« back to manifestos

The Simplicity of Complexity

by Samantha du Raeno
1st October 2001

Reduce to one question (1), that which in the act of questioning creates exactly that which denies its own answer (0): that which transcends the need to question. This split creates a mutually necessary and sustained opposition that is the mythological, ideological, and conceptual heart of binary rationalities. The opposition of 1 to 0 is as necessary as the reduction to concept itself, and denies the possibility of reconciliation, 1:0.

The symbol that binds the opposites must also necessarily define the operation of reconciliation - for example, 1:0, 1^0, (1[]0), or 1*0. The ultimate 'destination' point - assuming this is a teleological operation - is outside the existence of the concept, conceptually, and thus wh(0)lly). This operation has a problematic existence, in that by definition, it can never work... its conceptual nature conflicts with its necessarily non-causal, non attributable, attributes. But what is at fault here is the concept of destination, the nature of the teleology, not the reconciliation that takes place to replace the simple binary operation.

Binary representation is simultaneously the least complex and the most complexifying. As the complexity of the proposed abstraction increases, the system of binary logic required to capture that change doubles in complexity relative to the change itself. The simplest, sometimes, is not the best.

Everybody is right, thus everybody is also wrong because they believe other people are wrong. The creation of the other negates the unity of self: everybody is both right and wrong. Am I right? Yes, but if you believe that I am not, you are also right. Does this mean that I am wrong? No: in your creation of a binary opposition, you can also never be right. Without reconciliation or reversion we are both condemned to be right and wrong. Am I wrong? Yes, I am, right.
 

"Generally speaking, people are favourably disposed to those objects or issues that they believe are beneficial to them, and they dislike (or have a negative attitude toward) those objects or issues wthat they think might hurt their chances of reaching their goals. Thus, they will move toward the positive attitude referent, or favor it in some manner, and will avoid or even oppose the negative attitude referent, basically because they expect this course of action to help them."
- Leonard Berkowitz

« back to manifestos