Random Distribution

When the astrophysicist looks out into the universe and sees different patterns of existence, why is it all different. Why all the diversity. (Space is all the same, isn’t it?) Galaxy A looks different from galaxy B because of random events that shape their existence.

Since answering why is to explain how without knowing why, we tend to say that it all has no purpose even though there are causal identities associated with it that distribute the values in the form of measurable differences having a random attribution. Intuitively, then, yielding to the logic of the purpose (to know it) there appears to be cause without purpose, intending to then measure the effect of things over time in terms of having an unintended purpose.

The effect is to measure causal properties (attributes) indirectly, intending to give it application (a distributive property) in the form of transacting a purpose (an interpretation), existing on demand. Essentially it is Kant’s categorical imperative, but it is not Plato’s World of Ideas restated.

Emerging with the scientific method is an added identity–the notion of “being and nothingness” and the intuitive logic that there is cause without purpose, which changes the concept of right and wrong into a relative value–a moral comparative (I say) depending on the measurable differences, described as having a random distribution. This is completely different from Aristotelian logic in priority, which assumes that nature has a purpose, everything tends to its purpose, and we can then observe that to be, as Saint Thomas Aquinas argued, natural law.

Existing on demand, however, the attribution naturally becomes less and less random, not reducing but gaining the measurable value of liability that capitalists argue naturally reduces to a random attribution with a fully assumed, limited liability in priority.

If the liability is direct, and not alienated in the form of a random attribution, then the limited liability doctrine is an error. Maintaining the limitation is fundamentally wrong, a delusion of objective reality, and we see that play out, unfold in a political dimension measured with economic attributes that are not in any way disconnected from the players, individually or severally.

While we cannot reduce the quantum value of the risk, we can redistribute its value to properly match the liability naturally associated with it in the form of a natural-law identity.

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