Maintaining the Risk Proportion

Is it really necessary to maintain the mechanics of the TBTF risk proportion? What really happens if we do not observe the ritual in the proper order, described as objective reality? Will the “disorder” describe a new objective (add identity) or confirm the old way as a necessary condition?

(Either way, confirmed or not, there is an added identity. Space is occupied to exist measurable time over space, which is never nothing. It is always being something, having a measurable, objective identity.)

Naturally, we avoid the assumption of risk, which means that the risk is fully assumed in priority–it has imperative value (spontaneous simultaneity), which associates with “the ritual”–until tested. Then adjustments are made to avoid the risk, which is always still there, depending on whether “measures” are actually taken to avoid it.

There is an evolving, transactional interpretation and, naturally (like Hegel said), we yield to the interpretation to cause a measurable difference on demand, yielding to the measurable effect (the effective model), which naturally demonstrates (emerges with the property) of purpose (existing measure, resisting nothing, because cause without purpose does not naturally exist, which is to say, “nothing is unnatural”).

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. 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