Balance in Motion

We are told that in life we must live in balance. Too much of any one thing will kill you! We say "you take the good with the bad" and things like "not too cold, not too hot, just right." Why is the "middle" such a nice place? Why have we declared the extremes to be incompatible with life? If we all lived as explicitly happy or sad, would we be able to comprehend people that are not in the same state as us? Views and attitudes change constantly in life. Being somewhat natural we accept this as the norm.

In the tides we find a system similar to our own. The ocean is never at rest, it is always in motion and never balanced. The external influence of the moon keeps Poseidon at play. As we witness annually, life relentlessly emerges and decays from the planet. Why have species not evolved a capacity to maintain themselves throughout all temperate extremes? Where is the immutable form that would have survived since the inception of life on the planet? Why does it follow that all living cells and systems ultimately must decay and die?

Nature portrays a scalar system, where the aspects of life in the atomic, cellular, animal, and cosmic, appear to operate on the same rules and take the same shape. As in fractals, patterns appear continuously in all things representing these inner self-similarities. In nature's operational similarity with man lies my contention. Often we lure ourselves into believing in a begining or an end, but these seem in nature only to reveal further beginings and endings. Once motion has taken course the restfull middle is never met.

If the system which we are born into can not yield balance, how should we be led to believe that we are capable of otherwise. This is not to say that we should destine ourselves to the extremes, for these are incompatible with life as it would seem. Diversity of life moreover, would be hindered by the extreme case of life. There could be no absolute as 'extreme life' should want, without removing from existence the diverse forms of life and characteristics which we see and understand as reality. In the reverse case, there would be 'extreme non-life', a relatively vast void of nothingness. Either of these systems could have made their way into our view of reality, were we born into them, but still we were not.

It is only in this shuffle between the extremes that we find life as we know it, and in there we assume there must be a splendid median. I now assume otherwise. That as infinity is unapproachable, the median of the positive and negative infinite, is not 0, it is unattainable. There is no attainable middle, nor extremes; all there is is that which is.

Can participation in life be so simple? Just be, and be done at that? In order to have the selves that life is flourished by, we must be diverse. It seems that being born this way, our work is done for us.

Perhaps time is the missing element, the factor that requires our change to provide diversity across a boundary exceeding space. In time, we create motion, and in this system, we continuosly strive to reach the unattainable middle.

If we can not reach the middle, nor the extremes, will we require arbitrary judgement to state the virtue of life? If we base ourselves on the far extremes we find that we are infinitely distented. And yet we are no sooner matched to the balance. If diversity is required to perpetuate our perception of non-extreme reality, can any sample from this system be in the wrong? Life is as it is, and our role in it is likewise such.

There appears to be a normative range hovering around the 'human' middle, where people are peer judged. Without the same diversity we experience as life, there could be no basis for comparison in our human affairs. We would all live in the extreme or absolute unattainable middle, we would have a oneness, and in there we would not know of any other way unless we were to break away from our perfection, which would perhaps be beyond our capacity.

My conclusion remains the dismal same. We are that we are. We can exceed no boundary so far off from the normative that we exceed the desires of life or humanity. In this place we must find a personal balance which is as arbitrary as individuality can define. Never are we in the truly wrong or right. So in our judgement, we can only be found as balanced as possible, and as prestine as any other being. All life is righteous, and balance is to blame.

Visitor Comments