What is balance for you?

[Edhel-dur]

Balance/harmony does exist...
My younger sisters are balanced:
The first and oldest is very thin..
and the second is very fat..

Even its not very good -.-'

Thus the food supplies don't run out ASAP. Although one eats a lot, the other eats a little. Right ?

 

[Bugz]

Yes..

 

[JetFangInferno]

I just want to talk about balance in economics (equal opportunity). Supposedly, everyone should have equal opportunity in acquiring wealth based on his/her skill level. This means that there would be flexible social mobility in both directions. A person who develops mastery over one's skillsets should climb up the ladder, and a person who fails to capitalize on one's skillsets should descend the ladder. Theoretically, there would be balance of poverty, middle class, and wealthy based on your skills.

Now let's talk about the reasons for lack of balance:

1) Environment. People are born into a specific wealth class and that dictates their availability of resources. It is hard to escape poverty because it becomes harder to get access to higher education to improve one's skillsets, for example. Some people are born with handsome inheritance, which means they don't need any skills whatsoever. This distribution of wealth (or lack thereof) causes imbalance.

2) Politics. We live, undoubtedly, in a world of plutocracy -- money is power. The rich will do everything in their power to hoard their wealth and prevent those beneath them from getting any of it. For America, we live in a world where people buy first and pay later (this is also an imbalance because you spend more than what you have). With this mentality engrained into our culture, the rich easily trap those who are unable to find balance (saving vs. spending) into a vicious cycle of poverty. Furthermore, education is always cut first but that's also part of the plan: Keep the poor down by preventing them from getting any smarter. Keep them slaves to advertisements, consumerism, and censorship to keep funneling the wealth upwards. It's disgusting but when we're talking about political power and environments that impede on upward social mobility, you have a terribly imbalanced system.

tl;dr: Economics is a prime example of imbalance because no one has equal access to resources and those who have them tend to hoard it to themselves.

 

[Bugz]

We could use london as a example;

 

[w3.player]

Indeed, what you say is right... and therefore we have one more definition and opinion about balance

Also i must agree with you entirely, politics and plutocracy is the great imbalance of our world... hopefully we will just end up soon to exist and maybe earth will live peacefully )

 

[SA Dashie]

Balance will happen eventually as the more we learn from the past mistakes comes a better and wiser future but this is not for every country as without education people will never learn from the mistakes of the human kind past.
As long as generous countrys survive to donate to the poorer countrys to have a chance and we learn from mistakes the earth will once again become balanced once again but with instead humans still being at the top of the food chain.

 

[w3.player]

DeathChef, yes you are right... but just learning about the mistakes made in the past will not help if the people are not introduced into the path of wisdom... if one knows a lot it does not mean he is wise... and only those who are wise may make a difference and possibly mend the balance of the world. Tough, you have a good point

 

[Vunjo]

THW got balance. The good guys, and the pony guys.

 

[Wimbo125]

There is no good or evil, every man or woman has a bad side and a good side, and with some people on of those sides dominate, I don't think there's good or bad, just 'a little bit less evil' and 'a little bit more evil', but everyone has to apoligize to at least someone out there, everybody hurt somebody's feelings and some to it more often than others. My best friends all have a side that isn't as fun as the other side of them, my friend J. is a nice guy, helped me in some really bad situations, but if he's trying to score he sometimes forgets rule No.1 from the Bro Code, my friend P. is a guy who's always there for me when i need him, but he gets a little agitated. I, I am a nice guy according to others, I'll always help my friends to go through difficult times, but sometimes I make inappropriate jokes, and if I say inappropriate, I mean bad, almost evil things...

Balance is finding inner peace between your Yin and your Yang, your better side and your worse side and seeing that in others.

 

[Jaret]

Yes, Yes. Indeed there is Balance in the world. Here's how:

Imagine a scenery. Imagine the sum of the shading and the highlights in it to be, let's say, 100%. Let's assume there is 50% shadows and 50% light. Imagine the main source of the light (let's say, the moon) comes closer to the scenery. What'll happen? It will be, of course, highlighted to, let's say 30% shadows and 70% light. They always add up to 100%, and they keep a simple balance in the picture. But, if you ask "now, where's the balance? There clearly is more light now.", look at it this way: The percentage of the shadows may have fell, but that doesn't mean that it's weaker in any way than it was before - The shadows themselves are much darker now, adding up to the loss of the mass of shadows. The light, on the other hand, became lighter.
To explain further:
Imagine if 100% Light = -1, 100% Dark = 1, and 0% of both is the negative of their 100%.
100% of shadows = absolute dark (1), 0% of light = negative absolute light (1).
50% of shadows = dark (0), 50% of light = light (0)
75% of shadows = rather dark (0.5), 25% of light = weak light (0.5)
25% of shadows = weak dark (-0.5), 75% of light = rather light (-0.5)

They always add up to the same. That is how the world is - If there was no night, would there be day? If there was no black, would there be white? If there was no hate, would there be love? And so forth...

 

[w3.player]

@Wimbo125, very good point my friend, i totally agree. I am basically like you, if what you said about yourself is true. Balance is the equilibrium between our better side and worse side. After all, one wise man once said: "The universe is infinite, and we are so small... the only thing we can truly control... is whether we are good, or bad" - This quote shows basically this idea... that we have a balance within ourselves (as it is in the entire world) and we control it.

@Jaret, i can agree with you as well, yet one more example for your theory could be the very Terra. When Earth is illuminated by the sun... one half of the planet is lightened and the other one is shadowed, which means a 50% with 50%.

By the way, i think i can be a good example for your quote in the signature.

 

[Jaret]

@Wimbo125, very good point my friend, i totally agree. I am basically like you, if what you said about yourself is true. Balance is the equilibrium between our better side and worse side. After all, one wise man once said: "The universe is infinite, and we are so small... the only thing we can truly control... is whether we are good, or bad" - This quote shows basically this idea... that we have a balance within ourselves (as it is in the entire world) and we control it.

@Jaret, i can agree with you as well, yet one more example for your theory could be the very Terra. When Earth is illuminated by the sun... one half of the planet is lightened and the other one is shadowed, which means a 50% with 50%.

By the way, i think i can be a good example for your quote in the signature.

Well, the earth is basically a ball (more or less), so it's always 50% illuminated by the sun. And @Wimbo - I don't completely agree with you. You see, we humans strive (at least i do) to shrink the evil side as much as possible, not to find balance between the good and the bad. It is, after all, our "higher mission" (so to say) to let our good side win over the evil one and go to heaven (if you're atheist, sorry about mentioning heaven). Of course, I missed a point on this one in my theory - we shouldn't look at things as singular. Always look at the plural - look at the whole humanity. The better a good deed looks, the worse the evil deed looks...

 

[w3.player]

If you see my new signature... (about ascension), i think that even though we strive (i do as well) to let our good side take action within us... if we do not have the wisdom to understand it properly... it's the same like being bad. A simple example might be:

"An old man helps a child (4-5 years old). Later on the same day, the child helps another child." - Being young, the child did not understand that what he did was a good thing, only that he liked it and did it.

The same thing happens with the entire humanity. Some believe in a religion, others in another one... and therefore some may see a good thing did by others as a bad thing. Balance exists because even one is a saint, surely somewhere another is a devil. (please take no offence, those who do not believe in such things)

As a conclusion... ascension (as i said before, from my signature) is something infinite and balanced, because if one ascends as a good being, another ascends as a bad being, as you said... the better the good deed looks, the worse the evil deed looks.


I am a Christian, so i believe in the existence of God and the devil. Yet one simple question that bothers me... "if God wants all of us to follow the path of light, why does He allow the devil to tempt us?" An answer which i believe to be true is: "Because God gives us the free will to choose between light and dark, basically letting the balance between those two to exist."

 

[Wimbo125]

@w3.player, I really like your signature, I am not religious, i don't belong to a church, but what speaks the most to me is Buddhism, and btw, I don't lie about myself, when I'm waiting for the bus and i see someone cry, I try to help, even if it means missing my bus, because, in 15 minutes there will be another one for sure, but I won't know if there will be someone helping her... (actually happened last week, i was supposed to take the bus to my friends house but i saw a girl crying...(see signature))

 

[w3.player]

I see, well actually... the ascension idea is not really about religion... it's about what i believe to be my goal in existence. (also i hope it is the goal of others as well)

And i believe that ascension is not obtainable without balance.

 

[Vunjo]

"There shouldn't be balance between good and evil, but only good."

 

[w3.player]

How can you define good without evil? Indeed, i agree that it should be the good to rule this world, yet we are born as beings with free will, and this free will is what makes us able to decide whether we are good or evil. Good is all that we like and does not harm us... yet when one says... i like killing, even though for you it's evil... for him is good. These many perspectives make the good and evil.

In my opinion... the good is the balance itself.

 

[Vunjo]

I am not really here to chat about some facts of balance. I am just stating, that balance is not needed everywhere, for example good and evil. There should be only good in the world, and no evil at all (or if there is some, it should be really small amount). Killing, is good for killer, because he probably gets profit, or something else, and it's good for his master (if he has one). That is good deed for 2 people. I can name you 100 people who will cry because of their loss. It ends up 50-1 which means, it's a bad deed, and not good one.

If you are trying to say that War is good because of an idiot's wish, then I can also see that you would waste millions of people's lives just to do a good deed for a single man.

 

[w3.player]

My friend, you speak like a true Nox, and in my soul i agree with you.

Basically the Nox live within the bounds of one great principle: "Allies of all, enemies of none." (to clarify, the Nox are a race of humanoid aliens in the Stargate SG-1 TV series)

There is better to be peace and well being rather than war and murdering, yet i must state that this thread wasn't and isn't about balance between good and evil necessarily, it's about the simple idea of harmony between opposite things.

Yet i must disagree about one thing, balance is needed everywhere, even though we do not think it is there... It is not needed as like 50-50%... but just for both opposite things to exist. Whether one or the other is bigger it's just about the other factors. Like Peace and war... they are both existent... but whether one or the other is applied to the entire world depends on those idiot politicians...

EDIT: also, one simple example is the one Jaret has given, light and shadows... just the fact that a light source illuminates an object makes the other half of the object to be shadowed...

 

[RiotZ]

Balance exists in all things, without balance the scales would tilt drastically in either fashion. Use the cliche of Good and Evil, even if Evil were to be eradicated, then the existence of Good (designed to fight Evil) would be nullified. Without balance the fabric of things would be much different.

Harmony between opposites is inconceivable, as without the existence of one side, the other side cannot exist either. All things in the universe tie together, like a ball of yarn, if you pull one string, the rest soon begins to unravel.

If we are referring to a balance between nations and individuals, balance between people is conceivable, however, I believe the Human species is a barbaric one like any other we know to exist, and we will never be satisfied with basic existence among each other, (because we all strive to be number one, we compete with each other, which then furthers to conflict and feud.)

To my final point, I believe no acts are redeeming, and there is no final judgement, or divine intervention, or great retribution. There is no reason to be Good to other people, nor is there a reason to be Evil. You do not go to Hell if you are an evil person, nor do you go to Heaven if you are a Good person. So you ask to yourself, "Then how do I choose?", with free will, not with a church, or cult telling you which road to take. If you are only kind because someone said you should be, then where is the good deed, it no longer becomes a good deed, it becomes a linear choice, without proper reason and free will.

 

[Dynamiczx]

Balance exists in all things, without balance the scales would tilt drastically in either fashion. Use the cliche of Good and Evil, even if Evil were to be eradicated, then the existence of Good (designed to fight Evil) would be nullified. Without balance the fabric of things would be much different.

Harmony between opposites is inconceivable, as without the existence of one side, the other side cannot exist either. All things in the universe tie together, like a ball of yarn, if you pull one string, the rest soon begins to unravel.

If we are referring to a balance between nations and individuals, balance between people is conceivable, however, I believe the Human species is a barbaric one like any other we know to exist, and we will never be satisfied with basic existence among each other, (because we all strive to be number one, we compete with each other, which then furthers to conflict and feud.)

To my final point, I believe no acts are redeeming, and there is no final judgement, or divine intervention, or great retribution. There is no reason to be Good to other people, nor is there a reason to be Evil. You do not go to Hell if you are a n evil person, nor do you got Heaven if you are a Good person. So you ask to yourself, "Then how do I choose?", with free will, not with a church, or cult telling you which road to take. If you are only kind because someone said you should be, then where is the good deed, it no longer becomes a good deed, it becomes a linear choice and without proper reason and free will.

Every word of this post i read is 100% true, and i totally agree with you
People shall do what they desire, that's what makes the people, freedom in choice means humanity at its best

 

[w3.player]

RiotZ, my friend, as dynamiczx stated, what you said is 100% true. Balance means free will, it is made out of the free will of things to be something or something else. As we humans choose to be good or evil. Actually i have just seen a post, and it seems that in a way it agrees with us because basically there is no good and evil, just balance, and there can be more balance or less balance, but it always exists.

Free will is actually what makes us all unique as individuals and what makes absolutely everything in the universe unique. As the first principle of logic says: "Every object is what it is" - said first time by Aristotle the greek philosopher (by object we define a thing or a living being/person) - the principle can be stated as "Every object is unique, and never identical to another", we can understand that everything is unique, but the cause of this is, in my opinion, the free will.

 

[RiotZ]

RiotZ, my friend, as dynamiczx stated, what you said is 100% true. Balance means free will, it is made out of the free will of things to be something or something else. As we humans choose to be good or evil. Actually i have just seen a post, and it seems that in a way it agrees with us because basically there is no good and evil, just balance, and there can be more balance or less balance, but it always exists.

Free will is actually what makes us all unique as individuals and what makes absolutely everything in the universe unique. As the first principle of logic says: "Every object is what it is" - said first time by Aristotle the greek philosopher (by object we define a thing or a living being/person) - the principle can be stated as "Every object is unique, and never identical to another", we can understand that everything is unique, but the cause of this is, in my opinion, the free will.

My point was, no one should be held back by false concerns, and no one should think you can eradicate evil, or good, because without one or the other, the balance is tweaked to the point where one force is dominate. History has gone to show us, that when one force dominates everything, it collapses violently.

 

[En_Fuego]

To me, balance is reciprocal burdens.

 

[Pyramidhe@d]

balance is imba

 

[En_Fuego]

balance is imba

if ur a nub

 

[w3.player]

Yes, RiotZ, i agree entirely

 

[RiotZ]

balance is imba

Balance is what keeps things from being imba.

 

[w3.player]

Balance is what keeps things from being imba.

True.

 

[Dynamiczx]

Balance is what keeps things from being imba.

But you must be imba to prevent other things to become imba aswell

 

[w3.player]

No not quite... balance is what it is, as it is something that keeps the world as it is, therefore it keeps things from being imba, without being imba.

 

[RiotZ]

But you must be imba to prevent other things to become imba aswell

No, that is imbalance. Forces struggling for control is balance, one force preventing control, is imbalance.

What you have stated is incorrect.

 

[Edhel-dur]

^
I control myself to be imbalanced.

Explain.

 

[RiotZ]

^
I control myself to be imbalanced.

Explain.

Tough question, but with a reasonable answer.

Controlling yourself, as in suppressing your emotions, or urges, is nearly the same as suppressing a race of people. Had you not suppressed said race, or emotion, it would freely prosper, and in the event it would get to far out of hand, this balance we speak of, (the person suppressing their emotions), would take control, and balance the scales.

Though I don't think we are proper examples of balance, as we are meant to control ourselves completely, which is actually a human flaw, as it creates tyrants, and criminals, and everyone else you can think of as bad, but then we return to balance, without criminals, police would not exist, without tyrants, there would be no countries.

 

[Edhel-dur]

^
So your saying, that if I control myself to be imbalanced... I am still balanced?

How?

 

[RiotZ]

^
So your saying, that if I control myself to be imbalanced... I am still balanced?

How?

No, you are imbalanced, humans are imbalanced, this is why there is so much violence. Because of the imbalance, we (we being other people and not yourself) control the imbalance with counters.

 

[Edhel-dur]

Forces struggling for control is balance = Yet I strive to be imbalanced, I strive to not eat, and against every symptom by body gives, I strive to not eat, I fall into imbalance and die eventually.

So how is struggling for control balance only?

 

[RiotZ]

Forces struggling for control is balance = Yet I strive to be imbalanced, I strive to not eat, and against every symptom by body gives, I strive to not eat, I fall into imbalance and die eventually.

So how is struggling for control balance only?

If you strive to not eat, you die, if you die, something in your body was imbalanced.

There is no way for force dominance, and still maintain balance.

 

[Edhel-dur]

But you said "Forces struggling for control is balance".
To have control means to have dominance over something.

And then you say "There is no way for force dominance, and still maintain balance."

So which is it? Cuz until now you just contradict yourself.

Until now your saying that 2+1 = 3 but 1+2 =/= 3. herp derp

 

[w3.player]

Yes, Riot, you are kind of contradicting yourself. But if i read trough the lines... i think i can understand what you really think (just an opinion):

You say that if one force dominates another, it's imbalance and if 2 forces struggle for control (but neither of them win) it's balance...

Yet i somewhat disagree, because sometimes there isn't need for 2 things... but just 1 and it's nonexistence. For instance... if one doesn't eat... it appears the balance in his body between energy and no energy.

 

[RiotZ]

Yes, Riot, you are kind of contradicting yourself. But if i read trough the lines... i think i can understand what you really think (just an opinion):

You say that if one force dominates another, it's imbalance and if 2 forces struggle for control (but neither of them win) it's balance...

Yet i somewhat disagree, because sometimes there isn't need for 2 things... but just 1 and it's nonexistence. For instance... if one doesn't eat... it appears the balance in his body between energy and no energy.

If one doesn't eat, the balance will be broken, if one eats too much, the balance is still broken.

Two forces must remain equal or similar for balance to be maintained.

 

[w3.player]

It's obvious that even though we have similar perspectives, we disagree on a few points because we have a slightly different definition for balance. Nevertheless, you are wise person.

 

[RiotZ]

It's obvious that even though we have similar perspectives, we disagree on a few points because we have a slightly different definition for balance. Nevertheless, you are wise person.

In what way do our opinions differ?

 

[Edhel-dur]

^
Hello, I'm back.

What's the news? Have you found an answer to my question yet?

 

[w3.player]

Riot, our opinions differ because you say that you always need 2 forces for balance, while i say that isn't always the case, still, most of the times you need 2 forces indeed.

Example: Light = 1 force, when a light source illuminates and object, automatically a shadow appears on the other half (because light won't go trough the object and illuminate it entirely). The shadow isn't another force, it's just the nonexistence of light so basically you only have 1 force.

 

[En_Fuego]

Doesn't the force light exerts on an object force the object to "counter with more force" anyway?

 

[RiotZ]

Riot, our opinions differ because you say that you always need 2 forces for balance, while i say that isn't always the case, still, most of the times you need 2 forces indeed.

Example: Light = 1 force, when a light source illuminates and object, automatically a shadow appears on the other half (because light won't go trough the object and illuminate it entirely). The shadow isn't another force, it's just the nonexistence of light so basically you only have 1 force.

The other force is the object.

 

[w3.player]

Well... this proves my point. 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.

 

[Edhel-dur]

Doesn't the force light exerts on an object force the object to "counter with more force" anyway?

That's called "Action and Reaction".

 

[En_Fuego]

Well... this proves my point. 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 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...