Balance

[Tawasakm]

A lot of the discussion involving politics and policy often seems to centre around a concept of balance. Exactly what is balance though?

I suppose many would answer that balance is representative of two contrasting opposites. Within the political arena I guess left and right fit into this description. So balance is where something will fit in relation between these two points.

What does it mean to be perfectly balanced then? To be equidistant between two contrasting and opposite points must mean that both opposites have equal validity. One could almost view it as the ability to see into and hold the truth of a paradox – that is to say two ideas which may seem mutually exclusive. This could make this viewpoint more difficult to clarify and to rally support around.

What does it mean to be out of balance – in fact to be toward the extreme side of one point or the other? I guess logically that would mean that an individual gives validity to one contrasting point and not the other which could perhaps be seen as rejecting a paradox. Since there is no need to hold what may be contradictory truths as being equally valid then it would seem to me that this is a simpler and easier position to hold. It must also be an easier view point to clarify and rally support around.

The range of questions I would like to throw out are:

1) Which would seem to be the best stance? Is it desirable to seek a perfect balance between concepts or is it more effective to move to one side?

2) If it is easier to explain one set of concepts (and by doing so reject the contrasting concept) then how much does this affect the conduct of political activity? Does it create a detrimental effect?

3) As a follow on to the above. Would having two sides of a balance represented separately in a democratic nation be more desirable then trying to represent both at once? After all changes of government can lead to a natural shift from one side to the other – or in other words can act as a self correcting mechanism that will move toward the centre. In having both sides represented does this mean that a society is already in balance by virtue of this?

4) If you seek a perfect balance does this lead to greater tolerance and harmony or not?

Just some idle thought of mine while I can’t sleep. Be interested to hear any thoughts.

[charter.rights]

A lot of the discussion involving politics and policy often seems to centre around a concept of balance. Exactly what is balance though?

I suppose many would answer that balance is representative of two contrasting opposites. Within the political arena I guess left and right fit into this description. So balance is where something will fit in relation between these two points.

What does it mean to be perfectly balanced then? To be equidistant between two contrasting and opposite points must mean that both opposites have equal validity. One could almost view it as the ability to see into and hold the truth of a paradox – that is to say two ideas which may seem mutually exclusive. This could make this viewpoint more difficult to clarify and to rally support around.

What does it mean to be out of balance – in fact to be toward the extreme side of one point or the other? I guess logically that would mean that an individual gives validity to one contrasting point and not the other which could perhaps be seen as rejecting a paradox. Since there is no need to hold what may be contradictory truths as being equally valid then it would seem to me that this is a simpler and easier position to hold. It must also be an easier view point to clarify and rally support around.

The range of questions I would like to throw out are:

1) Which would seem to be the best stance? Is it desirable to seek a perfect balance between concepts or is it more effective to move to one side?

2) If it is easier to explain one set of concepts (and by doing so reject the contrasting concept) then how much does this affect the conduct of political activity? Does it create a detrimental effect?

3) As a follow on to the above. Would having two sides of a balance represented separately in a democratic nation be more desirable then trying to represent both at once? After all changes of government can lead to a natural shift from one side to the other – or in other words can act as a self correcting mechanism that will move toward the centre. In having both sides represented does this mean that a society is already in balance by virtue of this?

4) If you seek a perfect balance does this lead to greater tolerance and harmony or not?

Just some idle thought of mine while I can’t sleep. Be interested to hear any thoughts.

You assume that balance is an equilibrium between two poles. However, true and meaningful balance is a centroid in a sphere of elements, traits, personalities, spiritual, financial, physical, mental emotional, real, ethereal over and below. While there is a purpose in detaching Church and state nonetheless, each has a dramatic effect on the other. Ignoring this and other relationships creates imbalance, like science appears to oppose religion. Yet both are interconnected and interdependent.

True balance is not seeking equality between oppositions. It is existing in spite of them.