Most of us have been taught to worship respectfully at the altar of balance. We’re obsessed with the metaphor of the yin-yang and an intuitive sense that the universe, and therefore every system in it, is in a desperate race to achieve homeostasis. We value “balanced opinions” and are almost instinctively drawn to the intuitively lure of Manichean logic. Of course on the other hand, we are the species that has given the planet global war; transportation systems facilitating the spread of what become global epidemics; not to mention our collective success in upsetting nearly every ecosystem we come into contact with. Through it all we persist in glorifying the balance we so rarely achieve. So, what’s so hot about symmetry?
Well, the answer is not much. In fact, while it’s handy for some things like engineering and construction, a mindless pursuit of symmetry often leads to the wrong answer. In “The Median Is Not The Message” Steven Jay Gould pointed out that in medical research the concept of a symmetrical median had little if anything to do with probability distribution (in this case recovery from a disease). In assessing the probability of everything from the longevity of marriages to susceptibility to disease, the world is maddingly asymmetric. This really shouldn’t bother us all that much. We really don’t live in a world of 50-50 chances, and most of us wouldn’t want to. Think what would happen if you really believed symmetry drove your life. You’d wake up in the morning with a 50-50 chance (the basic symmetric option) of surviving the day. You’d go downstairs to greet your spouse who you’d see as a person you had a 50-50 chance of staying married to for a lifetime. You’d run through a whole series of symmetric options whose aggregate weight would probably cause you to collapse.
The simple truth is that while we preach the virtues of symmetry we place our long-term bets on the asymmetric. Deep in our souls we love to beat the odds, to cheer the dark horse on to victory and to lionize those who live on the fringes of the balanced world we inhabit. Perfect homeostasis, after all, would be fairly boring.
 | FacePrints |
| Insider's Look |
| Mojo'S Fractal Art |
| Perfect Pitch |
| The Culture of Martyrdom |
Use a "macro" lense instead! - 5/28/2002 6:14:29 PM DST (GMT-4)
In my opinion, this article looks too closely at the individual and not at the larger natural world itself. If you look at an "extreme" individual, you'll find many things that are not "balanced." However, put someone next to him/her with equally strong but 180 degrees opposite views and suddenly the room feels balanced. There may be conflict, but it is balanced. (That is why our political system has worked so far: "balance" is disguised as conflict, equal amounts of extremism on different sides, and centrists who "waffle" on issues. Ultimately, this leads to a balancing effect on the system.)
For every strong, there is a weak. For every black, there is a white. For every high, there is a low. In a micro-view, things can seem "out of balance," but if one has patience and can view things objectively, they will eventually see that there is a fundamental natural balance at work.
Now, balance promotes stability. Stability can promote comfort and thus impede progress. Therefore, it is not always a balanced approach that an individual, organization or group needs for them to improve, progress or grow. (Ask Ted Turner about making balanced decisions.) But for every Ted, there are 100 conservative decision-makers who balance out his shoot-from-the-hip style.
A "balanced" approach is not always a good thing at a "micro" level, but in the larger context of the world, it's nature's unavoidable way of continuance. And if the extremist views on this planet do something to upset the balance of this planet and destroy earth...well, guess what? Another planet will benefit in some way from its remains, thus, continuing the balance of nature.
Therefore, there is nothing we can even do to knock nature out of balance...it just is and will always be "in balance."
Thanks.
Kevin
(kevin@austinfilmmaker.com)
Go to the Enterprise discussion area.
 |
Middle East | Issues | Archives | Lexicon | Forums | Mailing List | Log In | Search | ?? | ||
|
© 1997-2010 FirstMatter LLC