Math, platonic truths, structures, balance and imbalance, Object-oriented ontology
Mathematically (in my estimation), balance cannot be derived. And there is no centre in and of Mathematics. Math knows platonic truths. It knows structures. But it doesn't know/give us structural balance or imbalance.
Balance and imbalance to me are, too, existential aspects. Platonic truths. So the 'conclusion' of this is (would be):
- Mathematics is a part of the platonic Plural of truth. Mathematics is itself true and/or gives us insights into some truths/some true aspects of Existence.
- Mathematics is not all. It's not a whole/complete basis of existing things/Existence.
- Structures as such are a platonic truth/existential aspect. But they are (logically, not causalistically) secondary to the Plural of discretely existing truths.
- In time and space (in action) and in the human condition, Balance and Imbalance are parallel existing to (other) platonic aspects of existence. Every particular structure has also its (added, co-existing) balance and imbalance ‘sides’/’effects’. But neither structure nor balance/imbalance can be dissolved into one of each other.
This is reminding me of my idea/understanding of Object-oriented ontology by Graham Harman and others.
”Graham Harman (born May 9, 1968) is a professor at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. He is a contemporary philosopher of metaphysics, who attempts to reverse the linguistic turn of Western philosophy.”
Isn’t this sympathic anyway? ;-)