You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why I think aiming for “balance” is a dumb argument.
You still didn't define what you mean by "balance". And if you meant "equilibrium" then equilibrium can exist. Yes, even in motion. Any object undergoing uniform motion is in equilibrium, and hence, "balanced".
Well, that's kind of the point! The discussion can't move forward until those who are involved can mutually establish what defines balance.
And I would suggest that if you're wanting to express a rebuttal, I'd recommend that you come up with a stronger argument. Simply disagreeing doesn't add anything new to the conversation.
The very concept of motion proves there is no balance whatsoever. Thinfgs are being added to and taken away. Motion siginifies the changing of form, value, quantity, etc..
Nothing is of equal value. Things are never stagnant and therefore...no balance. "Balance" is an invented illusion.