Existing to the 9’s

Existential Angst

Alienation (rather than attributive identity) seems to cause angst.

We may be anxious about the future because it is detached, alienated from now.

Essentially, we organize to control for the future and reduce existential angst. Business economists call this “networking the externalities” and the best way to do that is to consolidate–incorporate–and bring everything under your control to reduce the alienation, which is referred to as the probable risk. However, consolidation does not reduce the risk, which increases the angst (and so we have the picture of “The Scream” masquerading as the Walmart happy face–a work of art–measurably existing at “always the lowest price” at the highest possible cost, delivered on demand, existing unalienated as the product of our own devices).

Risk (like Emanuel Kant said about moral measures being “categorically imperative,” much like a mathematical expression of reality) is a permanent value. In fact, as we see again and again (like Dodd-Frank says, “it surely will happen again” so we need to be ready for “the big risk”), the more we try to avoid it the more probable “it just happens.”

This zero-sum expression of the risk is not only a mathematical expression but an artistic one (and keep in mind, these two kinds of expression are not alienated). Look at the picture of “The Scream.” How close is that to the expression of existential angst, not just in historical context, but now. Is it really so different from the addjective reality “F(t,T) = S(t)\times (1+r)^{(T-t)}.”

Power elites do not want to discover the price now. They are anxious, especially after having discovered that Hobbes is right. The powerful really do exist on demand and the risk really can’t be reduced, but it can be catastrophically shifted to the future where it is sure to demand the need for elite authority. The future is “F(t,T) = {(T-t)}.” Addjected and fully reduced, the future is consolidated–incorporated (“T-t”)–so that it always yields to command authority (“maturity”) on demand. (This “maturity,” of course, according to conservatives, is a permanent condition. According to Ayn Rand, for example, it is “objective reality” and a “natural identity.” The value, in other words, no matter how hard we try, is always conserved, fully valued–100% all the time. The probability of changing it is zero, but because time exists measure and resists nothing, the probability of it not changing, actually, is closer to zero despite every effort by reactionaries to maintain the attribution of permanence to the nines.) Thus we have the addjective reality (the creative expression) of the futures now to reduce the alienation (the angst).

Speculative Demand

The value of “now” is always speculative, indefinitely undefined and indivisible over time to occupy as much space as possible (incorporated) without being here now. A power elite always wants to exist in the futures now to reduce the angst.

(Being incorporated, notice, has the attributive-risk identity of existing with limited liability, which is UNLIKE a person. Its “reality” is entirely addjective. It is a work of art that does not resemble objective reality like it is supposed to, which accumulates critical, catastrophic errors–angst: a retributive-risk value–that has to be managed in all the futures. Business economists say that if we do not reduce the angst associated with probable liability–because “it just happens”–then we have nothing. We can’t get something from nothing, right!

The attributive-risk identity is the difference between “us” and “them.” Without the difference, conservatives argue, there is measurably less and less over time until we are left with nothing. Without the productive incentive “they” provide–and “we” supply on demand–there is no additive identity–no angst. We cease to be creative.)

“They” are a class of people who organize to attain the position of elite status. The result of “networking the externalities” is an organized psychopathy, which is essentially a minority interest acting in the interest of the majority to exercise power over 99.9% of us 99.9% of the time. “They” appear to be detached from objective reality (to the nines!), and “they” thrive on that “appearance” because it means they are not, therefore, “strictly liable” for the detriment. You are! Satisfaction is guaranteed on demand (anxiously existing) to the fullest extent of the law, which rules at least 99.9% of the time (with the other one-tenth not being in your favor).

(Addjecting the probable value of the circle with the zero-sum of the squares, the creative, coercive expression of a conservative identity, like Hobbes said, looks like the nihilistic expression “T-t” to me! If you want to annihilate the creative, on-demand addjection of objective reality just whip up mathematical formulas–creative, psychopathic algo-“rhythms”…recurrent, coded cadences of psychotropic signals–that conserve probable change to the nines, which is practically zero–nothing. The probability of nothing, of course, existing measure over time, is effectively zero, fully valued in priority, and to claim otherwise as being an objective reality is to be completely detached from it, existing at your own peril, always on the brink of annihilating your self to satisfy it.

Put self-annihilation on the dumbxxx meter and see what you–not “they”–come up with!)

Actually, however, “they” are not detached. Objectively, “the powers that be” ARE directly liable. They are fully culpable, directly, on demand now, which is why they must always shift “now” (the existing liability–the retributive value) to the futures.

Our power elite addject the existence with the value of being nothing until, of course, they create it for everyone else. Satisfaction is guaranteed on demand some time in the future but for now, never!

Being creatively addjective, the power elite is really not alienated–disconnected–at all. The “disconnection” (the assumed source of existential angst) is an analytical fiction that accommodates the value of being “us and them.” Existing in perpetual conflict, “us and them” is always now, which supports the apparent need for controlling authority (i.e., the social contract). “They” exist value, being addjected (yielding methodically) to the nines, by means (measures) of their own creative, rhythmic devices.

The probable future is speculative (a percentage of objective reality now) but now is always the future (addjecting) at 100%.

The risk we are trying to avoid always exists on demand, fully valued in priority.

If you want to “make” it now you’ve got to “take” it NOW, to the nines.

Reacting with one-tenth-of-a-percent always acting in your favor is not only possible it is entirely probable, fully valued, right now!

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Political-Economy and Philosophy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s