Template:M intro design protestant and catholic

Revision as of 08:48, 1 September 2023 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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 a map for the territory.</ref> process ''A''’s shadow inevitably falls across ''benign'' cont...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

So, we implement process A, to deal with malign contingency X, but processes being only simplified models — derivatives — of the worlds they represent,[1] process A’s shadow inevitably falls across benign contingencies Y and Z: circumstances not needing process A, but which “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 risks, is a bad process).[2]

We should expect process A to get in the way every now and then, when a contingency Y or Z comes about.

The options are:

(i) to run process A anyway, even though everyone knows it isn’t needed, or

(ii) to waive process A, invoking process B (the “process A waiver” process).

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.

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: administrators — which we define as “that class of people who are not subject matter experts, don’t understand the territory, fetishise the map, and therefore are aggrieved when the map is disregarded”; and rent-extractors — those who stand to be gain by rigid application of the map, many of whom will be, of course, administrators.

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.

  1. 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 a map for the territory.
  2. It is also the principle upon which almost all modern risk management is based, but that is another story.