The Simple Mind

The Simple Mind Gone Wrong.

Throughout time the human being has consistently changed it's physical form, spiritual followings, and a countless amount of paradigms. Yet throughout all of these progressions, it seems as though the foundation of our intellectual makeup has remained the same. Of course, what I am referring to is the process of simplification when acquiring new knowledge. Generally, people are bred by either nature, or the educational system to interpret facts from a standpoint that allows them to relate to a set of rudimentary principles. By taking on this mental process, we decline to learn the new knowledge as truly new knowledge, and are there in turn limiting our capacity and understanding before we choose to further delve into the topic at hand. With this, the human mind is unethical. To examine why this is so, it is essential for one to examine the cause, effect, and alternative outcomes of this seemingly self-perpetuating phenomenon. “A good teacher is a master of simplification and an enemy of simplism.” [Berman] and yet, perhaps this is the problem itself.
What would be the cause of mental simplification? Of course, modern day man could not even fathom the root of that, but perhaps it arose from quite literally his first steps. When in infancy, the world is full of complexities and every object seems to have a profound aspect to it. This is the only time one truly tries to understand everything in its raw form, as one has not formed a "database" for simplification. As time progresses, and the brain does not interpret everything as complete insanity anymore, the mind start laying down a basic foundation as to what is beneficial or detrimental to our state, and with this the life-long process of simplification begins. Blanket: soft, good; Dirt: dark, yucky. Of course, we do not have words to do this for us, but we do it anyways through sensations and symbols. This shows that people almost naturally become followers of Ayn Rand, in the way one instinctively create a guideline of which way to act in pursuit of personal benefit and pleasure. Of course, the mind does not stop collecting pieces of data there, or else forty-year-old males would still ponder why Barney's torso is green.
What happens when this cause is struck, is that down the line the mind gets quite literally limited by our imaginations. When one chooses to simplify, they essentially make a connection in their mind with something that it shares similar traits with, first starting with what grasps the general concept. This in turn strengthens the new link; but, when one realize that they are creating a link, there are only so many paths that one can choose to link the information to. With this limitation in place the mind slowly builds a house of understanding, placing a brick of experience on top of another. This then creates one's own standards, and one's senses of egoism and intuition, which are ethical standpoints in themselves. Returning to the house metaphor, we choose to create separate rooms or extensions to the foundation of our knowledge, but by doing so the mind can experience distortion of perception, which gives way for the deconstruction of a mind. When one creates a house as large as all of their life's experiences, the link between one end and the other can definitely exist, but one usually tend to go to the garage for our car, and not the attic; as such should be the case for knowledge. If people were to create a community rather than a household, one could not only create a harmonious space for interdependency of knowledge, but also an adaptive way of thinking.
When one chooses to think or interpret a certain way, it usually fits into the jigsaw that they have been laying down their entire life. If people were to practice the act of creating new puzzle sets for every section of life it would perhaps not be as simple, but rather irrefutably more organized. By rejecting relativism, one can define their own true ethical code and intellectual structure through the process of creating not only one, but many points of view. This will inspire the creation of the truly adaptive human, and potentially destroy the single-minded, radicalist nature of man, which has held down progress throughout history. A perfect example of how this could benefit society is to look at the technological and innovative progress that took place when the societal status quo had fallen from being a mono-cultured religious collection, and evolved into a multi-opinionated and multi-purposeful one. If one would apply this macro-scale example to their micro-scale self, personal evolution will inevitably begin. Einstein theorized about how relativity is the foundation of everything, and this take does not minimize his statements, but rather maximize it, as the relation of raw knowledge could in turn spontaneously create a synergy of ideas, rather than a homogeneous mesh.
The truth is, the mind simplifies because it is not only what others have taught it to do, but also what it has taught itself. It is one's own selfishness which has lead to the creation of the minds fleshed out paradigm, yet it is the same selfishness which has kept both themselves and others from producing and understanding the ideas that could have lead to great progress. In fact, when one simplifies the act of simplification itself by looking at its root, effect, and the alternative path it is evident that this phenomenon is not ethical. Of course it is not to say that simplification is wrong, because it has been somewhat effective for as long as anyone can remember, but rather that the alternative route is right; and by taking the lesser path of the mind, we are unethically compromising what is, and what could have been. To return to the toddler metaphor; if one were to attempt understanding the truth in a raw state, it would be the same as the first release of understanding language when that first word is spoken. If that same euphoric feeling could be expressed in everyday knowledge, the human mind would live in a rightful, and ever-evolving state.