|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:42 am
There is nothing to "buy into." Yes, there are opposites, and, no, we cannot deem any greater than another, but it mustn't be the "answer-all." If we follow thus, as Mobius has, we come to an end where we know not how to look further. It is the "because it is" approach. Dear Master Nightshade, I recognize your points and realize that you shall likely disagree, but I present this nonetheless because your continued action of this "proof" disagrees with my processes for finding answer. b
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:03 pm
Dammie-kins, Yin and Yang shan't destroy each other. Just as they work against each other, they work for each other. They're symbiotic; they need each other. If they shall destroy each other, it shall happen upon Ragnarok, and no other day.
As for you, Bellabie, whoever said the answers were meant to be found in this life? As the Ninja Turtle known as Michaelangelo once said, 'There are some things man was never meant to tamper with.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:25 pm
Is searching for an answer tampering? Does no one having said so mean that it mustn't be pursued? b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:38 pm
Pursuit is one thing; a successful pursuit is another. The answer may not even exist in this world, or it may be nigh impossible to find. Also... there are some answers not meant to be found...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:42 pm
I wonder, though, if any are "meant" to. To "cap things off" and "settle" for Balance seems to deny pursuit, even. b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:56 pm
Not so. Balance merely dictates that for every successful pursuit, there is an insuccessful one, and that even in success there is failure, and that even in failure there is success. Balance does not deny anything; it merely counter-balances, counteracts. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. To obtain, one must relinquish something of equal value to that being obtained. For every Good, there is Evil. For every Light, there is Shadow. It is basic binary opposites, as viewed by a Structuralist point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:58 pm
Balance, itself, does not, no, but when used as a resolution to every disagreement, it becomes a tired argument. b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:48 pm
Indeed. I have created an Imbalance by referencing Balance so much that it has dominated my visible repertoire. I will have to change that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:44 pm
your idea of balance doesn't make sense.... to create, you MUST destroy, and vice versa, to destroy, you inherantly create. Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy...
Yin and Yang resembles balance, but in the fact that, in devouring eachother, they will continually escape the jaws of that which devours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
