On the complexity of integrating multiple systems, I must consider the concept of simplicity. To what extent does simplicity signify optimal efficiency?
However, oversimplification is dangerous on two levels:
- It offers a certain sense of false confidence.
- It distorts clarity.
So I need a mental algorithm for determining the place which simplicity, in itself, becomes detrimental. In general, I favor simplicity, but such favor must be balanced with caution. One must be able to determine irreducible minimums in the process of obtaining simplicity.
Consider the following index: 4(XS) + 6(NV) / (XS) + (NV).
The formula is instructive regardless of the “wherein statements,” for it leaves me with only the absolute coefficients. What, then, am I to do with these integers? The coefficients have triumphed over the elementals. Accordingly, the formula is meaningless.
All of this leads to problems with language. Is simplicity more a figment of concept and language and of absolute essence? If so, then an implied simplicity serves the placebo, a tonic to lull one into a false sense of security. To get beneath the language, one must approximate a sub-reality. But this yields another problem: of what value is the exploration of sub-realities when surface realities create negative conflict?
The philosophical problems with simplicity are hardly germane to an institution whose complexity has led to capital drain.
So then, I must choose between an artificial/virtual reality and a meager, if honest, attempt to reconcile direct experience with sublevels of reality. The problem with this problem is the statement of this problem.
So, then, is futility an excuse, an obstacle, or an end? I fear it is an end, in which case I must either hide my futility and generate appealing theory, or, I must concede intellectual defeat.
I concede defeat – which is honest, if still, weak. I would rather be honest than strong.
The trouble is this: I am left to exist in a world of artificial constructs. How then can I truly hide? Even Plato had to come out of the cave. Thoreau moved out of his cabin. Where am I to go?
This brings up another troubling issue: If I cannot understand simplicity, how can I understand coherence? Of what value is coherence in ascertaining the truth of a proposition? I think that truth is where you find it. I suspect that. I fear that. The truth will find me, whether I recognize it or not. Is this dangerous? Of course – truth has consequences.
