GEOMETRY OF BALANCE

(This is obviously a tongue-in-cheek entry, although the geometrical argument in it is solid in its own right, especially considering the manner of its application to the subject matter.)

Before we move to the series of entries virtually equating bipolarity with balance, a question may be asked whether two points do indeed constitute a balance. We know that a bicycle (two wheels!) is a precariously unbalanced machine, and a tricycle is preferred for the safety of young children. By the same token, a two-legged chair is famously unstable, and at least three legs are needed to sit on one without a major problem.

To this legitimate argument I shall respond that indeed we need more than two points to ensure the balance of an object on a physical surface, but, come to think of it, how many points does a human being require to keep his or her balance? The last time I checked, we humans have been endowed with two legs to keep our balance on, and to use more than two points (walking on all four or on three with the help of a stick) is an unmistakable sign of either immaturity or disability. Taking this point further still, increasing the number of balance points may even spoil the equilibrium, by depriving the main two points of support of the authority to keep the proper balance.

Mathematically and philosophically speaking, the essential guarantee of stability is dichotomy. On the other hand, only God is self-sufficient enough to ensure the perfect stability of His own “fulcrum.”

(This entry is being followed in the section by the entry Bipolarity As A Condition Of Stability, posted on my blog on November 12^th, 2011, and by a series of others, posted subsequently, to which series I am now addressing the interested reader.)