You see, this is how I approach every single action that any character takes. Typically in those simplest cases their basic competency is enough to handle it all, but whatever they do, it's still resolved through the system. These least details, the "flavour", are equally "real" as any matter of life and death as far as the mechanics are concerned, even if they don't merit as much elaboration.

Roll to tie up your horse?

Are we using "system" differently, here?

In all three of them, however, performing that activity is covered by some facet of the system, although casually since it's not of particular significance.

Yep, we're using system differently.  All good.

Just to clarify, you wouldn't consider performing a "mundane action" in Nobilis (like opening a door, walking down the street or tying your horse to a post) to be part of the system?

Nope.

System is stuff that requires agreement on "how to handle it".  If how to handle it is instinctive, automatic, and invisible, to the point where no agreement or discussion ever is, was, or will be seriously required, that's just basic procedure.  

Like, if we play at a kitchen table, there should be chairs, but that can simply be taken as read.

But all those simplest of mundane actions are only resolved automatically because they correspond at most to the lowest required level of ability, "difficulty 0", and their place in the greater scheme of the system is clearly defined

Maybe that's how you frame the thought, yeah.

I frame it as "Of course you can turn the doorknob.  And if the book says otherwise, it can go to hell; I'm not going to bother looking."

(Skipping past the back & forth with GrimGent so I can use the following as a jumping-off point.)

I guess it depends on what your intention for this is. Advice for game designers? Advice for Players and GMs (to be included in a game)? Philosophical ponderings?

I don't think there's anything breathtakingly new in the article--but that's not a complaint or criticism. I think the article is best read as a draft advice section.

Given that, first, I'd suggest having a look at Over the Edge, where you can find an advice section with a similar thrust (written by Robin Laws I think).

Second, I'd suggest making a greater effort to write in a way that doesn't show such strong marks (one might say scars) of coming out of RPG theory discussions. By this I mean both the fact that it's kind of obvious that you're struggling with an ancient dialectic, and that you take certain bits of jargon for granted (such as that horrid neologism, "yes" ).

In short I think the article could be improved a great deal by focusing on your audience and assuming that they know less than your typical RPG theory geek but also that they're less f-d up by the reifications and divisions caused by theory.

Given that, first, I'd suggest having a look at Over the Edge, where you can find an advice section with a similar thrust (written by Robin Laws I think).

I have that...  Haven't read it in a bit, though.  Time to crack that back open.

Second, I'd suggest making a greater effort to write in a way that doesn't show such strong marks (one might say scars) of coming out of RPG theory discussions. By this I mean both the fact that it's kind of obvious that you're struggling with an ancient dialectic, and that you take certain bits of jargon for granted (such as that horrid neologism, "yes" ).

In short I think the article could be improved a great deal by focusing on your audience and assuming that they know less than your typical RPG theory geek but also that they're less f-d up by the reifications and divisions caused by theory.

This makes a deal of sense.  In reality, I'll admit that I wasn't totally clear on who my audience was for this one.  I mean, from my perspective, this is an RPG theory article (though I'll admit few people would be likely to agree).

Sure.  But the book doesn't run my game.  The book is a pile of paper sitting over there that I took ideas from, and nothing more.

That's another difference in playstyle, again. I'm more inclined to go with "mechanics as the physics of the setting." They may not necessarily be in every respect the same mechanics as in the original book (what with possible houseruling and all), but they aren't subject to sudden changes just because the GM or another player happened to think of something "cool", either.