Lecturing Exemption Demand Procedure and Policy: 4. The difference between Procedure and Policy

The previous sections observed that Lecturing Exemption should be demanded but that this can’t be performed via an application or a reference. This section will explain the difference between the two basic forms of Lecturing Exemption Demand: Procedure and Policy.

4) The difference between Procedure and Policy

Right from the start: Both Procedure and Policy are differential functions, i.e. both give information only regarding local factors, so that in both cases you may be thinking that you have been progressing locally while you are circling around the same place with regards to the big picture, yet this potential risk is less in Policy in comparison to Procedure, as the locality in Policy is combinatorial, whereas the locality in Procedure is spatial.

So in Policy, you wander among small islets through bridges; whereas in Procedure you wander among rooms through doors. And this is a difference concerning times to pass and times to reach: The basic question for bridges is “Will I be able to get a foothold of that islet to which I’m going? Will the ground carry me?”, whereas the basic question for the doors is whether the key is ready in our pocket or not, and the notion of exclusivity overcomplicates this door-key task. In order to be able to explain side-effect phenomena like the keys put in the pocket suddenly disappearing, the key changing its shape at inappropriate times, the key in one pocket passing to the other, Quantum Mechanics was invented and Large Hadron Collider was built. In a system of Policies these will no longer be necessary.

Policies are based on foresight. The task to reach, to pass from one place to another is not a momentary incident as in Procedural doors. To pass from a bridge takes time. The one who sets foot on a bridge must think about the point to which that bridge will bring him/her. Most importantly: It’s impossible to be on several bridges at the same time. The rooms’ singular qualities may perhaps be put in a general hierarchy but the starts and ends of each bridge stays apart from each other and these can’t be put in a hierarchy. Nonetheless in the Policy-based Quantum version, peculiarities are experienced like beaming between the bridges, the bridges almost overlapping, or several bridges being traversed at the same time. Yet, as the combinatorial localities of Policies can contain such overcomplications, there is no longer any need for strange stuff like Quantum Mechanics.

In Policies, the fundamental operation is to set foot. It is to set foot on a bridge. Whereas in Procedures, the fundamental operation is to insert the key into the door. The vast difference between the two is rendered obvious even by this single distinction.

The schema shown in the picture below is an example of a Procedure.

As Procedure follows the door-key model, it is more appropriate for schematizing. The rooms wandered in a Procedure are neutral spaces, they are spaces like outer space.

Whereas in Policy, each bridged islet should constitute a ground by its own. That’s why it’s appropriate to tell Policies in prose, clause by clause. Intended String Inference Bylaws is an example of this.

The next section will tell “what” this difference is.

IBF

Lecturing Exemption Demand Procedure and Policy

0) Introduction

1) Why Demand?

2) Why Not Application?

3) Why Not Reference?

4) The difference between Procedure and Policy

5) Key, Door, Bridge, Ground

6 Comments

Filed under şey