Truth is sacrosanct to the human character. The only way we can build a philosophical construct of our identity is through cornerstones of truth, upon which we build more complex structures of truth for the purposes of explaining our reality. We all share one, indivisible truth – the acceptance of our unique perception. Everyone inately understands that the person watching the movie screen of our life is a unique individual, and something that we alone possess. But we also understand that everyone else out there is witness to their own showing, their own unique perception of the events unfolding in their life. Well we may not acknowledge it, at a fundamental level we all understand that our own reality is ours, and ours alone.
The problem lies in reconciling diametrically opposed truths. There are easy examples of this, say one person may believe devoutly in the existence of god, and one may not. These are irreconcilable, as they’re both taken on faith of their own character, and would destroy any truth structures that have been built on top. So how do you tell which perception is right?
Truth is not a democracy. The majority is not always right, as has been seen countless times in the study of science. Once an idea becomes entrenched in a society, it takes a monumental effort to prove it otherwise, as the opposing perception of truth has such momentum within the people which form that societal group. At the same time, one cannot be so plastic as to attach equal importance to each new fad idea that comes along, for it may not be grounded in truth, as much as the person promoting it may wish and believe it to be so.
This is the delicate balance, between falsehoods and truth, that we all wage in our day to day lives. It seems that few of us have the wherewithal to examine our beliefs logically, and change them accordingly and without bias towards that truth that is more truthy than the rest.

The memespread project

There was a warm glow around the city tonight with an odd colour – pink rose. It was a nice night to enjoy the stars. They weren’t very many but it was nice to see them after what seemed like ages of clouds. It was also quite a bit warmer, thankfully. That’s the thing about Winnipeg, the weather teases you… When you least expect it will change from foul to fair and fair to foul.

Continue reading Complexity, revisited →

Why does any definition of complexity involve either usage of the word complex, or reference mathematical terms that only a PhD would understand?
It seems to me that everybody has a general understanding of complexity without really being able to put it in words. Yet another word that has no accurate definition but is universally understood nonetheless.
I wonder if my own personal chautauqua is the search for an understanding of complexity, because lately it has been drawing me. I believe that understanding complexity is about as close to understanding the underlying nature of the universe as any person can really achieve in a single lifetime. Let’s just hope I don’t go insane on the road.
I once asked all of my friends to supply me with a good definition of complexity without using the word complex. My good friend Sl8r came up with this:
Complexity: an entirely qualitative/relative statement about the level of perception of the speaker’s mind.
I kinda like that.