It seems that every single facet of human cognition is a vain attempt to simplify the world into a logical, rational system from which we can view patterns that allow us to understand and become working parts of a process. The problem is, while these methods do allow in a way for one to attain an understanding and tend to work both theoretically, and at least some of the time, practically; they do not account for the incomprehensible irrationality that is so awesomely pervasive of this chaotic absurd realm of existence. Even with these very words which I use in an attempt to desimplify our understanding, in a very ironic way, simplify the very notion of what I am attempting to communicate. This now bears a striking resemblance, at least in my mind to the harsh threshhold between one's own thoughts, ideals, emotions, and the actual communication thereof which is shaped by the simplifying mechanism that is language. This may manifest itself in writers block, miscommunication, troubles with expressing through a piece of art, and also simply (interesting choice of word) understanding one's own experience in any semblance of an objective viewpoint. Built right into our minds are further impediences, which ironically we rely on to sense these phenomena, such as emotion, thought, perception, and all forms of cognition. But possibly, it is within us the ability to use these tools in a less restrictive way.
What it reminds me of is Aldous Huxley's essay 'The Doors of Perception' where he posits that a "mind at large" is filtered through a barrier (possibly perception itself) and thus prevents us from understanding, communicating, or even fully experiencing any sort of, for lack of a better word, anything. He believed that this could be changed, possibly through use of psychedelics and he also saw a striking similarity to the drug experience and the disorder of Schizophrenia. It's been awhile since I've read those essays, and I shall give them another read again to explore this idea I am writing about at this moment. I can't quite remember if he saw the, as he called it, "inherited filter" as being a harsh reality present in the nature of being an existing organism. Or if he saw this filter as developing through social interaction and overall socialization. Personally I'd like to believe it is the latter, and that human beings, from birth, if not lead astray at least have the tools and capabilities needed to perceive the unfiltered phenomena. But possibly its the very nature of our existence as part of something to not to be able to understand the whole of it. An underlying conflict I am continually returned to, while contemplating matters such as this, is the idea that any quest for a true understanding of existence (more specifically the human experience) is essentially absurd and irrational which contrasts with the ability for us all to simplify any ideas involved in order to see a sort of system, pattern, or logic which can be either relied upn or manipulated. As with most conflicts, such as this, I think possibly the best approach is to combine both of these viewpoints in some sort of healthy ratio which allows one to experience the true absurd uniqueness of everything while still maintaining the use of rationality to at least remain existent.
Has anyone else contemplated this problem at length? I'd be interested to hear any thoughts or observations you have made on the subject. As for a more formally expressed question to be addressed in this discusion; I ask of you, do you think we as humans have the capability to view any sort of objective reality and take from it even an inkling of understanding? I think this is somewhat of a clash between the human experience within an essentially inhuman universe.