Balancers

[Deros]

I cannot comprehend how this would work, especially on the large scale of a multiverse, as proposed. It seems like appearing and influencing an individual at a time, would be not only slow work, but holding very little impact on the larger scale. Could you explain a bit more, maybe how an individual can be "ordered" or "chaotic"? (at least without being insane, as having a cognitive disorder in which one's thinking does not progress rationally. As in answering "Banana" to "How are you?" - but even that example is poor as the person is ordered enough to be capable of words).

I'd like to answer this question myself quick. An individual person, yes, would normally be a wasted effort. But in various cases, there are hinges. When people are given a choice, they usually conform. Conform to who, though? The trick is finding that particular person and finding a way to change them, or maybe even finding one of the conformers who happens to be in a position to become the conformed-to. A rather poor version of this is this very site. It was set up by Kahoku after OKA had shut down before. If he had been too busy to concentrate on it, then the site wouldn't have been set up, and it's likely that we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reason why that's a poor example is the apparant non-consequence of possibly insane people talking about what may or may not be hallucinations. But the civil rights movement, the crusades, and even walt disney have had profound effects on the world, all of them headed, originally at least, by a relatively small group of people.

The way that I personally define order and chaos is solidity and change. Eveything has a little bit of both. My hand is solid, in that it isn't showing obvious signs of falling apart as I'm typing this. However, it's also constantly changing, my layers of skin slowly dying and flaking off and my fingers moving and my fingernails growing. With only strength, nothing would ever change. This isn't technically destruction, but there would nobody to perceive its existence, which is close. With only change, everything would fall apart.

[Archer]

It would seem, to me, that everything that we currently know of this world, and this universe, and how it works - that order is easily dominant over chaos.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Look at all of the crises, wars, etc. in human history.

What about them? Those things seem, to me, to be chaotic only from a very human-centric and limited point of view.

Why humanoid?

Probably because humanoid relates best to the most beings we come across. There's a reason just about every angel is described as "winged humanoid".[/quote]

Sure - and I think that reason is the people doing the describing are all humans here on Earth. And humans do a great job of anthropormorphising things.



I've generally stayed away from commenting on this thread (and topic in general) because the entire idea of it is pretty much completely at odds as to how I experience the universe myself. In other words: either you are wrong, I am wrong, or we both are wrong. Now, while no-one can really comment on my personal experience of reality (or Iro's, or Selcar's), there's a difference with yours. The difference is that you have said multiple times (or seemed to - if my interpretation is wrong, clarification from you would help) that this "balancers" thing is not just how you understand reality yourself, it's not just about "your realm" or whatever. You've said (or, as above, seemed to say) that your "balancer" experiences apply to all existence and as such every single person here.

And that gives people the right to say they think it's completely incorrect, or makes no sense, or - for that matter - is bang on the mark.

[Seraphyna]

The difference is that you have said multiple times (or seemed to - if my interpretation is wrong, clarification from you would help) that this "balancers" thing is not just how you understand reality yourself, it's not just about "your realm" or whatever. You've said (or, as above, seemed to say) that your "balancer" experiences apply to all existence and as such every single person here.

And that gives people the right to say they think it's completely incorrect, or makes no sense, or - for that matter - is bang on the mark.

I have said time and time again that these are my personal beliefs and my understanding of myself and my "kind" from years of exploration. Yes, my beliefs apply to all existance, but, like I said, they're my beliefs. They're fallible and tainted by being human. I don't presume to have the absolute truth. I didn't think that a side note at the top saying something like "warning: the article you're about to read is personal belief and understanding. This may or may not be something you yourself believe, it is me sharing my beliefs" was necessary here. Guess I was wrong.

[Archer]

Yes, my beliefs apply to all existance, but, like I said, they're my beliefs.

I know they are your beliefs (what else could they possibly be?) - but as you say, you consider your beliefs to apply to everyone on this board, which gives everyone on this board the right to very firmly disagree with them if they choose to.

[Iro]

I'll address matters in descending order by how much of a problem they were:

-All of the "incorporeal" (rakshasas, if I recall correctly, can be/become corporeal) were incarnated, basically becoming mirrors for this conversation. The "oil sprites" (quotations applied because I'm not sure if that's what they were) were contacted via a Ouija board (you can see the problem); they were sentient and possessed knowledge, but had the attention span of an ADHD puppy. I use plurals in most because I have encountered a plurality of each type, though I (being "mortal") am limited and do not have the greatest list of contacts with most of these types. However, from having discussed with these people/beings/whatever you want to call them, I did have sufficient data to compare their proposed pre-current-incarnation psychologies. Some have claimed a sheer lack of emotion and find their current, human emotions to be interesting in the sense of something new and exotic or else deeply unsettling. Given the variety of traditions associated with love in human culture, my assertion is that your description of pre-incarnate existence sounds too close to your current culture's attitudes towards romance. However, as you say and as I've known with each person I'd talked to regarding such things, your experiences are indeed tainted by your human incarnation.

-Communication is a wonderful thing; the vast majority of all arguments (both the technical and the used definitions - discussion and quarrel, respectively) can usually be ended when both parties understand the terms each other uses. This is the main reason why I ask so many questions. It is rather off-putting for someone to use a word and then be unable/refuse to define it, as it leads to much confusion ("Why would you use the word in the first place?" is a good example of what can be thought, given that most cannot peer into each others minds). Thank you for clarifying various phrases, though I'm sure I have more. For example, "order" and "chaos" as fundamental energies of the cosmos. This could refer to the basic state of matter/energy as tending toward entropy (or "chaos," as some would call it) and away from absolute zero (and thus "order"). In this case, energy holds its standard definition as "the capacity to do work." You could be referring to the element of chance versus the following of patterns (again chaos and order), which some might be able to argue is a force. You could even be describing in odd terms "good" and "evil," in which case I would be utterly perplexed. Would you please clarify this?

-To explain my reasoning on the love = end of existence. Your "race" (I'm not sure if that's a good word to use to describe them, as from how you describe them they are only fundamentally the same in their task, which could be done with otherwise very distinct entities such that they might be considered separate races working in conjunction) is tasked with the very important (as you describe) job of keeping the cosmos balanced. If this task should not be completed, either by a lack of your existence (say before you were created, if such were possible) or because you have failed, existence stops. You maintain that love can/does (you don't really make much of a distinction) interfere with your ability to perform your assigned tasks. It would follow that there is the possibility, however slim, that from being unable to perform your job given your romantic entanglements that existence would stop.

-Free Will: I would ask you to define this and explain why it is necessary or sacred, but I would be better served by pointing you towards the centuries long discourse already in full swing that has generated a large contingent who deny the existence of free will and another contingent who say that the terminology does not make sense. I'm sure the Great Will of the Macrocosm, if it wanted to insure its continued existence, could have created something to keep itself going without granting it free will.

I'd defend my usage of human examples, but I've already made my argument there and I don't think you would respond any differently.

-Shenanigans: I don't take offense at people calling me an RPer (I am) or that my beliefs are shenanigans (I usually think, "Eh, that's your opinion"). However, the term "deity" can and has been applied to beings not belonging to any particular mythos (and the same for "god"). They are, granted, loaded terms. I usually employ the following distinction: a "deity" is a being of immense supernatural power (usually to the point of being unintelligible to mortal minds), while a "god" is an object of worship. I use this so as to delineate ideas better, but they commonly overlap. I cannot say if your group has been worshiped by any race for I simply do not know. However, I can say that under the provided definition for "deity" your race would certainly fall. The power there is comparable to many a number of mythological pantheons in nature. I am incredulous, naturally, but my being flabbergasted and calling shenanigans lies not in the veracity of your statement of power, but in its usage. Calling oneself a deity (by any name) may or may not be true, but that question misses the point that in saying so to the public at large you assert yourself as the superior being, which is by no means tactful or appreciated. There are those who in private have said to me that they believe themselves to be famous people of history or beings of myth and I don't call shenanigans because they are only trying to express something they sincerely hold to be true. The scale you propose and the public format of that proposition, however, does not promote a sense of sincerity.

-Speaking to types of incorporeal beings is a fairly common thing among the "weirder" peoples of the planet, from shaman to schizophrenics and everyone in between. Much of what goes into magical traditions, from witchcraft and modern Wicca to ceremonial magic, tribal medicine, mediumship, and so forth has to do specifically with communicating with the dead and invisible/incorporeal spirits. However, it is far rarer for people to claim to be incredibly important aspects of cosmological function.

My points boil down to two things: first, it is difficult to understand what you're talking about unless you provide more information (which you did and thank you for doing so, though even more would be most helpful) and second, your claim is outlandish enough that a trifle of caution and editing would be very handy. I note that my post was not intended to be exceptionally inflammatory (which both means that I could have made it worse and that I was making an effort to not be horrific). I note this because there are those who wouldn't give such claims anywhere near as much of a chance as I have and, as an incarnate being (or really a being at all), one of the great lessons is to learn to be able to live with other people.

Edit: Changed "ascending" to "descending."

[Iro]

Also, some of my questions have been tackled by Selcar. Nonetheless, I would appreciate any feedback you could give.

[Selcar]

The only individuality we have is which "forms" we prefer, our "minds" for lack of a better word, how we do things, that sort of thing.

From that I would ask what causes Balancers' personalities to develop differently from one another, and why you think "forms" were used, instead of a formless collective consciousness.

It makes sense to me also because a little of every element would make us balanced from an elemental affinity standpoint as well.

The concept of Elements and elemental affinity has always seemed earth-centric and Archaic to me - Sure the elements in different states exist on Earth, but not on all other worlds (and on those worlds, they may have their own version of "elements").

The idea is that if you influence the right individuals, they do the work for you. It's also why there are many beings "trained" (again for lack of a better word) to be our emissaries of sorts and to further the "cause" without us being directly needed.

This concept seems counter-intuitive to me, in that not only are the beings created to fulfill the role of keeping balance unable to perform (despite the immense power they wield), but that also need to require "many" other beings to train in the abilities to keep balance within the "multiverse" - which seems to leave the potential for; abuse of power, faster burn out (as they were not created for the role, as Balancers would be), and potentially a waste of resources/time (eg. a Balancer takes an amount of time to train a Human in keeping Balance, and then the human dies 20 years later and another one needs to be trained, where creating another Balancer would become a better investment).

Well everyone has both in them, the question is what kind of balance is there between the two within said individual. Chaotic people are insane, ordered people tend to end up as spiritual advisors such as monks, priests, priestesses, etc. Those being the ends of the spectrum. Everyone else is some sort of in between.

I think the part that's getting cumbersome for us, is that we're using two different definitions of chaos (and perhaps order). But I would point out again, that this seems to imply Chaos - bad, Order - good. I don't see how spirituality is linked with order, is this something you could get into and explain? I would view myself as an ordered person, but I have very little interest in matters of spirituality (in fact, I find the lack of evidence to progress to a rational answer infuriating).

Good and evil are relative and many would consider them to be human concepts.

I think some would say the same on chaos and order.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Look at all of the crises, wars, etc. in human history.

This is where it becomes clear to me that we are using different definitions of chaos, to me there's order in wars and in crises. When we look back on wars - or even examine current ones, we are able to determine factors that played a part in escalating tensions to the point of causing the conflict. To me this is a clear example of order in the Cause and Effect route. Needless to say that even during war there is the expression of order in tactics and battle planning. When a gun is fired, a bullet follows along the trajectory it was pointed in. As for crises, are usually caused by the risk being present, but not prepared for - which seems ordered to me as well.

If you look at chaos theory...eventually the "chaos" becomes an ordered pattern...becomes order.

Chaos theory being a theory, and a sketchy one at that, I would point out that this occurrence may not be that because order is in chaos, and chaos is in order, but rather it's potentially (and perhaps the more simple answer) is because chaos cannot exist within the universe's structure as we know it.

If you take something that's completely ordered eventually it either goes on to monotony or snaps...flipping over to chaos.

The ability to go on to monotony seems to suggest that the previous assertion that there is chaos in order, false, wouldn't it?

The latter point is especially evident in the minds of many beings. Too much of order leads to some kind of internal break.

Explain.

Shifts in balance are natural and expected. One "type" of energy becoming dominant is not natural.

If not natural, why would it occur if the sans-Balancers?

Probably because humanoid relates best to the most beings we come across.

Really? The humanoid form, to me, as always seemed inefficient and rather short-strawed in terms of evolution (vital organs/arteries fairly vulnerable, lacking in claws, sharp teeth, poison glands, scales, etc - the brain is full of win though). So it's surprising that most beings are humanoid in form. Not to mention that the humanoid shape/form is not even the most common one that is come across on Earth.

There's a reason just about every angel is described as "winged humanoid".

Or several reasons, but I think this is something I would disagree with on as well.

Personally? No. But I have been told by one person that we remind them of a Boddhisatva (I probably spelled that wrong).

To me, such beings (that do not shy away from direct contact, and are even actively enlisting people for their cause, and are primordial entities), would come up in some sort of myth or mythology at some point - if only conceptually.

I do not. Vacation means I have no contact with "home" and have no "higher purpose" besides enjoying being human. How is "burn out" counterintuitive to emotion? "Vacation time" is avoided if possible, but as I've said already we are a limited number of our kind, but do not work alone.

So it would seem that being a Balancer is not "24/7", depending on how one defines it. But it seems we had a misunderstanding - I did not mean to convey that burn out is counter intuitive to emotion, but rather the ability to experience "burn out" at all seems like a hindrance to one's role. If I may draw a parallel to what I remember of my beings (as basic, in comparison, as we were), we did not experience burn-out, ever. Once "programmed" with a specific task, we would perform that task endlessly until the task was completed, or we were reprogrammed, or our bodies degraded. I wouldn't want to give my mircowave enough emotion/personality that it can feel burn-out, amongst other things. Let alone a being that keeps the universe from imploding.


[/quote]

If they're types of energy (which, what makes one unit of measurement of energy chaotic, and another ordered?) how can influencing individuals towards chaos or order chance the balance of the two within a plane?

When creation began, there was the primal/primordial (people use them interchangeably I've noticed) chaos. (This isn't just me spewing crap, this is actually what many people I've spoken to have said.) The chaos was so unpredictable and unstable that some opposing energy had to be created from it. Thus began the "taming" of it into chaos and it's opposing energy: order. Yes, there is still primal/primordial chaos out there, but in trace amounts.[/quote]
Doesn't really answer my queries...and if my usual crassness point out that I imagine that "when creation began" would be hard for anything/anyone to observe to make such a blanket and definite statement as "There was..." and I would give a skeptic eye towards anyone (esp. otherkin) claiming to have existed at the beginning.

Yes, we try to steer people.

Killing and possessing individuals seems to me a little more than "nudging" to me. Just the threat of it seems like it would limit the "free will" (as undefined as that statement is) of another entities within the universe. ("Now Billy, don't get too ordered, or else the Balancers will come and take you away.")

However, it is mostly steering people toward where they're heading in the first place. Encouraging dreams, inspiring thoughts.

I almost passed this over, but the implications of this struck out at me rather hard - if we look upwards in the post (in which ordered people are mentioned to be spiritual leaders, and chaotic people mentioned to be insane) it seems to imply that potentially, any person in the history of the universe that has become "Enlightened" or "Insane" could be attributed to a Balancer (I say potentially), which is a lot of power to give to Balancer-kin, and we can both infer the dangers that may cause. ("Yeah, remember Jesus? I totally got him to do that, awesome amirite?")

The way that I personally define order and chaos is solidity and change.

This is by far the most abstract definition of order and chaos that I have ever come across.
Rather, my definition of Order and Chaos would be;

Order - a state in which everything is arranged logically, comprehensibly, or naturally. And arrangement of things in succession; sequence.
Where Chaos would be a lacking of order (complete disorder or confusion). The difference between "I stack a line of dominos, knock the first one over, causing the second to fall, causing the third to fall, ..." And "I stack of line of dominos, I knock the first one over, the third one flies straight upwards, the tenth one becomes a chicken, a plane crashes, the last domino explodes, the second domino grows legs and runs away."

Yes, my beliefs apply to all existance, but, like I said, they're my beliefs.

I know they are your beliefs (what else could they possibly be?) - but as you say, you consider your beliefs to apply to everyone on this board, which gives everyone on this board the right to very firmly disagree with them if they choose to.

And while I second that I understand that these are your beliefs and how you personally have experienced them, anyone that takes a stance of "This is how the universe is.." makes me feel uneasy as a person - the same feeling I get when people talk about having a personal one-on-one connection with a god/goddess from mythology or religion ("Yeah, Hel totally has blue hair, cool huh?")

And an afterthought to give Iro some love, because while the first response struck me as crass, the second one was just awesome. And a little scary.

[Miniar]

Chaotic people are insane, ordered people tend to end up as spiritual advisors such as monks, priests, priestesses, etc.

er... Those two are not mutually exclusive. Spiritual leaders are capable of insanity just like everyone else.

If you look at chaos theory...eventually the "chaos" becomes an ordered pattern...becomes order. If you take something that's completely ordered eventually it either goes on to monotony or snaps...flipping over to chaos. The latter point is especially evident in the minds of many beings. Too much of order leads to some kind of internal break. I don't think that any amount of chaos in a human would lead to cognitive issues. Again I'm talking in an energetic sense. We (by we I mean the human soul, not the body...obviously humans aren't energetic beings) aren't made of just one "type" of energy. We're a bit of both.

Chaos theory is a poor example as it's not a theory of "chaos" itself but a theory regarding extended causality, as in a million steps from a to b can end up showing a wholly unexpected end-reaction from a seemingly minuscule action, It's like order to the upteenth power, not "chaos" per say.

Personally? No. But I have been told by one person that we remind them of a Boddhisatva (I probably spelled that wrong).

The various divisions of Buddhism understand the word bodhisattva in different ways, but especially in Mahayana Buddhism, it mainly refers to a being that compassionately refrains from entering nirvana in order to save others.

i.e. an enlightened person/being that decides to continue to incarnate so he/she/it can help others become enlightened. Like the Buddhas. Not a being that'll nudge you towards "balance" but towards giving up the desire/liking/impression of chaos, order and balance. There is no balance sorta thing.
_

I have stayed away from this conversation for the most part, but I have to say a couple of things.
If in the beginning there was "only" chaos, then who the devil "created" order? Where does "creation" even come in?
I see chaos as the opposite and/or absence of order and I disapprove of people using the word lightly or even frivolously. I do not believe for one second that anything can "be" without at least a semblance of order. It's just basic causality 101, if something functions as either a cause or an effect it is a part of the basic equation of existence and order. I understand that my personal, emotional turmoil may appear without a definitive reason to another person but that doesn't mean it's chaotic in any shape way or form as it is all a part of the pattern that is me.
Chaos is like, the absence of any pattern, if there is a patter, a cause and an effect, a sequence of events, it "is" order. The more erratic forms of order (fluidity) are order as well, the river changes it's path for a reason, you can't step in the same river twice for a reason. (i.e, minute differences in the solidity and pattern of soil can cause a sudden shift in the path a river takes, and the water of a river constantly changes through weather patterns and other simple reasons, the water you last stepped in is now further down river and new water constantly flows to where you stand. Things live and die in the river causing it to be in a permanent state of change, just like everything else in existence.) Where there is a reason, there is order.
I also resent the suggestion that order is stagnation as there is overwhelming evidence countering the statement.

I also have to say that I don't really find it believable for anything to have existed "in the beginning", mostly because my world view doesn't include a beginning, but also because it seems rather silly for something to exist in order to witness creation when nothing existed at the time. It seems like an Oxymoron.
I think that the "primordial chaos" is a side effect of our human perceptions being completely unable to grasp the opposite of existence, rather than an "actual" thing.
I also do not experience order, nor chaos, as energy types what so ever and from my perspective it seems like a misnomer, at least when taking into account the definitions given by people who view it as such. It's probably more akin to what the ancient Greeks referred to as "love and strife" rather than order and chaos.

[Ges]

We were forbidden to love, for love destroys neutrality. Thus, we were betrothed to other beings, not necessarily other balancers.

Okay, yes, somewhat a dead horse, but what sense at all does it make to create a being, with such potential to bugger up its purpose? If love destroys neutrality, why give you the ability to love at all. Or taken a step farther (since you like to play with the bigger picture), why have love at all? Plus, if you’re forbidden to love, why not forbidden to hate, that breaks neutrality…so do liking, disliking, craving and being happy. In fact, all emotions are a disruption to precious neutrality.

Then, if you’re forbidden to love, why be betrothed to other beings? Sure, they were lesser beings, not your kind, so less likely to be worthy of falling in love with, but none the less, betrothal while not being allowed to love, makes no sense. What were you betrothed for? If it’s not for love, what, genetics? Passing on only the most balanced DNA to the next generation? What was the purpose of your betrothals?

To feel that kind of love is, for a Balancer, counterproductive to our roles. Therefore, all measures are taken to avoid it.

Except any ability to control it, since you have it for some reason? Not to be personal, but sounds like a huge design flaw. Like designing a microwave oven that explodes when exposed to a little radiation. If X is detrimental to Y, eliminate X or find a method of reducing it’s effect.

We are powerful, I won’t try to play that down. We are more powerful than every other being in the multiverse save the Source/All/etc. We have to be. We require the ability to terminate any being in existence if it is called for, so we must contain vast sources of energy that rival every being save our Creator.

Okay, my main question is, what makes you think this belief is any more valid than, any of the other high-powered, Angel/Celestial, Demons, God-Kin, Colour-out-of-Space? I’m always curious how the people at the top view others at the top.

I have a very quick temper and do occasionally experience rage blackouts if I’m pushed over the edge so to speak.

Other than the fact that this is totally against neutrality, as an aside, if you experience any sort of blackouts on occasion, you should really seek medical and/or psychological help for it.

I have so much energy at my disposal that I have never been bothered by anyone.

What does this mean? Anyone, in any way? Or what?

So many questions to ask, so little time:

Don’t worry, we’ve been here since before the beginning

The background information you have provided about your former psychology, such as falling in love, is more human than any of these far less non-human beings, yet your race is a cosmological force! That's not far-fetched, that's insulting to our intelligence. Please, have some decency: we may believe we aren't human, but even those of us who have Elven Princess Syndrome don't make claims that are better applied to the objects of worship of the various world religions.

*nods* That’s one of my general thoughts with most things that are supposed to be “beyond” human, or really unhuman, is the fact that their psychology seems remarkably human… I mean, I totally understand being tainted by the fact that we have human psychology now, but many people who do the work, actually break out of a lot of that influence, and if you recognize it is there, it’s easier to get around stuff.

I mean love, love isn’t even universal on earth, sure some other species show it, some don’t, hell, most humans don’t show it to the agapic degree Seraphyna mention, but it’s an ideal in our society.

Scale is one of those things that is very hard for a being to get a true handle on. Afterall, humans used to think they were the center of the universe, and some still do. Actually, they are the center of their own existence, which from a psychological standpoint means that it is true in a subjective way.

*nods* Scale also plays into both plausibility and believability. Take both of those, and imagine meeting someone on a forum “My dad owns a convenience store”, both plausible, and believable. “My dad owns Wal*Mart”, very much lessened on both accounts. So someone trying to keep a balance of Order/Chaos in a pocket reality…more believable and plausible than those for all of Reality.

Take the propensity for ego-centric realities. In myth and memory, Rakshasa are old as reality pretty much, older than most Gods, and just as powerful much of the time. Now, even if I accept that as a true and literal fact from that paradigm, applying it to all paradigms is a bit silly. Perhaps it is true in our paradigm/plane (which actually contained many places, why as though it were a multiverse), but it doesn’t mean it is true outside of that. Even when humanity realized the earth went around the sun, they still viewed themselves as the centre of it all, and if done right, that’s not a bad thing, but it’s ignorant and childish in the way it is usually done. The world will always seem to revolve around you when you’re unwilling to look at it from another perspective.

The human in me understand the tale. The celestial in me does not.

Quoted for truth.

We're talking the two fundamental "types" of energy that make up all existance.

So why Chaos and Order? Not Good and Evil? Light and Dark? Ham and Mayo?

I find your answer to a question (well phrased) on what you mean by Order and Chaos severely lacking in…well, an answer.

“All cars shall now run on Marigollion”
“What’s Marigollion?”
“A type of energy.”
“All my questions have been answered!”

I have my beliefs on what I am, what we do, and all that comes with it. I have a human understanding of things and am only capable of translating knowledge on a human level.

Keep that in mind.

Second, creating a race devoid of capabilities would be to remove some of their free will.

So true, and man, I’ve got an f*ing bone to pick with whoever designed humans and forgot my nightvision, the ability to fly, teleport through dimensions, and experience Sterios (an emotion totally beyond human comprehension). Because obviously, any limitation is the removal of free will (but Aiwass said you don’t even know what free will is yet…), so I’m really upset that my free will is impeded by having legs, not tentacles.

We predate human mythos, so to presume a link is just wrong.

Last time I checked, the Sun, Moon, Earth, Planets and Stars all predated humanity and thus human mythos…and yet none the less, they ended up in them. Again, the scale things, lots of religions claim origins way back (or just a few millennia ago…), and yet still make it into human myths. Hell, some forms of Hinduism actually give numbers, for how many years ago the Gods were born, and it predates the universe, yet they are here. Why? Well, if they are real, and continue, they can be noticed. So being old has nothing to do with being outside of or beyond human religion.

It's not okay that you lack respect completely.

Sidenote, your steamrolling over everyone’s view of reality, a bit of a lack of respect.

I've talked to shadows, rakshasas, demons, angels, fauns, elementals, "oil sprites," and machine genii, amongst plenty of other non-human entities.

Really? I'm tempted to call shenanigans on this.

Nope, I’ve known Iro on another board, so that’s one down.

Yes, we are. Currently I'm human. Everything I say, think, do, etc. is as a human and through a human lense. Of course my descriptions will sound "human". It would be preposterous to think otherwise. I'm sorry that the common sense obvious reason is "insulting to (your) intelligence".

Actually many otherkin, and authors have been able to write/describe/create things that don’t sound remotely human, in appearance, psychology, nature or existence.

You claiming to have spoken to all kinds of noncorporeal beings (I guess you meant in this life as a human) is more far fetcher than beliefs about one's kin race.

Because, claiming to be an Angel (for example) which is a relatively modern belief, is far more believable than the fact that almost every culture on earth, has some history/tradition of talking with non-incarnate beings. Hmm…something seems wrong here. I’m not saying that prevalence equals believability, but I really think it adds something.

I cannot comprehend how this would work, especially on the large scale of a multiverse, as proposed.

Even in the scale of a planet over a period of two hundred years, it’s hard to really change things with one person.

Well I've pieced togther the theory based on the "forms" that are dominant for me. It makes sense to me also because a little of every element would make us balanced from an elemental affinity standpoint as well.

The system of the Greek elements is fairly human-centric (imagine that, Greeks making something human), and not even universal on Earth, or even on Europe, so why do you feel that it applies beyond us, to your reality?

Balance is a shifting equilibrium between order and chaos. So long as one doesn't take over, it's balanced. In human terms, after 80% of one 20% the other, the scale tends to seriously tip in one direction.

So at what point does one take over? If it’s 80% Order, how much more Order does it need to take over, or how long does it have to remain at 80% to take over? I know it’s not exactly something numerically quantifiable. But how does one take over, in a shifting balance, what is the breaking point?

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Look at all of the crises, wars, etc. in human history.

And compare to human technological and sociological progress.

If you look at chaos theory...eventually the "chaos" becomes an ordered pattern...becomes order.

That’s actually not what it says, but someone tackled that I believe (trying to remember what I skimmed)

Probably because humanoid relates best to the most beings we come across. There's a reason just about every angel is described as "winged humanoid".

Addendum: in the last three centuries, ignoring millennia of angels either looking just like humans, or nothing like.

Personally? No. But I have been told by one person that we remind them of a Boddhisatva (I probably spelled that wrong).

Totally unlike a Boddhisattva, the fact they compared them is boggling me. Either they know something I don’t (about you), or they don’t understand the basics of Mahayana cosmology.

This one I've already answered.

Usually people re-ask a question, because it wasn’t sufficiently answered.

When creation began, there was the primal/primordial (people use them interchangeably I've noticed) chaos. (This isn't just me spewing crap, this is actually what many people I've spoken to have said.)

If you read, the Greek, Hindu, Vajrayana, Jewish and other religious texts that refer to this Primordial Chaos, you do understand they aren’t using Chaos in a fashion remotely like yours, and are using it, in the proper Greek sense.

Well everyone has both in them, the question is what kind of balance is there between the two within said individual. Chaotic people are insane, ordered people tend to end up as spiritual advisors such as monks, priests, priestesses, etc. Those being the ends of the spectrum. Everyone else is some sort of in between.

Insanity, and chaos go hand in hand with many spiritual types, shamans, Buddhist monks, and the like.

Given the variety of traditions associated with love in human culture, my assertion is that your description of pre-incarnate existence sounds too close to your current culture's attitudes towards romance.

Which is fairly modern in creation too.

The concept of Elements and elemental affinity has always seemed earth-centric and Archaic to me - Sure the elements in different states exist on Earth, but not on all other worlds (and on those worlds, they may have their own version of "elements").

To those who lived in the void between stars… Fire, Air and Water make no sense.

Good and evil are relative and many would consider them to be human concepts.

I think some would say the same on chaos and order.

Quoted for truth

If not natural, why would it occur if the sans-Balancers?

For the same reason that a man in Golden Armor drives a chariot of horses to pull the Sun.

i.e. an enlightened person/being that decides to continue to incarnate so he/she/it can help others become enlightened. Like the Buddhas. Not a being that'll nudge you towards "balance" but towards giving up the desire/liking/impression of chaos, order and balance. There is no balance sorta thing.

Because it’s beyond such notions as Duality (so human :-p)

(And I apologize for grammatical mistakes, I didn't give myself time to eat dinner)

[Archer]

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Look at all of the crises, wars, etc. in human history.

And compare to human technological and sociological progress.

For examples of which - look at medicine. Look at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Futility
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Anthem_for_Doomed_Youth
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dulce_et_Decorum_Est

Examples of the results of war . . . and I would say that they are some of the finest examples of humans creating something ordered, coherent, and structured that I have ever seen.