simplicity, real simplicity, lies beyond complexity.

at least that's what i learned in my very first freshman theology class. in intellectual endeavors, simplicity seems to be the goal, analysing things to their most basic units, to the point of sui generis is what is largely sought after. what i've found in talking to people about an assorted number of things is that people often mistake the simplicity that hasn't wrestled with complexity as a satisfactory simplicity, or perhaps even worse yet, stop prematurely, remaining mired in complexity.

pride creeps in and people taking themselves seriously like they do, they aren't willing to let go of the conclusions they've drawn. i've noticed that it seems to be particularly problematic as far as perceptions of morality go. instead of understanding the complexity of what makes certain actions good or bad, i.e. the condition of the heart, people are way more comfortable having a list of things that are either good or bad, good people do the good things, and people that aren't good do the bad things. that's to say nothing of what determines what is good and what's bad, because what i've observed is that the good people get to determine what's acceptable and they have a penchant for imposing those ideas on those around them.

the prevailing outlook on the part of people who seek goodness through the mere following of rules or avoidance of situations judged to be evil or unwholesome seems to be that goodness comes from self-denial. that is to say that people who are good are good, at least in part because they abstain from activity that is "bad." so what happens is that a standard of goodness isn't defined as itself, but rather it's only defined relative to what it isn't, which is bad. thomas merton had a quote that sort of describes the [somewhat] unperceived pitfall of people who think that way, saying:

merely accepted, suffering does nothing for our souls, except, perhaps, to harden them. endurance alone is no consecration. true asceticism is not a mere cult of fortitude. we can deny ourselves rigorously for the wrong reason and end up pleasing ourselves mightily with our self-denial

what we find is that when self-denial and abstention from certain activity doesn't have a foundation, it becomes an end in and of itself, as opposed to a means to the end of becoming a better person. the result is that people reduce the meaning of good to the mere absence of badness, simple yes, but it's simplicity that comes from oversimplification as opposed to wrestling with complexity.

i never want to be a good person.

feeling: irritated
thinking of: what a badass dunx is
music: "if that ain't country, i'll kiss your ass" david allan coe