It isn’t that nature abhors a vacuum, it is that nature adores equilibrium. If anything gets out of balance, then nature will compensate. This is a basic law of chemistry and physics and a more accurate refinement of the First Law of Thermodynamics; that heat will always pass from a hotter body to a cooler body, thus balancing out the two sides and reaching an eventual state of equilibrium.
The same is true of relationships. In Political Science and Sociology, we hear the term “power vacuum” – a state that the Ancient Greeks referred to as a time with no leader, ruler or Archon, thus leaving a state of anarchy (without Archon). When there is no leader, someone will step up to the plate.
Imagine, for example, if you will, that all government and police suddenly disappeared. There is instantly no law. This is a state that Armageddon survivalists forewarn about and, we suspect, secretly long for, for one simple reason: it puts power in their hands instead of those in the government (any government). The immediate consequence of sudden lawlessness would be an increase in what had hitherto been referred to as criminal activity as armed thefts are unimpeded and vendettas carried out.
The secondary consequence would be micro-government. There will be those with the guns fending off those who embrace the new condition; these are what the NRA like to tout as the “law-abiding gun owners” but, deep in their minds they’re probably wishing for this day. And then there would be those with no preparation, who are at the will of the violent. Those with even the smallest firepower would have an advantage.
“If you want to live, stay with me and do what I say.”
Microgovernment is born. A very micro government but a leader is chosen, and subjects agree to his or her will. Anarchy doesn’t last very long. Soon these microgovernments begin to compete for resources as the situation becomes more desperate. Those who produce require protection. Those who do not, maraud and eventually these microgovernments morph into empires; safety in numbers.
Nature can not stand the idea of a power vacuum any more than a physical vacuum and, in accordance with the basic doctrine that “nature loves equilibrium” – the glue that holds our universe together – if such an imbalance does occur then nature will soon rectify the situation; anarchy decays, brutal regimes are toppled, great empires fall.
The myth of Yin and Yang is not that Yin and Yang does not exist; of course, it does. It is almost axiomatic and somewhat Newtonian. The idea is an ancient one and can be applied to hot and cold and light and dark. It cannot, however, be applied to good and evil. Good and evil are human concepts. When wild cats hunt and kill their fellow creatures for food, they do not know that their actions are tainted by humans with the concept of “evil”. In fact, if one takes the biblical approach, the concept that killing is wrong didn’t even come to human consciousness until only three and half thousand years ago or thereabouts, when Moses laid down the law of the Ten Commandments. The historical approach places the prohibition only a thousand years earlier, a mere fraction of the time that man has been on the stage.
The myth of Yin and Yang is that it is about good or evil; these are relative terms, only applicable due to human morality and of no scientific worth as they are not absolutes in the Universe. Make no mistake, however, that the concepts of “good” and “evil” have ample worth in terms of the definition of civilization and the relative betterment of mankind – we are not advocating a heartless, utilitarian approach; merely an attempt to separate fact from emotion and to clarify terminology.
It goes deeper than Mao’s assertion that political power comes through the barrel of a gun, it is that morality comes from political power and, by extension, through the barrel of a gun. Any attempted genocide begins with a dehumanization process, aimed at shifting morality from a belief that a particular target is worthy of sympathy to a belief that they are vermin to be eradicated. Such was the rhetoric used by the Nazi regime. As far as they were concerned, and under their twisted paradigm, extermination was the moral thing to do, particularly with the infirmed.
In order for the law of equilibrium to apply in human matters, there must be a defined “pivot point”; an agreed line that shall not be crossed. The majority of us agree that mass-murder, regardless of perception, is “morally wrong.” Obviously, some people – the perpetrators – have the perception that such things are acceptable, otherwise they would not happen, but clearly, they do. The Law of Yin and Yang would suggest that such people are necessary if applied to human affairs, but it’s obvious they aren’t – many societies flourish without a brutal dictator in charge. The “pivot point” for murder has been shifted so far that the balance would require an inordinate shift in public perception to overcome the equilibrium. This is the uphill battle that the extreme right faces in developed countries.
Given the premises presented: that nature loves equilibrium and that good and evil are human constructs to which the law of equilibrium does not naturally apply, the question then arises as to why we consider it does. The law of equilibrium applies when it comes to conflict and that is the root. Whether you are left-leaning or right-leaning, the natural necessity of equilibrium comes from the conflict and the balance is the weight behind each argument (preferably logical, but often physical, in the form of violence as Mr Mao suggested).
We look at these conflicts from our own points of view and we declare the other opinion to be “evil.” Therefore, we conclude, the fight is between good and evil. We might even say that it is between right and wrong, but such monikers are driven from our own perceptions: we are right, therefore, they are wrong and, if they are wrong and fighting for it, then they must be evil.
It’s an easy rabbit-hole to fall into but it is entirely fallacious. By the Church’s definition, that which is “wrong” is that which is designed to dogmatically dominate, as this forcibly shifts the pivot point to that extreme that the extreme right longs for. As with the proclamation of the Age of Enlightenment, the Church stands by the rights of the individual and the voice of the people, except where that will be to deprive said people of either of these rights (in other words, even if everyone says we should have a dictator, we shouldn’t). As the Law of Equilibrium (or Yin and Yang) does not apply to human affairs except where it is unnaturally applied, and as it has been falsely applied in the past, it is up to us to choose intelligent applications of the law in the future, as nature will not do it for us.
