Balance....

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.

Interesting, is there a universal principle do you think, and if so where is its origins?

They used to refer to insanity as an imbalance of mind.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

Sure I was thinking the same thing, who wants to start the thread and where?

(looks on uncomfortably) Erm... well, perplexity, the internet sure isn't fake...

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

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

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.




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.



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.

The map is not the territory.

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.



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

Rado