… well, neat! But what’s the point? Now we can say “this is Critical Design” or “this is Associative Design” and talk about whether it uses Horatian or Juvenalian satire… what does that do for us? Especially in the conclusion, it sounds like he’s saying “well, Design has to have an intellectual basis, especially the parts that aren’t so immediately practical, so here’s another bit of Design Theory.” Theory for theory’s sake.
Maybe I am being overly cranky here. What did I miss?