Yesterday I decided to
cut my bushy mustache.
It was the first time in thirty five years
since we have known each other,
and seeing my lips bare
you said -
Oh dear
what have you done
I don’t know this person
who stands in front
how I am going to dance
and or make love with
a complete stranger?
That was the beginning
of our foray
into an adventurous threesome
you, me, and the stranger,
and it all happened
in the middle of the month
of a steamy May.
Having a balance arises not from the absence of conflict but from the interaction of opposing tensions.
Summary: Have a glass of wine and not three. Have a piece of chocolate and not the entire box. To rein in unconstrained runaway desires, having a restraining force would help. That force could be the sense of sobriety the realization of mortality brings.
I am always yearning for balance between striving to savor a glass of wine while resisting the temptation to reach for another. Yet, what unfolds is often the opposite of this aspiration. Even before the last sip touches the lips, thoughts of having another glass begin to swirl. Propelled by unchecked desire, the yearning for balance remains an unattainable horizon. My quest for balance between savoring (and feeling content with) a glass of wine, and not wanting another, has been a persistent call, but realizing it remains elusive.
What kind of balance, then, am I truly capable of achieving, and how?
Consider a possible state of balance as a metaphorical tightrope walk. That balance, however, is a place of unstable equilibrium. It is like a newly sharpened pencil balanced precariously on its tip. With great effort, this balance may be momentarily realized, but the slightest disturbance — a mere flutter from the wings of a butterfly — can undo it, along with all the hard work that went into it. This is not the kind of balance I seek.
Alternatively, balance could be a state of stable equilibrium. In this state, two competing forces create an outcome where opposing forces neutralize one another, allowing for stability. Achieving this state requires these opposing forces to coexist, enabling the system to settle into a middle ground. This interplay fosters an enduring state of balance that withstands life’s inevitable disruptions.
The balance I seek, thus, is not an unstable but a stable equilibrium that is longer lasting. I seek to savor a glass of wine but not drink three. Perhaps this balance will arise from the tension between two opposing forces, coexisting in harmony. The encouraging past is that such examples of balance are already part of my existence.
One such example is the tension between indulgence and restraint. Indulgence — the act of giving in to one’s desires — brings pleasure, excitement, and immediate gratification. Restraint, on the other hand, calls for discipline, patience, and long-term thinking. Alone, each force leads to extremes — indulgence to excess, ultimately harmful, and restraint to deprivation. When both are present, tempering one another, they guide life toward a middle ground of moderation.
Another pair of opposing forces that exemplifies the dynamics of balance is the relationship between control and surrender. Control represents the drive to shape, direct, and master life’s circumstances. Surrender, conversely, is the act of letting go, accepting what is beyond one’s influence, and embracing uncertainty. Life becomes unbalanced when either force dominates. Yet, when the two forces engage in constant dialogue, they create a state of equilibrium where one exerts effort without resisting the natural flow of events.
Circling back to the beginning of our quest, to find the sweet spot of balance I yearn for, perhaps what is need is an awareness of mortality as the force opposing to force of living.
Mortality brings with it the undeniable reality of life’s finitude. One of its hallmarks is the humbling realization of our impermanence. It prompts reflection on the transient nature of existence and forces us to weigh our actions.
Living with the cognition of mortality can introduce a stable balance that I seek. On one hand, mortality reminds us to embrace life, to savor its fleeting joys. On the other hand, it cautions us against allowing pleasure to become the sole, and the overarching goal. This duality of living and mortality encourages a path that is neither recklessly indulgent nor excessively cautious — a glass of wine and not three.
My yearning for balance will ultimately require an ongoing dialogue between opposing forces of living and dying, each pulling in a different direction yet working together to create harmony. The balance created by these two can augment a similar interplay between other forces that help find the middle path: indulgence and restraint, effort and rest, control and surrender, attachment and detachment, individuality and interconnectedness.
Perhaps tomorrow, as evening falls and I sit on the screened porch with a glass of wine in hand, I will savor the joy of the final sip and find the fortitude to resist reaching for another pour. It would be deeply gratifying to honor the balance between the unrestrained desires of living and the sobering discipline of mortality.
Ciao, and thanks for reading
Another year
and I will turn from x
to be an x+1,
but,
there lingers an uneasiness
that perhaps,
there is something more
the algebra of life
should have done.
Life’s sweetness lies in the balance: where effort meets ease, ambition meets contentment, and everything feels just right.
Summary: The Goldilocks Principle highlights the value of balance and moderation for optimal outcomes. Found in nature, behavior, and systems, it emphasizes avoiding extremes. Its pervasiveness may stem from observational biases, as systems in balance are more likely to endure, or from physical laws, such as thermodynamic equilibrium or competing forces in ecosystems. While not inherently dictated by first principles, the principle’s ubiquity underscores its significance in understanding and navigating the world around us.
There is the old folk tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Goldilocks, a curious little girl, wanders into the forest and stumbles upon a house belonging to three bears: Papa Bear, Mama Bear, and Baby Bear. The bears are not home when Goldilocks enters. Inside the house, Goldilocks explores and tests three sets of items that belong to the bears — the porridge, the chairs, and the bed. In the end Goldilocks chooses the porridge with the temperature that is just right, sits in the chair that feels just right, and falls asleep in the bed that has the right amount of firmness.
The moral of the story is about making choices in life that are ‘just right.’ The tale conveys the merit of moderation and the idea of finding a balance in various aspects of life to be successful and thrive. Extremes, although may feel good in the short term, have long term consequences that are sub-optimal. But alas, readily discounting the future and for the sake of immediate gratification, extremes are what we so readily fall prey to.
How pervasive is the reach of the Goldilocks Principle? Even though we may not connect the dots and realize, the Goldilocks Principle is evident in many aspects of nature, including our behavior. Nearly everything you and I do requires balance to thrive. Eat too much and we become fat and are prone to many health issues. Eating too little and its consequences have been seen in disturbing pictures of fellow humans surviving in war zones or drought-stricken regions. Similarly, excessive or insufficient exercise or sleep negatively affects our well-being. In the end it is the practice of moderation — finding a balance between extremes — that enhances our chances (but no guarantees though) of achieving a longer, healthier life.
Or consider some tasks of learning a new skill or a new subject matter where the notion of balance helps us keep interested and keep along the path of learning. If the tasks given to us as part of learning are too easy, we lose interest; if they are too difficult, we feel discouraged and are tempted to give up. A sustained interest in learning occurs when the level of the challenge of tasks presented as part of learning fall in the middle of being too easy or too hard, i.e., when they are engaging enough to keep us motivated while not making us repeatedly fail and leaving us discouraged and deflated.
For one more example, we turn to macroeconomics, where policymakers strive to balance unemployment and inflation. Low unemployment increases labor demand, driving up wages and spending, which can lead to inflation. On the other hand, high unemployment often suppresses wage growth and spending, keeping inflation low or even causing deflation.
And so, the Goldilocks Principle and the need for balance are pervasive in nature and across all aspects of human activity and perception. All we need to do is to recall the Goldilocks Principle when we see positive outcomes of following the middle way.
The Goldilocks principle also has related concepts. The graphical representation of the Goldilocks Principle is often a U-shaped or inverted U-shaped curve.
Consider graphing the relationship between exercise and its benefits to health. Plot the intensity of exercise on the x-axis and health benefits on the y-axis. At either extreme — too little or too much exercise — health benefits are minimal. However, at a moderate intensity of exercise falling in between the two extremes, health benefits are maximized, forming an inverted U-shaped curve on the graph.
Then there is also the concept of the ‘sweet spot.’ On the U-shaped or inverted U-shaped curve, the lowest or highest point represents the sweet spot — where level of input (exercise) maximizes the output (health). Moving the input away from the sweet spot only results in sub-optimal outcomes.
And so, while the Goldilocks Principle describes the need for balance, U-shaped curves often illustrate the same principle graphically, while the sweet spot identifies point where balance is achieved.
Given its pervasiveness, one might ask: why Goldilocks Principle? Is the preference for balance rooted in some first principle dictating that it shall be so? Could it be a physical inevitability for the systems embedded in a certain environment? Could it simply be an outcome of an observational bias (or an anthropic outcome) that systems in balance last longer, and therefore, have a stronger imprint on our consciousness. The configurations trying to flirt with extremes implode and are not around to draw our attention.
So, which of the explanations for the pervasiveness is correct? The answer, as often the case– it depends.
Perhaps in some cases, systems in which the balance is perceived as the norm are just a reflection of observational bias, i.e., it is when the path that weavs in between extremes is taken the outcome is a stable configuration. The resulting configuration, and the interactions that allow it to be so, are tagged as the conditions of ‘balance.’
Consider natural selection: as wheels of natural selection turn, various options are tried and tested, and only those best suited to the prevailing environmental conditions thrive. These “winners” are often perceived as the embodiment of following the path of balance between extremes. Furthermore, because these successful systems surround us, we naturally ponder the reasons for their existence.
A key point to note, however, is that the interactions that get tagged as ‘balance’ are not an outcome of an intelligent design but are inferred post facto in that whatever configuration happens to survive is credited to have the property of balance.
May be in larger scheme of things, there is no inherent reason for anything in the universe. It may simply be that our existence — and our consciousness that allows us to ask interesting questions — imbues what is out there with a sense of significance and with an outcome of an intelligent design.
Towards that, it does not help that we humans also possess a relentless curiosity, a drive to find reasons for everything. While this desire for explanation has fueled tremendous advances in our understanding of nature, it has also given rise to fantastical constructs such as religion or palmistry.
In some cases, the perceived existence of the Goldilocks Principle may simply result from underlying physical laws.
In the universe, fundamental laws and constraints shape the behavior of systems. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics dictate that when two objects at different temperatures come into contact, they exchange energy until they reach an equilibrium — state of balance.
This drive toward equilibrium can be understood at the molecular level. The temperature of an object corresponds to the agitation of its molecules. In a warmer object, the molecules are more agitated and transfer their motion energy to the less agitated molecules of a cooler object. This energy transfer continues until the molecules in both objects reach the same level of agitation — or, depending on your perspective, the same level of calmness. The tendency to achieve equilibrium is not the result of a grand design but rather an inevitable outcome of thermodynamic and dynamic constraints.
Some systems are governed by competing forces, such as the predator-prey dynamics in an ecosystem. In these, energy originates from vegetation, which herbivorous animals consume to survive. However, the availability of vegetation is limited, naturally constraining the population of herbivores. Adding to the complexity, carnivorous animals rely on herbivores as their energy source.
The dynamics among the three components, maintained by feedback loops, forms a delicate balance where vegetation supports herbivores, which in turn sustains carnivores. For the ecosystem to remain stable, neither the population of herbivores nor carnivores can grow or decline unchecked. This intricate interplay, the balance that ensues, ensures the continued well-being of the ecosystem.
We seem to be surrounded by systems that maintain some form of balance to survive and thrive. From an early age, we are taught that physical, psychological, and financial well-being often depends on following a path of moderation — avoiding extremes that may appear beneficial in the short term but rarely prove sustainable in the long run.
Some examples of equilibrium arise naturally, governed by the immutable laws of physics, while others emerge from competing forces finding a stable state to ensure their survival. Our understanding of balance is also shaped by an observational or anthropic bias: systems that follow a middle path are the ones that endure, and their ubiquity invites curiosity about whether an underlying principle compels systems to settle into balance.
While the necessity for balance may not be dictated by the first principles, its pervasive presence makes it a compelling possibility.
Ciao, and thanks for reading.