This post is a bit philosophical, must be due to the fact that it is the holidays and I have too much time to think. Anyway, enjoy. J
Moderation
There is a saying that too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Well, this saying maybe questionable and disputable, but I shall consider this as an accepted premise for my discussion. A simple example to illustrate the point will be food. Consumption of food gives you strength and growth, but excess of it makes you fat and unhealthy. The illustration is a bit the simplistic but the idea of too much of a good thing is bad is there. Moderation, it seems, thus play a significant role in the conduct of our daily lives. And this will be my topic of discussion for this post.
Moderation, or balance, seems to be a key factor in achieving “success” results. A balance diet, or moderation for intake of proteins and carbohydrates, leads to better health. Moderation between work and rest, career and family, friends and girlfriends, etc… Are all countless examples of moderation in play. The importance is obvious and need not be constantly highlighted. Yet moderation itself is problematic and I shall now try to further examine it.
Moderation in essence is balance. To do or take just enough and not in excess. But how much is enough? The 1st thing that comes to my mind is to do as much as the average of the majority is doing. It sounds reasonable. If others are eating 3 meals a day, it seems that the moderate thing to do for me is to eat 3 meals as well. If others are spending 2hrs a day studying while I spend only an hour, it shows that I am slacking and thus I should spend more time studying to maintain a ‘balance’ lifestyle. Yet, to base the guideline for moderation upon the majority is also flawed. As a person moderation may not be so to another.
Confused?? To illustrate my point, let’s use say the example of sugar intake. A normal person intake of sugar is different from say a kidney patient. Thus to recommend the sugar intake of a kidney patient base on the majority healthy person average would be insane. Some may now argue that it should base on the majority of kidney patients, yet this may also be problematic. Suppose you are the 1st kidney patient, or that your case is a special and unique case where they is no previous benchmark. Then this method of defining moderation cannot possibly hold.
Yet, to go along those lines of arguments would be going down a slippery slope. Each claiming that their case is unique and thus justifying that their actions cannot be judge base on the majority standards. This, I assume, it’s the human psychological self-defense mechanism at play. I mean, who likes to be labeled eating too much, drinking too much, playing too much etc. We do like to see ourselves in a better light, and being portrayed as extreme rather then moderate does not do anything to boost our self-esteem. Thus even though we are way above moderate or even to a sense extreme, we tend to find reasons to justify that behavior.
Hence what is moderation? How do we know that we are balance and on the middle path? How much is enough? When does too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing? It seems that I do not have the answer even upon further examination. Yet, I do believe that moderation is the key to the conduct of our behavior and although I do not know where the middle path is, I will strive to walk it.
