Balance paradox

EDIT

Balance can be in itself unbalanced. It is a kind of order, that is apposed to chaos. So I don't see how balance is in itself balanced because it is a type of order, and order is opposed to chaos. Hence it is onesided and it is impossible to be balanced because of this as balance requires a commitment to order, and is not the in-between forse people think it is. Hense, balance paradoxically is a biased concept.

This better V?

Edited by ex nihilo - 16/12/2011, 04:51

Even so, balance itself is onesided is it not. So how can balance in itself be balance. Balance can balance other things, but I don't think balance can balance itself because it is onesided. I Probably worded this wrong. Hence, nothing can truely be balanced as balance in itself is unbalanced.

Ok, thanks.

I don't follow the OP and this second post does not help me at all.

I think we would need to tease out how you are using the word balance. I suspect this is confusion of language rather than thought. It would help if you separated the different meanings of balance because I see no paradox at all.

Sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble wording my thoughts correctly.

Basicly balance (Concept) is not balanced (Verb) as the opposite to balance is something being unbalanced. So if you were to balance (concept) with unbalance (concept) then you could not do so without causing unbalance (verb) as by balancing (verb) the two concepts we have inevitably caused unbalance (verb).

Does this make sense, or am I still not making any sense (or possibly wrong, I don't know.)

I am still not getting it. "Balance" is a word with many meanings (OED gives 19) and in order to follow what you mean by"balance(concept)" you need to explain what you are referring to.

To me, the most obvious meaning which you might be using is the one akin to "equilibrium". But if that is the case then balance is a description of the relationship between two (or more) other things. It follows that it cannot itself be one of the elements to be considered. It just isn't that kind of entity.

For example: if I put a fish on a balance (concrete noun) I can put weights on the other end until the thing is in balance. I have now found out the weight of the fish. The machine itself can be said to be balanced: but it is not. That is just a form of words which breaks down to "the weight of the fish is the same as the sum of the weights", or even: "the pans are level". The machine itself has nothing to do with it. It merely measures. In that sense the concept of balance merely means "of equal weight", and that is a relation, not a state.

ETA: try substituting Multiplication (concept), multiply (verb) and Division (concept) , divide (verb) in your previous explanation: might make my point clearer

Edited by FionaK - 17/12/2011, 08:54

Err... I'm to confuesed now. I think by balance I was refering to something being netrual. For example, you could say that grey is a balance of black and white. But is it really the balance between them or is it just anouther force. We for example might not take green for being a balance between black and white. Just because it has similarities between the two colours as is made up of both of them does not make it in itself neutral, just anouther colour.

And can the colour grey be truely netruel. It might be a tad more black or a tad more white.

I think I'm begining to change my mind, so keep it up.

Balance does not mean "neutral" any more than it means "order". At least not as I see it. Even if it did, grey is not a balance of black and white: it is a mixture of them, at best. It is still grey whether you have more black or more white.

So what do you propose is the closest Definition to balance then?

It is a relationship between other elements, at least in one sense of the word.

I'd like to second what Fiona has suggested. In the primary or literal sense of balance, two things are said to be in balance if they have the same weight. In the extended or figurative sense, they are in balance if they have the same amount of something-or-other — think of ( say) the public interest in freedom and security, between which it is often said that a balance must be found.

So I have no objection to using the notion of balance in connection with abstractions. But there has to be something that the two things to be balanced have in common. In your argument about order and chaos— or balance and imbalance — what is that something?

Guess I was mistaken then. Might want to put this in the dustbin.

Why would we do that? The question is interesting in itself and it seems to me that we have learned from thinking about it. Do you not agree?