it much better than I do). Any doctoral student must, first 
of all, be prepared to be an intellectual. Any person working Victor's 
question and being an intellectual should go further that the field.

I think we agree on that. Your dismay with the lack of interest of this 
community for the issue of consequences is first: erroneous. Second: If this 
community has really no interest in design consequences (I think it has a 
lot) you have failed in shaping the field.

Cheers,

Eduardo