1
   

Balance....

 
 
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 10:59 pm
We've all heard the term. Personally I've never really studied balance but I've had it on my mind a lot lately.

Think of how often you hear and read the word 'balance'. Here are a couple instances I've found and hear often:
  1. Balanced Budget
  2. Chemical Imbalance
  3. Balance Sheet
  4. Balanced Diet
  5. Account Balance
  6. PH Balance
  7. Natural Balance
  8. Life Balance
  9. Balance Board
  10. Balanced Literacy
  11. Balanced Meal
  12. Balanced Lifestyle
  13. Well Balanced
This list could get much larger. The important keyword is Balance. Here is a description I found on Balance when it comes to making wine:
Quote:
A quality strived for above nearly all others in making wine. In a balanced wine, all of the flavour components work together in perfect accord, with characteristics neither too dominant nor shrinking into the background. - answers.com

Many of us can attest, that imbalances cause many problems. Imbalances effect our health and the weather around us and we can see where imbalances in human relations also produce catastrophic results.

So, based on facts in science, math, and everything else... How important is balance? If nature intended for everything to be balanced and in perfect harmony, then what exactly does that mean?

Since I've not studied balance due to time constraints, I'm seriously interested in what others think about this simple yet powerful word.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,298 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 08:55 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
Where a positive influence is reflected by a negative outcome.
Where a negative influence is reflected by a positive outcome.
Where the two exist to reflect an equal outcome.

eg: Wine
Positive Influence - Grapes aged to perfection.
Negative outcome - Fermentation (Rot)

Negative influence - Fermentation of perfect grapes.
Positive outcome - A bold Merlot, perfect for an evening of romance.

Negativity becomes Positivity, thereby creating balance.

The same could be said for a budget.
The cost (negative) produces profit (positive) thereby determining balance.

That's the short end of it, and a means to promote debate.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 10:07 pm
@Aristoddler,
Interesting, is there a universal principle do you think, and if so where is its origins?
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 10:14 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
They used to refer to insanity as an imbalance of mind.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 10:19 pm
@perplexity,
But if perseption is the rule for reality, then is insanity actually wrong in the sense that it is just the way that person perseives it?
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 10:25 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
Those declared insane and subject to institutional care are so because of a harm perceived in them, not because of the harm they perceive in other people.

There's an imbalance to meditate upon.

--- RH.
0 Replies
 
Justin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 05:03 am
@PhilosophyForum,
I feel that Balance is a Universal and natural law. Take a look around and observe how often you see balance in nature. It's when things are out of balance that problems occur and this applies to everything.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 05:30 am
@PhilosophyForum,
But does balance truly exist in nature, or is it rather a pojection of our dualistic concept of choice?

There is a school of thought to the effect that dualism is an illusion. How do we ever really know when anything is in balance when everything is always changing, on the move, balanced this moment and unbalanced the next?

To stretch the analogy, balance is a matter of where to put the fulcrum, and the nature of getting that right is more to do with aiming for a target.

Like so many notions, balance is an off the shelf generalisation sold to fit the complexity of the Universe into the smallness of our mind.

--- RH.
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 06:49 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
Perplexity brings up a good point.

Balance is a matter of where the fulcrum is set, so to speak.
But if the fulcrum is set to the center of each equation; then the result is balance...correct?
Now if the same fulcrum is offset on each equation, what we get is too many carnivores, too much pollution, too many diseases, and too many subversive politicians...for example.
Set in the opposite direction: We have too many herbivores, too much excess fuel sources which means an influx in the economy, healthy people which means an influx in the economy, and honest politicians, which means that the influx is spread to the people, which means that inflation rates soar...and all of a sudden a loaf of bread costs $80 because everyone is rich and therefore money is worthless, creating an economic nightmare.

Balance is not only neccessary, but exists without us realizing it sometimes.

Everything is always on the move, forcing change in our existance, as well as the balance of things, to paraphrase and interpret what perplexity stated above me.
We don't always know when balance is going to shift.
What we do know, is that because humans can adapt; a change of balance means we will also change to suit that balance, which creates it's own balance due to the intervention of human nature.


Quote:
Like so many notions, balance is an off the shelf generalisation sold to fit the complexity of the Universe into the smallness of our mind.
It certainly is an easy way to explain things, isn't it.
Kind of like any unexplained phenomenon...it's easy to say something is an act of God if it has no other rational explanation.
To accept the notion that the entire universe is in perfect balance, would be one step closer to admitting or accepting that there is an Omniscient Divinity controlling the fulcrum of creation, which many people are not willing to accept.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 07:15 pm
@Aristoddler,
Is it possible to say that the universe, or nature have a way of creating and maintaining the balance, which either means increase something one way and decrease another thing another, to do this. Then Humans go and upset the whole thing by not regarding the natural world and puts stress on the system. Though I would say that humans do have their own personal set of balances separate from the natural world yet some how there is a few links;which cause us our inbalance simultaniously when we upset the larger ones. Just an idea.
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 07:17 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
They used to think that air pollution warmed the Earth by upsetting the natural balance, so to speak.

Then with the skies cleared of aircraft after 9/11 2001, they found that it warmed up more because the vapour trail pollution had blocked the sun.

The illusion of control is one of the most dangerous of all.

The balance of truth and fiction, there's a balance to meditate upon.

-- RH.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 07:22 pm
@perplexity,
What would you say is the reality of a 'role play' computer game, is it more or less just another realm, sphere, dimension, space or whatever of our personal reality?
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 07:30 pm
@pilgrimshost,
pilgrimshost wrote:
What would you say is the reality of a 'role play' computer game, is it more or less just another realm, sphere, dimension, space or whatever of our personal reality?


I'd say that is a subject for a separate thread.

How real is the internet has fascinated me for some time now, especially with regard to relationships between people posting like like this.

In some repects it turns out to be yet more real, more intense emotionally, which proves to me the supremacy of the mind as a creative force over perception, hence another duality, the victim-persecutor duality, done to or done by, active or passive.

-- RH.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 07:41 pm
@perplexity,
Sure I was thinking the same thing, who wants to start the thread and where?
0 Replies
 
Ragnell
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 08:08 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
perplexity wrote:

How real is the internet has fascinated me for some time now...


(looks on uncomfortably) Erm... well, perplexity, the internet sure isn't fake...
0 Replies
 
rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 02:13 am
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
I feel that Balance is a Universal and natural law. Take a look around and observe how often you see balance in nature. It's when things are out of balance that problems occur and this applies to everything.


And yet, all activity is caused by imbalance. Perfect balance is always static. Life itself is therefore a product of and depending on imbalance.

So you could say that the principle of balance itself is that which makes imbalance, and thereby activity, possible. And any imbalance can be considered healty (or a least harmless) as long as it takes place within the safe boundaries of any particular system. It's the excess of imbalance that causes problems by disrupting the system.

In that sense (and a bit paradoxically), there must be a healthy balance between (static) balance and (active) imbalance also, in order for life or any other functional system to function sucessfully.

Rado
rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 05:12 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
But does balance truly exist in nature, or is it rather a projection of our dualistic concept of choice?
--- RH.


I believe duality/polarity is real since it's the only principle or logical system that can explain everything physical. I don't know of any other principles that can do that.

Like Russell says in "The Man who tapped The Secrets of The Universe":

"And then God said to me, 'Behold thou the unity of all things in Light of Me, and the seeming separateness of all things in the two lights of my divided thinking. See thou that I, the Undivided, Unchanging One, am within all divided things, centering them, and I am without all changing things, controlling them.'

And the secrets of the universe were unfolded to me in their great simplicity as the doors to the Light opened fully to my consciousness. In less time than it takes to put it into words, I knew all there was to know of the CAUSE of all effect, for there was very little to know. In that hour it was as though the infinity of complexity within the moving kaleidoscope were suddenly taken apart and it was shown to me that the entirety of its illusion was but three mirrors and a few bits of broken glass. Likewise the universal kaleidoscope was but moving mirror waves of dual light extending from their equilibrium in God from Whom all creating things spring in octave electric waves just as ocean's waves spring from the calm sea.

Thus knowing the static Light of God, and the two dynamic lights of His thinking, and the electric processes by means of which His thinking is recorded in 'matter' I at once had the key to all the sciences, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy and mechanics, likewise all the underlying principles of creation; of life and the healing principle; of continuity in a universe in which there is no death; of energy which is not what man thinks it to be; and of matter which is not substance as man supposes it to be; and of the forces which act upon it which man has learned how to use somewhat but knows not the why of that which he uses.

And likewise the mystery of the soul was mine to know; and of growth; and the patterns of things in the seeds of things; and the manner of their unfolding, and their repetition and their evolution.

And the LAW was mine to know, the ONE LAW which governs all things extending from the Source through the universal pulse beat which motivates all things. And it was made known to me that I must extend knowledge of this law into all human relations to help remake the world in its new day which God has planned."

Rado
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 05:33 am
@rado,
rado wrote:
And yet, all activity is caused by imbalance. Perfect balance is always static. Life itself is therefore a product of and depending on imbalance.


Thank you for that restatement of the point that I had already been trying to make.

A while ago I had expressed this as the analagy of life as the ripples in the pond, as caused by the impact of our ego.

I distinctly remember posting that but when I try to find the instance again, to link to it now, the search engine lets me down, and not for the first time.


rado wrote:

So you could say that the principle of balance itself is that which makes imbalance, and thereby activity, possible. And any imbalance can be considered healty (or a least harmless) as long as it takes place within the safe boundaries of any particular system. It's the excess of imbalance that causes problems by disrupting the system.


The problem is rather that a system by definition is something that refuses to be disrupted.

Systems are inherently ignorant of that which they are not set up to accomodate.

rado wrote:

In that sense (and a bit paradoxically), there must be a healthy balance between (static) balance and (active) imbalance also, in order for life or any other functional system to function sucessfully.


I see that paradox at large, realised by the similarly unconvincing hypocricy of the various philosophies and religions on offer in practice. On the one hand they profess an interest in the truth, while on the other they react systematically, with a distinct hostilty to whatever truth may disturb the calm of their own particular variety of ignorance.

--- RH.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 06:14 am
@rado,
rado wrote:
I believe duality/polarity is real since it's the only principle or logical system that can explain everything physical. I don't know of any other principles that can do that.


The map is not the territory.


rado
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 06:18 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:

The problem is rather that a system by definition is something that refuses to be disrupted.

Systems are inherently ignorant of that which they are not set up to accomodate.
--- RH.


Well yes, here we have another balance issue: the balance between stability and flexibility. Where stability is wanted, it's always at the expense of flexibility, and vice versa.

perplexity wrote:

I see that paradox at large, realised by the similarly unconvincing hypocricy of the various philosophies and religions on offer in practice. On the one hand they profess an interest in the truth, while on the other they react systematically, with a distinct hostilty to whatever truth may disturb the calm of their own particular variety of ignorance.
--- RH.


Yea. The current evolution / ID debate is a good example (I'm mostly thinking of the evolutionists here...).

Rado
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Balance....
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 02:26:23