What if risk is the ground?
Let us say Being is stability and Becoming is instability. Becoming is the numerically greater of the two states. But Being is the prefered state. Homo sapiens prefers predictability, regularity, etc versus shocks and surprises.
When you move from Being/Stable to Becoming/Unstable, you incur Risk.
Becoming/Unstable States (B/U) are not bad. In fact, they are generally quite good. An orgasm is a B/U State. Becoming rich is a B/U State. But transition is inherently a little dangerous. You just learn how to mitigate and manage the danger. Most people do this quite naturally.
Risk itself and viewing the world through Risk lenses/filter becomes the fundamental measure of any system. Risk is greater than Being or Becoming because it explains both of these states.
What about Reward? What is the outcome of Risk? I am a Pragmatist Garage Philosopher. Might as well start whipping out the teleology here. However, I am unsure of the answer to this.
The fundamental measure of any system in Western Philosophy is called the ground. Plato assumed it was The Forms. Aristotle assumed it was that whole weird essence/accident metaphysics he concocted and that all Western Philosophy ran on until Deleuze. Descartes half assed a syllogism and situated the ground in the process of thinking itself — which opens up problems of not believing the world is actually real. Pragmatism, the most robust of Western Philosophical systems, simply calls workability its ground. That’s some transparently silly bullshit. Post-Modernist thinking attacks the entire notion of the ground as being a big, slonking veiny metaphor for The White Man’s Penis.
But what if Risk is the ground?