How simple or complex does IT need to be?

[thelerner]

Is (a methods) complexity good? Better then a simpler system? I don't question hard work or time on the mat, but is complexity neccessary?

 

Are degrees of complexities artifices put there by people who would codify a religion?

 

Learning and change are inherently uphill. But isn't there a time when we forget the system and move intuitively? Shouldn't all philosophies and training evolve simpler?

 

Maybe its ones taste or predisposition.

 

 

Michael

[Taomeow]

Is (a methods) complexity good? Better then a simpler system? I don't question hard work or time on the mat, but is complexity neccessary?

 

Are degrees of complexities artifices put there by people who would codify a religion?

 

Learning and change are inherently uphill. But isn't there a time when we forget the system and move intuitively? Shouldn't all philosophies and training evolve simpler?

 

Maybe its ones taste or predisposition.

Michael

 

Nature is complex. Complexity is neither good nor bad; it is nature's modus operandi. Any method that ignores nature's method, whether by being more complex than the latter, or less, is a bad method far as I'm concerned. Sometimes bad, and more often horrible.

 

Here's from the page I'm currently on:

 

"Man is emphatically not part of the nature he objectively describes; he dominates it from the outside. (,,,) The debasement of nature is parallel to the glorification of all that eludes it: God and man." -- Ilya Prigogine (of the Nobel Prize in physics)

 

The "general" taoist method is ganying, harmonious resonance with nature's process. It is not prescriptive as to its simplicity or complexity; its requirement instead is to neither overcomplicate nor oversimplify -- whatever the process, it is what it is, the method has to match the complexity or simplicity of its challenge. Can you simplify prenatal development, e.g.? Can you put together a chicken egg "intuitively?" Another one of my favorite quotes:

"Man creates gods by the dozen but has never succeeded in creating a worm..." -- Rousseau

 

So a method simplified enough to create a worm would be the first-ever event I would consider when someone (anyone) would suggest to simplify the method for creating a "realized sage" -- or just a healthy Joe Schmo for that matter.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Taomeow

[Taiji Bum]

Simpler is better in my book because I am just not that smart.

[Pietro]

Is (a methods) complexity good? Better then a simpler system? I don't question hard work or time on the mat, but is complexity neccessary?

 

Are degrees of complexities artifices put there by people who would codify a religion?

 

Learning and change are inherently uphill. But isn't there a time when we forget the system and move intuitively? Shouldn't all philosophies and training evolve simpler?

 

Maybe its ones taste or predisposition.

Michael

 

Well, Einstein said: things (and explenations about things) should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.

A level of complexity is intrinsec in this world. But the nature of our learning experience is to start from simple, expand in the complex, and then contract again in the simpler as we consciously forget the details.

 

Personally I don't trust system that are either too simple or too complex. Too simple will be when it does not honor the complexity of the world. Too complex when the complexity is such that it prevents the practice to become effortless even after years of practice.

 

my .2 e

[lotusbud]

Simple and complex can be two sides of the same coin (just a matter of perspective like in tai chi). I don't think complexity is a bad thing. Some things are really simple but have many aspects to them, tons of little details. But then some methods just shouldn't be practiced together. Some methods are just made up by people who don't know crucial parts of the picture.

 

Again trusting the master and finding out the reasons for everything for yourself are more important.

[OfStrangeEons]