Template:M intro design protestant and catholic: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:M intro design protestant and catholic (view source)

Revision as of 10:06, 1 September 2023

758 bytes added ,  1 September 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Protestant and catholic|So]], we implement process ''A'', to deal with malign contingency ''X'', but processes being only simplified models — derivatives — of the worlds they represent,<ref>We take it as axiomatic that, the “real world” being analogue, fractal and complex, a process ''cannot'' perfectly map to a target contingency: to believe it might is to mistake [[the map and the territory|a map for the territory]].</ref> process ''A''’s shadow inevitably falls across ''benign'' contingencies ''Y'' and ''Z'': circumstances not needing process A, but which “[[If in doubt, stick it in|it won’t hurt]]” to subject to Process ''A'' anyway.
[[Protestant and catholic|It]] is the [[JC]]’s contention that above our heads — at a level of abstraction far beyond the molecular comprehension of our frail, [[subject matter expert|mortal]] minds — rages an apocalyptic battle between the massed forces of ''form'' and ''substance''.<ref>We are indebted to {{Otto}}’s magnificently fatuous  ''[[Form und Substanz]]'' opera cycle for informing this view.</ref> It is a battle, and a war, that the [[subject matter expert]]s have been losing for 30 years (being the more or less the length of the [[JC]]’s career.)
 
{{form and substance capsule}}
 
These are divergent philosophies when organising a complex system.
====Formal organisation====
So we implement process ''A'', to deal with malign contingency ''X'', but processes being only simplified models — derivatives — of the worlds they represent,<ref>We take it as axiomatic that, the “real world” being analogue, fractal and complex, a process ''cannot'' perfectly map to a target contingency: to believe it might is to mistake [[the map and the territory|a map for the territory]].</ref> process ''A''’s shadow inevitably falls across ''benign'' contingencies ''Y'' and ''Z'': circumstances not needing process A, but which “[[If in doubt, stick it in|it won’t hurt]]” to subject to Process ''A'' anyway.


(The alternative would be to implement a Process ''A''', drawn wholly ''inside'' the boundary of malign contingency ''X'', and whose shadow therefore didn’t fall across ''any'' benign contingencies, but which also did not quite cover all instances of contingency ''X''. Such a process, which fails to address [[tail risk]]<nowiki/>s, is a ''bad'' process).<ref>It is also the principle upon which almost [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|all modern risk management is based]], but that is another story.</ref>
(The alternative would be to implement a Process ''A''', drawn wholly ''inside'' the boundary of malign contingency ''X'', and whose shadow therefore didn’t fall across ''any'' benign contingencies, but which also did not quite cover all instances of contingency ''X''. Such a process, which fails to address [[tail risk]]<nowiki/>s, is a ''bad'' process).<ref>It is also the principle upon which almost [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|all modern risk management is based]], but that is another story.</ref>
Line 12: Line 18:


Either option has a cost: option (i) being marginally preferable because it is already costed in. Justifying option (ii) involves demonstrating that the cost of obtaining the waiver will be less than the cost of just running process ''A,'' and so will result in a saving. This will trigger process ''C'' (the “''justifying the cost of a new initiatives''” process) which will, of course, increase the cost of process ''B'', making process ''C'', and therefore process ''B'' more likely to fail.
Either option has a cost: option (i) being marginally preferable because it is already costed in. Justifying option (ii) involves demonstrating that the cost of obtaining the waiver will be less than the cost of just running process ''A,'' and so will result in a saving. This will trigger process ''C'' (the “''justifying the cost of a new initiatives''” process) which will, of course, increase the cost of process ''B'', making process ''C'', and therefore process ''B'' more likely to fail.
 
====Substantive organisation====
There is another way of doing things, of course: a [[subject matter expert]] — which we define as “one who understands the territory and therefore the map’s limitations” — can apprehend that what she beholds is benign contingency ''Y'' and make the substantive judgment that, while it is formally applicable, Process ''A'' is not substantively relevant, and thereby ignore process ''A''.   
There is another way of doing things, of course: a [[subject matter expert]] — which we define as “one who understands the territory and therefore the map’s limitations” — can apprehend that what she beholds is benign contingency ''Y'' and make the substantive judgment that, while it is formally applicable, Process ''A'' is not substantively relevant, and thereby ignore process ''A''.   


This will upset two categories of people: [[administrator]]s — which we define as “that class of people who are not [[Subject matter expert|subject matter experts]], don’t understand the territory, fetishise the map, and therefore are aggrieved when the map is disregarded”; and [[Rent-seeker|rent-extractors]] — those who stand to be gain by rigid application of the map, many of whom will be, of course, [[administrator]]<nowiki/>s.
This will upset two categories of people: [[administrator]]s — which we define as “that class of people who are not [[Subject matter expert|subject matter experts]], don’t understand the territory, fetishise the map, and therefore are aggrieved when the map is disregarded”; and [[Rent-seeker|rent-extractors]] — those who stand to be gain by rigid application of the map, many of whom will be, of course, [[administrator]]s.
 
====The protestant and the catholic modes or organisation====
This leads the JC to offer two models of operation: the ''protestant'' mode — being the first one, in which rules are rules, to suffer is divine, and rewards are presumed to be in the next life, since they patently don’t apply during this one — and the ''catholic'' mode — being the second one, in which you act now and ask for permission, or forgiveness, later.
This leads the JC to offer two models of operation: the ''protestant'' mode — being the first one, in which rules are rules, to suffer is divine, and rewards are presumed to be in the next life, since they patently don’t apply during this one — and the ''catholic'' mode — being the second one, in which you act now and ask for permission, or forgiveness, later.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/77809"

Navigation menu