when you ask someone to define the word balance, they instantly think of equilibrium. which isn't balance. following, is an example of what defines balance, so we're all on the same page.
let's say we have a scale. y'kno the kinds most drug dealers use to weigh their drugs? let's say, we put 2 grams of cocaine on one side, and something else that weighs 2 grams on the other side. the scale will be balanced perfectly. which is equilibrium. neither side higher than the other. this is NOT balance, it's what balance AIMS to provide.
now.... let's take our drugs off the scale, leavin' our 2 gram weight on the right side. the right side instantly falls down. now on our left side.. let's slowly put drugs to balance the right side. eventually we'll put enough drugs on the left side.. to cause the right side to rise up just a bit. THIS is balance. yes, the more drugs we add to the left side, the more the right side will rise. we stop addin' drugs to the left side, when both sides are at an equilibrium. which is usually what our eyes tell us. yet we look at the little needle on the scale, we're still off a bit. finally we add just the right amount of drugs on the left side.. now this needle sits on the little line in the middle.. telling us we've achieved equilibrium.
now we have a perfect balance between both sides (equilibrium). or do we? whoops.. we forgot to turn on the digital part of our scale. which gives us a more accurate reading. now that we have that on. we find out... we're .06 grams off. fuck.. ok so we fiddle w/ our drugs. gettin' the reading to finally say .00001. shit.. but it's not perfect still... but the digital meter can't hold anymore numbers to tell us how accurate we are. so we take a guess. and using tweezers.. take a few grains off cocaine off... and instantly the digital meter reads 0. exactly ZERO. perfect balance!!! well.. no. because on a scale (those expensive ones).. there would be a digital display which displays more numbers. and on that scale. it would be .0000000001. but the shitty scale we're using only shows up to .00001. so eventhough our scale says exactly 0. on another it would really be .0000000001. but ours says... 0. so that's "good enough" for us. besides.. once we sell this cocaine, is the buyer going to complain that we jacked him on .0000000001 of a gram? probably not. he probably won't even measure it. so remember. equilibrium is theoretically impossible to achieve.. but a "perfect balance" is usually good enough, for us to declare equilibrium. this is why most scales, if u look around you'll find somethin' that says +/- .000001 error margin. the more expensive and accurate the scale, the smaller the error margin. but since numbers are infinite... we have to agree to stop somewhere. so a +/- .00000000000001 error margin is probably good enough for just about anyone who uses it.
now that we have a good understanding on what balance is... in numbers. let's look at some examples of why balance is essential to living.. and why acknowledging balance in living, always yields results.
cpixel.com. yes. i have personally kept things within pixel that a lot of people hate. because it adds balance to the site.
a lot of people ask me.. well more like DEMAND.. ha... "you need to delete such n such, they're a hater, all they do is give me 1s"
let's say. cpixel had some kind of special power. that could detect when someone was goin' to rate a person with a 1. and would stop them before they did so, and delete their account right afterwards. (pretend there's no 2-9 on the rating scale.. since no one really uses this anyways).
now that we've gotten rid of all the people that rate others 1s. what happens? everyone has a perfect 10. if everyone KNEW their rating was goin' to be this perfect 10, would they wanna be rated to begin with? no. cuz they know you'll give them a 10. would there be a top 10? no. because everyone is a perfect 10. so the top 10, would be the top 509860865 (or however many people are on the site). would a rating system even need to be on the site? no. because everyone would have a perfect 10. so if there's no rating system, there wouldn't be a top 10.. or top 509860865.. so i'd remove that part on the front page.. now there's no top 10, and no ratings. so now you can't "check" who rated you. cuz that's not there either. now you have to use other features on the site to "find people".
see what happens when the balance is removed? it hurts everyone, somehow. but it's the balance, that keep people moving, no the balance isn't perfect.. since everyone gets a lot more 10s than 1s. but it's enough.. if it was perfectly balanced (equilibrium). the same thing would happen. if you got a 1, for every 10 you got. your average rating would be a 5. which would be everyone elses rating... thus causin' the same aforementioned problem.... or lack thereof ;]
let's say we have Johnny.. the pool hustler. we makes a living by goin' to various pool halls, playin' people at pool for money. he's good enough to be a "hustler"... but not good enough to be a pro pool player.
what are hustlers notorious for doing? losing. without losing games, they'll never make money. here's why...
let's say Johnny encounters someone at the local pool hall.. we'll call her Sarah. They agree to play for $50. Watchin' Sarah play, Johnny knows instantly he can beat her. But Sarah doesn't know this. If Johnny told Sarah before they played, "you will lose no matter what"... and she believed him, then there would be no point in her playing him for $50, since she already knows the outcome.
So they play a game for $50, Johnny barely pulls out a win. he struggled on the 8ball, missing his intended pocket a few times.. giving Sarah a chance to catch up, but finally.. he pocketed the 8ball.
Sarah bein' the determined person she is... wants to go double or nothing, because she has a feeling she could beat him if she focused a bit more.
They play. Sarah's feeling was right. and she wins.. almost too easily. she wins back her $50. Sarah feeling confident offers another game... for $50. Johnny's tired, and wants to go home, and tells Sarah.... Sarah bein' the persistent person she is... encourages him to play once more. Johnny reaches into his pocket... pullin' out a $200... sayin' "that's all I got left, i might as well put it all on the line at once, so i don't have to suffer slowly while you take $50 from me everytime"... Sarah just comin' off a win, that was more like a slaughter for Johnny in the previous game... can do nothing but agree to play for the $200.
Johnny once again, pulls out a close game. struggling with just about every ball. but he wins. he collects the $200 from Sarah....and goes home. Sarah pissed off that she ALMOST had him, but kept choking under pressure...she almost won, but didn't.
does Johnny care how easily he won the game? no. he won. that's all that matters. eventhough Johnny knew he could slaughter Sarah without even givin' her ONE SHOT.... he didn't. if he did such a thing in the first game for $50, Sarah wouldn't want to play again, because she would have known she has absolute no chance in beating Johnny. but bein' that Johnny is a hustler, losing games... on purpose or not, is part of the game. without losing, he would never make money. because no one would want to play him. if he encourages people to BELIEVE they can beat him, everytime he plays (by losing, or making the games very close)... he can continue making money off of them.
see the balance? without the balance, Johnny would never make a dime hustling in pool. he could always up his game just enough, to beat his opponent when it counts (when the big bets are on the line), but it doesn't usually look pretty to someone watchin' him play.. since he's usually struggling to win. but he WINS. he WINS at keeping the opponent enticed to playing again, and he WINS the games where big $ is wagered.
this sense of balance, is everywhere we look. it exists in everything we do. and it keeps us evolving as humans. if it didn't exist, your life would be very dull.. and essentially pointless.
do you understand everything you just read? if you did.. great. if you didn't...great. balance ;]