82,891
edits
Grand unifying theory: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
The [[high-modernist]] disposition has reorganised, not banished [[redundancy]] cost and slack but rerouted it from productive units into the administration layer. The generals/troops mix has inverted, with the atomisation of functions, each with its own colossal bureaucratic machine. It has converted ''functional'' redundancy — which in a [[complex]] environment, is a competitive advantage and only a drawback in a [[simple]] environment, as it maximises reactivity, creativity, agility and adaptability, but minimises central controllability — into ''administrative'' redundancy, which is a competitive advantage in a simple environment, as it prioritises control and mechanisation over a basically unnecessary (and dangerous) creativity and diversity. In a simple system control, discipline and execution is all there is: your perfect ratio is all administration and only machines executing | The [[high-modernist]] disposition has reorganised, not banished [[redundancy]] cost and slack but rerouted it from productive units into the administration layer. The generals/troops mix has inverted, with the atomisation of functions, each with its own colossal bureaucratic machine. It has converted ''functional'' redundancy — which in a [[complex]] environment, is a competitive advantage and only a drawback in a [[simple]] environment, as it maximises reactivity, creativity, agility and adaptability, but minimises central controllability — into ''administrative'' redundancy, which is a competitive advantage in a simple environment, as it prioritises control and mechanisation over a basically unnecessary (and dangerous) creativity and diversity. In a simple system control, discipline and execution is all there is: your perfect ratio is all administration and only machines executing | ||
===Pragmatism as underlying everything=== | ===[[Pragmatism]] as underlying everything=== | ||
What’s behind “the failure of principles-based regulation”? The ''reliance on principles'', or the ''failure to enforce regulations'' at all? | |||
consider also how easy it is to get a legal opinion or certificate of compliance or ruling. | Detailed regulation-based regulation must, after all, be ''founded'' on principle, if it is not to be simply arbitrary. We can all agree — can’t we? — that regulation for the sake of it, that is not derived from principle, helps no-one. Any kind of regulation therefore, however detailed, must be principles-based. | ||
So let us distinguish between direct, substantive, principles-based regulation, and indirect, formalistic principles-based regulation. “Principles-based” cancels out of the description, so we are left with two approaches: “Substantive” regulation and “formalistic” regulation. It is another front on [[the battle of substance and form]]. | |||
Substantive regulation requires both regulator and regulated to be experts. There is a potential arms race for talent, which poorly-funded regulators cannot win. Thus, the alternative: by relying on [[form]] to do the heavy lifting, if one creates a sufficiently detailed set of rules with which compliance can be measured quantitatively — that is, without expertise and at manageable cost to the regulator — one can undermines the arms race: now the regulator does not need to hire brilliant people: all it needs is drones, who can pass their days looking out for [[un-ticked box|un-ticked boxes]]: ''proxies'' for principle. | |||
But this is to accept the proposition that a pre-set formal structure, if sufficiently thorough, will be effective to manage all incipient risks, opportunities, and market dynamics. (It also gives participants a free option: it is the equivalent of substituting a moral obligation for a financial one: as long as you have complied with form of the regulation, any question of whether you have complied with its ''substance'' is moot. It’s another form of modernism. | |||
consider also how easy it is to get a legal opinion or certificate of compliance or ruling. By contrast, if the question is is “did you do the right thing?” no law firm on God’s green earth will write that opinion. And why should they? | |||
===The indeterminacy of meaning as fundamental to that=== | ===The indeterminacy of meaning as fundamental to that=== | ||