The words signs and symbol are derived from the Greek word "symbolon". Knowing the history associated with these words is important in understanding the concept of design and its origin in reference to humanity. In early Greek culture it was custom to break a vase or plate into pieces at the end of certain private gatherings or meetings. Each participant would then keep a fragment of the original object as evidence of their being present. The piece would later serve as proof that they participated in the assembly and was witness to the event. The pieces would be then reassembled at the beginning of the next conclave to prove that the person in possession of the piece participated in the first or earlier meetings. Each served as a symbol* describing and identifying the owner of the piece as sharing a common belief, experience or activity.
symbol |ˈsimbəl|
noun
a thing that represents or stands for something else, esp. a material object representing something abstract : the limousine was another symbol of his wealth and authority. See note at emblem .
• a mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process, e.g., the letter or letters standing for a chemical element or a character in musical notation.
• a shape or sign used to represent something such as an organization, e.g., a red cross or a Star of David.
Over time many groups used and applied a wide variety of designs, i.e. images, signs and symbols, to identify themselves from others within the collective.
Symbols were a simple way to identify each person as being part of a group. Each person took possession of a distinguishable part of the "puzzle" for purposes of symbolic identification, recognition and collective unity.
It is noteworthy to compare this original concept of design with today's understanding of holograms, fractals and the concept of a quantum interpretation of matter and a collective order.
Each fragment had a purpose. Each piece was an identifiable part of an object** that gave "form" to a concept or idea. Each fragment had a meaning. Each fragment became a symbol by virtue of its contribution to an intangible "feeling" or experience represented by the piece's contribution to the formation of a purpose greater than itself. A vase or pitcher was typically used in such situations. They served as great metaphors for the realization surrounding each group experience.
Each piece held its own meaning and purpose (design). When reunited with other fragments they created a vessel (form/container) that can serve a greater meaning and purpose than could never be attained individually.
** Typically this object was an artifact, an object made by a human being and separate from an object naturally produced.
Each fragment identified a participant. The fragment and the participant became one ... symbolically. Collectively the group was dependent upon everyone's contribution in bringing meaning and purpose to every meeting. Each piece was identified as an important element in the creation of a larger group, geometry or matrix. Each participant discovered their own identity and power both as an individual and as a group by means of the symbol, i.e. by means of design.
Every person could demonstrate their contribution to the collective in their own unique, intangible and symbolic way. In some circumstances the meaning and purposes describing the group needed to be protected, hidden or kept secret from others.
When members chose to reunite, they submitted their pieces in order to be reassembled. When a member of the group chose to identify themselves to another member, they merely showed the piece they had in their possession. Each member was validated and identified as being a member of a certain group by virtue of owning a piece of the puzzle. By reassembling the artifact before their colleagues they confirmed and identified themselves as being part of the collective. By merely possessing the piece they confirmed that they were witness to a previous event/experience and shared the same beliefs.
One could assum that such events were ritualistic in content, but that may not have always been the case. Many hidden, secret and/or private organizations and groups used such methods to identify their members and/or continue their heritage with the original cast. The entire phenomenon centered about the symbolism surrounding the event and the experiences that over time became synonymous with the concept of design and the design process.
What was originally considered a single form, unit, or whole by virtue of the artifact was purposely broken into an assortment of individual parts that together gave the artifact its "form". The group became whole again when reunited. Each member/part represented an idea greater than itself. Each member/part had a different meaning and/or a purpose when viewed individually or collectively. Together they gave "form" to a concept that was greater than the sum of their parts. Each element became an agent of something greater than itself. Each association within the circle became an integral part of a greater de-sign. Each element symbolized something greater when reunited within the parametric constraints of 3D space/time.
The design process is very similar. You break a situation into manageable parts solely for the purpose of reassembling them within a different context. Over time elements change yet unlike the fragments of a plate, not all changes are recognizable. Symbols deal with the known in a manner that represents the unknown by sometimes veiling and fooling the senses. (See The Mind of Hermes).
Design deals with the unknown by means of recognizing the symbolic relationship between elements, i.e. the parts that by virtue of association give relative form to a concept of wholeness or unity never before revealed. Design is sensitive to the elements and forces that remain hidden to our senses. Design consciousness allows us to transcend these thought forms. Design consciousness gives rise to greater knowledge and understanding. Design conveys the concept of spirit into the role of an observer that actively monitors the ego and all that it senses.
“Whereas signs provide a stimulus which signals something of immediate significance … a symbol may have a meaning which is entirely divorced from the here and now. We can communicate about the past as well as the future, about our immediate surroundings as well as about remote and ever abstract and imaginary things.”
Ervin Laszlo
“We have learned that the exploration of the external world by the methods of the physical sciences leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating.”
Sir Arthur Eddington
"Meta-representation is the ability to represent a representation — being able to attach an abstract concept or meaning to a separate entity — and enables humans to adapt to their environment in real-time unlike most animals who can only adapt through slow genetic change over evolutionary time. Examples are using symbolism and metaphor, which for humans are second nature and taken for granted. But verbal and written language are only possible because we can abstract the idea of a thing and assign it a name — a symbol — that can be spoken and written. The perceiver understands that the symbol refers to a thing that is not the symbol itself."
Mitchell Diamond
https://darwins-apple.medium.com/about
Design awareness doesn't focus on form alone, e.g. the shard of clay or piece of bone. Nor does design merely focus on the identifiable differences between forms. Rather, design focuses upon the symbolic relationships between form and formlessness, the connections between the parts, the whole and the origin. This is design consciousness.
Design awareness doesn't focus on form alone, e.g. the shard of clay or piece of bone. Nor does design merely focus on the identifiable differences between forms. Rather, design focuses upon the symbolic relationships between form and formlessness, the connections between the parts, the whole and the origin. This is design consciousness.
* * *
* * *
Symbolism, Fragmentation, and the Foundations of Design Theory
The etymology of the terms sign and symbol offers a foundational insight into the theoretical underpinnings of design. Both are derived from the Greek word symbolon, a term historically used to describe a token or fragment that, when reassembled with its counterpart, reconstituted a unified whole. In ancient Greek custom, objects such as plates or vases were intentionally broken at the conclusion of private gatherings. Each participant retained a fragment, which served as a tangible sign of participation and, by extension, of collective identity. Upon reconvening, these fragments were rejoined as a ritual affirmation of membership and shared experience (Eliade, 1959; Jung, 1964).
This practice embodies a fundamental principle in design theory: that meaning is constructed through relationships between parts, and that these parts acquire significance not in isolation but through their role in a system of relations. In design, as in the symbolic function of the symbolon, form is not merely aesthetic—it is epistemological, semiotic, and ontological (Krippendorff, 2006).
Design as Symbolic Structure
The act of fragmenting and reassembling artifacts in ancient ritual parallels the design process in its most theoretical form. Design thinking frequently begins with the deconstruction of a problem or system into discrete elements. These elements are then recomposed to generate new configurations, insights, or experiences (Cross, 2006). In this way, the designer operates similarly to the ancient participant of the symbolic ritual, engaging in a process of intentional fragmentation and purposeful re-integration.
These symbolic fragments also served to distinguish groups from one another. They were visual and material identifiers, functioning similarly to logos, emblems, and icons in modern design systems. Symbols enable individuals to recognize each other as participants in a shared system of belief, value, or practice—a central concern in branding, communication design, and interaction design (Margolin, 2002). The symbolon, then, becomes not only a metaphor for the symbolic function of design but also a prototype of how design constructs and communicates identity.
Systems, Semiotics, and Collective Identity
From a systems theory perspective, each fragment is an autonomous node within a larger network of relations. The whole—whether it is a vase, a brand identity, or a user interface—is understood as an emergent property of its constituent elements (Buchanan, 1992). This aligns with semiotic models of design, where meaning arises from the differential relationships between signs, and not from the signs themselves (Saussure, 1983; Barthes, 1964). Each participant in the symbolic ritual holds a piece of meaning, but that meaning is only fully realized when contextualized within the whole system.
The historical ritual of symbolic reassembly also aligns with concepts in participatory and co-design. Each stakeholder contributes a fragment of knowledge, experience, or value that becomes meaningful in relation to others (Manzini, 2015). The idea that "the group becomes whole again when reunited" reflects a deep understanding of design as a collaborative and emergent practice. In this context, the designer is a facilitator of symbolic recombination—bringing disparate inputs into coherent form.
Design Consciousness and the Role of the Observer
In advanced design theory, particularly where it intersects with philosophy and systems thinking, design consciousness refers to an elevated awareness of form-making as a mode of meaning-making. This consciousness is not confined to the manipulation of form but extends to the recognition of the invisible forces—cultural, psychological, spiritual—that inform the relations between forms (Tonkinwise, 2015). The notion that design "focuses upon the symbolic relationships between form and formlessness" suggests that design operates not merely in material space but in conceptual and experiential domains as well.
Design consciousness also involves the designer’s self-awareness as both an observer and a participant. As David Bohm (1980) proposed in his theory of implicate order, observation is itself a form of participation in the unfolding of meaning. The designer, by interpreting symbols and patterns, contributes to the shaping of realities—just as the symbolic shard once validated the presence and identity of its bearer within a collective.
From Symbolic Artifact to Design Process
Design theory, in this symbolic context, reveals its deep roots in ritual, storytelling, and collective identity. What was originally considered a single, unified artifact gains new meaning through intentional fragmentation. Each part—while individually incomplete—becomes a bearer of meaning, purpose, and potential. When reassembled, these parts not only form a functional object but articulate a narrative of belonging, transformation, and system-wide coherence.
This insight bears direct relevance to contemporary design practices such as service design, experience design, and strategic foresight, where designers navigate complexity by mapping, interpreting, and reconfiguring symbolic relationships across user touchpoints, organizational systems, and cultural values (Brown, 2009; Sanders & Stappers, 2008).
Ultimately, the symbolic practices of ancient cultures illuminate an enduring principle: that design is not merely the construction of form, but the orchestration of meaning. Each element in a design system—like each fragment of the symbolon—contributes to a larger structure that transcends its parts. Design, in this theoretical sense, becomes a symbolic act of collective remembering, reassembling, and reimagining.
References
Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of Semiology. Hill and Wang.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for Business and Society. Harvard Business Press.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer.
Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Harcourt.
Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and His Symbols. Aldus Books.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. CRC Press.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press.
Margolin, V. (2002). The Politics of the Artificial: Essays on Design and Design Studies. University of Chicago Press.
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.
Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in General Linguistics (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds.; R. Harris, Trans.). Open Court.
Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Design for Transitions—from and to what? Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 85–92.
The author generated this text in part with GPT-3, OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.
* * *
“What humans can do is change the data by adding to it. They cannot alter Prior Data, but they can enlarge the database. They can put into their memory banks new and important information on Everything in Life -- including life itself. When they do this, they create a New Beginning in the Mental Process of Data Analysis through which they make their choices and decisions. They start out from a different place. They do something by this process that is crucial to behavior modification: they alter their perspective.
It is important to understand that Perspective is Everything. It is not a little thing. It is everything. Perspective is the way we look at things, and the way we look at things absolutely determines the way we see them”.
* * *
"To believe is to accept another's truth.
To know is your own creation."
Anonymous
Edited: 11.29.2013, 04.11.2014, 11.19.2014, 04.06.2017, 04.15.2017, 11.11.2020, 01.24.2021, 11.09.2021, 12.14.2024, 02.02.2025, 06.26.2027
Discernment is an integral part of
self-mastery. You may share this post as long as author, copyright and
URL https://designconsciousness.blogspot.com/ is included
as the resource and shared on a non-commercial no charge basis. Please note …
posts are continually being edited over time. Copyright © 2019 C.G. Garant. All
Rights Reserved. (Fair use notice) You are also invited to visit https://designmetaphysics.blogspot.com/, and https://sagariandesignnetwork.blogspot.com.
