When, for example, physicists rationally expect the universe to stop expanding, due to the observable laws of a natural existence, but measure its acceleration instead, what is the truth of the objective reality?
Aristotle’s thesis of independence has verifiable currency, observing the irrational truth of objective reality. According to the laws of physics, the universe is behaving irrationally.
(Although it seems to resist the pantheist concept of reality, the thesis of independence actually supports it. The observer is in fact observing the objective reality by having measured the contradiction. There is no disconnection, no dualism, really. The difference between the observation and the thing actually observed is really the same thing.
Like with Cartesian geometry, we measure the occupation of space over time. The two dimensions are analytically separate. It is when they are naturally put together that “we” actualize the thing really being measured, created on demand, which Hegel described as the “Phenomenology of the Mind.”)
We also find ourselves with this same sort of contradiction when it comes to political-economy. There is a tendency to describe it as paradoxical, but that is not exactly it.
The contradictions are overwhelmingly obvious.
Creating the conditions for a more free and unconsolidated marketplace is entirely possible. We have a credible alternative, on demand, but he is a socialist (a non-conformist). Against a long history of being told that socialism is inherently evil, explaining why this is really not a contradiction is hard to do.
(Technically, like I’ve been telling you, it is a necessary–natural!–distribution on the accumulation. If the distribution does not occur there is indeed an inherent price to be paid that will force the imperative value in a catastrophic, categorical, must-happen proportion, which is completely avoidable by deconsolidating the risk now!)
The conforming, “Democratic” alternative is Mrs. Clinton. While the rhetoric sounds “progressive” (and maybe even the policy program will look technically progressive), the results will likely be overwhelmingly reactionary, supporting the debilitating economic risk supposedly being avoided, consolidating industry and markets to “make markets” more efficient (just like “the makers” say it should be, and “naturally” always will be) by design.
While the fear of the technical correction we need is irrational, it forms objective reality, nevertheless. TBTF corporates are literally banking on it, and while the corporate body says it is opposed to Mrs. Clinton, for example, if she is chief executive, they are BIG winners, nonetheless.
Good plot for an absurdist play, isn’t it!
We can wait for the imperative value (the natural means of self-correction loaded with retributive value) to just show up, or we can do it now, demonstrating the work of art (the natural form of governance) that is ALWAYS an act of self-determination.