Skip to content Skip to navigation

Connexions

You are here: Home » Content » A Warning about Simplification

Navigation

Recently Viewed

This feature requires Javascript to be enabled.
 

A Warning about Simplification

Module by: John Bosco. E-mail the author

Simplification can be a trap
For the purpose of communication, we try to reduce the complex into the simple. Instead of spelling it out, we use shorthand. Simplification makes communication easier. However, simplification can also become a trap into which we may fall if we forget that the original idea has been simplified for the purpose of communication and is, in reality, more complex.

The Tools of Expression in A Unified Theory of a Law
The tools of expression in A Unified Theory of a Law consist of two (2) sentences, a command and a permission, the two polarities of conduct, affirmative (a/k/a on) and negative (a/k/a) off, and the four (4) tokens, duty, privilege, right and no-right. These six literary devices and two polarities are all that is needed to talk about a law. They free the nut from the shell. Anything else is surplusage. Moreover, they belong to a particular stage of the process of making a law. During FORMATION, the tools of expression are the two sentences, a command and a permission. During INTRUSION, the tools of expression are two of the four tokens, a duty and a privilege. During RECOGNITION, the tools of expression are two of the four tokens, a right and a no-right. All of the tools of expression represent and express and stand for the opinion that a lawmaker has formed at the three stages of the lawmaking process. However, they are not the opinions themselves.

The Gap between the Tools of Expression and the Decisions themselves.
In FORMATION, the gap between the decision made by the lawmaker and the tools of expression - a command and a permission - is nil. A command and a permission are the embodiment of the opinion formed by a lawmaker at the FORMATION stage of the lawmaking process.
In INTRUSION and RECOGNITION, however, the gap is wider.
In INTRUSION a lawmaker picks one of the following permutations and rejects two:
  1. A Lawmaker likes the flow of conduct, wants the Source to do the conduct, issues a command for affirmative conduct and intrudes upon the Source’s decision making process in an attempt to start the flow of conduct by binding the command to the Source with a duty for affirmative conduct.
  2. A Lawmaker is indifferent about the conduct, doesn't care whether or not a Source does the Conduct, issues a permission for affirmative or negative conduct andabstains from intruding upon the Source’s decision making process letting the Source himself decide by binding the permission to the Source with a privilege for either affirmative or negative conduct.
  3. A Lawmaker dislikes the flow of conduct, does not want the Source to do the conduct, issues a command for negative conduct and intrudes upon the Source’s decision making process in an attempt to stop the flow of conduct by binding the command to the Source with a duty for negative conduct.
The metaphor of weight has evolved to represent the three permutations of INTRUSION:
  1. The duty for affirmative conduct feels heavy to a Source (a command is a law that has weight),
  2. TThe privilege for affirmative or negative conduct feels light to a source (a permission is a law that lacks weight),
  3. The duty for negative conduct feels heavy to a Source (a command is a law that has weight).
The tools by which we express the opinions of INTRUSION are the words, duty and privilege. Duty is the shorthand for the two opinions to intrude and privilege is the shorthand for the opinion to abstain from intruding.
In RECOGNITION a lawmaker picks one of the following permutations and rejects two:
  1. A Lawmaker likes the flow of conduct, wants a Recipient to receive the conduct, issues a command for affirmative conduct and recognizes a Recipient by binding the command to a Recipient with a right to affirmative conduct
  2. A Lawmaker is indifferent about the conduct, doesn't care whether or not a Recipient receives the conduct, issues a permission for affirmative or negative conduct and abstains from recognizing a Recipient by binding the permission to the Recipient with a no-right.
  3. A Lawmaker dislikes the flow of conduct, does not want the Source to do the conduct issues a command for negative conduct and recognizes a Recipient by binding the command to a Recipient with a right to negative conduct.
The metaphor of standing has evolved to represent the three permutations of INTRUSION:
  1. A Recipient has standing, i.e. is visible, to the eyes of a lawmaker who has bound a right to affirmative conduct to the Recipient (a command is a law that has standing),
  2. A Recipient lacks standing, i.e. is invisible, to the eyes of a lawmaker who has bound a no-right to either affirmative or negative conduct to the Recipient (a permission is a law that lacks standing),
  3. A Recipient has standing, i.e. is visible, to the eyes of a lawmaker who has bound a right to negative conduct to the Recipient (a command is a law that has standing).
The tools by which we express the opinions of RECOGNITION are the words, right and no-right. Right is the shorthand for the two opinions to recognize and no-right is the shorthand for the opinion to abstain from recognizing.

Do not get lost in Simplification
It is easier, when we communicate, to use the shorthand. The use of shorthand is valid provided we do not forget that the shorthand merely represents and expresses and stands for the opinion formed by a lawmaker and is not the opinion itself. Do not let the opinion of the lawmaker get lost in simplification.

Content actions

Download module as:

PDF | More downloads ...

Add module to:

My Favorites (?)

'My Favorites' is a special kind of lens which you can use to bookmark modules and collections. 'My Favorites' can only be seen by you, and collections saved in 'My Favorites' can remember the last module you were on. You need an account to use 'My Favorites'.

| A lens I own (?)

Definition of a lens

Lenses

A lens is a custom view of the content in the repository. You can think of it as a fancy kind of list that will let you see content through the eyes of organizations and people you trust.

What is in a lens?

Lens makers point to materials (modules and collections), creating a guide that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

Who can create a lens?

Any individual member, a community, or a respected organization.

What are tags? tag icon

Tags are descriptors added by lens makers to help label content, attaching a vocabulary that is meaningful in the context of the lens.

| External bookmarks