Fundamentally, we tend to avoid risk by sensation, but then we also imagine the probability of risk (sensation of being hurt) in the futures.
To control for the authority (the determinism) of natural risk we build predictive algorithms (the rule of laws) to predict the probable outcome derived from what otherwise “just happens” by default. What can “just happen” still exists but it has been transformed into a derivative value that can be falsely attributed, which naturally accumulates errors that derive from the attributive-risk value, which yields to an attributive-risk identity. (This is what I call “the attribution yield.” Articles on attribution yield by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.)
Take an electrical-mechanical device to an engineer, for example, and say, it’s broke! What the engineer wants to know is, “what’s it doing right?” since the device is engineered to do “things” wrong. (Notice the negative ontology here.) The “objective” reality of the device (its intendency) is an addjective reality (a phenomenon) that exists at the margin with the probable risk of going wrong over time. This is what engineers mean when they say they intend for their devices to “malfunction correctly.” Despite the reality of the intendency (the phenomenology), they recognize that their creations are derivative. (In the economic realm, Rifkin refers to this marginal product, which accumulatively tends to “zero cost” over time, as “prosumerism.”) Devices tend to their natural condition over time. They malfunction, existing measure that is contrary (alien) to their purpose (which is the phenomenology of their existence).
(Articles on “the intendency” and “addjective reality” by griffithlighton can be found on “the internet of things”–the World Wide Web, which Rifkin, for example, says is becoming the phenomenon of objective reality.)
So, what is the natural thing to do when financial engineering malfunctions on a regular basis with unacceptable amounts of harm?
Does the “malfunction” reduce to measuring what is an “acceptable amount of harm” (like Objectivists say we naturally do) or whether we need to avoid the method that yields to its catastrophic proportion!
Keep in mind, the capital at this point is so over-advantaged that, like Rifkin says, it no longer pays to use it. Its use value (its currency) is getting closer and closer to zero (being nothing!)…huh, imagine that, how did that happen?
Being and nothingness…that’s the quantity and quality of objective nihilism isn’t it.
Kind of hard to measure the proprietary risk (the unacceptable harm) of being nothing. It “just happens” on demand… right?