In my bubble of limited awareness, compensation means to make up for (a loss or lack) by exerting an opposite force or effect. Every action compensates for some lack. This “law” confirms my belief in separation and justifies my sense of justice. Yeah, it’s probably another one of those self-referential paradoxes.
Sir Isaac Newton codified this law into his third law of motion. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
Basically, this law says that you get what you give. The more you contribute in life, the more you receive from the Universe. Of course the opposite is also true.
(Hurley, The Law of Compensation)
Using the Law of Compensation
Some say they have amassed fortunes as a result of mastering this law. My payment to them in the currency of money, attention, behaviors, and perceptions illustrate how I use their belief in the law to compensate for my sense of lack. Thus, enriching their bank accounts at the expense of mine. See, it works for them, so must work for me, too! That’s what makes it a law.
You can get anything you want in life if you help other people get more of what they want. (Granados)
As noble and useful as this appears, it makes one significant assumption. It assumes lack as a condition that must be compensated for with right, justified, and/or proper action. Further, it supposes that one can invest some energy and as a result reap a guaranteed reward of their choosing. An enticing idea. Particularly in the West, where wealth is seen as success in life, those sensing lack for any reason may find application of this law irresistible.
Compensation in Terms of Value
I attach value to everything in order to make comparison judgments based on my personal value. Things have no value until I invest my life-force energy in defense of a judgment – “rightness.” When I judge a loss in rightness value, I work to compensate for it.
Thus, judgment requires perception of value. Investment requires value judgments. I invest in value judgments with value judgments in order to make value judgments. I guess that settles the self-referential paradox question. It’s a paradox!
Could the “law of compensation” be a conceptual misinterpretation of the natural law of accountability in which the universe accounts to me by presenting my beliefs to me? Perhaps compensation is a law in my universe because I believe in and defend the perception of lack.
Does the earth realize a loss regained when it compensates for evaporation by returning huge rivers of water to the ocean?