Of simplicity

Give me a window to look through to the world and I can find my way to be happy with that. Even with my own eyes closed I can play with the visions and sounds in my own head, or with the allegorical potential of emotional responses. I have a taste for simple things.

And I enjoy trying to have things as clear and simple and informal as possible. And, in fact, things are simple. What mess everything up is the asymmetric combination of things, which makes logistics so hard to be learned.

Usually when I'm paying attention to something, I try to understand the undercurrent of  it. When I get the grasp of the undercurrent message, the very core of it, I feel I can follow what's being said. I can follow what's being said and it's better to visualize it. It's because the undercurrents always show things in their simple nature. It's the environment that dress everything up with formalities, but underneath the complex scientifical study or a formal speech there's always a simple message behind it. It's either in the simplicity of saying "stop bitching, the world won't end" or "I don't like your ass-face". That's the reason why I find it so amazing when History is told in an informal way, when people interpret it in the simplest way. For instance, Dante's Inferno is "a huge fuck you to the church", as Cracked likes to put it.

Of course, this could be a matter of reductionism, which sure has to be dealt carefully, but I'm all in for its accessibility. But avoiding reductionism doesn't mean hiding things in walls of unnecessary complexity.

I sense that simplicity is usually criticized because of petty realizations, which is always a way to notice lack of respect. It appears that some people see complexity as something entirely inherent to intelectuallity, therefore enjoying only things that have to challenge their superior minds. Some people don't actually seem to want you to follow what they are saying and try to curtain the undercurrent. Maybe they are afraid of being seen as something dreadfully predictable or obvious (therefore shallow!), or maybe their lack of coherence or absurd complexity is just a lack of fluency in expressing themselves.

In all honesty, I know I lack the same coherence and accessibility in my own texts. In a way those names I use may not turn out to be accessible to others as they are to me. But I am trying to make an effort against it (maybe I should try making a better work revising them, god how do I make so many mistakes). After all, things can be simple to understand, there are only those who don't want or still don't know how to make them so. I'm one of the latter.