Risk - Deconstruction of Reality

Minimal Definition

Risk is the relationship of a subject to a distinguished possible state whose realization obstructs the achievement of a particular goal of that subject.

This formulation does not turn a state into a “risk-thing.” State X exists as a possibility; what makes it a risk is a relationship:

S ↔ G ↔ X

where S is the subject, G is the subject’s goal, and X is a possible state distinguished by S as obstructing G.

The familiar short form, “a possible future state distinguished by the subject as unfavorable to the achievement of their goal,” remains a useful abbreviation. The expanded definition also includes a temporal structure: a distinction made “at this moment” can change (see “Risk Is a Relationship, Not a Type of Event”).

Risk Is Not an Independent Entity

Risk cannot be derived as an independent entity existing in external reality. It is derivative of the subject’s relationship to uncertainty (see Uncertainty).

The subject faces uncertainty about the future state of reality. Uncertainty means that a multiplicity of possible future states remains open. It is important here not to say that uncertainty “gives birth” to states, because that would begin turning uncertainty into a causal subject. More precisely:

Uncertainty means that a multiplicity of possible future states remains open.

The subject does not see the entire space of what is possible. They can distinguish only some possible future states and represent them in advance:

uncertainty → multiplicity of possible states → subject distinguishes some of them as possible.

Goal and the Emergence of Risk

The subject does not regard future states as equivalent: they have a desired state, a goal. The other possible states therefore begin to be distinguished relative to that goal.

If the subject can foresee a possible state, and this state obstructs the achievement of the goal, worsens the result, or makes achieving the goal impossible, that state becomes a risk.

Risk does not arise from uncertainty in itself. Risk arises from the relationship between uncertainty, a foreseeable possible state, and the subject’s goal.

Almost formally:

subject → goal;
uncertainty → multiplicity of possible future states;
subject distinguishes some of these states;
foreseeable state unfavorable to the goal → risk.

Without a Goal, Risk Does Not Exist

There is uncertainty, and there are possible states. But one of them can be called a “risk” only in relation to what the subject wants to achieve.

Rain is not a risk in itself. If the subject wants to hold an outdoor event, rain becomes a risk relative to that goal. If the subject grows plants and needs water, the same rain is a favorable state.

Risk is not a property of a future state in itself. Risk arises in a relationship: possible state ↔ subject’s goal.

This is consistent with the primacy of the subject: external reality does not contain ready-made objects called “risks.” The subject distinguishes a possible state as a risk relative to their own goal.

Risk Is Indexed to a Subject and a Goal

If the subject and goal are not specified, the word “risk” imperceptibly begins to portray a property of reality itself. The question should not be “Is X a risk?” but:

“For which subject, and relative to which goal, is X a risk?”

The same possible state may simultaneously be a risk for one subject, an opportunity for another, and a neutral state for a third. Thus the complete statement is:

“This is a risk for subject S relative to goal G.”

Formally: Risk(S, G, X). Risk is defined only for a subject, a goal, and a possible state. The notation Risk(X) is prohibited: without a subject and a goal, the function is simply undefined.

An example with two subjects. A wants to preserve their own existence, while B wants to end A’s existence. A possible state X arises: A ceases to exist. Relative to A’s goal, X is a risk. Relative to B’s goal, X is the desired result. The same possible state, with no contradiction: what changed is the subject relative to whom the distinction is drawn.

Favorability does not belong to a state. It arises in the relationship of a state to a subject’s goal.

Safety as a Hidden Goal

“Risk to safety” sounds as though safety existed as a universal value independently of the subject. But it simply conceals the goal “preserve the subject.”

The complete construction:

If a subject seeks to preserve a particular state of their existence, the possibility that this state will be disrupted is a risk relative to that goal.

Self-preservation can be called an embedded goal, a permanent goal, or a condition for other goals, whichever one prefers, but logically the goal is present. If a person wants to finish a book tomorrow, their existence today is a condition for achieving that goal, so a threat to their existence automatically becomes a risk to an enormous number of other goals as well.

Hence the impression that safety is universal: it is so deeply woven into numerous human goals that the hidden “provided the subject wishes to continue existing and acting” ceases to be noticed.

Objectification of Another Subject

Another subject may draw a distinction: “this subject obstructs my goal; their absence advances my goal,” and begin treating them as an object of intervention. Here, two things must be distinguished.

The other subject does not thereby cease to be a subject. They become an object within the first subject’s system of actions: A is a subject in relation to their own distinctions and actions and may simultaneously turn B into an object of their action. But B is not thereby ontologically transformed into a thing; A has constructed a relationship to B as an object.

A subject can objectify another subject: include them in their activity not as a source of their own distinctions, but as a state of reality that needs to be changed.

Destruction is the extreme form of such a relationship.

The Favorable / Unfavorable Binary Is Not the Structure of Reality

The binary scheme “favorable / unfavorable” seems to cover the entire space of uncertainty in relation to a goal. But it arises only after the subject has already distinguished a state and established its relationship to the goal: it is not lying ready-made inside uncertainty.

The characteristic does not belong to the state itself. Event X occurred. At time t1, the subject distinguishes: X obstructs the achievement of my goal. A month later, at t2, after other states have arisen: X created an opportunity without which the goal could not have been achieved at all. Event X itself need not have changed. What changed was the subject’s system of distinctions: new information appeared, new states arose, and perhaps the goal itself changed. Conversely, a state distinguished as favorable may produce a chain of consequences after which it begins to be distinguished as unfavorable.

The idea of an “unfavorable state” as an absolute category must therefore be abandoned. More precisely:

a state distinguished by the subject as unfavorable relative to a goal.

Risk Is Not on the Side of the Result

An unfavorable state has already occurred. It is no longer a risk, but a state of reality with which the subject now deals. Risk existed before realization, while the state was only one of the distinguished possible states:

possible state + the subject’s distinction of it as unfavorable relative to a goal = risk.

After realization: risk → actualized state.

The evaluation of the state may later change. This does not retroactively make the earlier distinction “false”: at t1, the subject possessed a particular picture of a possible future and distinguished X as a threat to their goal; later, the structure of reality unfolded differently.

Here the second nature of uncertainty becomes visible: it concerns not only “what will happen?” but also “what will what happened mean to me?” The subject may know neither the future state nor the future significance of that state (see Uncertainty, the three layers of uncertainty).

Uncertainty Is Broader Than Risk

Must a risk be foreseen by the subject? If an unfavorable state is possible, but the subject cannot imagine it, then it is not a distinguished risk; it is an unknown possibility within uncertainty.

Nor does risk cover the entire “unfavorable half” of uncertainty: no such half exists. Uncertainty itself is not divided; the subject makes the division. Once goal G emerges, it makes it possible to distinguish possible future states relative to that goal:

S₁ contributes to G;
S₂ obstructs G;
S₃ has an unclear relationship to G;
S₄ has not yet been distinguished by the subject at all.

While S₂ remains possible, it can be distinguished as a risk. But S₃ cannot honestly be forced into either “opportunity” or “risk,” while S₄ cannot yet be classified by the subject. Otherwise, we imperceptibly treat the map as complete, as though inventing two categories obliged the entire world to fit into them.

Categories end where the subject’s distinctions end.

This also shows why risk management can never become management of all uncertainty: risk exists only where the subject has already managed to draw a distinction within the uncertain future.

Probability and Degree of Favorability

In formulations such as “90% favorable and 10% unfavorable,” two entirely different things are mixed together.

One may mean the probability of states: a 90% probability of A and a 10% probability of B. Or one may mean the degree to which a single state is favorable: state X helps achieve one part of the goal by 90%, but worsens another by 10%.

This is no longer a binary space. The same state simultaneously stands in different relationships to different goals of the subject. For example, getting a job is favorable for the goal of “earning income,” but for the goal of “building one’s own product,” it may reduce the amount of free time.

Thus, “X is favorable” is an incomplete statement. More precisely:

X is favorable relative to G₁ on parameter P₁ and unfavorable relative to G₂ on parameter P₂.

Risk Is a Relationship, Not a Type of Event

There is no need to search for a set of things called “risks.” There is:

subject → goal → uncertainty of the future → distinguished possible state → relationship of this state to the achievement of the goal.

If the subject distinguishes a possible state as capable of obstructing the achievement of a goal, risk arises. The definition that does not turn a state into a “risk-thing” is:

Risk is the relationship of a subject to a distinguished possible state whose realization obstructs the achievement of a particular goal of that subject.

This relationship is indexed to a moment: “at this moment” is not a cautious qualification but an expression of the structure itself, because the distinction really can change. If we remove time, we lose the subject.

Uncertainty Does Not Contain Ready-Made Risks

Uncertainty does not contain ready-made risks; it contains the openness of the future. The subject establishes a goal, and the goal allows the subject to distinguish possible states in relation to it:

some distinguished possibilities are perceived by the subject as advancing the goal: these are opportunities in the positive sense;
others are perceived as obstructing the goal: these are risks;
the significance of some remains undistinguished;
and some the subject cannot even imagine yet.

Therefore, risk is not the opposite of uncertainty or its “negative part.” It is one of the distinctions that the subject draws within uncertainty. In condensed form:

Uncertainty is the space of what is possible.
The goal creates the distinction between favorable and unfavorable.
A foreseen unfavorable possible state becomes a risk.

Risk, Threat, and Damage

Risk and threat are not the same thing. If there is a subject A who is capable of producing a state X unfavorable to subject B’s goal, then X may be a risk for B, while A, if A’s activity is directed toward bringing about X, becomes a source of threat.

Each concept occupies its own place within the structure of subject, goal, and uncertainty:

uncertainty: the space of what is possible;

risk: a distinguished possibility unfavorable to a goal;

threat: a source or activity capable of realizing such a possibility;

damage: a change of state that has already been realized relative to a goal.

“Danger,” “threat,” “risk,” and “damage” should not be thrown into one semantic bag: they occupy different positions in the same structure of subject, goal, possibility, and realization.

Goal: the goal as a condition for the existence of risk; without a goal, risk does not exist.
Uncertainty: definition of the concept and the space of the subject’s action; risk and responsibility: risk follows choice, not the result.
Subject and Responsibility: risk as uncertainty generated by a subject’s choices.