Balance is Arbitrary
3 May 2020- the early hours
Everyday that passes, my appreciation and observation of the artful complexities in the world around me grows. I am not sure if this is just my brain growing as it develops with age or me simply seeing more than I have before. It’s probably a combination of both. I used to just view everything as a useless creation that should not hold the power and strength that that particular thing does. I would discredit the creator perhaps out of jealousy and comparison to myself. Though I do disagree with heightened appraisal of popular figureheads in society, the work people do produce should be appreciated. Do I think Shakespeare is over praised? Maybe. Although, I have little to compare to him for his time. That being said, I will admit his writing is at times, beautiful.
I think it is important to recognize both the beauties and flaws within someone’s work. If we ignore the flaws, we are creating a false sense of reality and unachievable perfection. If we ignore the beauties, then we are undermining the achievements and value that allows people and creatures to persist and create. Balance is difficult to achieve as it is a single point, and even an ounce of one side can tip the scale. But what is more important than reaching that singular point of equilibrium is allowing both sides to teeter back and forth. If we are always at equilibrium, we can never truly understand the two or more contrasting sides. By teetering gently back and forth, we are given the opportunity to justify both sides yet still realize the other side exists. It is not enough to simply stand in the middle of every decision that comes our way, but to —even briefly— look from both sides of the line to best judge which side we want to reside on for a longer period of time while still remembering the life on the other side. In equilibrium, you may see both sides but you will never experience either. So, clearly, imperfection is more advantageous. And that, my friend, is a very good thing.
3 May 2020- at peaked sunlight
As I reread the entry above, the argument seemed flawed and thin. See, the state of equilibrium is not stagnant, but is a continual flow from two oppositional forces, maintaining that constant state. So in that case, wouldn’t finding balance logically be achievable and reasonable with the constant flow of insight from both degrees? In theory, yes seems to make sense. But if you add a stress to the system, then the system will shift away from the stress to return to the balanced state. The problem is, life is a series of unpredictable stresses of varying degrees from all directions and points of time. So, the reality of living in equilibrium or even attempting to achieve it is just as unreasonable as believing in perfection— especially considering that each reaction, each person, will have a different equilibrium constant. So, my argument still stands: I would rather rock back and forth than be glued to that ideal point.
