A number of intelligent people through history have agreed with da Vinci, regarding simplicity as a sophistication, as only arising from complexity. And yet, at the same time, simple has been used as an insult, as a description for those who don’t – or won’t grasp the complextities of the world. This dichotomy complicates the whole question of simplicity and its desirability.
On the sophisticated side, simplicity is an essence, the distillation of the complex into its pure, concentrated, simple form. Like hieroglyphics or Oriental calligraphy, it’s the expression of a complex idea in a few brush-strokes.
On the other hand, simple is the opposite of complex – it is easy to grasp and understand because if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be simple. Right? Um.
The big questions are deceptively simple: why are we here, what is love, why is the sky blue? They’re simple to ask, but not to answer because they require careful thought to process the question and construct an answer – assuming an answer other than a glib “Because” (however tempting).
Taoists believe there is a natural balance – and to simplify anything beyond its natural state is in fact to complicate it, which makes the issue somewhat recursive, and the relation ship between simple and complex more – well – complicated. Is it possible that both definitions of “simple” are correct?
More to the point, can simple minds grasp the simple – big – questions better than complicated ones? If they can, then surely complicated people like me should strive to sophisticate our minds to a point where we can grapple with the big mysteries?
No comments:
Post a Comment