Balances and happy mediums that are hard to hit

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I haven't read Aristotle and not too familiar with his work overall, but his idea of the Golden Mean became part of my vocabulary at an early age, thanks to my father who was much taken with this idea. I suspect this is the only thing a lot of folks know about Aristotle

Acts of the will which merely aim to minimize or maximize something may be arduous, but they're simple in principle to maintain, and conceptually simple to understand. I call these types of goals "linear goals", because they're modeled well mathematically by a linear, a.k.a. first power equation. There is a whole new layer of complexity, requiring much more vigilance, however, when one sets an intention to keep something within a narrow set of parameters, and to avoid both too much and too little of it. This can be modeled mathematically by a quadratic, a.k.a. second power equation. For example, if I'm riding a sled or a slide, all I need to do is minimize friction and drag. With a little practice, one can do this on autopilot simply by leaning back, and be able to potentially think about something else at the same time. But riding a bicycle is not simply a matter of consistently leaning in one direction -- you'll fall if you do that. You need to learn to do a series of micro-leans to balance yourself so that you don't go too far to the left or right. Eventually you can do this absentmindedly, but this takes a lot more practice than learning to sled.

Surfing could probably be modeled by an even higher power equation, and is indeed orders of magnitude harder to master than bicycling, because there are multiple factors that need to be kept in balance for a surfer to remain standing on a moving wave. I really think there is something worth serious consideration behind the stereotype of the surfer who smokes weed on the beach and philosophizes in between wave swells -- surfing is, IMHO more than any other sport, an excellent microcosm for the ups and downs of life in general, and being in such an in-your-face man-vs-nature scenario over and over, interspersed with lazy hours on a beach, can't help but cause many people to think deeply about life.

So many of the keys to life that those older and wiser than us hand down involve keeping up a delicate balance, rather than just leaning with all your might in one direction consistently. Put down roots, but spread your wings. Stand up for what you believe in, but pick your battles and know when to yield. Question everything you read or hear, but take leaps of faith and trust. Woe betide he who only takes but does not give, but vice versa is also true.

Funny you seldom hear politicians, salesmen, fundamentalist preachers, second rate motivational speakers, or sitcom characters give much airtime to the importance of maintaining difficult balances. Chances are that if someone is trying to peddle you an easy answer to a problem that really bothers you, he or she is basing the advice on a mistaken assumption that yours is a linear goal, and that if you just keep leaning in one direction consistently, you'll reach your destination. Plenty of slick-talking answer men put food on their tables pandering to people's wishful thinking that life's problems could be so simple.

Which of life's balances do you find are the hardest to hit? I'll start:

* Love like you've never been hurt, but don't wear your heart on your sleeve and don't set yourself up for heartbreak.
* Be spontaneous, but think long term and plan carefully whenever possible.
* Do what makes sense to do, but live it up and do some things just because it's what you feel like doing.
* Work hard and be a productive member of society, but relax and nurture yourself.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

Your post in the insanity vs sanity thread struck me as very Aristotlean. Anyway, since you bring him up, I'll say a lil' piece 'bout him for those not in the know.

One swallow does not make a summer, nor a single day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy.

On Aristotle and Moderation:
Every action has a good as its end, and the highest good, which is its own end, is happiness. Happiness is an activity, life in pursuit of virtue, not some transient emotion one experiences passively. Virtue is a mean between excess and deficiency (though this does not apply to every action or emotion, e.g. malice, adultery, etc.), and is opposed to both, though it may be closer to one than the other. Courage is the mean between the excess of recklessness and the deficiency of cowardice, temperance between self-indulgence and asceticism, friendliness between obsequiousness and quarrelsomeness.



Now, to address your questions:
1.Love like you've never been hurt, but don't wear your heart on your sleeve and don't set yourself up for heartbreak.

I do not understand this. Psychiatric professionals have told me that I have "severe" trust issues, so it's no wonder that I lack points of reference for this one.

2. Be spontaneous, but think long term and plan carefully whenever possible.

Planning whenever possible would preclude spontaneity. Perhaps the mean would be to carefully plan and pursue your long term goals, while being spontaneous in your day to day life?

3. Do what makes sense to do, but live it up and do some things just because it's what you feel like doing.

Sounds like a repeat of #2.

4. Work hard and be a productive member of society, but relax and nurture yourself.

I reject this dichotomy, leisure is essential to contemplation and self-improvement, without which your labors may well be for naught.

I mean, I guess my point is that we ought to identify the mean before evaluating how well we pursue it. As for me personally, I have great difficulty with just about everything normal people do, and life in general, since I am completely bonkers. The only balance I might hit is that of skepticism, between unqualified doubt and blind faith (I made that one up).

 

[Wontblonk]

MDAO, I liked your post, thank you. All four of your dichotomies struck very close to home for me, particularly the first, because I find it quite difficult to harmonize the fact that I genuinely love most people, but trust nearly nobody.

The only one I feel a little more control over is the second one to do with spontaneity. Moreno, who created the psychodramatic method, has a lot to say about spontaneity and creativity. His work is very powerful. My hunch about it at the moment is that humans basically cannot not have structure. So the point is to be able to set up a structure within which you can be spontaneous and creative, rather than assume that all structure has to go for spontaneity to exist.

Also, there is a distinction between creative spontaneity and pathological spontaneity, which has to do with the outcomes the actions achieve (I.e., creative versus destructive directions).