People have a deep sense of entitlement to being able to perceive and think about the world in simple terms. It\u2019s easier to imagine that there is either sin or virtue, and we still have a subtle backwash from the belief in higher and lower classes. People feel entitled to scold: \u201cDon\u2019t muddy up the problem!\u201d Indeed, noting that things are by no means that simple is resisted\u2014called \u201cmuddying-up\u201d\u2014as if it isn\u2019t really so but someone is making it so for petty reasons. The entitlement of simplicity is pervasive in our culture. I must admit that I would like it too, or at least the lazy part of me, fused with my inner child complex, would prefer that things be easy to relate to. But when I give in and react to the world that way, I get into trouble. So many people\u2019s actions\u2014one thinks they are well-intentioned—end up making trouble for others or themselves. (In fact, they\u2019re just exposing the trouble that\u2019s actually there in the system, but that seems beyond many people\u2019s minds.) And then what about the bad people who sometimes seem to be doing something good?<\/p>\n
Why Can\u2019t It All Be Simple?<\/strong><\/p>\n This point deserves repeating and emphasis: There is a pervasive human inclination to not only prefer simplicity but also to believe that things basically are<\/em><\/strong> simple. Our minds are lazy and it\u2019s hard to wrap our fragile understanding around more complex realities. This inclination, this tendency, is natural and forgive-able, but it should not be indulged. The more mature and engaged parts of our mind should face more realistically the fact that situations are often complex, and indeed, may be more complicated than the mind of any one of us can encompass. It may even be more complicated than any human mind can fully comprehend.<\/p>\n One simple mode that supports traditional religion is the world is fairly clearly divided into good and bad, virtue and sin, and bad things happen as cosmic punishment. Oh, well, then, at least that\u2019s more understandable. Okay, it has its disadvantage in that the answers don\u2019t really fit intellectually, but if you half-close your eyes and just bull through, you \u201cbelieve,\u201d it works. And it\u2019s much easier than having to really think about the complexities not only at the level of personal psychology, but the incredible complexities of psychology at the economic and political levels. I mean, I know there are crooks and hypocrites, but how prevalent could this be? No, I don\u2019t want to really think about that, now, do I?<\/p>\n The awareness of complexity means that we don\u2019t understand, and the pervasive belief is that if you think and read the news and follow up on what\u2019s up, you\u2019ll understand. Of course nobody does that, but it\u2019s generally accepted that theoretically it\u2019s so. I\u2019m here suggesting that it is theoretically not<\/em><\/strong> so\u2014that it is indeed incomprehensibly too complex, and no amount of \u201cbeing informed\u201d is possible.<\/p>\n But the belief that it is<\/em> possible and the failure to do so does end up in unconscious shame: It\u2019s a \u201cnarcissistic wound.\u201d To fight against this, our unconscious mind insists that not only should we be able to understand, but indeed things are be simple enough to understand. However, this is simply not so; it is the deceptive mind imposing wishes on reality. Alas, reality is not about to oblige\u2014not even if we pout and stomp our feet. In other words, people tend not only to prefer simplicity, but they feel entitled to simplicity, and feel aggrieved that simplicity is being withheld from them by academics who artificially complexify things. People\u2019s entitlement and preference blurs over into perception so that the very idea that things are in fact extremely complex is incomprehensible, untrue, unbelievable, an affront to their personhood.<\/p>\n Complexity in the World<\/strong><\/p>\n Also, increasing numbers of technical breakthroughs confront us with the fact that complexities abound. It\u2019s not just that things are getting more complex; it becomes apparent that things always have been<\/em><\/strong> far more complex than we knew. The relative complexity and clueless-ness actually illuminates why history has been such a series of disasters. (Barbara Tuchman\u2019s book, The March of Folly<\/em> in the mid-1980s was just an appetizer.)<\/p>\n Humans have innate tendencies towards pride, towards imagining that they have control over things. A crusade is good, because the illusion that \u201cwe are right\u201d obscures the hardships. How can \u201cour\u201d cause be fundamentally phony? No! It\u2019s beyond our perception or comprehension. Humans will focus on something and make it a mini-idol: This will save us, and our belief in it ennobles us.<\/p>\n For a century humans and their minions, the newspapers, and all propaganda, filled us with prideful glory. If our nation wasn\u2019t triumphant, then our science was. Note the word \u201cour\u201d\u2014even the lowliest worker identified with the progress of the team, whether it be his industry or his favored sports team on television. And this pride is not about to accept limitations! Is it not true that science continues to make progress? More breakthroughs? The idea that mystery\u2014vast and incomprehensible tracts of mystery\u2014may remain after centuries of insights\u2014is intolerable. (But what if it\u2019s true?!)<\/p>\n What I\u2019m calling for is not a lessening of support for scientific research, but a larger acceptance of intellectual humility. But if we can\u2019t idolize science, if \u201cthey\u201d (e.g., the scientists, experts, people who know) can\u2019t deliver, what shall we do then?<\/p>\n If we surrender to an unknown, many would prefer that it be a known unknown, a familiar mystery, the reassurance of a traditional church and a projection of a parent-god. Again there are thousands of ways we can rationalize this and protect ourselves from existential anxiety.<\/p>\n A Solution<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, it\u2019s complex. I think we need to think more, to cultivate critical thinking in schools, to support it\u2019s subversive energy. This is already another whole paper. But in other ways, I think it\u2019s okay to work out private myths or schemes of meaning about life. To know you\u2019re making it up hardly detracts from their functioning as a source of solace. It\u2019s not as if you\u2019re running away from a cold, hard reality. I really don\u2019t accept that a reality (one reality for all, for all time, for all cultures) exists. But that leads into a whole \u2018nother philosophical by-way.<\/p>\n For purposes of this essay, though, the key is to notice the entitlement to simplicity and the need to be a good mature parent to yourself and to say, \u201cI\u2019m sorry it\u2019s so complicated. But that\u2019s the way it is. So we\u2019ll deal with it together.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" People have a deep sense of entitlement to being able to perceive and think about the world in simple terms. It\u2019s easier to imagine that there is either sin or virtue, and we still have a subtle backwash from the belief in higher and lower classes. People feel entitled to scold: \u201cDon\u2019t muddy up the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,11,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-papers","category-literacy","category-spirituality-and-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/834"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=834"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/834\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":835,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/834\/revisions\/835"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}