Two Notions of 'Simplicity'

As times change, so do words. We have learnt to refer to certain groups of people as 'simple', meaning thereby that they are stupid or idiotic. In other words, it is a bad thing to be simple. At the same time, however, we continue to operate with another (older) sense of the word meaning something like 'lacking in any embellishments or frivolous ornamentations'. (Though in the messy world that we live in today, the notion of 'simplicity' itself has become, so to speak, very complex. Simplicity too is gendered. A woman is usually called simple when she is 'homely' and filled with 'domestic tendencies'; so most housewives are set forward in social circles to young girls as the epitome of simplicity. A man, in contrast, is referred to as simple precisely when he has rather anarchist tendencies; so we say that Swami Vivekananda was a 'simple' man.)

One may make, in this context, a distinction between notions of simplicity, and call them Simplicity 1 and Simplicity 2. People have used varying terms for these two such as 'pre-critical innocence' and 'post-critical innocence'. In a somewhat Blakean fashion (that is, al a the poet William Blake; though much of what Blake said was rather bleak as well), we might also refer to these two as 'innocent experience' and 'experienced innocence'.

Simplicity 1 lies in this. Every world-view that one inhabits (or may learn to inhabit over a period of time), say Islam, Marxism, atheism, 'science', Buddhism and so on, is based on some foundational principles or axioms. These are what might be called the 'bedrock assumptions'. Often these assumptions are hidden from the view of those who live, move, and have their being within a specific tradition. Simplicity 1 lies in realising how historically conditioned, and perspectivally contextual one's views are.

From Simplicity 1, however, one can move outwards in (at least) two possible directions. One is that of nihilism. A nihilist says : 'Every world-view is based on axioms which I cannot justify beyond any doubt. Hence, I cannot accept any of them. So I annihilate myself.' I myself do not reject such nihilism as a possible option, but for reasons that I cannot detail in this specific context would put forward Simplicity 2 as another ideal to be strived for.

This is what Simplicity 2 would 'look like'. To begin with, though, this Simplicity 2 is only a goal to be attained, and attained, if it is at all, only through a long process that shall continue throughout our existence. Simplicity 2 accepts that all our views are historically located, but nevertheless ventures out onto the 'ocean of knowledge' with the flickering lamp of the axioms on which these views are based. It realises that there is no non-circular manner in which these axioms can be justified, but does not believe that this logical impossibility makes human existence impossible as well. Rather, it believes that it is through the light of this lamp that more and more of the uncharted seas will be explored. It will be accepted in the spirit of Simplicity 2 only too readily that those who have other (epistemological) lamps will see the seas in a 'different light' (in both senses of the phrase). It will try to accomodate the other sights that other navigators have reported down the centuries and in different oceanic environments.

For example, to carry on with this marine metaphor, some navigators would have charted detailed maps of various local seas; some have reported strange or unexpected observations; some have claimed to have discovered new islands; some have devised better tools for such navigation, and so on. What we shall seek, as we move deeper into the foggy seas with our lamps, is a 'global' map that will incorporate as much as possible of these various reports. We shall trust that our fellow-navigators do not have any sinister intentions in deliberately deceiving us with false reports (though this, to be sure, is a great trust that we place in them, and a trust we shall hope is not misplaced), and we shall hope that we shall be able to further an environment of mutual learning from one another.

None of this, incidentally, rules out the possibility that some navigator may propose a 'global map' which s/he claims is the only true map. If that is indeed the claim, so be it : we shall examine that claim too without ruling it out of hand as being 'exclusivist'. To be truly 'inclusivist', we must be able to accomodate the alleged 'exclusivisms' of our fellow-sailors. We must also accept, ironically perhaps, the hidden form of 'exclusivism' which claims that no such 'global map' can exist.

One might of course brand all of the above as being 'utopian'. In response to which, one could make a distinction between two kinds of utopia. One is the backward-looking one which alleges that the state of affairs being described was actually obtained in some past historical epoch. The other is the forward-looking one which acknowledges that the described environment has never existed in the past or in the present, but stakes the claim that this environment is valuable enough for us to strive towards. Whether or not it is valuable will itself be a claim that must first be examined.

I would argue for now that Simplicity 2 is valuable enough an ideal for the Academy to move towards. Not that it shall actually attain it tomorrow; for the fundamental point about Simplicity 2 is that it is not a state whose perfection can be realised at one stroke but rather a state whose values are continuously argued for, reasoned out carefully, and laid down as one possible future ('futurible') out of many for the Academy.