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!
Saturday, 27 June 2009
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
