Substance and form: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|devil|{{image|Vittoria|jpg|}}}}The existential dilemma — the {{tag|paradox}} — of form and substance was first adverted to in [[Otto Büchstein]]’s now largely forgotten tragicomic opera ''[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]'' (often performed, if performed at all, in German, as ''[[Die Eroberung der Form durch Substanz]]'').  
{{a|devil|{{image|Vittoria|jpg|}}}}The existential dilemma — the {{tag|paradox}} — of form and substance was first adverted to in [[Otto Büchstein]]’s now largely forgotten tragicomic opera ''[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]'' (often performed, if performed at all, in German, as ''[[Die Eroberung der Form durch Substanz]]'').  
===Process as a proxy for content===
{{form and substance capsule}}
The modern world is blighted by the comforting embrace of [[Tick box exercise|tickable boxes]], checkable [[Checklist|checklists]], and [[Internal audit|auditable trails]], all of which give their comfort by taking the ''easy'' road: rather than evaluate the ''qualities'' of your organisation, tally up its countable dimensions, however superficial they are.
 
There is a logic to this: the power of [[big data]] is their emergent properties: you can extract from a mass of data qualities you can’t see from individual instances. That one kettle goes on at 4:30 in the afternoon signifies nothing in particular; that fourteen million do tells you it’s half time in the football.
 
This is a [[correlation]], though, not [[causation]], and it won’t flow the other way. Just because you put the kettle on at 4:30 doesn’t mean you were watching the football, however likely it might seem. Probability is an ''is'', not an ''ought''.
 
''Hume'': you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.
 
''The [[JC]]'': you cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”.
 
{{Tabletop}}
{{Tabletop}}
|-
|-