What is balance for you?

[RiotZ]

What I got from this post is: "We disagree and although what you're saying is true, it's impossible to know who's right or wrong."

You're wrong...

Then enlighten us.

Intellectuals are able to understand flaws and errors in there own theories.

 

[En_Fuego]

Then enlighten us.

Intellectuals are able to understand flaws and errors in there own theories.

My point is that he said what you're saying is true, yet still wrong, which to me, makes 0 sense until he explains it.

 

[RiotZ]

My point is that he said what you're saying is true, yet still wrong, which to me, makes 0 sense until he explains it.

Definitely.

 

[w3.player]

I didn't say he is wrong, i stated he is true, yet our opinions differ slightly, which means that we have different views, but maybe both of us see the same thing.

Simple example: Let's say 2 people see an animal. They have never seen it before in their life, nor they have heard of it. So basically none of them know what it is.
The first one: This animal has a beard.
The second one: This animal has a tail.
The first: No it doesn't.
....

The point of this example: one is looking from the front of the animal, the other from the back, so the first doesn't see the tail, the second doesn't see the beard, so they are both true, but their opinions (or views) differ.

NOTE: i know you will say that one of them could easily move and see the whole animal, or that logically the first one can't say the second one is wrong. Yet let's put these terms out... and think only and only about the point of the example, not the example itself.

 

[En_Fuego]

I didn't say he is wrong, i stated he is true, yet our opinions differ slightly, which means that we have different views, but maybe both of us see the same thing.

Simple example: Let's say 2 people see an animal. They have never seen it before in their life, nor they have heard of it. So basically none of them know what it is.
The first one: This animal has a beard.
The second one: This animal has a tail.
The first: No it doesn't.
....

The point of this example: one is looking from the front of the animal, the other from the back, so the first doesn't see the tail, the second doesn't see the beard, so they are both true, but their opinions (or views) differ.

NOTE: i know you will say that one of them could easily move and see the whole animal, or that logically the first one can't say the second one is wrong. Yet let's put these terms out... and think only and only about the point of the example, not the example itself.

What does that have to do with

We have different opinions, but nevertheless your perspectives are true so we can't really know who is right and who isn't. Maybe i am, maybe you are.

?

What he said is empirically true, so how can it be false? Because your perspective is different? At the point that you accept his view point to be true, you should change your own perspective to much that lest you acquiescing in an erroneous theory for the rest of your life.

 

[w3.player]

As i said, 2 people can be true, or can both be wrong. As i see it... we are both true, but we can't know who is truly seeing the whole picture. We are talking about balance here, it's not something empirical, not something concrete, it's something abstract, therefore we only change opinions here.

 

[Edhel-dur]

As i said, 2 people can be true, or can both be wrong. As i see it... we are both true, but we can't know who is truly seeing the whole picture. We are talking about balance here, it's not something empirical, not something concrete, it's something abstract, therefore we only change opinions here.

If you two say two separate things, but you are both right, it mostly means you guys are talking about two separate things and don't know about it.

 

[w3.player]

That is possible, as i said, it's a matter of perspectives and some may see balance totally different or understand something else from this word.

 

[Edhel-dur]

That is possible, as i said, it's a matter of perspectives and some may see balance totally different or understand something else from this word.

So basically your going backwards.

Humans invented and perfected 'language' in order to better communicate and share their ideas, what they sense (what they see, smell, hear, etc), to illustrate their actions or another actions, so on and so forth....

But in your case... if I say "Look a turtle!" but it turns out to be a tiger, then I am still right, correct? It's a matter of perspective is it?

 

[w3.player]

Not to seem stupid but... in these last times you posted you mostly argued with me. And even though maybe i am wrong (i don't know everything, i agree), you could try to state once: "You are doing a mistake" and leave it be... just by keeping up these posts which are a bit offensive to me (because you just can't stand without criticizing me, as far as i have seen) you won't get anything good.

I made my opinion and stated it, unless you truly bring a proof to change my opinion then it's no use just telling me i am wrong or that i am mistaking. Yes, i say it's a matter of perspectives, but not like seeing a turtle instead of an tiger. We are talking about something abstract here, balance, not something that we can really know for sure, we only make assumptions about it.

Oh... and i just noticed (i wasn't paying attention to it) your signature... I don't want to be mean or something... but isn't it a bit pessimistic? It's mostly true... but still...

 

[Sky Green]

69 is the perfect balance

 

[Edhel-dur]

Not to seem stupid but... in these last times you posted you mostly argued with me. And even though maybe i am wrong (i don't know everything, i agree), you could try to state once: "You are doing a mistake" and leave it be... just by keeping up these posts which are a bit offensive to me (because you just can't stand without criticizing me, as far as i have seen) you won't get anything good.

I made my opinion and stated it, unless you truly bring a proof to change my opinion then it's no use just telling me i am wrong or that i am mistaking. Yes, i say it's a matter of perspectives, but not like seeing a turtle instead of an tiger. We are talking about something abstract here, balance, not something that we can really know for sure, we only make assumptions about it.

Oh... and i just noticed (i wasn't paying attention to it) your signature... I don't want to be mean or something... but isn't it a bit pessimistic? It's mostly true... but still...

I can't bring your real and solid proof because balance cannot be sensed, it can be only observed.

The only reason I am debating to you through words and no proof, besides the fact that there is no proof, I am basically just gathering proof to show that you have holes in your day-to-day basic logic.

It's very simple, you just don't view things all-together. You just take them, look at them and study them by pieces. You see a new creature, you see it has no tail, and you immediately jump to the conclussion "Aha, he is related to a human, because a human has no tail!", and then you think you are right. But you don't analyze it properly or anything, maybe the creature has a tail and you just don't see it because you are not close enough and the tail was cut off. Long story short, your naive.

But I couldn't tell you that you are simply wrong and why, no. First of all I had to attract your attention, it's useless to explain to you what is wrong if you are not interested in the situation. So I did what I had to do and I will continue doing so because I like the style.

Not sure if in this thread I wanted to insult you or not. Pretty much it's just your imagination since I haven't insulted you directly in anyway. But take it like this... if you think my signature is true and you feel sad about it.... after my debate about balance... if you think it's plausabile and you feel insulted through it... most likely it's just yourself feeling insulted because you might have realized you got K.O.-ed.

And my signature if it's pessimistic... it's pessimistic for you, you view it as pessimistic. I just view it as realistic. You could say that I have it written in my signature so I myself can read it from time to time, so I never forget this saying, because I think it's an important concept to learn and embrace.

(Oh and in the "wc3 forever thread", yeah that's something else. There I completely dislike the fact that you place Warcraft at a higher status then it actually is in reality, and I consider you... intellectual inferior (currently) because of this.)

 

[w3.player]

About your signature i only stated my opinion. If you see it otherwise then me... as i said: perspectives.

As for the rest... well i don't think i am naive... i don't do things as you see them, but you probably misunderstood my posts (i really don't study an animal and then say it hasn't got a tail even if it has one, although you should have seen by now... i am more likely to try and "study" the abstract, rather than the concrete, i consider myself as one that tries to get a little piece of understanding over something that usually the human race is unable to comprehend. Maybe impossible but still... it's who i am.). In any case, you didn't insult me, you just seemed to criticize me more than debate with me, that's all.

Though... i don't want to continue this arguing any longer, maybe we started on the wrong foot and you seem to be a nice and elevated person anyway, so i say we call it a truce and end before we go too off-topic.

(On the other thread, if i want to state my opinion, that is actually what we should... i didn't say anything about yours, i only stated mine. If they are different, why would you consider me as intellectual inferior? Only because i say something that in any case nobody can know for sure because we can't see in the future? If you know things that i don't and therefore have facts that prove your opinion, that is fine, but unless i see that proof i can't change my opinion.)

 

[Edhel-dur]

Well yeah but here is the thing, for someone who wants to find the truth behind the abstract, first of all you must be able to focus on the concrete part of the abstract. And then, after you completely understand the concrete and simple part of anything (e.g. 'balance') then you can start and deviate and study it further.

Second of all I can tell that you are incredibly young because you do not have a solid standing in any topic. All your reactions are something similar to "We are both right, I don't know". Upon everything you give a neutral aura. Basically you are saying something like "I do not think you are right but I do not dare question you further". You never reach a concrete conclusion, you just float around the topic. What that means is that basically all your talk is not for nothing, it's intended for nothing. You simply talk to waste some time. Because otherwise a productive talk, is one which reaches a conclusion, and that is not a neutral talk. I think you are afraid to pursue any talk to the end, in fear of a bad response. In concrete what I am saying is that your method to learn about the abstract is bad as in not efficient. You will waste an enourmous amount of time to learn basic things about a concept, compared to other people.

Third of all the abstract is useless in real life. I studied a lot of abstract when I was youngerrrr and I can tell you that it will not earn you anything. Because eventually you reach the point where the abstract is so far from the practical reality, that it serves you no good, worse it starts to work against you. Can't tell you exactly how really,but let's say that girls get bored of abstract, and everyone else on the Earth. In life, abstract is not something valued by anyone (Pablo Picasso). Everything which is abstract, is mostly considered a free problem you made for yourself. All that I need to know about balance is that I need to live a versitile yet balanced life, so I don't fall in one extreme, because personally I like to be an open-minded person (because I think it's good/productive to be open-minded) and falling into an extreme is contradictory to being open minded.


And there was a fourth point I wanted to touch but I forgot it.
If I remember I will post it.

 

[w3.player]

I am young, yes, and i have much to learn. But still, i don't think that i am talking intended for nothing, i am talking in order to hear opinions. After all that is the title of the thread "What is balance for you?" I reached the conclusion o long time ago, because the conclusion is the opinions of people who replied, including you.

Nevertheless, sorry but i have to log off, a bit too late around here now. If you remember that fourth point, please post it as an EDIT.

 

[Vunjo]

Since most of my today's day was Maths and Physics, I would say that balance is the average speed in 2 speeds at different times, on the same road.

I would like to talk about the other part of w3.players' signature.

Here's one (retardical) fact. Why to think, and seek for something that you cannot prove at all? Why to search for knowledge of the World after our life, if you cannot describe it, or show anything worth enough to be an example of the afterlife?

 

[w3.player]

Well, i would seek such thing for maybe 1 from 2 reasons:

1)i am stupid (which i doubt)
2)i only want to do it as i believe in it

 

[Dynamiczx]

Balance is what keeps everyone from being a Chuck Norris and what prevents trolls from taking over the world xD

 

[w3.player]

Funny... )

 

[Wimbo125]

Balance is being awesome, while still being not awesome...

 

[w3.player]

True...

 

[RiotZ]

Since most of my today's day was Maths and Physics, I would say that balance is the average speed in 2 speeds at different times, on the same road.

I would like to talk about the other part of w3.players' signature.

Here's one (retardical) fact. Why to think, and seek for something that you cannot prove at all? Why to search for knowledge of the World after our life, if you cannot describe it, or show anything worth enough to be an example of the afterlife?

People don't seek knowledge of the afterlife, they seek knowledge of its existence, anyone who tells you there is an afterlife for sure, and beyond any doubt a god, is a fool.

 

[w3.player]

To believe something exists beyond our senses is not foolish, just not understood by those without belief, as for "beyond any doubt" you are right... you can never say beyond any doubt that something is or not without proof, even though proofs are sometimes overrated.


Also... my signature doesn't refer to the afterlife... it refers to the mere idea of being able to pass on into another "plane of existence" not necessarily by death...

 

[Elite Slayer]

Balance, for me? A concept that is nearly impossible to be practiced by humans. While I understand I should discuss this in a secular light, I believe balance exists only within God. (And, I swear, if someone starts yet another religious debate about this topic...) But, believe what you want.

What I mean to say, is that balance is something that humans simply cannot achieve. After many thousands of years of trying (or millions, for you evolutionists), we have still not been able to achieve it. We have had periods of peace, yes, but war, crime, pestilence, poverty, violence and so on are still evident on a global scale.

While some may state that this is the "bad" side to balance out the "good" side (honesty, respect, love, and other traits), I believe that only goodness should permeate outward actions, where badness might reside only within people, yet not be made manifest. It's almost like kinetic and potential energy in physics - potential energy exists, and can be manifested in the form of kinetic energy, but it is usually inactive, existing only as potential, or capability. Whereas kinetic energy - active, outward energy - should be like goodness. (Yes, I am aware that this is not the best illustration to use, as kinetic energy and potential energy are two forms of the same thing, and that one cannot exist without the other, but it is an analogy most easily understood)
However, in an imperfect world (and I use this secularly), I believe balance cannot possibly be achieved.
Just my two cents. I don't expect anyone to have to agree with me.

 

[w3.player]

You do say a truth... unfortunately the balance in our world is broken because of many reasons, including those you stated...


As for the religious part, i agree. PLEASE DO NOT START another religious off topic discussion here, this thread is about balance, not religion.

 

[RiotZ]

You do say a truth... unfortunately the balance in our world is broken because of many reasons, including those you stated...


As for the religious part, i agree. PLEASE DO NOT START another religious off topic discussion here, this thread is about balance, not religion.

Religion is a part of balance, it is an imbalance and a scorn on the civilized world.
The Bible and Q'uran have been the result of a larger loss of life than any modern day occurrence only the vast casualties during World War II could compare. Which was in truth a religious war, as Adolf Hitler believed his people were the master race, Aryans, from the word Atlantis, referring to the lost city, which is where Aryans supposedly ascended from in the false religion that Hitler compiled. I'm sorry if you say this is off-topic, but the topic must be addressed and does have strong entanglement with the current subject.

As for proof, proof is the most valuable asset in all situations, lives are ended and wars are started on proof, complex mathematics are used to provide proof, mathematics are the fabric of the universe. Need I continue? I don't want to seem like a troll, but what you said was incorrect.

 

[w3.player]

In my opinion, the only thing that binds balance and religion is the fact that both of them are spiritual ideas. Both of them are based on faith, but if we talk about balance... we needn't talk about religion, so let's stop this off topic sliding.

About proof, that was also only my opinion, if you disagree, i accept that and maybe you are right, but i won't change my opinion just yet, as from my experience proof is overrated.

 

[RiotZ]

In my opinion, the only thing that binds balance and religion is the fact that both of them are spiritual ideas. Both of them are based on faith, but if we talk about balance... we needn't talk about religion, so let's stop this off topic sliding.

About proof, that was also only my opinion, if you disagree, i accept that and maybe you are right, but i won't change my opinion just yet, as from my experience proof is overrated.

How so? Without proof, you cannot prove anything, in the real world proof is everything. I would hope if I am ever taken to court, my lawyer will have a large slew of proof, else I might end up in prison, or vice verse, someone dangerous might end up free because a lack of proof.

 

[Edhel-dur]

In my opinion, the only thing that binds balance and religion is the fact that both of them are spiritual ideas. Both of them are based on faith, but if we talk about balance... we needn't talk about religion, so let's stop this off topic sliding.

About proof, that was also only my opinion, if you disagree, i accept that and maybe you are right, but i won't change my opinion just yet, as from my experience proof is overrated.

The point where you regard balance as a spiritual thing, it means you are refering to religion and faith.

Balance has nothing to do with either though. Balance is just a result. It doesn't represent anything in particular, it's just found in everything. This thread is sooooooo very chaotic

 

[w3.player]

To faith, yes... to religion, no.

As for balance is found in everything... yes it is. It is found more or less... (usually as other stated... humans tend to get rid of balance so they can feel more comfortable or entertained for a short time)

 

[-Derp-]

Balance... is a perspective.


'Luck' and 'Bad Luck' are perspectives. One situation that happens to you that you deem 'bad' may be deemed 'good' by another person.

I quote this:

Happiness is an attitude. We either make ourselves miserable, or happy and strong. The amount of work is the same.

~Francesca Reigler

Dark and Light relationships are merely absences of the other. Darkness is the absence of visible electromagnetic radiation, or 'Light'. This also applies to hot and cold. I don't understand what an 'opposing forces' are, as from what I looks to me, they're simply absences of another object.


Life and Death relationships, aren't these simply fate? Its certain that we will all die. Our family names will eventually be erased, and we will no longer be remembered. The time is simply different for each person. What is 'balancing' in this? That we share a fate?


Ugliness and Beauty are perspectives. Pretty much any fetish is an example of this.

-whether they are our souls, as an energetic power which flows to decide the path we take and sometimes choses something good, other times something bad

Like... a conscious?

 

[w3.player]

About "opposing forces" yes... you have an interesting perspective, and true, mostly it's about only one force... but you haven't read the whole thread... we already discussed such things like the fact that there is only one force and the absence of another (by force i don't mean physics force). Therefore balance exists when there is an proper "amount" of a certain thing, whether it is good or beauty or light,etc.


As four souls... yes you may call it conscious, others may call it character, others personality... it's just a matter of perspectives.

 

[RiotZ]

Balance... is a perspective.


'Luck' and 'Bad Luck' are perspectives. One situation that happens to you that you deem 'bad' may be deemed 'good' by another person.

I quote this:





Dark and Light relationships are merely absences of the other. Darkness is the absence of visible electromagnetic radiation, or 'Light'. This also applies to hot and cold. I don't understand what an 'opposing forces' are, as from what I looks to me, they're simply absences of another object.


Life and Death relationships, aren't these simply fate? Its certain that we will all die. Our family names will eventually be erased, and we will no longer be remembered. The time is simply different for each person. What is 'balancing' in this? That we share a fate?


Ugliness and Beauty are perspectives. Pretty much any fetish is an example of this.




Like... a conscious?

They are not absences of the other when they are not to an extreme, a dully lit room is not absent of light or darkness, and luke-warm room is not absent of heat or coldness. Argument invalid.

 

[w3.player]

Actually... Derp is quite right... balance is the idea of not going into an extreme of something, whether it is about good, heat, light, etc... For example: Balance of light means enough light to see... not too little, but not too much so we go blind.

 

[RiotZ]

Actually... Derp is quite right... balance is the idea of not going into an extreme of something, whether it is about good, heat, light, etc... For example: Balance of light means enough light to see... not too little, but not too much so we go blind.

I'm not sure you understood what I have been saying this entire time.

Half of 100 is 50.

100% is imbalance, 50% is balance, why? Because there are two numbers now, 50% and 50%, which will make 100%, now the numbers can vary between 60/40, etc, but they stay balanced, once it reaches 80/20 the balance begins to break. 100/0 means there is only one number, one power, one object, the balance has been broken.

50% light, 50% dark, balance, there cannot be an absence of one of them, because then it would be pitch black, or blindingly bright. If there is an absence, then there is no balance between the two as the value for light/black, is 100% and the value for black/light is 0%.

Derp said they are just the absences of each other, which is not possible as they still exist in the same environment is most situations.

 

[w3.player]

Dark is a word we use to describe the absence of light... that's my point and derp's. Also bad/evil are words that describe the absence of good... cold is the absence of heat... ugliness is the absence of beauty... and the list goes on.

 

[-Derp-]

I quote this:

Balance... is a perspective.

You guys proved this. All of us have varying perspectives of what balance is. None of us are wrong nor right.

They are not absences of the other when they are not to an extreme, a dully lit room is not absent of light or darkness, and luke-warm room is not absent of heat or coldness. Argument invalid.

'Cold' quite literally is an absence of heat, as darkness is an absence of light. They are merely words used to describe a situation of when there is less/more of another. Heat is energy. When particles are moving they have energy. Cold is used to compare the amount of energy (or 'heat') to another. An ice cube has less energy than a glass of water, thus it is 'colder'. It has less heat. If cold were an object, then you could go past absolute zero, (no movement) which means no heat. From what I understand, you can't.

The same argument pretty much applies to dark/light.

Derp said they are just the absences of each other, which is not possible as they still exist in the same environment is most situations.

By absence I was including more or less situations, whether they be 0%, 42%, 20%, 100%, etc...

 

[w3.player]

Yes, Derp, perspectives are after all what makes us human . If we were all thinking the same thing... besides the fact that the world would be monotonous and desolate.... the balance would also be broken.

 

[Dynamiczx]

Yes, Derp, perspectives are after all what makes us human . If we were all thinking the same thing... besides the fact that the world would be monotonous and desolate.... the balance would also be broken.

True, as there won't be any 2 sides which would support 2 different things...Everyone would start being monotonous...thinking the same, having the same perspective about the balance, and so...if balance is the same in everyone's mind, it can't be balance anymore...

For example if everyone will be 1 sided, monotonous there won't be any 2 sides, only 1, there will be either good, or evil, not both so it will be balance...There will be either corruption, or justice, not both...People who fight to bash corruption and live with justice and dignity and people who take corruption to fill their pockets...and the list continues....

 

[w3.player]

Indeed.

 

[Bugz]

Well, i am back to this discussion. I still think that balance is a wonderfull topic, and we could discuss about this forever. Which mean's you2 should join the group, and make the topic there. Also Balance is ment to happend in the world.

 

[w3.player]

I don't see if you are just stating an opinion or trolling... I remember that before you were against balance...

 

[RiotZ]

I quote this:



You guys proved this. All of us have varying perspectives of what balance is. None of us are wrong nor right.





'Cold' quite literally is an absence of heat, as darkness is an absence of light. They are merely words used to describe a situation of when there is less/more of another. Heat is energy. When particles are moving they have energy. Cold is used to compare the amount of energy (or 'heat') to another. An ice cube has less energy than a glass of water, thus it is 'colder'. It has less heat. If cold were an object, then you could go past absolute zero, (no movement) which means no heat. From what I understand, you can't.

The same argument pretty much applies to dark/light.




By absence I was including more or less situations, whether they be 0%, 42%, 20%, 100%, etc...

Nonetheless, your statement still implies that there can be a total absence of one another, which is impossible, (I believe you can pass absolute zero, as possible but highly unlikely).

 

[w3.player]

If we stand to think... almost everything is possible... some time ago we didn't believe flying is... and now we have planes... now we believe teleportation is impossible... but someday it may be...

So why can't you accept the possibility of the absence of something as part of balance...
Take it this way: When you have a balanced eating proportion... it's not about the how much you eat and you don't eat... it's only about how much you eat... and in order to be balanced, you eat enough to sustain yourself... not too little to go in malnutrition but not too much to go overweight.

 

[Bugz]

I don't see if you are just stating an opinion or trolling... I remember that before you were against balance...

If there was no balance in the world, we would all have been dead. And the earth could never exist. Simple physic.

 

[w3.player]

True.

 

[RiotZ]

If there was no balance in the world, we would all have been dead. And the earth could never exist. Simple physic.

Too broad and simple an example and doesn't apply to everything.

The human race was created on a lack of balance, our existence is an evolutionary mistake.

 

[Dynamiczx]

If we stand to think... almost everything is possible... some time ago we didn't believe flying is... and now we have planes... now we believe teleportation is impossible... but someday it may be...

So why can't you accept the possibility of the absence of something as part of balance...
Take it this way: When you have a balanced eating proportion... it's not about the how much you eat and you don't eat... it's only about how much you eat... and in order to be balanced, you eat enough to sustain yourself... not too little to go in malnutrition but not too much to go overweight.

Actually teleportation exists!!!But at the level of atoms...Scientists has experimented teleportation...by teleporting a few atoms from one place to another
So basically teleportation consists in taking all your body, transforming all ur atoms into informations, taking the informations to the next place, and transforming back into atoms
The only problem is the very huge number of atoms that a human body is made off...and 1 misplaced atom, could lead to big mistakes...death etc...

 

[RiotZ]

I for one don't believe anything is impossible, in fact I believe teleportation is highly plausible, look at Einstein's theory as just your most basic example.

 

[w3.player]

Yes, teleportation is plausible ... yet not well "updated" until now, we still need to make it better until we can use it.