[MD] Quality in the Balance, Part 2: Balance

[118]

In Part 1, I provided some thoughts on the use of words to better
describe Quality.  I suggested that the use of an antonym may be more
useful than a synonym.  In my latest addition to that thread, I
proposed that the opposite of Quality is The Absurd.  Therefore
Quality is synonymous with Meaning.

As with any use of the Tao in metaphysics, a question of balance is
appropriate.  The Tao is presented by two dolphins of opposite colors
swimming against each other.  The seed for the opposite force is
depicted as respective eyes of the other.  This counter balance of
creation and destruction provides a platform for analyzing MoQ.  If we
balance Quality with Nothingness, we can assign Quality the Yin and
its antonym the Yang.  Traditionally the Yin is the feminine
counterpart to the masculine.  As such it is giving and forgiving.
The Yang is taking and unforgiving.  In truth, meaning provides much
of the former, and its opposite is indeed destructive.

So if we use this as context for further evaluation, we can analyze
how this balance is presented.  Quality must indeed be balanced as any
other force must.  Nobody can be entirely good, but must be balanced
with some bad.  The right with the wrong, and the beautiful with the
ugly.  It is this counter measured interface which brings all
relationalism to fruition.

Many (including Lao Tsu) have stressed the importance of this
relationship in all things.  However, I would beg to differ that this
is indeed the appropriate analogy.  Instead, I would like to present
the concept of Anchoring.  We can still work with two, although the
stability of such a thing is questionable.  However, for the sake of
simplicity I will do just that.  Imagine if you will an arch which has
one foot in bad and one foot in good.  Depending where one is on that
arch, will determine how ones self is understood at that particular
time.  If one is in the white, then the anchor of black is far away.
If one has high quality, then his relevance is indeed good.

To invoke another analogy I came up with on a long drive, I will ask
one to imagine one of those car games that I used to play.  Quite
simply it is a small dish with a transparent cover.  Within this toy
are little metallic balls.  The object of the game is to tilt the dish
so as to have the balls drop into the small circular recesses.  Does
that present a picture?  So now we go to task on sinking all those
balls so that none of them move.  We want to tackle the hardest ones
first since that make the game easier.  Once those are complete we
turn to the easier ones.

OK, now back to Quality in the Balance.  We have both Quality and
Emptiness as two balls on a smooth surface each seeking an anchor.
The easiest one is Emptiness since there is nothing there.  Once
stabilized, we can anchor Quality.  Once both are anchored we can then
present such a system as being in balance.  Every time the Quality
ball comes loose, it must be counter-balanced by the ball of
purposelessness.  It is this dynamic that can be used to describe the
universe of existence vs nonexistence.  When we increase the number of
balls to three, the excercise becomes more difficult, but the final
result is more stable.  The optimal number of forces to invoke is
three, since any more does not add anything to our picture.

I am not sure if this is helpful, but I am more than happy to answer
any questions, or engage in any debate.

Cheers,
Mark