Recently the question of surfaces and depths came up, in terms of language, directly, and indirectly, in terms of styles.
There are conceptual benefits in approaching language as a surface - we can then treat the domain of the known as equal to itself rather than running ourselves silly in hope to look beyond. That is, if we presume that all we need is already here then we can hold a gnostic view of experience and the world - this leaves us with the known and the knower in the same dimension.
It also allows us to treat style as a significant thing, in its own right.
The benefits of treating the world as always in need of a further hypo-thesis (something more under) are well known.
Designers need to embrace both approaches.
I recently found a nice couplet hidden on the surface of English - fathom and bosom - to fathom is to stretch out the arms as wide as possible; to bosom is to enfold a space with folded arms (take someone to your bosom - into the space created by enfolding arms).
Designers need to fathom and bosom - they need to test things to extremes / limits, and they need to engage the world directly.