The Technical Existentialist
Technical analysts use ratios, like put-to-call, to indicate probable futures.
Ratios, being a critique of pure reason, can be used to get as close as possible to attainment, achieving “objective reality” to validate its existence (what naturally obtains) in the name of verification. This process of exact thinking can be described as “in-tendency”–a rational process that tends to yield “to” an imperative outcome (which may not be what is intended), and being so determined, it is reasoned to be “naturally existent” and exactly verifiable.
When we see income inequality at a million to one, for example, it can’t be unnatural, occupying space over time, because every effort to not attain it (with intendency) verifiably fails. This has the appearance of the null hypothesis, which is a scientific method. Objective reality obtains by trying to disprove a hypothesis, but in the case of income equality it is intended not to exist. Thus inequality obtains and the ratio confirms it.
Beyond good and evil, the technical objectivist is less concerned with setting priorities to guide us forward than recognizing what exists in priority. Being objective we can focus on the technical indicators that signal what is likely despite whatever delusions we may have about what we want things to be.
If I buy a stock, naturally I want it to go up. Relying on a buy signal, which is a technical pattern that indicates direction based on past performance, the stock will “probably” go up. If it doesn’t, how do I account for the risk? The error, which was my interpretation of the signal, is now a part of the technical pattern, which is again put to my call. The risk is internalized–I am not smart enough to read the signs and predict the future–when it could be that the technicals are being manipulated, yielding to the intended effect despite what the put-to-call ratio may have indicated.
The same thing tends to happen in a macro proportion. When the economy goes bad, we tend to think of it as a technically objective occurrence of risk. It’s like a natural disaster…it just happens. We tend to think of it as a random walk (beyond good and evil) yet, at the same time, when capitalism fails and we lose our jobs there is a tendency to internalize the failure and ignore the probable intendency (the insanity) of making the same mistake over and over again (with the risk of loss fully assumed in priority).
Reality is objectively “put to call.” It naturally yields to the intendency, and the ratios tend to verify that. If income inequality does not naturally obtain then why is its proportional risk-value always conserved? (Could it be the false ontology of a binomially constructed distribution of the risk-value so that “A therefore B therefore A therefore B” is what appears to obtain, indefinitely occupying space over time, perfectly ratiocinated to fit the unchangeable paradigm of objective reality?)
Our reality is not a random walk of stochastic oscillations with somewhat predictable patterns of existence. It is constructed, which means it can be deconstructed and reconstructed to fit what we want it to be, operating with the intendency (the imperative value) of a comparative dialectic.