If you so insist.
Im gonna insist, justin, that you define balance. Also, how do you justify that your personal subjective understanding of how things work indicates some universal truth. when you speak of balance it echos the same dangerous religious dogmatism that has been prevelent for far too long. You must approach your ideas from the presumtion that they are wrong and attempt to prove them such before you accept them as true.
Balance would be equal interchange between opposing pairs. Balance can also mean stillness. Balance could be described in many ways but the best way I've found is in Nature. The atmosphere is balanced.
The echo is not the same as dangerous religious dogmatism. I feel it's just part of the law of nature. In religion it could be considered the law of God. However, religion speaks very little of balance on the pulpit. Needless to say, I don't mean it to sound that way but based on my observation of it balance is very important.
You confuse the correct state of things such that they serve the purpose we want them to with balance. Your engine is not balanced, it is assembled such that it performs a desired task, or is this balance to you?
Actually, an engine is balanced. Pistons rise and fall in perfect balance in a well tuned engine. If a spark fails to fire it will cause the engine to shake thus bringing it out of balance. You can use the same concept in almost anything. Sure it performs a desired task but if it becomes unbalanced it will not perform that task for very long. In the case of an engine, it may perform the desired task a little longer but because of it's imbalance it will cause problems in other areas.
Perhapse a society that performs a desired action based upon a set of rules is also then good, so all who oppose this action must be disposed of. I personally believe that this view leads to an apathetic, let happen what will and the balance will take care of us when the earth is swallowed by the sun as it becomes a red giant.
I'm not so sure. Is that set of rules in balance with both man and nature? Balance and nature will take care of us and has and will continue until we realize the importance of it. It's man who takes nature out of balance and it's nature that will bring nature back in balance. This isn't a defeatist view on it and certainly we should not just let happen what will happen. It all takes time and it takes planting seeds and reflecting into the world that which we want the world to reflect back to us.
Take for instance our actions. If we hurt someone else we are hurting ourselves based on the laws predominant in nature. This goes back into karma and so on.
If we can preserve ourselfs and have a natural drive to, why not? Does this not also conform to nature?
To preserve ourselves we must preserve our neighbors. It's by destroying our fellow man that we are ultimately destroying ourselves. It just is. Maybe I don't explain it in scientific terms but I feel it's rather simplistic and can be seen all around. I've experimented and experienced with it myself and have thus learned from it and can now see it.
Maybe your idea of balance is true, I personally believe in determinism, everything is a physical reaction on the subatomic level and freewill is an illusion, but I also showed a way to disclude the pertinence of that possible truth in any sensible consideration of a problem. Just because somthing is a logical conclusion doesn't indicate its worth as far as applicability.
Personally, I can't agree with this perspective. If freewill be an illusion, what brings you in here to discuss it? What's preventing you from jumping off the next bridge? See what I mean, it's a difficult proposition as you and I are free to bring balance into our lives or chaos, that's up to us individually based on our perceptions.
Now, what flavor of determinism are you? Me, I don't do any of the isms. They are all just words created by man to divide and conquer and that's exactly what they have done. If we could take all the isms wipe them out and focus on balanced transactions with nature and our fellow man working together rather than working to destroy each other, wouldn't that be considered good?
One thing I'd like to mention that may ring true is that we as human being can only control one thing... our perceptions. Outside of perception, we have no control over anything. Our perceptions can literally change our physiology. Now, if we can alter our perception then ultimately our world will be perceived differently. Different causes and different effects based on our actions controlled by our perception.
We've actually created this world today and we are creating our tomorrow. I don't for one moment believe it's set in stone or predictable based on the past because humans continually evolve and create. We create Gods and we create cell phones. It's when we say we don't have the power or resources to change the future then it's true because that becomes our perception. Universal truth is only what one perceives to be universal truth. Universal truth as I perceive is Balance and balance is good!
This is only my opinion and my belief based on my own personal experience of it. I'm not a rocket scientist and don't study philosophy or philosophers... I experience it on the journey through this life. Thank you for the interesting thread.