s$
        .d""b.      impulse reality press no. 221 - at war with anada.
 [-- $$ $$  $$ -- ------------------------------------------------------ --]
     $$ $$                       "Objective Complexitism"
     $$ $$                         written by outreach
     $$ $$                          released 10/10/02
 [-- $$ $$ ------ ------------------------------------------------------ --]

   The term "complex" is commonly defined as something with either many
parts, or something that is intricate or difficult to grasp. When taken into
a logical perspective, I noticed a few things about the idea behind this word
that gave reason to put forth further study.

   When first thinking about this I immediately came to one simple 
conclusion: something is only complex in the eyes of the beholder. People 
seem to habitually denote something as being too complicated simply as an 
excuse for their lack of understanding. Human psychology has shown time and 
time again the need of a person to appear positively to themselves and to 
others, so when confronted with something that is outside their current 
circle of comprehension the first thing to typically do is come up with an
excuse as to why they do not understand. In my opinion, this is why humanity
has been socially programmed to morph complexity into the symbolic scape goat
of all intellectual shortcomings. The truth is, complexity is only defined
by what is not understood. (This makes perfect sense when aligned with the 
fact that some people find things to be more difficult than others.)

   Now, to define true complexity on an objective scale, we must determine
what is complex objectively -- that is to say, what is equally complex in the
minds of everyone. This is where Objective Complexitism comes into play.
Objective Complexitism is the belief that the only true complexity in the
world regards that which exceeds the physical limitations of the human mind
in general.

   There are really only two rules that define this belief.

1. Something is only complex if not understood, but something that is not 
understood isn't necessarily complex. The key thing when it comes to 
complexity is understanding.

2. For something to be "objectively" complex -- in an entirely true 
fashion -- it must exceed the logical abilities of the human mind as a 
whole. This means that nobody can understand this idea or theory no matter 
what they do.

   As humans, we're obviously quite far from defining in specifics what our
logical limitations are. An example of what a limitation might be though,
would be our inability to comprehend the existence of a paradox. The truth
is, nobody can be sure whether that or anything like it is a limit or not.
Comprehension also involves understanding parts and smaller segments of a
larger whole. Consider analyzing a blueprint for a building with over
thousands and thousands of alien gadgets. It would take some effort and time
devotion to fully comprehend and understand it. That is why it seems to be
nearly impossible to actually denote something as being complicated in an 
objective sense. We certainly can understand and utilize the word complicated
when dealing with other members of our species -- as a common understanding
of this word is inherently known. It is held among many of us that certain
things that baffle us would not at all seem complicated to great minds like
Sagan, Einstein, or Newton. To say something along the lines of, "Immanual
Kant's writing is complex," would be justified. This remark is not made
solely on account of Kant's erratic writing style; rather, it is made on
account that old philosophy tends to be complicated to us. In these senses,
the word "complicated" may be used.

   We do not know the limits of the human mind, and science has continually
stated that we are, in all probability, metaphorical light years away from
even being able to begin to realize our true abilities. So what, I asked
next, is the purpose of this belief?

   The purpose of Objective Complexitism -- the belief that the only thing
that is really complex is that which we cannot possibly understand because
of our physical nature -- is to help further the intellectual development of
humanity. The first step in truly learning something is to be able to stop
and realize how little one really knows. I feel that step is greatly breached
when the individual in mind excuses a lack of understanding to this so-called
complexity instead of just personally and publically admitting the
comprehension difficulty. In line, the breach of this step has the 
possibility to greatly stunt the mental growth of whomever involved. If you
already understand these things, it is also important to practice this belief
as the aspiring intellectuals follow your example. So much trouble can be
avoided through such a simplific idea. This is what philosophy is all about.

 [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
   the clever thing to do here would be to put some sort of copyright. no.
                         http://www.phonelosers.net/ir
 [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]