Why it Works

Senator Sanders says that the media focuses on “process.” In other words, “how” and not “why.” The reason why is philosophical.

Science is a process that evolves from asking a question, forming a working hypothesis. It derives from asking why, but ends up describing how.

Aristotle, for example, asked why and was wrong a lot because the “how” was the product of deductive reasoning. Ironically, he also identified the limits of using pure reason (based on experience, or observation) without experimentation.

Aristotle reasoned, for example, that an arrow flying through the air is pushed by the air compressing behind it. Newton much later explained how it is really a function of inertia, which makes no sense because the effective use of the arrow in motion (its currency–its actuality) is not the value of its being still.

How is it that objective reality makes no sense?

Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things, but he is “the father of science” because he admitted (philosophically) that he is probably wrong, which is his Thesis of Independence. Objective reality can be very different from the perception of it, just like in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

This is the same problem we have with regulating the regulators.

If there is the risk of default, for example, and we want to know why it happens, we naturally describe how. Naturally, it reduces to a philosophical question.

What is the default condition? If we just let it be–let it happen–what actually happens, and did we make sure we used proper controls to know if the outcome really is the default condition?

So, what we want is to predict the probable condition, whatever that may be by default, which we then infer (or assume to be true) by comparing it to what the product actually is, derived from the object of our own devices. We now have a derivative value assumed to derive from objective reality, which is whatever we may assume it to be, based on the evidence, just like Aristotle did.

Is the risk of financial default–like we are doing now, derived from a TBTF risk dimension–better than the default condition?

We have to test for it, but there already is plenty of current evidence to suggest that a free-market economia (naturally yielding to the utility of the numbers) is the best thing to do.

Do a simulation based on your experience (current value). Do you get more of what you want from a pluralistic marketplace, or a more monopolistic one? What’s the probability?

Like Thomas Hobbes observed, a tyrant can be benevolent, but probably not. He observed that monarchs are self-destructive, intending to resist (not yielding to) what actually gives them power–the law of large numbers, which we describe as democracy. This is about process, not about the issues that currently form the decisional agendae.

(Keep in mind that not yielding to anything but yourself is a demonstration of power. It is the measurable object of self-determination. Anything that threatens it is described as “the risk”–a quantifiable object.

Not having an absolute value, but actually obligated to a quantifiable, limited existence, Hobbes said the king needs to be regulated. The regulatory authority works to control for the probable risk, which is the probability the king will not be benevolent; intending, instead, to always demonstrate power by making people do things they would not normally do, which would be to assume the default condition.)

The media is indicating that the process does not fit “why” we need to have a democratic means of doing business, public or private, by describing how it works. It has useful value but, like Sanders is saying, it is intended to rig the market with a confirmation bias, demonstrating an elitist, not a pluralist, model of power in priority, which is then described (like Objectivists argue) to be the natural symmetry of a default condition.

According to this theory of objective reality, there is no regulating the regulators. No matter what the transformation, the coercive value is the same (inertial), existing in priority. It is foolish, then, conservatives argue, to try and regulate what can’t be regulated. It accumulates errors to a due date–Kant’s day of reckoning (the categorical imperative) in which we realize the actual price to be paid, existing on demand because we could have chosen to do it “their” way.

You know, we keep doing it “their way”… and “We” wonder “why” it’s so messed up, all the while knowing how.

Declare Your Independence…

Vote For Bernie Sanders!

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