Naturally, I am of the opinion there is a perfectly natural, rational and scientific explanation for God. But, it is worth noting the usefulness of 'God' in what I propose to be its new format of 'oalance' can play no less a part in people's day to day spiritual life than before. If anything, I truly believe it can enhance people's attitudes and opinions of themselves and others.
Much of the eloquence and love people feel can be expressed in oalancentric terms. Jesus may be considered the best balanced man for he never expected a proportionate response to his actions. It was all done for love. The 'centered man', eloquently described in E.F.Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful'; a vital treatise on the environmental imbalance in human attitude toward the environment, comprises the person who is well-rounded and abundant in character and of sound heart.
The context of 'being' and what it means to be a 'human being' is not explained away through eudaimonics. I don't think it has and that would never be my intention. Just because something is explainable does that make it any less valuable or any less beautiful? Of course not. I can fully comprehend the noise a violin and a cello make. I can explain it musically, I can explain how the instrument was made and how the person is playing it. Does this diminish its beauty? Is ignorance bliss? Definitely not. Maybe that mysticism is removed but the natural is by far more revealing and beautiful than any supernatural dreams we concoct. Expressing the beauty and wonderment of oalance and nature is a matter of personal and societal communication. We have the tools - it's just a matter of using them.
God is a very useful fantasy in times of distress and heartache. It isn't difficult to appreciate why people require a loving, endless, timeless object of belief. But oalance can fulfill the same role and is every bit as mysterious as the God we objectify ourselves.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
A Brief History of Balance 5
Sattva, Wabi-Sabi, Zen, Tao, Sufi
I think it's appropriate to delve a little further into Eastern traditions and interpretations of oalance. In a world of 7 billion people it is unsurprising oalance has been culturally diversified. Many Eastern representations are of a spiritual and mental balance. I've spoken of Zhongyong and Samadhi, so now I'll speak of other Buddhist interpretations, and Islam also.
The majority of these terms are known to us in the Western world. They play some part in our conscious but are certainly not known to the masses for what they are. We here them banded around but don't really know what they stand for.
Sattva is a broadly Hinduistic term for 'purity'. It relates to all aspects of day to day life and the bright light of godliness we can all achieve through living within our means and living harmoniously with each other and our environment. I attach this link for a full analysis http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/articles/id/spiritualresearch/spiritualscience/sattva_raja_tama but what does seem clear is how intricately sattva embodies all oalance is.
Japanese people understand just how difficult it is to put oalance in context. Which is why they find it so difficult to put Wabi-Sabi into words. It acknowledges how nothing in isolation can ever be considered 'perfect'. Confusingly, the idea of imperfection itself can be considered Wabi-Sabi though the great balance of a thing need not necessarily be thought of in the terms of perfect form. Certainly, Wabi-Sabi appears somewhat as the practical realisation of the Zen Buddhist ideals, but the boundaries are so unclear.
When it comes to Zen we come across the apparently ritualistic and religious part of the belief in Enlightenment. Scriptures, meditation and monasterial duty are all part of the need for mindfulness in day to day life and a simple appreciation of the natural and of yourself for what you are. The experience of 'turning your outer eye in on yourself' and becoming one through training and practice are the character of the spirituality of Buddhism. Release the burden of imbalance and you shall be Enlightened.
Tao introduces us to the Chinese. If anything, Tao shouldn't have a name, for like many of these principles they are metaphysical abstracts unexplainable in natural terms, hence inaccessible to the limits of human language. Tao is perhaps the most potent realisation of the god force. Something that was here before us, with us now, and forever present - 'All things arise from Tao. They are nourished by Virtue. They are formed from matter. They are shaped by environment. Thus the ten thousand things all respect Tao and honour Virtue. Respect of Tao and honour of Virtue are not demanded. But they are in the nature of things. Therefore all things arise from Tao. By Virtue they are nourished, developed, cared for, sheltered, comforted, grown and protected. Creating without claiming; doing without taking credit; guiding without interfering - this is Primal Virtue.' Tao is the largest, holistic term we've come across. Tao is oalance. Like all these spiritual interpretations, they are all explainable in natural terms.
Finally, Sufi. Islam is not immune from unity. Of course Allah, like the Christian and Jewish God, are the most disturbing ideas of oalance present in today's society; it would be naive to suggest basic spirituality is not present. Sufi is unity and harmony and love of God. An inner propriety available to us all. It might not be as closely related to our natural origins and sentient beings as other ideals yet it still brings balance to people's lives, and peace and prosperity to thousands. Sufism is purification, and from purification comes love and God. The shariah law, most known to outsiders, is the practical side of Sufism. The inner law is one of the Sufi heart.
I think it's appropriate to delve a little further into Eastern traditions and interpretations of oalance. In a world of 7 billion people it is unsurprising oalance has been culturally diversified. Many Eastern representations are of a spiritual and mental balance. I've spoken of Zhongyong and Samadhi, so now I'll speak of other Buddhist interpretations, and Islam also.
The majority of these terms are known to us in the Western world. They play some part in our conscious but are certainly not known to the masses for what they are. We here them banded around but don't really know what they stand for.
Sattva is a broadly Hinduistic term for 'purity'. It relates to all aspects of day to day life and the bright light of godliness we can all achieve through living within our means and living harmoniously with each other and our environment. I attach this link for a full analysis http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/articles/id/spiritualresearch/spiritualscience/sattva_raja_tama but what does seem clear is how intricately sattva embodies all oalance is.
Japanese people understand just how difficult it is to put oalance in context. Which is why they find it so difficult to put Wabi-Sabi into words. It acknowledges how nothing in isolation can ever be considered 'perfect'. Confusingly, the idea of imperfection itself can be considered Wabi-Sabi though the great balance of a thing need not necessarily be thought of in the terms of perfect form. Certainly, Wabi-Sabi appears somewhat as the practical realisation of the Zen Buddhist ideals, but the boundaries are so unclear.
When it comes to Zen we come across the apparently ritualistic and religious part of the belief in Enlightenment. Scriptures, meditation and monasterial duty are all part of the need for mindfulness in day to day life and a simple appreciation of the natural and of yourself for what you are. The experience of 'turning your outer eye in on yourself' and becoming one through training and practice are the character of the spirituality of Buddhism. Release the burden of imbalance and you shall be Enlightened.
Tao introduces us to the Chinese. If anything, Tao shouldn't have a name, for like many of these principles they are metaphysical abstracts unexplainable in natural terms, hence inaccessible to the limits of human language. Tao is perhaps the most potent realisation of the god force. Something that was here before us, with us now, and forever present - 'All things arise from Tao. They are nourished by Virtue. They are formed from matter. They are shaped by environment. Thus the ten thousand things all respect Tao and honour Virtue. Respect of Tao and honour of Virtue are not demanded. But they are in the nature of things. Therefore all things arise from Tao. By Virtue they are nourished, developed, cared for, sheltered, comforted, grown and protected. Creating without claiming; doing without taking credit; guiding without interfering - this is Primal Virtue.' Tao is the largest, holistic term we've come across. Tao is oalance. Like all these spiritual interpretations, they are all explainable in natural terms.
Finally, Sufi. Islam is not immune from unity. Of course Allah, like the Christian and Jewish God, are the most disturbing ideas of oalance present in today's society; it would be naive to suggest basic spirituality is not present. Sufi is unity and harmony and love of God. An inner propriety available to us all. It might not be as closely related to our natural origins and sentient beings as other ideals yet it still brings balance to people's lives, and peace and prosperity to thousands. Sufism is purification, and from purification comes love and God. The shariah law, most known to outsiders, is the practical side of Sufism. The inner law is one of the Sufi heart.
Monday, 27 July 2009
Death
Without extance we would be dead. We would not have even been alive. Eudaimonics can give the impression extance is a bad thing. It isn't. Every negative has its positive; there is no problem with that. Dextansis/dexis is the devil. It is evil. So what of death?
I've already touched on heaven and hell, but I need to proceed along this line of thinking. The sense of justice done after death is very appealing, but as Richard Dawkins says the sensationalism of some religious fanatics is farcical when it comes to hell. Oalance is justice. There isn't one system of law that doesn't try to find a balance and proportion. So when we die we go to eudaimonia. We become part of perfect balance. However, I firmly believe there is some sense of justice to those who are evil. There could be some metaphysical reasoning that retains imbalanced individuals in extance. There could well be some truth behind some supernatural occurences.
Oalance is everything we desire. Why should we be afraid of death when oalance exists all around us? Oalance is within us, so death as a eudaimonal end for those who have eudaimoned in life should be no more scary than a pillow. All death is the removal of proportionates. Yet the fear of death envelopes us, and we want to live longer. Death is part of life and the rejuvenation of life. Reincarnation is a distinct possibility. The difference comes when our capacity to reach oalance in normal life is restricted. We feel unjustly done by when our exprint and those of others is constricted too soon. As part of the greater balancing of nature we are afraid of death when it takes away our personal contribution to life. When our ability to express oalance is removed prematurely we cannot understand why.
I've already touched on heaven and hell, but I need to proceed along this line of thinking. The sense of justice done after death is very appealing, but as Richard Dawkins says the sensationalism of some religious fanatics is farcical when it comes to hell. Oalance is justice. There isn't one system of law that doesn't try to find a balance and proportion. So when we die we go to eudaimonia. We become part of perfect balance. However, I firmly believe there is some sense of justice to those who are evil. There could be some metaphysical reasoning that retains imbalanced individuals in extance. There could well be some truth behind some supernatural occurences.
Oalance is everything we desire. Why should we be afraid of death when oalance exists all around us? Oalance is within us, so death as a eudaimonal end for those who have eudaimoned in life should be no more scary than a pillow. All death is the removal of proportionates. Yet the fear of death envelopes us, and we want to live longer. Death is part of life and the rejuvenation of life. Reincarnation is a distinct possibility. The difference comes when our capacity to reach oalance in normal life is restricted. We feel unjustly done by when our exprint and those of others is constricted too soon. As part of the greater balancing of nature we are afraid of death when it takes away our personal contribution to life. When our ability to express oalance is removed prematurely we cannot understand why.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Sustainability
One word creeping into recent posts is 'Sustainability'.
Possibly the most relevant but confusing word today, its definition has gone beyond the ridiculous and has been twisted and turned to suit many meanings but has no coherent narrative. There are even different types of sustainability at different grades. The word has become a tag for the environmental movement yet has clear parameters within biological science. The very act of 'sustaining' any system requires a long-term plan and/or inherent resilience to any inwardly or outwardly cause and effect scenarios.
Sustainability itself has very Gaiaistic connotations in that within nature are positive and negative feedback cycles amplifying and dampening costs and benefits from seconds to centuries. Natural earth systems have evolved mechanisms to 'bounce' from one state of equilbrium/extansis/exsis to another. I would go as far to say natural selection, as a term of biological evolution, can be extended to physical systems using eudaimonics. I see no reason why it cannot.
Understanding resilience and long term prospects of any system gives no indication of the 'ideal' state. The assumption would be our ideal state, the 'sustainable' state, would be for life. I think it's safe to suggest the ideal process of evolution on earth is the sufficent supply of life. The whole point of Gaia is how it supports and sustains life. The earth can be very unsustainable at times, but life has always lived. The imbalance has never been too great to remove life for good. I asked James Lovelock, 'does the balance of nature exist?'. His monosyllabic reply was a resounding, 'YES'.
Nature has always been sustainable because it's always maintained an equilibrium close to perfect balance. It's resilience has been put to the test in extreme episodes when the equilibrium has been broken. But our earth has always survived. The pull to oalance is strongest on our earth. Our ideal state is the extansis closest to oalance. When long term viability is ignored, we cannot hope ourselves or our earth can sustain itself.
Our regular definition of sustainability comprises 'the needs of our generation cannot undermine the ability of future generations to meet their own'. I would prefer sustainability to be applied far more rigorously to the eudaimonic; 'sustainability is our capacity to live as close to oalance/oalancis/oalsis as we can'. In the context of God, I cannot see how people could disagree with living close to the divine!
Possibly the most relevant but confusing word today, its definition has gone beyond the ridiculous and has been twisted and turned to suit many meanings but has no coherent narrative. There are even different types of sustainability at different grades. The word has become a tag for the environmental movement yet has clear parameters within biological science. The very act of 'sustaining' any system requires a long-term plan and/or inherent resilience to any inwardly or outwardly cause and effect scenarios.
Sustainability itself has very Gaiaistic connotations in that within nature are positive and negative feedback cycles amplifying and dampening costs and benefits from seconds to centuries. Natural earth systems have evolved mechanisms to 'bounce' from one state of equilbrium/extansis/exsis to another. I would go as far to say natural selection, as a term of biological evolution, can be extended to physical systems using eudaimonics. I see no reason why it cannot.
Understanding resilience and long term prospects of any system gives no indication of the 'ideal' state. The assumption would be our ideal state, the 'sustainable' state, would be for life. I think it's safe to suggest the ideal process of evolution on earth is the sufficent supply of life. The whole point of Gaia is how it supports and sustains life. The earth can be very unsustainable at times, but life has always lived. The imbalance has never been too great to remove life for good. I asked James Lovelock, 'does the balance of nature exist?'. His monosyllabic reply was a resounding, 'YES'.
Nature has always been sustainable because it's always maintained an equilibrium close to perfect balance. It's resilience has been put to the test in extreme episodes when the equilibrium has been broken. But our earth has always survived. The pull to oalance is strongest on our earth. Our ideal state is the extansis closest to oalance. When long term viability is ignored, we cannot hope ourselves or our earth can sustain itself.
Our regular definition of sustainability comprises 'the needs of our generation cannot undermine the ability of future generations to meet their own'. I would prefer sustainability to be applied far more rigorously to the eudaimonic; 'sustainability is our capacity to live as close to oalance/oalancis/oalsis as we can'. In the context of God, I cannot see how people could disagree with living close to the divine!
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
A Brief History of Balance 4
The Golden Mean/Doctrine of the Mean
Aristotle has become a giant among men. He was quite possibly the first ever naturalist scientist. His works span the mental and physical disciplines. He helped define them.
But perhaps some of his most elucidatory work, coupled with his zoological classifications, are his Ethics, particularly the Nichomachean Ethics. I have no shame here in copying in a large chunk of text from Wikipedia! :-
Aristotle has become a giant among men. He was quite possibly the first ever naturalist scientist. His works span the mental and physical disciplines. He helped define them.
But perhaps some of his most elucidatory work, coupled with his zoological classifications, are his Ethics, particularly the Nichomachean Ethics. I have no shame here in copying in a large chunk of text from Wikipedia! :-
'Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean consists of three pillars that work together to form a complete account. First, there is a sort of equilibrium that the good person is in (1106a). This is related to a medical idea that a healthy person is in a balanced state. For example, one’s body temperature is neither too high nor too low. Related to ethics, one’s character does not go to extremes. For example, one does not overreact to situations, but rather keeps his composure. Equilibrium is the right feelings at the right time about the right things, toward the right people, for the right end, and in the right way (1106b). The second pillar states that the mean we should strive for is relative to us. The intermediate of an object is unchanging; if twelve is excess and four is deficiency, then roughly eight is the intermediate in that object. Aristotle proposes something different for finding an intermediate relative to oneself. Aristotle’s ethics are not a one-size-fits-all system; what he is looking for is the mean that is good for a particular individual. For example, watering a small plant with a gallon of water is excessive but watering a tree with a gallon of water is deficient. This is because different plants have different needs for water intake and if the requirements for each plant are not met, the plant will die from root rot (excess) or dehydration (deficiency). The third pillar is that each virtue falls between two vices. Virtue is like the mean because it is the intermediate between two vices. On this model a triad is formed with one vice on either end (excess or deficiency) and the virtue as the intermediate. If one’s character is too near either vice, then the person will incur blame but if one’s character is near the intermediate, the person deserves praise. Proper participation in each of these three pillars is necessary for a person to lead a virtuous and therefore happy life.
As stated in the inscription at the temple at the Oracle at Delphi, a person should do nothing to excess. The inscription should have also included the words, "find the mean." Temperance is the virtue that is the mean in order to control emotions, courage is the mean when seeking honor, and wisdom is the mean when seeking knowledge.
A general must seek to find courage, the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, in order to gain honor. A person who seeks pleasure through drinking must find the mean between becoming a drunkard and not drinking at all. A person who seeks pleasure through eating must find the mean between being a glutton and starving. A person who seeks pleasure through sex must find the mean between abstinence and nymphomania. A person who seeks honor through knowledge must find the mean between ignorance and seeking knowledge to excess. Excess knowledge is not wisdom, but the mind turned to cunning.
We must not understand Aristotle to mean that virtue lies exactly at the centre of two vices. Aristotle only means that virtue is in between the two vices. Different degrees are needed for different situations. Knowing exactly what is appropriate in a given situation is difficult and that is why we need a long moral training. For example, being very angry at the fact that your wife is murdered is appropriate even though the state is closer to extreme anger (a vice) than it is to indifference (a vice). In that case, it is right for the virtuous man to be angry. However, if some water has been spilt in the garden by accident then the virtuous response is much closer to indifference.'
There is a definite statement of intent here, but there are significant enough incongruities to render the mean a vague, subjective statement of intent rather than objective fact. Aristotle does not place the mean centrally. Different degrees are needed for different situations. If only Aristotle had pursued this line of thinking to it's ultimate conclusion. A 'perfect mean' could have born a religion based on his own naturalistic teachings. It could have thoroughly rebuked an 'interventionist deity'. His society's already fairly well formed democratic systems may have given rise to a human species deeply ingrained in natural processes. Sustainability on the large scale would be endemic. He may have ultimately changed the course of human evolution.Saturday, 4 July 2009
Midextansis/midexis
Lets consolidate extansis.
Extansis is the static motion of proportionates in revolution around oalance. Dextansis is the extreme version of extansis where the proportionates at the extremes of extants cause significant continual imbalance in the system where by rights eudaimotion should be taking place. Oalance is good, dextansis is bad. I would be open to the use of the term dextance to describe the state of dextansis, however dextansis suggests process whereas dextance would be something fixed among all overlapping extants that form extance. It would have to be made very clear from what perspective dextance would be viewed. There would really be only one dextance and that would be from the widest perspective of them all - universal.
There is one more vital part of extansis.
What about the proportionates in point set equally between oalance and the extremes? All proportionates form existence but these proportionates are of particular interest because they form that grey area between good and evil. They are the mid-proportionates between the balance and the extremes. They are part of the indifference of survival - neither particularly bad but neither achieving their potential at oalance. Survival for the sake of survival. No enjoyment but no misgivings, just there, until death. I think 0 can be confused within this area. Absence of anything suggests 0 but oalance is perfect 0. This is midextansis, where there is waste but a sense of control preventing deudaimotion. I imagine oalance as a bright light, and dextansis as the deepest despair, but I imagine midextansis as a pure area of indifference where there is no care neither here nor there. Stuck in a rut, unchanging, caught in that place between pure happiness and darkest unhappiness.
Of course, there is change. All change must go through midextansis. The midextance proportionates are the points on a normal distribution curve where the rate of change itself changes the quickest. The rate of change is known as the derivative. There are infinite levels of rates of change i.e. the rates of change of rates of change and so on. All forms of extansis involve a rate of change at 0. This doesn't mean there isn't change - just the rate of change is unchanging. These derivatives constitute all extansis, all midextansis and all dextansis. These forms of equilibrium are indicative of steady state systems.
Ecosystems, the mind, the climate, rocks, social policy, ideas and paradigms, housing and consumer spending patterns are all examples of how any proportionates can get stuck in extansis anywhere along their extant. It's not necessarily 'wrong' that they're in extansis - but they would be 'better' closer to oalance and more dynamic around oalance. I say 'wrong' because it could be worse and they could be in dextansis. Short-term selfish behaviour on a large scale is detrimental to the sustainability of the system and, ultimately, the eudaimonic happiness and fulfillment of everything contained within it.
Extansis is the static motion of proportionates in revolution around oalance. Dextansis is the extreme version of extansis where the proportionates at the extremes of extants cause significant continual imbalance in the system where by rights eudaimotion should be taking place. Oalance is good, dextansis is bad. I would be open to the use of the term dextance to describe the state of dextansis, however dextansis suggests process whereas dextance would be something fixed among all overlapping extants that form extance. It would have to be made very clear from what perspective dextance would be viewed. There would really be only one dextance and that would be from the widest perspective of them all - universal.
There is one more vital part of extansis.
What about the proportionates in point set equally between oalance and the extremes? All proportionates form existence but these proportionates are of particular interest because they form that grey area between good and evil. They are the mid-proportionates between the balance and the extremes. They are part of the indifference of survival - neither particularly bad but neither achieving their potential at oalance. Survival for the sake of survival. No enjoyment but no misgivings, just there, until death. I think 0 can be confused within this area. Absence of anything suggests 0 but oalance is perfect 0. This is midextansis, where there is waste but a sense of control preventing deudaimotion. I imagine oalance as a bright light, and dextansis as the deepest despair, but I imagine midextansis as a pure area of indifference where there is no care neither here nor there. Stuck in a rut, unchanging, caught in that place between pure happiness and darkest unhappiness.
Of course, there is change. All change must go through midextansis. The midextance proportionates are the points on a normal distribution curve where the rate of change itself changes the quickest. The rate of change is known as the derivative. There are infinite levels of rates of change i.e. the rates of change of rates of change and so on. All forms of extansis involve a rate of change at 0. This doesn't mean there isn't change - just the rate of change is unchanging. These derivatives constitute all extansis, all midextansis and all dextansis. These forms of equilibrium are indicative of steady state systems.
Ecosystems, the mind, the climate, rocks, social policy, ideas and paradigms, housing and consumer spending patterns are all examples of how any proportionates can get stuck in extansis anywhere along their extant. It's not necessarily 'wrong' that they're in extansis - but they would be 'better' closer to oalance and more dynamic around oalance. I say 'wrong' because it could be worse and they could be in dextansis. Short-term selfish behaviour on a large scale is detrimental to the sustainability of the system and, ultimately, the eudaimonic happiness and fulfillment of everything contained within it.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Dextansis/dexis
Based on eudaimonics, what makes us human?
Well, two things. One is the conscious cognisance of proportionates. As a species we have very effectively manipulated proportionates to our favour. Two is the idea of 'favour'. To our favour. What does that mean?
I believe humans have an unerring ability to deudaimone. In 'A Tale of Two Paradoxes - Proportionates' I mention 'extancial sticking'. It's not a very fluid term, a bit wordy and can be too easily misinterpeted as extansis. Dextansis is extancial sticking. I said it's an extreme form of extansis. If you imagine a single extant it has proportionates ranging from its extremes to its balance. Extansis can occur (with proportionates proportionate to each other either side of balance) at any point outwards from balance. The proportionate coil can rotate in stasis at any proportionate point around oalance. Dextansis is extansis at some of the most extreme points of extants where eudaimotion should definitely take place. I suggested it could be negative-led deudaimotion, and indeed that's part of it, but can very much be positive-led too; perhaps capitalism is the potent example. A misinterpretation of proportionates leads to an extansis so extreme it lasts in size and time at the extremes of imbalance. Dextansis is often a state beyond the so called 'natural' sustainable cycles of nature. Dextansis needs to be eudaimoned. It has a very strong case to be a practical explanation of the human idea of evil.
The strength of dextansis depends very much on the size of the extant(s)/distance away from oalance. A state of dextansis close to oalance won't have as considerable an effect on the system as others. We have deudaimoned as a species to gain instrumental value on the basis of 'survival of the fittest'. We have gone well beyond that calling. Climate change is an effect of dextansis. Immorality, unethical action, poverty, genocide, war; all are dextansis. Our 'favour' is our survival, but our imbalances have continued 'in stasis' for too long.
I'm afraid one of the defining labels of the human race is to enact and sometimes idolise evil. I'm not saying that we are necessarily 'unnatural' in our dextansis. As a species we have achieved wonderful and varied expressions of oalance. But we've also explored the deep, dark recesses of extance to the extreme and revelled in its permanence through time. We are part of nature and nature can work in dextansis, but humans have a fetish with the extremes in life and a complete lack of moderation and balance.
Just as oalance is God, dextansis is The Devil.
Well, two things. One is the conscious cognisance of proportionates. As a species we have very effectively manipulated proportionates to our favour. Two is the idea of 'favour'. To our favour. What does that mean?
I believe humans have an unerring ability to deudaimone. In 'A Tale of Two Paradoxes - Proportionates' I mention 'extancial sticking'. It's not a very fluid term, a bit wordy and can be too easily misinterpeted as extansis. Dextansis is extancial sticking. I said it's an extreme form of extansis. If you imagine a single extant it has proportionates ranging from its extremes to its balance. Extansis can occur (with proportionates proportionate to each other either side of balance) at any point outwards from balance. The proportionate coil can rotate in stasis at any proportionate point around oalance. Dextansis is extansis at some of the most extreme points of extants where eudaimotion should definitely take place. I suggested it could be negative-led deudaimotion, and indeed that's part of it, but can very much be positive-led too; perhaps capitalism is the potent example. A misinterpretation of proportionates leads to an extansis so extreme it lasts in size and time at the extremes of imbalance. Dextansis is often a state beyond the so called 'natural' sustainable cycles of nature. Dextansis needs to be eudaimoned. It has a very strong case to be a practical explanation of the human idea of evil.
The strength of dextansis depends very much on the size of the extant(s)/distance away from oalance. A state of dextansis close to oalance won't have as considerable an effect on the system as others. We have deudaimoned as a species to gain instrumental value on the basis of 'survival of the fittest'. We have gone well beyond that calling. Climate change is an effect of dextansis. Immorality, unethical action, poverty, genocide, war; all are dextansis. Our 'favour' is our survival, but our imbalances have continued 'in stasis' for too long.
I'm afraid one of the defining labels of the human race is to enact and sometimes idolise evil. I'm not saying that we are necessarily 'unnatural' in our dextansis. As a species we have achieved wonderful and varied expressions of oalance. But we've also explored the deep, dark recesses of extance to the extreme and revelled in its permanence through time. We are part of nature and nature can work in dextansis, but humans have a fetish with the extremes in life and a complete lack of moderation and balance.
Just as oalance is God, dextansis is The Devil.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Extansis/exsis
One word not to enter the argument yet is 'equilibrium'.
Just like balance, equilibrium can be misinterpreted. In both cases, they are oft misused interpretations of extansis. Oalance, just like balance, is perfect equilibrium. Equilibrium is a far more technical term than balance. Balance is used from day to day and spiritual life. Equilibrium is an academic and scientific expression of state, for example an internal combustion engine consists of many moving parts acting and working in proportion to each achieving a dynamic equilibrium and efficient steady state.
Mechanical engineers, physicists, chemists, economists and ecologists are just some people who understand steady state equilibriums - a working acting and reacting system of combined parts meaning near perfect efficiency. But equilibrium is used a little lazily.
Extansis is the state of neither eudaimotion or deudaimotion - the proportionate/extancial coil is in constant flux around the oalance cord but is neither moving toward or away from oalance. Extansis is NOT balance or equilibrium (or, you could say oalance is the perfect state of extansis, but that would require a new word like 'oalansis' but unnecessary because the definition of oalance is that of perfect balance in perfect stasis through time. It is unchanging and unmoving). 'Ex' meaning 'external' constitutes an imbalance or disequilibrium, so extansis is an unchanging state of imbalance or disequilibrium.
The important idea is how oalancentric or extancentric extansis is. An individual extansis can be either very close to oalance or very far away from oalance or anything inbetween. I feel the confusion in terminology derives from the oalancentric extansis. No system will ever be perfectly balanced - but should we say an extansis at any point can be called 'balanced'? This is where the laziness creeps in. Of course, there are individual equilibriums, just like balances, that constitute the perfect equilibrium. Can we say a system close in flux around oalance is 'balanced'? I feel not because it contradicts what my definition of balance is. It's up for debate, but maybe 'balanced' can be slightly segregated from balance and perfect balance and 'perfectly balanced'!
Much of the confidence I gain from eudaimonics is from the regular use of the term 'equilibrium' in scientific literature. Oalance is not just a mental and pragmatic solution to a good life and social policy; it applies to the heart of science. The Laws of Thermodynamics have perfect equilibrium intrinsic to them. Chemically, evolution comprises equilibration and disequilibration as does the process of evolution itself. The balance of nature is alive!
Just like balance, equilibrium can be misinterpreted. In both cases, they are oft misused interpretations of extansis. Oalance, just like balance, is perfect equilibrium. Equilibrium is a far more technical term than balance. Balance is used from day to day and spiritual life. Equilibrium is an academic and scientific expression of state, for example an internal combustion engine consists of many moving parts acting and working in proportion to each achieving a dynamic equilibrium and efficient steady state.
Mechanical engineers, physicists, chemists, economists and ecologists are just some people who understand steady state equilibriums - a working acting and reacting system of combined parts meaning near perfect efficiency. But equilibrium is used a little lazily.
Extansis is the state of neither eudaimotion or deudaimotion - the proportionate/extancial coil is in constant flux around the oalance cord but is neither moving toward or away from oalance. Extansis is NOT balance or equilibrium (or, you could say oalance is the perfect state of extansis, but that would require a new word like 'oalansis' but unnecessary because the definition of oalance is that of perfect balance in perfect stasis through time. It is unchanging and unmoving). 'Ex' meaning 'external' constitutes an imbalance or disequilibrium, so extansis is an unchanging state of imbalance or disequilibrium.
The important idea is how oalancentric or extancentric extansis is. An individual extansis can be either very close to oalance or very far away from oalance or anything inbetween. I feel the confusion in terminology derives from the oalancentric extansis. No system will ever be perfectly balanced - but should we say an extansis at any point can be called 'balanced'? This is where the laziness creeps in. Of course, there are individual equilibriums, just like balances, that constitute the perfect equilibrium. Can we say a system close in flux around oalance is 'balanced'? I feel not because it contradicts what my definition of balance is. It's up for debate, but maybe 'balanced' can be slightly segregated from balance and perfect balance and 'perfectly balanced'!
Much of the confidence I gain from eudaimonics is from the regular use of the term 'equilibrium' in scientific literature. Oalance is not just a mental and pragmatic solution to a good life and social policy; it applies to the heart of science. The Laws of Thermodynamics have perfect equilibrium intrinsic to them. Chemically, evolution comprises equilibration and disequilibration as does the process of evolution itself. The balance of nature is alive!
Thursday, 25 June 2009
A Brief History of Balance 3
１．天命之謂性，率性之謂道，修道之謂教。道也者，不可須臾離也，可離非道也。是故君子戒慎乎其所不睹，恐懼乎其所不聞。莫見乎隱，莫顯乎微。故君子慎其獨也。
What Heaven has conferred is called the nature; an accordance with this nature is called the path of duty; the regulation of this path is called instruction. The path may not be left for an instant. It it could be left, it would not be the path. On this account, the superior man does not wait till he sees things, to be cautious, nor till he hears things, to be apprehensive. There is nothing more visible than what is secret, and nothing more manifest than what is minute. Therefore the superior man is watchful over himself, when he is alone.
喜怒哀樂之未發，謂之中；發而皆中節，謂之和；中也者，天下之大本也；和也者，天下之達道也。致中和，天地位焉，萬物育焉。
While there are not stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of equilibrium. When those feelings have been stirred, and they ace in their due degree, there ensues what may be called the state of harmony. This equilibrium is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this harmony is the universal path which they all should pursue. Let the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection, and a happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things will be nourished and flourish.
２．仲尼曰：「君子中庸，小人反中庸。君子之中庸也，君子而時中；小人之中庸也，小人而無忌憚也。」
Zhongni (Confucius) said: "The superior man embodies the course of the Mean; the mean man acts contrary to the course of the Mean. The superior man's embodying the course of the Mean is bevause he is a superior man, and so always maintains the Mean. The Mean man's acting contrary to the course of the Mean is because he is a mean man, and has no caution."
３．子曰：「中庸其至矣乎！民鮮能久矣！」
The Master said: "Perfect is the virtue which is according to the Mean! Rare have they long been among the people, who practise it.!"
４．子曰：「道之不行也，我知之矣：知者過之，愚者不及也。道之不明也，我知之矣：賢者過之，不肖者不及也。人莫不飲食也，鮮能知味也。」
The Master said: "I know how it is that the path of the Mean is not walked in: The knowing go beyond it, and the stupid do not come up to it. I know how it is that the path of the Mean is not understood: The men of talents and virtue go beyond it, and the worthless do not come up to it. There is nobody but eats and drinks. But they are few who can distinguish flavours."
５．子曰：「道其不行矣夫。」
The Master said: "Alas! How is the path of the Mean untrodden!"
６．子曰：「舜其大知也。與舜好問，而好察邇言，隱惡，而揚善，執其兩端， 用其中於民，其斯以為舜乎。」
The Master said: "There was Shun: He indeed was greatly wise! Shun loved to question others, and to study their words, though they might be shallow. He concealed what was bad in them, and displayed what was good. He took hold of their two extremes, determined the Mean, and employed it in his government of the people. It was by this that he was Shun!"
What Heaven has conferred is called the nature; an accordance with this nature is called the path of duty; the regulation of this path is called instruction. The path may not be left for an instant. It it could be left, it would not be the path. On this account, the superior man does not wait till he sees things, to be cautious, nor till he hears things, to be apprehensive. There is nothing more visible than what is secret, and nothing more manifest than what is minute. Therefore the superior man is watchful over himself, when he is alone.
喜怒哀樂之未發，謂之中；發而皆中節，謂之和；中也者，天下之大本也；和也者，天下之達道也。致中和，天地位焉，萬物育焉。
While there are not stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of equilibrium. When those feelings have been stirred, and they ace in their due degree, there ensues what may be called the state of harmony. This equilibrium is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this harmony is the universal path which they all should pursue. Let the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection, and a happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things will be nourished and flourish.
２．仲尼曰：「君子中庸，小人反中庸。君子之中庸也，君子而時中；小人之中庸也，小人而無忌憚也。」
Zhongni (Confucius) said: "The superior man embodies the course of the Mean; the mean man acts contrary to the course of the Mean. The superior man's embodying the course of the Mean is bevause he is a superior man, and so always maintains the Mean. The Mean man's acting contrary to the course of the Mean is because he is a mean man, and has no caution."
３．子曰：「中庸其至矣乎！民鮮能久矣！」
The Master said: "Perfect is the virtue which is according to the Mean! Rare have they long been among the people, who practise it.!"
４．子曰：「道之不行也，我知之矣：知者過之，愚者不及也。道之不明也，我知之矣：賢者過之，不肖者不及也。人莫不飲食也，鮮能知味也。」
The Master said: "I know how it is that the path of the Mean is not walked in: The knowing go beyond it, and the stupid do not come up to it. I know how it is that the path of the Mean is not understood: The men of talents and virtue go beyond it, and the worthless do not come up to it. There is nobody but eats and drinks. But they are few who can distinguish flavours."
５．子曰：「道其不行矣夫。」
The Master said: "Alas! How is the path of the Mean untrodden!"
６．子曰：「舜其大知也。與舜好問，而好察邇言，隱惡，而揚善，執其兩端， 用其中於民，其斯以為舜乎。」
The Master said: "There was Shun: He indeed was greatly wise! Shun loved to question others, and to study their words, though they might be shallow. He concealed what was bad in them, and displayed what was good. He took hold of their two extremes, determined the Mean, and employed it in his government of the people. It was by this that he was Shun!"
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
A Brief History of Balance 2
The Middle Path/Zhongyong/Samadhi
Far East Asian teachings are no less relevant today than they were 2500 years ago, if not more so. Buddhism has a lot to teach us. Confucianism is going strong. Taoism has a diverse mix of spiritual and practical lessons. Unsurprisingly, oalance is the key component of a Buddhist ethic. There are, of course, plenty of misunderstandings when it comes to balance. One example is the Buddhist practice of the balance between accepting everything exists and nothing exists. In eudaimonics, there is no balance here.
The Middle Path is the acceptance of, generally, the perfect balance of life. All things in moderation, nothing in excess. It's an idea ancient and consistent in depth and longevity. All the more surprising really that capitalism has extended its tendrils to quite the extent it has. Admittedly, 2.5bn people will have alternative visions of the interpretation of a perfect balance - if anything, I get the impression it's more subjective than it should be. The objective force that is oalance perhaps does have the strength in godly presence to confirm the beliefs of a Buddhist nature. Buddhism is immensely important to a healthy eudaimonics. God in moderation. God is moderation.
Samadhi is the perfection of a mental balance. It is an element of human flourishing and part of a healthy approach to enlightenment and eudaimonia. It involves detachment, intellectual wholeness and a centered approach to life. Whereas The Middle Path is a practical guide to action, samadhi is the mental equivalent and meditative in nature. They are, of course, both very similar and just two ways of describing the same thing. I'd say samadhi is contained within The Middle Path. Samadhi's history is Hindu. Hinduism, with Buddhism, has great value to eudaimonics.
Zhongyong is the confucianist equivalent. Wikipedia states it's definition Chung Yung. Zhongyong, like Ma'at, is carried through to so many parts of life from politics and the justice system to spirituality and day to day life. The impression is how strong the concept gives precedance to an ethical/moral/good life WITHOUT the need for a monotheistic God interpretation. Oalance is widely integrated in the Chinese educational system and perhaps one of the greatest surprises of the 21st Century is the great imbalance of capitalism in the Chinese economy.
The great balance of nature is vast and central to the thoughts of billions in the past and present. The next post accounts a passage of the mean:
Far East Asian teachings are no less relevant today than they were 2500 years ago, if not more so. Buddhism has a lot to teach us. Confucianism is going strong. Taoism has a diverse mix of spiritual and practical lessons. Unsurprisingly, oalance is the key component of a Buddhist ethic. There are, of course, plenty of misunderstandings when it comes to balance. One example is the Buddhist practice of the balance between accepting everything exists and nothing exists. In eudaimonics, there is no balance here.
The Middle Path is the acceptance of, generally, the perfect balance of life. All things in moderation, nothing in excess. It's an idea ancient and consistent in depth and longevity. All the more surprising really that capitalism has extended its tendrils to quite the extent it has. Admittedly, 2.5bn people will have alternative visions of the interpretation of a perfect balance - if anything, I get the impression it's more subjective than it should be. The objective force that is oalance perhaps does have the strength in godly presence to confirm the beliefs of a Buddhist nature. Buddhism is immensely important to a healthy eudaimonics. God in moderation. God is moderation.
Samadhi is the perfection of a mental balance. It is an element of human flourishing and part of a healthy approach to enlightenment and eudaimonia. It involves detachment, intellectual wholeness and a centered approach to life. Whereas The Middle Path is a practical guide to action, samadhi is the mental equivalent and meditative in nature. They are, of course, both very similar and just two ways of describing the same thing. I'd say samadhi is contained within The Middle Path. Samadhi's history is Hindu. Hinduism, with Buddhism, has great value to eudaimonics.
Zhongyong is the confucianist equivalent. Wikipedia states it's definition Chung Yung. Zhongyong, like Ma'at, is carried through to so many parts of life from politics and the justice system to spirituality and day to day life. The impression is how strong the concept gives precedance to an ethical/moral/good life WITHOUT the need for a monotheistic God interpretation. Oalance is widely integrated in the Chinese educational system and perhaps one of the greatest surprises of the 21st Century is the great imbalance of capitalism in the Chinese economy.
The great balance of nature is vast and central to the thoughts of billions in the past and present. The next post accounts a passage of the mean:
Sunday, 21 June 2009
A Brief History of Balance 1
Now, I can begin a new chapter. The basic theory is outlined - lets uncover balance through the ages. It'll be in parts spread over a number of months interspersed with theoretical posts. There will be no timeline as such - merely an account of the prevalence of balance related thought.
Ma'at
It is difficult to imagine the Ancient Egyptian state system governed by sovereign rule would have survived without an all encompassing concept of truth, morality, justice, harmony and balance. Ma'at proved to be an incredible account of eudaimonics. At first, it was purely for practical reasons that Egyptian rulers imposed a state of Ma'at in order to control somewhat chaotic and conflicting opinions of how the state should be run. Equally, there was no system of ordered belief. Ma'at was accessible to rulers and peasants alike. In its godly form, Ma'at was a woman of high esteem and moral guidance, an idol of good and holy life.
But Ma'at evolved into something far more pertinent. It became far bigger than Ancient Egypt and the people who lived in it. Ancient Egyptians came to realise Ma'at as a cosmic order and universal balance:
For the Egyptian believed that the universe was above everything else an ordered and rational place. It functioned with predictability and regularity; the cycles of the universe always remained constant; in the moral sphere, purity was rewarded and sin was punished. Both morally and physically, the universe was in perfect balance.
It was obvious then that the universe had some order. Ma'at became somewhat the dominant deity in Ancient Egyptian culture (and that's saying something because Gods and Goddesses were vital to Egyptian life). Ma'at was enshrined in their justice system and became the soul of sovereign rulers. Those in positions of power must carry Ma'at in their hearts for chaos must be deplored.
There was also much discussion of Ma'at as the creator of the universe, but also the death of it. There was a great deal of respect for the cycles of the natural world, and the natural order intrinsic to it. Beyond the personal idolatry, power games and politics was a concept of truth and beauty powerful even today.
It's difficult to say Ancient Egypt was an entirely democratic - therefore balanced - society. It wasn't. However, our ancestors even without the scientific nous of today, were supremely advanced in their understanding of the world and the universe. Oalance was interpreted in godly form. If the Ancient Egyptians were ever to turn to monotheism, they would be Ma'atists. But Ma'at has never been exposed to the rigours of science. Oalance has and will be.
Ma'at
It is difficult to imagine the Ancient Egyptian state system governed by sovereign rule would have survived without an all encompassing concept of truth, morality, justice, harmony and balance. Ma'at proved to be an incredible account of eudaimonics. At first, it was purely for practical reasons that Egyptian rulers imposed a state of Ma'at in order to control somewhat chaotic and conflicting opinions of how the state should be run. Equally, there was no system of ordered belief. Ma'at was accessible to rulers and peasants alike. In its godly form, Ma'at was a woman of high esteem and moral guidance, an idol of good and holy life.
But Ma'at evolved into something far more pertinent. It became far bigger than Ancient Egypt and the people who lived in it. Ancient Egyptians came to realise Ma'at as a cosmic order and universal balance:
For the Egyptian believed that the universe was above everything else an ordered and rational place. It functioned with predictability and regularity; the cycles of the universe always remained constant; in the moral sphere, purity was rewarded and sin was punished. Both morally and physically, the universe was in perfect balance.
It was obvious then that the universe had some order. Ma'at became somewhat the dominant deity in Ancient Egyptian culture (and that's saying something because Gods and Goddesses were vital to Egyptian life). Ma'at was enshrined in their justice system and became the soul of sovereign rulers. Those in positions of power must carry Ma'at in their hearts for chaos must be deplored.
There was also much discussion of Ma'at as the creator of the universe, but also the death of it. There was a great deal of respect for the cycles of the natural world, and the natural order intrinsic to it. Beyond the personal idolatry, power games and politics was a concept of truth and beauty powerful even today.
It's difficult to say Ancient Egypt was an entirely democratic - therefore balanced - society. It wasn't. However, our ancestors even without the scientific nous of today, were supremely advanced in their understanding of the world and the universe. Oalance was interpreted in godly form. If the Ancient Egyptians were ever to turn to monotheism, they would be Ma'atists. But Ma'at has never been exposed to the rigours of science. Oalance has and will be.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Human-Mind Problem
At the end of the last post I suggested there were two conceptual reasons why humans have misunderstood balance dynamics. But another reason is the equipment we're using - our brain.
One of the most poignant but necessary repurcussions of an effective eudaimonics is the abandonment of any notion of a 'between' balance. By setting up an extant it is necessary to use the word 'between' to describe how a balance is placed on a spectrum of two extremes. The balance is central 'within' the extant, equidistant from either end. Oalance is the perfect balance within extance.
For a human mind this requires a radical shift in intellectual momentum. We see objects in isolation from each other. On a physical basis, a chair is a chair and a rug is a rug. To suggest they are connected in some way is confusing. But bear in mind they are both made of the same thing - matter. Atoms and matter and energy are linked not in isolation. Plus, the rug and chair are connected within in the system known as the home. In many respects our mind is cheating us. It's a survival strategy. Humans would not exist if it were not for our ability to mislead ourselves! Acting in isolation is fundamental to evolution, but it can mean a disconnection from the bigger picture.
To say there is a balance between the rug and the chair is wrong - there is a balance in the HOME. Oalance is within all things, and it is the state of imbalance which justifies the degree of reductionism/isolationism/separatism/individualism we feel and perceive. It's all a matter of perspective. This is where individual extance proportionates act and react with each other. They are in constant flux around oalance, deudaimoning and eudaimoning all over the place. Proportionates are dynamic.
So when we say, for example, that to live in a sustainable world we need to find a balance between our economics, society and the natural world, the truth is we need to find the balance within each of these systems - but more importantly the oalance within the ENTIRE system. They are all, after all, incredibly closely linked.
The human mind is excellent at breaking things down to their smallest components. But the sum of the parts is less than the whole. Any idea of a between balance is a linguistical and conceptual nightmare. It somehow isolates the good of balance away from the extremes of the very things its balancing! This is not how balance works, and is how God has become separated from the natural world in the first place.
One of the most poignant but necessary repurcussions of an effective eudaimonics is the abandonment of any notion of a 'between' balance. By setting up an extant it is necessary to use the word 'between' to describe how a balance is placed on a spectrum of two extremes. The balance is central 'within' the extant, equidistant from either end. Oalance is the perfect balance within extance.
For a human mind this requires a radical shift in intellectual momentum. We see objects in isolation from each other. On a physical basis, a chair is a chair and a rug is a rug. To suggest they are connected in some way is confusing. But bear in mind they are both made of the same thing - matter. Atoms and matter and energy are linked not in isolation. Plus, the rug and chair are connected within in the system known as the home. In many respects our mind is cheating us. It's a survival strategy. Humans would not exist if it were not for our ability to mislead ourselves! Acting in isolation is fundamental to evolution, but it can mean a disconnection from the bigger picture.
To say there is a balance between the rug and the chair is wrong - there is a balance in the HOME. Oalance is within all things, and it is the state of imbalance which justifies the degree of reductionism/isolationism/separatism/individualism we feel and perceive. It's all a matter of perspective. This is where individual extance proportionates act and react with each other. They are in constant flux around oalance, deudaimoning and eudaimoning all over the place. Proportionates are dynamic.
So when we say, for example, that to live in a sustainable world we need to find a balance between our economics, society and the natural world, the truth is we need to find the balance within each of these systems - but more importantly the oalance within the ENTIRE system. They are all, after all, incredibly closely linked.
The human mind is excellent at breaking things down to their smallest components. But the sum of the parts is less than the whole. Any idea of a between balance is a linguistical and conceptual nightmare. It somehow isolates the good of balance away from the extremes of the very things its balancing! This is not how balance works, and is how God has become separated from the natural world in the first place.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
A Tale of Two Paradoxes? - Balances
The second query comes from the nature of balances.
Can it be said a balance is bad? It is definitely right to say one can do too much murdering. But too little? Is that possible? A balance of murdering? Obviously not. This balance is 0. So does it exist? Well, this balance is, in fact, still a balance. Oalance is 0 (zero). And what about using ones talents for murdering being wasted? This could be said to be an imbalance. Of course, it is completely illogical. However, without oalance, eudaimonics cannot hope to explain why this balance is why it is. Though we see it as a balance, it isn't and it is! Oalance needs a sense of perspective. Some misconceived balances can be explained away with oalance, but balances make oalance!
There will always be occasions when finding a balance is not the right thing to do. To think to find a balance between all peoples' opinions is the 'right' course of action is unjustifiable. Some opinions are just wrong - plain and simple. Some opinions are more balanced than others. It is impossible to say there is a balance between balanced opinions and unbalanced ones. It doesn't work. Some people are more oalancentric than others. Extancentricity, of course, has its uses, but effective policy will always be oalancentric.
A terrorist organisation may claim they are righting the wrongs of the Western world. They may make a claim to balance. They are wrong. Nevertheless, their actions are supposedly in the name of God. Without oalance, eudaimonics cannot hope to explain actions such as these in balance dynamic terms.
There will be anomalies. There always will be. But the evidence for oalance is there. Homeostasis is the body's inner balancing mechanism. The human body is a self-regulating balance machine. So already we have 7 billion balances. Add the capacity of the human mind to achieve mental balance and we have another 7 billion balances. It seems difficult to dispute the existence of a perfect balance. People will have concerns, but the quantity of balances seems overwhelmingly decisive.
I feel it is these two supposed paradoxes that have faultered human understanding of ourselves, of nature and of God. Eudaimonics demonstrably places a natural god in the centre of existence.
Can it be said a balance is bad? It is definitely right to say one can do too much murdering. But too little? Is that possible? A balance of murdering? Obviously not. This balance is 0. So does it exist? Well, this balance is, in fact, still a balance. Oalance is 0 (zero). And what about using ones talents for murdering being wasted? This could be said to be an imbalance. Of course, it is completely illogical. However, without oalance, eudaimonics cannot hope to explain why this balance is why it is. Though we see it as a balance, it isn't and it is! Oalance needs a sense of perspective. Some misconceived balances can be explained away with oalance, but balances make oalance!
There will always be occasions when finding a balance is not the right thing to do. To think to find a balance between all peoples' opinions is the 'right' course of action is unjustifiable. Some opinions are just wrong - plain and simple. Some opinions are more balanced than others. It is impossible to say there is a balance between balanced opinions and unbalanced ones. It doesn't work. Some people are more oalancentric than others. Extancentricity, of course, has its uses, but effective policy will always be oalancentric.
A terrorist organisation may claim they are righting the wrongs of the Western world. They may make a claim to balance. They are wrong. Nevertheless, their actions are supposedly in the name of God. Without oalance, eudaimonics cannot hope to explain actions such as these in balance dynamic terms.
There will be anomalies. There always will be. But the evidence for oalance is there. Homeostasis is the body's inner balancing mechanism. The human body is a self-regulating balance machine. So already we have 7 billion balances. Add the capacity of the human mind to achieve mental balance and we have another 7 billion balances. It seems difficult to dispute the existence of a perfect balance. People will have concerns, but the quantity of balances seems overwhelmingly decisive.
I feel it is these two supposed paradoxes that have faultered human understanding of ourselves, of nature and of God. Eudaimonics demonstrably places a natural god in the centre of existence.
A Tale of Two Paradoxes? - Proportionates
Where are the weaknesses? Of course there are some, otherwise eudaimonics would have been common knowledge, especially in Ancient Greek philosophy. And God would not be what it is today.
Unsurprisingly, the first 'paradox' is one of symbology. I'm not sure it exists, but others might. The only way I have of representing 'good' is through '+'. And 'bad' through '-' likewise. But oalance is the greatest good. It is the greatest positive there is. I believe the confusion of the good derives from this discrepancy in the two understandings of good.
By the use of a '+' I mean a usefulness or 'instrumental' extrinsic value pertinent to proportionate movement TOWARD oalance (eudaimotion). Equally, the '-' is the same AWAY from oalance (deudaimotion). Oalance is the perfect intrinsic good. I'm not saying deudaimotion is always negative-led. It can be positive-led, but always returns back toward oalance. Negative-led deudaimotion does something different. Called (for now) extancial 'sticking', it is an area of strong investigation for another post. There is also a state where there is no extance motion toward or away from oalance; the extance is in extansis, or in a state of perpetual unchanging motion around oalance. Extancial sticking is an extreme form of extansis.
What this means is oalance is made of proportionates that have no meaning without oalance! Neither mean anything without the other. Oalance is the perfect balance of proportionates, and proportionates are indicators of extance away or toward oalance. Both make each other. Like I said, I'm not sure this is a problem. We can imagine oalance: the symbology I use is just a matter of visualisation and cultural biases.
Without proportionates, oalance can't exist. If proportionates can be attacked and dismantled and proven to be incoherent gibberish then eudaimonics falls with them. Naturally, I have full confidence in them - but what exactly are they?
Eudaimonian Theory presents proportionates as positive/negative or negative/positive correlations equal in proportion to each other. ± and vice versa. When an act takes place there is a consequence, but also a mirrored reflection of what the act cost. By act I mean the very sense of being. Having done, being and going to do can all constitute being. This immediately throws up anthropocentric imagery, but I relate this to ALL of physical reality (including thoughts and emotions, including metaphysics, including all natural forces). EVERY 'cost' has its 'benefit' and every 'benefit' has its 'cost'. A pair of curtains has costs in production, in sales value, in environmental costs for example. Every one of these costs, at source, have benefit. But then there is an equal and opposite benefit/cost scenario. What else could the materials have been used for? And the very presence of the pair of curtains prevents a likewise pair of curtains being in their place. They have an equal NEGATIVE USE which is something humans are unaccustomed to. We don't regularly appreciate what's not there!
Unsurprisingly, the first 'paradox' is one of symbology. I'm not sure it exists, but others might. The only way I have of representing 'good' is through '+'. And 'bad' through '-' likewise. But oalance is the greatest good. It is the greatest positive there is. I believe the confusion of the good derives from this discrepancy in the two understandings of good.
By the use of a '+' I mean a usefulness or 'instrumental' extrinsic value pertinent to proportionate movement TOWARD oalance (eudaimotion). Equally, the '-' is the same AWAY from oalance (deudaimotion). Oalance is the perfect intrinsic good. I'm not saying deudaimotion is always negative-led. It can be positive-led, but always returns back toward oalance. Negative-led deudaimotion does something different. Called (for now) extancial 'sticking', it is an area of strong investigation for another post. There is also a state where there is no extance motion toward or away from oalance; the extance is in extansis, or in a state of perpetual unchanging motion around oalance. Extancial sticking is an extreme form of extansis.
What this means is oalance is made of proportionates that have no meaning without oalance! Neither mean anything without the other. Oalance is the perfect balance of proportionates, and proportionates are indicators of extance away or toward oalance. Both make each other. Like I said, I'm not sure this is a problem. We can imagine oalance: the symbology I use is just a matter of visualisation and cultural biases.
Without proportionates, oalance can't exist. If proportionates can be attacked and dismantled and proven to be incoherent gibberish then eudaimonics falls with them. Naturally, I have full confidence in them - but what exactly are they?
Eudaimonian Theory presents proportionates as positive/negative or negative/positive correlations equal in proportion to each other. ± and vice versa. When an act takes place there is a consequence, but also a mirrored reflection of what the act cost. By act I mean the very sense of being. Having done, being and going to do can all constitute being. This immediately throws up anthropocentric imagery, but I relate this to ALL of physical reality (including thoughts and emotions, including metaphysics, including all natural forces). EVERY 'cost' has its 'benefit' and every 'benefit' has its 'cost'. A pair of curtains has costs in production, in sales value, in environmental costs for example. Every one of these costs, at source, have benefit. But then there is an equal and opposite benefit/cost scenario. What else could the materials have been used for? And the very presence of the pair of curtains prevents a likewise pair of curtains being in their place. They have an equal NEGATIVE USE which is something humans are unaccustomed to. We don't regularly appreciate what's not there!
Sunday, 31 May 2009
The Nature of Oalance - Part 4
is Perfect Balance (Oalance)There is a question over the structure of the extant network. (Remember - the extant network is the overlap of balances with radiating proportionates away from the centre growing larger in size). A little bit of new terminology here - the plural of extants will be extance. All proportionates form the extance. Extance can be seen as existence or all physical reality.
Note: Please bear with me on the terminology! I know it can be odd coming to terms with new terms :-) All I can do is reiterate them and use them in their context.
There are two ways extance can be set up - spherically with oalance at the centre, or circularly also with oalance at the centre. Both work. An extance sphere is one point in time. All extants are represented in one time frame in space. A sphere is not an easy way to contemplate the universe. Very messy. We can't visualise patterns - with a sphere we can't visualise extance dynamics or the temporal nature of oalance.
If we include change, motion, movement and evolution through time which is after all what the universe is about, including proportionate expansion ( or, new term: 'deudaimotion' (proportionate contraction being 'eudaimotion')) then we get something like the following...
The black line is oalance - solid and unmoving through time. Either end is the beginning and end of time - perfect oalance. The blue space is all physical space. Deudaimotion and eudaimotion reveal a shape - a normal distribution. A normal distribution constitutes derivatives. It's a mathematical term and is fractal in nature i.e. every normal distribution constitutes another normal distribution till infinity. An area of physics and social construction called 'cybernetics' (see Wikipedia) perhaps would benefit from the normal distribution.
Now, from left to right, lets imagine proportionates...
Every negative has its positive. And it's the universes way of using this point that determines how it's evolved. Evolution takes immediate advantageous circumstances then MINIMISES THE NEGATIVES which means eudaimotion toward oalance. In ecology this constitutes the logistic growth equation. Within EVERYTHING is oalance. It is present in everything - always has been. In this sense oalance is God. The shape above is the UNIVERSAL extance. All things are contained within it in a similar pattern. We all have extance normal distributions. All life revolves around oalance. By eudaimoning and deudaimoning we live toward and away from oalance. There is so much more to explore here, but I've now finished outlining basic eudaimonic theory.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
The Nature of Oalance - Part 3
We've ascertained balance can be symbolically represented.This symbol combines two extremes at a central core. Arguably, this is as far as human society has got in terms of application of balance to daily life. Balances exist, but so do imbalances. Modern life is not always about balance - it's about survival. Just like eudaimonia, balance is often a luxury and one that does not have much meaning. Currently, it is definitely not a focus of BELIEF. It's also seen as a very fluid state and in terms of core centrality is not structured enough. It is not oalance yet.
Before pressing on I'd like to clear up some terminology. The positive/negative combo is called a proportionate. The opposite side of balance negative/positive combo is the proportionate reflection. The entire structure of balance in the centre and proportionate expansion either side is called an extant.
Oalance is the combination/aggregation of balances. Some balances are misconceived but most are relevant. What we get is...
NThis is an unlimited number of balances. Will the human race ever be able to categorise every individual balance? Extremely unlikely. This doesn't really matter, however. As long as we can understand nature works on a principle of balance and imbalance we don't need to know all of them.
From here I request a little imagination. I'm constrained by the blog facilities and can't accurately show my meaning - I can only explain. But I ask you to use my profile image as guidance. It is E8. For a full account of its meaning go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3352140/Is-this-the-fabric-of-the-universe.html.
E8 is perfect symmetry in the complex physical world. It's structure is central to much of particle physics. It is widely regarded as a significant step toward a grand unified theory of everything.
My question is - what is the centre of E8?
My answer - oalance, where...
N = OalanceImagine vast quantities of balances. More, by rights, than we can imagine. Nevertheless, millions upon millions of balances we perceive as separate entities, floating in the chaotic, unpredictable universe. In reality, they are not. They are all one and the same. Overlap them all and incorporate the extant network. You should get oalance in the centre with proportionates expanding away very much in the same shape and pattern as E8.
The jigsaw pieces fit together and we get...
This symbol is oalance.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
The Nature of Oalance - Part 2
Okay, let's set up the theory. The primary question is 'What is a balance?'. When I say the word 'balance' what do I mean?
Common sense tells us a balance is the mid-point between two extremes. The central balance point is the focus, or pivot point, equidistant from either end. The assumption is, in direct reference to this statement, and restricted linguistically, that the extremes are equally imbalanced. From this, I believe, one makes an assumption - that imbalance is bad. Through eudaimonics we will see how complicated this statement is, but the truth is it depends on our definition of 'good' and 'bad'. I will give, in time, some Environmental Ethics value theory corresponding to eudaimonics. I reveal there are two forms of good and bad.
So, an equidistant point between two extremes. Something like this...
I-------------- O --------------I
The balance has to be equidistant. If the extremes change then the balance point changes. Is it possible to fill this diagram in, to develop it further? Absolutely.
There must be a reason to be in imbalance. If there was no use then all things would be in balance. Things are not, so what is the reason. Well, imbalances, or extremes, have instrumental value. They are useful, potentially 'selfish' for want of a better word. They have characterisation and individuality. They have positive gain. We can put this in...
I++++++++ O ++++++++I
This is completely unsatisfactory. Balance is 'supposed' to be good. Perfect. Imbalances cannot be good as well. There is absolutely no distinction in this diagram. Why do we wish to be at balance? To avoid being bad, to avoid evil, injustice, selfishness, inconvenience, greed, hunger. There is negative loss away from balance. Well, lets add it...
I±±±±±±±±± O ±±±±±±±±±I
That works slightly better. However, there is a problem. Clearly, in this diagram, both extremes are the same. This cannot be. If you are over-eating, then you cannot be under-eating! There is no distinction here. Lets flip one extreme one side of balance...
O ±±±±±±±±±
Every action has an equal, opposite and corresponding action. We're not there yet though. Away from balance the extremes must have a heavier impact. A larger size. Currently, there is no distinction along the spectrum. These positive/negative correlations are equal in proportion to each other away from balance - they are proportionates...
Hopefully, one can now appreciate the natural progression - the nature of an individual balance. The central point is the overlap of proportionates, or simply...
So, at last, we have an indicative symbol of balance. Part 3 will explain how we can use similar methodology to uncover the true nature of oalance.
Common sense tells us a balance is the mid-point between two extremes. The central balance point is the focus, or pivot point, equidistant from either end. The assumption is, in direct reference to this statement, and restricted linguistically, that the extremes are equally imbalanced. From this, I believe, one makes an assumption - that imbalance is bad. Through eudaimonics we will see how complicated this statement is, but the truth is it depends on our definition of 'good' and 'bad'. I will give, in time, some Environmental Ethics value theory corresponding to eudaimonics. I reveal there are two forms of good and bad.
So, an equidistant point between two extremes. Something like this...
I-------------- O --------------I
The balance has to be equidistant. If the extremes change then the balance point changes. Is it possible to fill this diagram in, to develop it further? Absolutely.
There must be a reason to be in imbalance. If there was no use then all things would be in balance. Things are not, so what is the reason. Well, imbalances, or extremes, have instrumental value. They are useful, potentially 'selfish' for want of a better word. They have characterisation and individuality. They have positive gain. We can put this in...
I++++++++ O ++++++++I
This is completely unsatisfactory. Balance is 'supposed' to be good. Perfect. Imbalances cannot be good as well. There is absolutely no distinction in this diagram. Why do we wish to be at balance? To avoid being bad, to avoid evil, injustice, selfishness, inconvenience, greed, hunger. There is negative loss away from balance. Well, lets add it...
I±±±±±±±±± O ±±±±±±±±±I
That works slightly better. However, there is a problem. Clearly, in this diagram, both extremes are the same. This cannot be. If you are over-eating, then you cannot be under-eating! There is no distinction here. Lets flip one extreme one side of balance...
O ±±±±±±±±±Every action has an equal, opposite and corresponding action. We're not there yet though. Away from balance the extremes must have a heavier impact. A larger size. Currently, there is no distinction along the spectrum. These positive/negative correlations are equal in proportion to each other away from balance - they are proportionates...
Hopefully, one can now appreciate the natural progression - the nature of an individual balance. The central point is the overlap of proportionates, or simply...
So, at last, we have an indicative symbol of balance. Part 3 will explain how we can use similar methodology to uncover the true nature of oalance.
Friday, 15 May 2009
The Nature of Oalance - Part 1
Oalance. The perfect balance.
Every balance we perceive is one of singularity and individuality. So, when Buddha achieved enlightenment he attained his own perfect form of balance in separation from the form of balance any individual can attain in his or her lifetime. Balance acquisition is seen as a separate act of contemplation for individuals, and bears no significance to a wider state present in the natural world. Sometimes, it's seen as an elitist luxury based simply on the nature of the detachment from material things, never mind an object of belief.
Spiritually, balance is an ancient concept. We all know of taoism, buddhism, yin and yang, feng shui, paganism, positive and negative energy and even Ancient Egyptian and Greek godly representations of balance. As human beings we appear to be conscious of a 'greater balance' yet have chosen to interpret it in somewhat fanatical and misleading religious doctrine in order to provide authority on 'God's Earth' in times of great personal, political and social imbalance caused principally by the harsh and unyielding environment. Try telling anybody to believe in nature and they will understandably espouse the negativity of a world trammelled by disease, climate change, predators, food shortages and 'the survival of the fittest'.
More than understandable, but nevertheless misinformed. Science has uncovered delights and inspirations from the real world evolved through time. Infinitely complex and undoubtedly beautiful, nature is divine in its own right. And from nature arises perhaps the most contentious and debated concept of them all - the balance of nature.
There is enough here for countless blog posts so I will touch briefly but meaningfully on just how important the balance of nature is. It is extraordinarily practical. Ask any farmer and they will say long term sustained harvests and/or livestock farming constitutes not just the attainment of a balance in their own lives but applies readily to efficient management of natural systems. Habitats and ecosystems are self-sustaining and any human presence should slip harmlessly into that system. Ecologists argue vehemently about evolution and balance and say they both don't work in synchrony. There are simply too many imbalances. I will explore their disgruntlements in time, but for now lets accept the intuitions and evidence of countless spiritualists and scientists respectively - that there is a delicate balance of nature.
You only need to listen to politicians recently on the MP's expenses row, or community managers, or judges, or sportsmen and women, or even the Archbishop of Canterbury to hear countless uninhibited references to balance. It forms part of our culture, and seen as a true pragmatic solution to personal problems and public policy. Balance is intrinsic to society.
For now, believe that there is vast evidence for balance. You will find thousands of commentators on the internet on this subject. If you pile through government documentation you'll find frequent references. The world's new hope, Barack Obama, effectively is 'Mr Balance'. His autobiography is all the evidence you need. I feel strongly enough on the documentation of others that balance needs no proof of existence. My eudaimonics is strong enough to assert the range of balances present. In time, the evidence will avail itself systematically. I'd like to pursue the theoretical element.
What if every balance is the same. The word 'balance' is one of linguistic merit attributed equally to all states. It also has other connotations, most noticeably 'physical balance' like in riding a bike, or the measuring device used regularly for weighting. Oalance is the immoveable balance - the solid, objective and consistent presence through all time. Every balance we state is in direct reference to oalance. Through eudaimonics I will show you a visible method revealing God in all its natural, oalancentric glory.
Follow http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=75099299772 for my Facebook group, or follow me on Twitter!
Every balance we perceive is one of singularity and individuality. So, when Buddha achieved enlightenment he attained his own perfect form of balance in separation from the form of balance any individual can attain in his or her lifetime. Balance acquisition is seen as a separate act of contemplation for individuals, and bears no significance to a wider state present in the natural world. Sometimes, it's seen as an elitist luxury based simply on the nature of the detachment from material things, never mind an object of belief.
Spiritually, balance is an ancient concept. We all know of taoism, buddhism, yin and yang, feng shui, paganism, positive and negative energy and even Ancient Egyptian and Greek godly representations of balance. As human beings we appear to be conscious of a 'greater balance' yet have chosen to interpret it in somewhat fanatical and misleading religious doctrine in order to provide authority on 'God's Earth' in times of great personal, political and social imbalance caused principally by the harsh and unyielding environment. Try telling anybody to believe in nature and they will understandably espouse the negativity of a world trammelled by disease, climate change, predators, food shortages and 'the survival of the fittest'.
More than understandable, but nevertheless misinformed. Science has uncovered delights and inspirations from the real world evolved through time. Infinitely complex and undoubtedly beautiful, nature is divine in its own right. And from nature arises perhaps the most contentious and debated concept of them all - the balance of nature.
There is enough here for countless blog posts so I will touch briefly but meaningfully on just how important the balance of nature is. It is extraordinarily practical. Ask any farmer and they will say long term sustained harvests and/or livestock farming constitutes not just the attainment of a balance in their own lives but applies readily to efficient management of natural systems. Habitats and ecosystems are self-sustaining and any human presence should slip harmlessly into that system. Ecologists argue vehemently about evolution and balance and say they both don't work in synchrony. There are simply too many imbalances. I will explore their disgruntlements in time, but for now lets accept the intuitions and evidence of countless spiritualists and scientists respectively - that there is a delicate balance of nature.
You only need to listen to politicians recently on the MP's expenses row, or community managers, or judges, or sportsmen and women, or even the Archbishop of Canterbury to hear countless uninhibited references to balance. It forms part of our culture, and seen as a true pragmatic solution to personal problems and public policy. Balance is intrinsic to society.
For now, believe that there is vast evidence for balance. You will find thousands of commentators on the internet on this subject. If you pile through government documentation you'll find frequent references. The world's new hope, Barack Obama, effectively is 'Mr Balance'. His autobiography is all the evidence you need. I feel strongly enough on the documentation of others that balance needs no proof of existence. My eudaimonics is strong enough to assert the range of balances present. In time, the evidence will avail itself systematically. I'd like to pursue the theoretical element.
What if every balance is the same. The word 'balance' is one of linguistic merit attributed equally to all states. It also has other connotations, most noticeably 'physical balance' like in riding a bike, or the measuring device used regularly for weighting. Oalance is the immoveable balance - the solid, objective and consistent presence through all time. Every balance we state is in direct reference to oalance. Through eudaimonics I will show you a visible method revealing God in all its natural, oalancentric glory.
Follow http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=75099299772 for my Facebook group, or follow me on Twitter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
