Balance is something that I've been thinking of. Metaphorically speaking, and literally. Now, anyone who knows me decently knows that I like metaphors, and well, they don't always work. So the fact that I'm thinking metaphorically should tell you that what I'm saying might not make sense. I'm honestly not sure if it makes sense to me. But think about this:
A seesaw works on the principle of leverage. Yeah, odd. But just hang with me. A seesaw is classified as a 1st class lever, meaning that the fulcrum, or balance point, is located in between the input effort and output load. When two people of equal weight sit down on the seesaw, everything is perfectly balanced. But what happens when one of the two people messes up something? You see, with the fulcrum located perfectly in the center of the effort and the load, and when the effort matches the load, nothing occurs. The lever is at equilibrium. The movement of both sides is 0, and therefore, the net movement is 0. Perfect equilibrium. By the way, please excuse the following images. I threw them together quickly in photoshop to illustrate my point.
So, seesaws. And messing up. Say one person places his legs on the ground and pushes. The creates an imbalance in the equilibrium of things. Suddenly, side A is moving up. What does side B do? Well, because this is a lever, side B has to move down. The movement of A is, let's say, +5. In order to maintain that equilibrium, side B must move away from the equilibrium by a magnitude that's the exact opposite of side A. So, side A has a movement of -5. (+5) + (-5) = 0. Equilibrium is maintained. Balance is still obtained. Equilibrium may not be obtained, because there is movement, but balance is maintained.
You see, a lever requires a perfectly straight, immobile, inflexible piece of material. No hinges, no elasticity. If one side moves away from equilibrium, the other side has no choice but to move away. With hinges, or elasticity, one side could move higher, to a different state. The other side could then remain immobile by resisting, or could even push up with side A. But it wouldn't be forced down in response to side A's movement up.
Wouldn't that be amazing? Maybe not. But I can think of a few cases where it has happened like that. And a few cases where I would prefer if things were like that. Situations where an unexpected movement from one side didn't require the other side to act in the opposite way. Perhaps in these cases, its for the better. I just wish that it didn't happen that way. Christ, of course, is a bit different. He operates with that hinge in place, if you will. We can move closer to him or farther away, but he only moves in one direction: To us. Because he loves us. I feel it necessary to make this point, even though, in this post, I'm not referring to that. Either way, what I'm saying is, sometimes, I wish things had hinges. I wish that one side's movement didn't force the other side to move in the other direction. I really wish that. But that's how it works, sometimes. The only way to change it up would be to break the seesaw. Then, the two sides could join the seesaw back together however they wanted. But then again, that wouldn't be a lever, would it? Levers, levers, levers. Literally, you serve as a way to entertain kids.
I hate levers. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment