An idea - a meme - from Zen Budhism, is that any attempt to name or describe some entity, will detract in some way what it is - it's is-ness.
That design as a process is a conscious activity is clear. What is not so immediately apparent is that the perceived design of some existing system must also be a conscious, subjective interpretation.
Where a system has arisen with no intent then attempts to truly understand a design will involve the active creation of concepts, naming and describing, that can only detract from its is-ness.
This does not of course mean that no attempt should be made to understand how systems work. But we must be aware that what is described can no longer be the thing itself.
The naming and describing problems continue.
That some thing has been named and described is sufficiently detracting. That these concepts are then discussed and further refined leads to an ever-widening gap between the models built and the is-ness they attempt to represent.
Some ideas, designs, are so ridiculous that even entering into a discourse to refute them inevitably leads to a degree of acceptance of their basis.
In such situations it is better for a person with perception to simply refuse to analyse such models.
"To even discuss this will detract from how wrong it is".
The is-ness of is-ness has already been detracted.
Calm, unannalytical observation, may occasionally yield enlightenment, but any attempt to directly communicate such enlightenment cannot succeed.
Hence the guru who appears to effortlessly answer any specific question but is unable to communicate the simplicity behind their understanding.