|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:58 pm
|
|
|
|
Pardon the analogies - they're the only ways I can think to explain my views on Balance.
I used to play Magic: The Gathering. Part of the reason I quit, well over ten years ago, was the ill-concieved concept of Balance in the game. Want to bring out that 12/12 monster? Prepare to pay a buttload of mana, sacrifice creatures, and maybe even pay upkeep every turn for it. Every card had to be perfectly balanced, for fear that it would be "too powerful". Sometime around my senior year of highschool (also fast approaching ten years ago) I got into another game called On The Edge. There are cards in that game that are ungodly powerful. Capable of being brought out without much cost, limited requirements, few restrictions, and lots of raw power. Then there are instantly-usable cards that can take them right back off the playing field, no questions asked. The whole game is balanced. Very few cards have been called degenerate since the game came into being, simply because there are very few cards that can be abused with impunity. I see the concept of worldly Balance much the same way - too many people are obsessed with balancing their energies, balancing their actions, "evening out their Karma" (yes, I picked that phrase for the disgust factor), and not enough are trying to contribute to the balance of the system as a whole.
The problem I have with the people concerned with individual "internal" balance is that it's like making a jigsaw puzzle out of square pieces. There's no substance to the structure - pieces that do not interlock do not strengthen the whole. Hell, I almost converted to the fictional Nisan religion from Xenogears just because it advocated interaction among mankind.
Oh, and I have no love for balance-as-stability. That's stagnation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:53 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:04 am
|
|
|
|
[Kudzu] Neko_Bast Balance is not making everything "equal," at lest not to me. Which brings up a good point... I've seen balance mean: Equal Equivalent Complimentary I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I think I notice a difference.
I suppose, in terms of lifestyle, I don't view balance in that light either. When I think balance, I think of "dynamic equilibrium" and while that does involve equivalents, equals, and complements, there's not stagnation nor stability (though from a certain point of view, there is). Inevitably everything on this Earth has its own dynamic equilibrium but that doesn't neccesarily entail equal parts "A" and "B." Some will dynamically fluctuate more around "A" and others more around "B." Everything has its own sort of balance, in other words.
If we were to average the equilibrium/balance point of everything in the universe, would we get a 50-50 split of 'true balance?' Who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:15 pm
|
|
|
|
Rather than actually state my views on balance, which is what you wanted, I will instead go off on a tangent concerning the nature of balance. Alot of this is obvious, but shut up. I like to say it.
First, a discussion of the definition of balance.
dictionary.reference.com bal·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blns) n. 1. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.
[cite]
There are other definitions, but this is the one relevent for the sake of discussion.
1. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces. - Essentially, when x is the opposite of y, for every part x, there must be an equal part y.
You might think of this as a scale, but for the most part, people think of the things on each side of the scale as opposites. For instance, if you labeled each side of the scale x and y, x wouldn't equal 'Good' while y equaled 'Masculine,'' or x wouldn't equal 'Evil' while y equaled 'Feminine.' (These are a few common issues of 'balance' within the pagan community.) The most common example of this that I know of is that of Yin and Yang, assuming I understand it correctly, which I might not. Though I hear that Yin and Yang has nothing to do with good and evil.
Another way of looking at this concept is as a mirror and a man, where the man is 'x' and the mirror is 'y.' The mirror image, of course, is the opposite of the image of the man. Of course, when the man moves, the mirror must move with it - the mirror cannot stay where it was before. In this way of looking at things, the world balances itself naturally - when a good thing happens, a bad thing will happen as well. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted and whatnot.
So whether the world naturally balances itself or whether balance is only an ideal, here are some possible issues with this model:
1) The implications of having good perfectly equal to evil are somewhat frightening, assuming you believe in concepts of good and evil. That means for every kind word there would ideally be an insult, for every good samaritan a rapist.
2) It doesn't seem to have any particular upsides, though I suppose that's just my view on it.
This belief, however, is not as common among NeoPagans as another that is like it - when x and y are opposites, for every part x there must be some part y. Notice that x and y do not have to be equal. They must simply both be present. You know, "You can't see light without darkness" and all that jazz. Not that this stops the fluffies from complaining about people being evil, but there you go.
Anyway. Yeah, that's it. It turns out that I have no ******** opinion on balance. I just felt like talking about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|