A Polymathic Lens
A Design Science Approach to Authentic Communication
The Polymathic Lens: A Design Science Approach to Authentic Communication
Seeing comes before words. We navigate the world first through perception, then through language. Yet, in the age of the algorithm and the shallow signal, the words we use often obscure the perception they were meant to clarify.
Steve Jobs once noted that we only see the trajectory of our lives looking backward. This essay is an attempt to look backward, across decades of practice in film, design, and consulting, and trace a specific trajectory: that of the polymathic practitioner. It is a journey that reveals how ancient philosophy and mid-century design movements provide the only robust toolkit for navigating the ephemeral nature of modern communications—a field currently wrestling with the specter of performative authenticity.
The Algorithm’s Smooth Surface: Virtue Signaling and the Crisis of Purpose
In a world addicted to the quick take and the easy consensus, we are offered shortcuts to credibility.
When LinkedIn’s AI algorithm was asked to draft my professional summary, it produced a slick, professional narrative: a 36-year veteran, Emmy Award winner, driving “impactful storytelling.” It was true, and better than my original draft. It was a good piece of commercial writing.
Yet, it missed the point of the practice. It was efficient prose designed for social approval, fitting the definition of what has been neutrally termed virtue signaling: the conspicuous public display of opinions or sentiments to demonstrate one’s good character, especially on social or political issues. The term is often used critically to imply that the primary motivation is self-presentation rather than sincere commitment.
We see this played out in the modern advertising landscape constantly. Consider the “Blackout Tuesday” phenomenon, where brands posted solid black squares on social media in a purported show of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. The action was easy, requiring no structural change, no internal reckoning, no risk. It was PR as mimicry, designed to look virtuous while changing nothing.
The problem is that the algorithm, like the market it serves, prefers smooth surfaces and predictable outcomes. It produces rhetoric engineered for persuasion, regardless of an underlying pursuit of truth. This is the distinction Plato drew thousands of years ago in the Phaedrus: the eternal conflict between the noble pursuit of philosophy (a search for genuine wisdom) and the manipulative art of sophistry (using rhetoric for personal gain).
To avoid falling into the trap of sophisticated signaling, we need a more rigorous, less accommodating framework. We need to move beyond mere “Design Thinking” and embrace something far more demanding: Design Science.
The Rigor of Design Science: Bucky Fuller’s Mandate
My Bauhaus design education mandated a profound realization: design is not merely arrangement; design is toward a purpose. And defining that purpose is the most critical element of the education itself, demanding intellectual rigor, maturity, wisdom, empathy, and comprehensive analysis.
This led me to the work of R. Buckminster Fuller and his concept of Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science (CADS).
CADS is a methodology that applies scientific principles to consciously design solutions for humanity’s needs within the Earth’s ecological limits. It is holistic, integrating a whole-systems perspective with the anticipation of future trends. It demands:
Comprehensiveness: A big-picture, holistic view.
Anticipatory: Foresight regarding future needs and consequences.
Design: The intentional creation of solutions.
Science: The rigorous application of scientific principles and intellectual inquiry.
My rejoinder to the smooth narratives of modern AI and PR is that their analysis, while perhaps “true” or “correct” in a superficial sense, is limited. It lacks the intellectual rigor predicated on comprehensiveness of inquiry. We cannot simply message a client’s million-dollar fundraising campaign into existence with positioning and targeting; we must design the very inquiry that justifies the ask.
We must train ourselves, as Bauhaus students are trained in foundational courses, to construct thought—thinking in pictures, objects, ideas, scenes, and forms as a tool for creating delight, motivation, understanding, and prototyping.
But how does one construct meaning rigorously? For that, we turn to philosophy’s most vexing figure: Hegel.
The Collision of Meaning: Hegel, Eisenstein, and the Single Net Effect
Hegel’s dialectic is a powerful, if notoriously abstract, tool for understanding change and development:
Thesisconflict withAntithesisresolution intoSynthesisThesis Antithesis Synthesis
Thesisconflict with→Antithesisresolution into→Synthesis
An initial idea is challenged by its opposite, and the conflict resolves into a higher-level, more complete concept (synthesis), which then becomes the new thesis.
Hegel was clear: his philosophy could not be formulized; the only way to see it was to do it.
Enter Sergei Eisenstein, the pioneering Bolshevik filmmaker whose work, including The Battleship Potemkin, was profoundly influenced by Hegel’s dialectical theory. Eisenstein applied this to film editing through the concept of montage. He understood that the meaning is not inherent in the shot itself, but in the collision of shots.
In the editing room:
Shot #1: Thesis
Shot #2: Antithesis
The meaning, the idea, the emotional effect produced in the mind of the viewer, is the “synthesis.” It is a non-existent, unfilmed moment that nonetheless provides an undeniable emotive response.
When I first entered corporate communication, the initial step was always to answer one question: “What would you like your audience to think or do differently after seeing your film, ad, image, idea, illustration, reading your copy, text or headline?”
That is the Single Net Impression. It is the synthesis achieved through the intentional collision of ideas and images. Voila, Bauhaus thinking applied to the marketplace.
The Authentic Advantage: Building Loyalty Through Trust
To return to the problem of virtue signaling: the reason such actions fail is that they lack this deep intellectual and practical grounding. They seek an emotional response without earning the trust necessary for it to land authentically.
Authenticity is the antidote to the shallow signal. It builds brand loyalty by fostering trust and a genuine emotional connection with consumers.
Here is how authenticity works in practice:
Trust and Credibility: When promises align with actions, trust is established. Consumers need to trust a brand before they commit.
Emotional Connection: Authentic brands humanize themselves by sharing real values and purpose, creating a sense of shared mission with the consumer.
Shared Values: Loyalty is strengthened when consumers can use a brand to express their own identity and beliefs.
Advocacy: Truly loyal customers become advocates, offering powerful, organic recommendations that dwarf advertising spend.
Forgiveness: Credibility provides a buffer. Authentic brands are forgiven minor mistakes; inauthentic brands are crucified for them.
Authenticity in social cause support requires action over publicity, long-term commitment, internal integration, and transparency. A brand must be willing to put resources behind the cause, not just an aesthetic.
Conclusion: The Pursuit of Purpose
The polymathic path is an integrated one. It is a way of seeing that connects Plato’s pursuit of truth with Fuller’s Design Science, Eisenstein’s montage, and Hegel’s dialectic.
It is a difficult path, eschewing the easy answers provided by algorithms seeking social approval. It is about intellectual rigor and comprehensive inquiry. We do not aim to signal virtue; we aim to embody it through design, through action, and through an unwavering commitment to clarity and purpose.
The goal is to design narratives that resonate deeply with audiences and inspire genuine action, moving beyond the smooth surface of sophistry to the genuine substance of a philosophically grounded practice. This is the polymath’s mandate: to see more clearly, to inquire more deeply, and to design more sustainably.