It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mirrored Force and Balance

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Mirrored Force and Balance

If one is pushed too hard, one will fall backward. If one pushes too hard, one will fall forward. To keep balanced, one applies an equal amount of force to that which is applied on him. For the sake of balance, force is mirrored.

“Turn the other cheek”, “take the high-road”, “two wrongs don’t make a right”, “don’t stoop to their level”, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”—what balance is in these platitudes? The force applied is one directional. One pushes, the other falls. One slaps, the other turns the other cheek. One takes an eye, the other is without an eye.

Can one apply this principle to discourse?

Should we submit to another’s force and allow ourselves to be pushed over? Or should we apply that force equally for the sake of achieving balance?



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


what balance is in these platitudes? The force applied is one directional. One pushes, the other falls. One slaps, the other turns the other cheek. One takes an eye, the other is without an eye.

If people respond to violence with violence, it is one directional... more violence.

If I don't respond to violence then thats where it stops-- with me. Not speaking for others and how they react because I can only speak-- for me.

If I don't add to the violence then I have "turned the other cheek".



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Aphorism
Mirrored Force and Balance

If one is pushed too hard, one will fall backward. If one pushes too hard, one will fall forward. To keep balanced, one applies an equal amount of force to that which is applied on him. For the sake of balance, force is mirrored.


If pushed to hard REVERSE-back up and another falls face forward from their own force...
Which relieves the need to have to fall forward with them due to not returning opposite force.
Therefore balanced reached with one placing force upon themselves as you remain STILL...

NAMASTE*******



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





If people respond to violence with violence, it is one directional... more violence.

If I don't respond to violence then thats where it stops-- with me. Not speaking for others and how they react because I can only speak-- for me.

If I don't add to the violence then I have "turned the other cheek".


This seems a noble outlook, this I am sure. Your stance would appear to end some aspect of violence.

My problem, however, is that the violent offender would continue being violent, seeing how nothing has yet stood up to it. That violence would continue.

As an example, what if the Nazi's hadn't been met with an equal amount of violence? Would they have continued until the reached their goal?

It's like they always tell us: we will be bullied until we stand up to the bullies, to match force with force. That ends the violence more efficiently, and even teaches a lesson to the violent offender so to speak. "Oh, that's what that is like!" is what he might realize.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 





If pushed to hard REVERSE-back up and another falls face forward from their own force...
Which relieves the need to have to fall forward with them due to not returning opposite force.
Therefore balanced reached with one placing force upon themselves as you remain STILL...


I like this. Like Bruce Lee—use their own force against them. Although balance isn't achieved, one falls victim to his own force, rather than the force of another.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


The balance in 1z perspective is achieved as one remains STILL (observant of the approaching force) why the force unbalanced finds balance after falling and recognizing something went wrong with its approach.
1 can see your point however.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to said forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries, and can be summarized as follows:

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

Second law: The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to, and in the same direction as, the net force acting on the body, and inversely proportional to its mass. Thus, F = ma, where F is the net force acting on the object, m is the mass of the object and a is the acceleration of the object.

Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body.


Link is glitched because of the apostrophe, copy and paste of top link will work
edit on 13-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: Apostrophe Broke link



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 





The balance in 1z perspective is achieved as one remains STILL (observant of the approaching force) why the force unbalanced finds balance after falling and recognizing something went wrong with its approach.
1 can see your point however.


Maybe a vacuum of force in this approach is still nonetheless a force. Force cannot be applied to something that isn't there. The force applied is perhaps redirected back from whence it came, and thereby maintaining balance.

I like it. Good thinking.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


I'd like to answer your question, by seemingly going off-topic.
This answer is just for you however, though others
might find it interesting or useful (or wrong! who knows?)

Whatever else we are, we are social mammals.
It is built into our brains to seek social status.
When we achieve social status, our brains reward
us with spikes in dopamine, serotonin, endorphins,
etc.

When we lose social status, those levels drop.

In large part, we discuss our beliefs and positions
in order to express ourselves, to spread our 'memes'
into others to make ourselves more comfortable
(by attempting to make others more like ourselves)
and to gain social status.

Also, one of the key reasons that people become
involved with spiritual topics, is to fulfill those
same basic needs and mechanisms mentioned
in the previous paragraph. In short, they seek
to know and understand (and serve and be like)
'god' in order to gain social status with the
ultimate 'person'.

I'm not saying this is wrong. It's one of the reasons
I got into metaphysics myself, when I was 8.

I'd also like to share something about 'ascension'.
'Ascension' is desired for a lot of reasons, some
'valid' and some simply self-masturbatory.

To 'ascend' is to achieve the ultimate social status;
you no longer have to be concerned about what
others say about you; your brain is continuously
feeling wonderful due to those hormones, and
for other reasons.

This is one of the reasons why 'ascended people'
or 'enlightened' people can afford to be so
generous. They get all their social status
(and social status chemicals) due to a self-
masturbatory effect in the brain.

I'm not saying this is 'wrong' or 'bad'. In fact
I think it's awesome if you can 'attain' this,
WHILE being wise and mature in a completely
human way.

Now these simple mechanisms and drives are
what I'm discussing here.. I'm not saying whether
'ascension' is a real thing or not. That is another
discussion entirely.

But, unless I'm wrong, I see you examining the
issues you have posted about, in order to
better understand your own personal boundaries
and to find a certain balance --- and I understand
completely and that's exactly as it should be,
should I be characterizing this correctly.

If I'm not, or have caused distress, then I apologize.

But I thought that you might appreciate this
perspective and might possible make some use
out of it.

KPB



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear
 





But, unless I'm wrong, I see you examining the
issues you have posted about, in order to
better understand your own personal boundaries
and to find a certain balance --- and I understand
completely and that's exactly as it should be,
should I be characterizing this correctly.


You are absolutely correct.

Whether is wrong or right in the grand scheme of things I am not sure. In fact, I am unsure about most things—most especially myself and my own actions. Everything I write about is an account of myself and my own doings. I am the guilty party in all these instances. It is all self-criticism in that sense, pointing fingers at myself before another—although from outside, it appears as if I'm writing about someone else. The subsequent heat I receive is probably well-deserved. Maybe deep down I wish to be misunderstood.

I must say, your insight has been very valuable. Thank you.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 



This seems a noble outlook, this I am sure. Your stance would appear to end some aspect of violence.

Just my responsibility in the matter. Of course thats "ideal". I don't claim to be so perfect.


My problem, however, is that the violent offender would continue being violent, seeing how nothing has yet stood up to it. That violence would continue.

Maybe the offender would continue. If no one responded back then he would run out of victims. The important thing is I did not become like him. I did not sink to that level. That is the temptation. To be like him, is it not?


As an example, what if the Nazi's hadn't been met with an equal amount of violence? Would they have continued until the reached their goal?

If another side fights against the Nazis, does that make them better or the same? Look at the US decision to firebomb whole cities... look at where the victors (US) are now? We ourselves have become what we conquered. We absorbed the defeated perpetrators and their weapons and technology and made them our own. Check US war history after World War II...

I know. "Oh, the Humanity!", and "For the Children!". But really we have become what we fought against and all the calls to arms are mere disguises hiding the real intention of those in charge.

Now we are become death, the destroyer of worlds.

Most importantly we have to find a way to overcome fear, death and hate without becoming it in the process.

A lot easier said than done. I am not perfect either.

Ultimately, I can only stand in the end having been judged whether I was personally a part of the problem or not. Did I start the wars, make war back or refuse to take either side?

Its easier to fight than to walk away. Any fool can fight. Walking away gets you called a coward (by the warmongers). But really who is better off? In the end?



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


I'd just like to hug you. You are examining yourself
and the world around you and the 'issues' as honestly
as you can. You are not stuck on any particular
soap-box, and thus you are learning and growing..

I'd give anything, for that refreshing approach to be
taken more frequently by my human family. I have
in fact given everything I have for this dream of
mine to come true.

KPB



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Hi
Thanks
Nice question

Force of the foot is met by an equal force of the ground, and from this interaction arises walking...
Turning the other cheek is sand under the foot...not an equilibrium of forces.
Remaining unyielding is the action to met the force wielded by another on equal ground.

A great treatment of this is done in The Problem of Increasing Human Energy by Nikola Tesla

He describes 3 probable solutions to the problem of increasing human energy:
1. Increasing human mass
2. Decreasing the retarding (opposing) force
3. Increasing the accelerating force

In the beginning examples, we will not want to be the ground or the sand - thats resisting or giving way.
In discourse, balance is naturally neutralization, producing little by way of outcome for either force.

Thus, we dont have to turn our cheek, we simply move our entire head, and the force without contact leads to their very own imbalance - & our own immunity.

The foundational forces we apply in the above are:
Forgiveness & Understanding, Humility & Appreciation, Courage & Compassion.


LOVE



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


I find your way of describing that interesting- I never looked at it exactly that way.
I kinda see it more like getting on the same wavelength as another- as New Agey as that sounds, I am not sure it has anything to do with wavelengths... just that is what it feels like.

To relate.... somehow we need to find a common footing, where we can relate to each other, in the way we are behaving. To be able to recognize the other, or something.

When trying to communicate with someone, we try to find a form of discourse with which we are both comfortable, and perhaps accustomed to. Sometimes that easy, sometimes we are very different, and it is more difficult.

We are all used to different levels of pressure being applied to us from others, and can be more or less sensitive to it.

This began to make sense to me long ago when working with horses, ironically enough. I found different horses have very different levels of sensitivity, and a touch that one horse will not even feel can make another jump. When beginning to work with a horse that is used to be handled very roughly (even to the point of abuse) I found it sad that at first, I had to get up to the same level of harshness for the horse to recognize me and begin paying attention. Anything less would leave them walking all over me, and even trying to provoke me to react that way.

It is like, that hard pressure back has become their signal that the other acknowledges them. Anything lighter just doesn't register as a direct interaction.

Once the horse has gotten the whip cracking they are used to, then the relationship can begin to weave and you can bring down the level slowly, get them used to a gentler touch.

I really don't like to use violence, or be harsh, as I am very sensitive myself, and with a new horse (or person) of this type, I will try what I can at first to keep the exchange at a light and respectful "wavelength"... but if they just don't or can't do that, I will come on over to theirs and join them there.

I always hope to slowly work it together to a level that we both can feel comfortable at though.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Me too. I find it difficult to show any sort of force against another. I usually attempt to humour my way out in an attempt to diffuse the situation altogether. I'm not sure if this is weakness or strength. It is definitely difficult, as you say, to apply that pressure.

I think seeing this in other animals however, such as horses, is quite telling. I might also imagine two bucks going at it, fighting over the female, both slamming against each other until one gives and ultimately loses that chance because he didn't push back hard enough. The other walks away with what he came for.

Maybe nature requires that once in a while, for the sake of the species and such, that we push back. But maybe along the lines we've eliminated that competitive spirit in us somehow. Maybe we've slowly acquired other defenses that have proven themselves.

I am also an animal lover. Do you think it is still in us to learn from the other animals? Do you ever discover something about yourself when observing and being with horses?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear
 


I am overwhelmed by your kind words. Be careful though, you'll make a softy out of me yet.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


I find it easier to become consciously aware of certain things we are already doing, (on a subconscious instinctual level, as social animals), through observing animals. In an attempt to communicate with them, observing their natural ways of communication and social structure is necessary.... from there, one can't help but see the equivalent in human exchanges.

With these social animals, there is an aspect of communication which establishes dominance- which is not a "negative" - it is a protective role, responsible role. Even when two horses are steadfast and long friends, there will always be one that is dominant, the other submissive.

The exchange which expresses this and establishes it at the beginning is the "who makes the other move" game.
One gets the other to move their feet and position, and that makes them the boss. It isn't necessarily done with violence and is sometimes so subtle, we don't see it happening.

But I realized we do that too- when we try to get another to change their mind or opinion- their "stance" in mental terms. Some people will try to do that in very obvious and forceful ways, others in less forceful ways.

Dogs have their ways of communicating all this too.

I often use observation of animals as a element of therapy- simply having the person observe the herd with me. Point out what is happening between them. Because they don't relate or identify with horses right away, it is easier to see things they might not normally see bcause it hits too close to home.

But after a few days, the pattern begins to emerge in their own dealings with others, in a consciously aware way.

I am rambling on my passion, sorry.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 





I am rambling on my passion, sorry.


No, it's very interesting. This is the type of passion that actually pays off. Spending time with animals is much more beneficial than spending time with "inner worlds". I've ridden horses, very casually, but I can understand the bond one might create. They're beautiful. It's an animal we've bonded with since the beginning of history. That connection must be programmed into our DNA by now.

It interesting about the foot positioning. I'll have to see if I can notice that next time. I suppose humans aren't so subtle, even though we are very aware of visual cues.

If nature is capable of teaching us anything, it would appear that there is an instinctual competitiveness in living beings, I suppose, or an attempt to display one's power in order to reap whatever benefits that entails.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Man is insecurity gone mad.
The need to dominate has created guns.

How does it feel living in a world where one feels the need to defend oneself constantly? To have to appear bigger and better at the start of each interaction is not a pleasant way of living. Life is just a constant battle for most.

To have to judge whether one will win or lose and how much force to use is living in fear. It is this attitude that dominates most peoples lives, having to be one step ahead of the game, seeing life as a competition prevents life being seen as a magnificent work of art.
Love will not be known until the idea of winners and losers cease.
edit on 18-10-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Itisnowagain

How does it feel living in a world where one feels the need to defend oneself constantly? To have to appear bigger and better at the start of each interaction is not a pleasant way of living. Life is just a constant battle for most.


I don't know. I'm a woman. I have no attachment to being the dominant- I've not only a built in draw towards mutual cooporation-integration, like most females, I have enough experience being in the powerless position to know the upsides of that, and that it is just as nice (sometimes more so) than being in the powerful role... so I don't care which one I take.

Seems to me many males feel more of a draw towards the powerful position, not being as familiar with the benefits of the powerless role (which is simply a role- the power remains less visible to others, is all).
They often feel the need to be "bigger" or "stronger" than the other.

To me, it is just relating.
Reflection is part of relation.

When you are the dominant, the other reflects you.
They follow your lead, in tone and rythm,
(this is one of the benefits of that role, but also one of the toughest parts)
so they become your "shadow"... that you will then face.
All your hypocrisies, your self contradictions, will be glaringly obvious.
For someone interested in self development, this is a great opportunity!

So for me, I am just as happy to play the receptor with someone else,
as to play the projector.

Like I said, I have a preference for a subtle play,
But some people like it loud and pounding,
In the end, we usually end up somewhere in the middle, between classical and heavy metal!







 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join